by Muhammad Sulton Fatoni (Lecturer Sociology at unusia.ac.id)

In addition to understanding the social capital of pesantren’s community with sociological approach, it is also necessary to understand it with the mindset of economists where the topic of discussion centered on the capitals commonly used as the main concept in economy; the first is physical capital or physical capital item. The physical capital is real (tangible), it can be handled and measured. Physically, it is deliberating human capital for specific purposes in the production process of goods or services that allow people to benefit revenue in the future (Robert Lawang, 2004). It is necessary to analyze the types of Pondok pesantren’s resources in material, such as, how big the pesantren’s building is, the area, including facilities and other infrastructures.

Secondly, human capital, it refers to the ability of a person through education, training and experience in the form of knowledge and skills needed in performing certain activities (Robert Lawang, 2004). Human capital in the context of this study includes the issue of improving the personal quality of the community that can be reached with the regeneration process of leadership, management training, educational organizations, educational socializations, communication training, missionary training, entrepreneurship and others.  The third is the financial capital; the capital bears the function of arranging the chance or opportunity to earn money. It is used for analyzing the community’s effort in consolidating finance, earning money and efforts in channeling finance to economic activity (Robert Lawang, 2004).

 Then its relationship with civil society, Robert D. Putnam (1993) in his writing, What makes democracy work? Asking a tickling question, why do some democratic governments succeed but others fail?  The author was compelled to make a matching question, why do not civil societies succeed in moving the societies somewhere toward independence and a more dignified life? The question encouraged the author to examine Pesantren community’s way in interacting with the government, with social groups of society resulting in a mutual and beneficial relationship.

The writer also examined the pesantren community’s working system in the process of strengthening the values ​​ built on the basis of mutual benefit and development at the level of social trust.

Through the conception of the social capital, the writers found the pesantren community’s strategies in empowering society’s life to be independent and dignified. An Independent and dignified society is a reflection of the strengthening of civil society.

The research on pesantren’s community in the analysis of social capital will also determine the model of civil society of the community so as to enable the civil society to serve as a model in other communities considering the social condition in Sidogiri is no different with other rural communities’ social condition in Indonesia.

There are several concepts of civil society the author needs to point out here. A. Arato and J. Cohen describe the civil society as a social movement, communication format and relatively autonomous individual efforts in pursuing their interests (A. Arato and J. Cohen, 1992).

Iwan Gardono Sujatmiko (2001) divides civil society into three typologies: the first is the civil society I, it emphasizes the horizontal aspect; It is usually close to the cultural aspects.  The civil society I, is close with civility; civil society II, it considers  vertical aspect by emphasizing the autonomy of society against the state and it  is close with political aspects; II civil society is close with the citizen; and civil society III is a combination of civil society I and II, emphasizing  on equality. While AS Hikam, sees civil society as a process created by people (in both individual and in-group) in a particular historical context in order to achieve concrete life (AS. Hikam, 1999).

The concept of civil society does have a long history and understanding as well as different contexts, it leads to the emergence of understanding which is also not uniform. Therefore, the understanding of civil society will still develop and open the possibility of the existence of differences. From the diversity of the notion of civil society above, the author tends to choose the formula of the early 20th century which was dominated by the understanding of civil society as the ability to take the distance from the state and tried to perform the functions and role of new counterweight.

The formula correlated with the condition of rural communities in Indonesia today is still described as the socio-cultural conditions of the early 20th century when modern civic organizations created.  The main actors of civil society in this context are new middle classes, especially from the natives who later become the motor of social movements that offer an alternative to the social and political system of colonial. The colonial political here is a hegemonic situation created by the state in its position to the society. The state does the exclusion to the forces of autonomous communities, which, if allowed, to be considered as a crucial issue for the legitimacy of the state.

Then, there is no parallel relationship (asimetric) between the state and society, which in turn creates internal structural constraints to the democratization process in Indonesia. Although it was quite expensive, the New Order did this to maintain the continuity of its political stability and social tranquility.

Departing from the reality of the diversity about the civil society concept, in this study, the writer was interested in the civil society concept formulated by Alexis de Tocqueville, a character born in Paris (1805-1859M). He argues that the civil society is a social phenomenon in modern society that-manifests itself in social life organized with the characteristics of volunteerism, self-sufficiency, self-reliance and independence. Civil society is not a priori subordinate to the state.  The society has political power to curb the strength of the interventionist state.

Tocqueville also stresses on the cultural dimension that makes civil society able to act as a balancing force, engagement and spirit of adherence to the norms and law values ​​ followed by its citizens.  Tocqueville does not consider the relationship between politics and civil society as something strange. Instead, both need each other to remember the essence of civil society that is a source for the political processes (Tocqueville, 1994). At the end of the study gives a conclusion of the relationship between civil society and social capital in the pesantren’s community.