Peircean Semiotic Analysis of Cultural Identity in the Lepo Kirek Traditional House, Sikka Regency

Felisitas Siano; Desi Dwi Prianti

doi:10.58421/misro.v5i2.1326

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.58421/misro.v5i2.1326

Authors

Felisitas Siano Universitas Brawijaya https://orcid.org/0009-0005-6388-1786
Desi Dwi Prianti Universitas Brawijaya

Keywords:

Peircean semiotics, cultural identity representation, traditional architecture, Lepo Kirek house, Hewokloang community

Abstract

The Lepo Kirek traditional house in Hewokloang, Sikka Regency, Indonesia, represents a significant expression of cultural identity that is increasingly challenged by modernization. This study aims to analyze how architectural elements of the Lepo Kirek traditional house represent and sustain cultural identity through Charles Sanders Peirce’s semiotic framework, focusing on icon, index, and symbol. This research employs an interpretive ethnographic approach. Data were collected through participatory observation, visual analysis, and image-based interviews with four informants, including customary leaders, cultural observers, and community members. The fieldwork was conducted over a period of one month, allowing in-depth engagement with cultural practices and architectural meanings. The findings reveal that the Lepo Kirek traditional house operates as a dynamic semiotic system. First, the roof form of Buwun Sikon Sakok Manu Ladon functions as an icon representing protection and ancestral strength. Second, spatial structures such as Ulu Higun (sacred space) and Pekang Gete (communal space), along with ritual practices and material selection, serve as indices of the relational system among humans, ancestors, and nature. Third, carvings, ritual objects, and the concept of the house as a “microcosm” function as symbols constructed through collective cultural conventions. Additionally, the study identifies ongoing reinterpretation through material adaptation and the integration of religious elements without eliminating core cultural meanings. This study concludes that the Lepo Kirek traditional house is a living cultural text that continuously negotiates identity. The research contributes theoretically by integrating Peircean semiotics with ethnographic context in analyzing traditional architecture, and practically by providing insights for cultural preservation strategies in the context of modernization.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

P. Torop, “Semiotics of cultural history,” Sign Syst. Stud., vol. 45, no. 3/4, pp. 317–334, Dec. 2017, doi: 10.12697/SSS.2017.45.3-4.07.

Friokto Winra Purba, Junifer Siregar, and Vita Riahni Saragih, “Analisis Semiotik Simbol Terhadap Bangunan Rumah Adat Suku Simalungun Kabupaten Simalungun,” Morfol. J. Ilmu Pendidik. Bhs. Sastra Dan Budaya, vol. 1, no. 6, pp. 91–103, Nov. 2023, doi: 10.61132/morfologi.v1i6.56.

E. Franzia, Y. A. Piliang, and A. I. Saidi, “Rumah Gadang as a Symbolic Representation of Minangkabau Ethnic Identity,” Int. J. Soc. Sci. Humanity, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 44–49, 2015, doi: 10.7763/IJSSH.2015.V5.419.

T. Maknun, M. Hasjim, M. Muslimat, and M. Hasyim, “The form of the traditional bamboo house in the Makassar culture: A cultural semiotic study,” Semiotica, vol. 2020, no. 235, pp. 153–164, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.1515/sem-2017-0162.

S. Liu, W. Zhang, X. He, X. Tang, S. Lai, and Z. Dai, “The Role of Understanding on Architectural Beauty: Evidence From the Impact of Semantic Description on the Aesthetic Evaluation of Architecture,” Psychol. Rep., vol. 125, no. 3, pp. 1438–1456, Jun. 2022, doi: 10.1177/00332941211002135.

A. G. Pudov and M. I. Koryakina, “Parallels of cultural renaissance and dynamics of ethnic cultures of Russia in the era of cultural globalization,” Rev. Univ. Zulia, vol. 12, no. 34, pp. 535–557, Sep. 2021, doi: 10.46925//rdluz.34.29.

D. Imankulov, H. Feng, T. Jing, T. Filatova, and A. Akmatova, “Buran Minaret as a symbol of the Chui Valley of Kyrgyzstan,” Archit. Stud., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 104–114, May 2024, doi: 10.56318/as/1.2024.104.

A. Dimache and Z. Qiu, “Reading the Identity of Dark Heritage Sites: A Peircean Semiotic Methodology,” J. Travel Res., vol. 63, no. 6, pp. 1411–1425, Jul. 2024, doi: 10.1177/00472875231191713.

M. J. Rorong, “Representasi Nilai Kemanusiaan Web Series Kisah Carlo (Analisis Semiotika dalam perspektif Charles Sanders Peirce),” Semiot. J. Komun., vol. 13, no. 1, Oct. 2019, doi: 10.30813/s:jk.v13i1.1792.

Arsitektur Nusantara, Program Studi Arsitektur, Fakultas Teknik, Universitas Nusa Nipa, A. A. K. S. Gobang, E. N. Andisoru, and Arsitektur Nusantara, Program Studi Arsitektur, Fakultas Teknik, Universitas Nusa Nipa, “Kajian Wujud Bangunan Rumah Adat dalam Upaya Revitalisasi Kampung Adat Hewokloang di Kabupaten Sikka,” in Prosiding Temu Ilmiah IPLBI 2021 : Strategi Pengembangan Wilayah Perkotaan Dalam Mewujudkan Pembangunan Berkelanjutan, Ikatan Peneliti Lingkungan Binaan Indonesia, Dec. 2021, pp. B035–B042. doi: 10.32315/ti.8.b035.

L. Polishchuk, O. Hubernator, V. P. Volodymyr Pylypiv, I. Shvets, and O. Kabanets, “Research methods in cultural studies,” Salud Cienc. Tecnol. - Ser. Conf., vol. 3, Sep. 2024, doi: 10.56294/sctconf2024.712.

N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, “The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research”.

C. Geertz, “Deep play: notes on the Balinese cockfight”.

G. Rose, Visual methodologies: an introduction to researching with visual materials, 4th edition. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2016.

M. B. Miles, A. M. Huberman, and J. Saldaña, Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook, Third edition. Thousand Oaks, Califorinia: SAGE Publications, Inc, 2014.

R. J. Ormerod, “Pragmatism in professional practice,” Syst. Res. Behav. Sci., vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 797–816, Nov. 2021, doi: 10.1002/sres.2739.

M. Thellefsen and A. Friedman, “Icons and metaphors in visual communication: The relevance of Peirce’s theory of iconicity for the analysis of visual communication,” Public J. Semiot., vol. 10, no. 2, Jun. 2023, doi: 10.37693/pjos.2023.10.24762.

S. Brier, “Transdisciplinarity across the Qualitative and Quantitative Science through C.S. Peirce’s Semiotic Concept of Habit,” Open Inf. Sci., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 102–114, Sep. 2018, doi: 10.1515/opis-2018-0008.

C. Sánchez-Ovcharov and M. Suárez, “Peirce’s Pragmatism, Semiotics, and Physical Representation,” Eur. J. Pragmatism Am. Philos., vol. XVI, no. 1, 2024, doi: 10.4000/11p4t.

H. Perissinotto and J. Queiroz, “Metacognition and diagrams in marking-for-self”.

J. Packer, “C arey, J ames,” in The International Encyclopedia of Communication Theory and Philosophy, 1st ed., K. B. Jensen, E. W. Rothenbuhler, J. D. Pooley, and R. T. Craig, Eds., Wiley, 2016, pp. 1–5. doi: 10.1002/9781118766804.wbiect215.

G. Blue, “Science Communication Is Culture: Foregrounding Ritual in the Public Communication of Science,” Sci. Commun., vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 243–253, Apr. 2019, doi: 10.1177/1075547018816456.

A. Achour-Benallegue, J. Pelletier, G. Kaminski, and H. Kawabata, “Facial icons as indexes of emotions and intentions,” front. Psychol., vol. 15, p. 1356237, May 2024, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1356237.

A. A. P. Dwipayana and S. Sartini, “Makna Perubahan Identitas Desa Adat di Tengah Pembangunan Pariwisata Budaya di Bali,” J. Ilmu Sos. Dan Hum., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 322–331, Aug. 2023, doi: 10.23887/jish.v12i2.63417.

S. Yulianti, A. Premana, and O. S. Bachri, “Penerapan Augmented Reality Sebagai Media Pembelajaran Materi Rumah Adat Indonesia Di Sekolah Dasar Kabupaten Brebes,” J. Ilm. Infokam, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 79–86, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.53845/infokam.v18i2.323.