1. Introduction

The term Keyae basically used as honor title for an expert in Islamic religion given by Madura societies. The term then developed not only for the leader of Islamic Boarding School, but there are some categories such as Keyae as Islamic Boarding School leaders, Keyae as teacher for reading Koran which is mostly known as Keyaji and Keyae as paranormal (performing medication using supernatural or spiritual power). However, the general and mostly known by Madura society is Keyae as Islamic Boarding School leader which has important roles in spreading Islamic religion in Madura.

Keyae in Indonesian religion discourse is more emphasizing as leader in Islamic Boarding School as educated Muslim and humiliate his/her life only for Allah, as well as spreading and deepen religion lesson through Islamic classic book sources or Islamic education activity traditionally (Dhofir, 1982: 55-56). Besides Keyae, another term that used for calling Keyae is Ulama (Dirdjosanjoto, 1999: 20).

In the strategic position in social dynamics, Keyae has the same position with educated people and rich people in such society (Turmudi, 2004: 1). However, the central position of Keyae as religion, social, and politic leader (in the government structure) in Indonesia has been performed since kingdom era (Dirdjosantoso in Ummatin, 2002: 30).

Basically, the position of Keyae in Madura is given position by genetic factor. Hence, this genetic factor becomes primary discourse concern for Keyae leadership. Moreover, the existence of Keyae and Islamic Boarding School cannot be separated, since Islamic Boarding School is a place where Keyae spreading Islamic religion and perform their leadership.

The influence of Keyae is not merely in religion, but also as agent in cultural strengthen in society. Further, Keyae also stand for informal leader who has strong power in its community, even, most of Keyae in Madura are being politic figure. It is also happened in Madura society in which Keyae has role as guidance for the society.

The phenomenon of Keyae in Islamic Boarding School describe how powerful Keyae is, so therefore Keyae will have double roles and has attractiveness to discuss and trace from various perspective.

For Madura society, Keyae became a role model and central position to complain about any issues faced by them. Almost all the problems faced by the people in Madura, is assumed that it would be easy to resolve when asking for guidance from Keyae. Thus, many personal issues and internal conflicts between communities are solved through Keyae intervention.

From Foucault point of view, the phenomenon of Keyae leadership in Madura should be understood from relations power which dominates it. Further, Foucault (in Bertens, 2001: 307-319) explain that power exist everywhere, since power is one dimension from relation, absolute, and do not depend on human awareness. However, power is seen merely as a strategy. The strategy exist everywhere and including system, regulation, and structure. Power do not comes from outside, rather, it is determine the structure, regulation, and relation from inside which is making all things possibly happened.

As referred to Forcault perspective, Keyae leadership in Madura is in line with the discourse, then discourse and power will always relational. Keyae leadership in Islamic Boarding School in this context can be defined as power that is understood as regulation system and normalization societies life. Keyae view as leadership that is not hierarchy, meanwhile it is spread and operational in social mechanisms.

Regarding to explanation of the roles of Keyae in Madura, this study is intended to discuss leadership discourse of Keyae and its relevance toward Islamic values in Madura especially in Islamic Boarding School using Michael Foucault perspective. The leadership discourse mostly discussed based on history side. Yet, there is no discussion from Michel Foucault archaeology and genealogy. The archaeology is quite different with idea history. At least, there are four principal which differs between archaeology analyses with history. Firstly, archaeology do not discuss about thinking and representation in discourses. Rather, archaeology is more discussing on discourse as practical based on its regulation. Secondly, archaeology do not try to look for linier or gradual correlation between discourses, but try to search the characteristic of the discourse. Thirdly, archaeology do not discuss about individual concern or ouveres. Archaeology concerns on the types of discursive practical which is relating to the individual ouvere. Fourthly, archaeology does not investigate discourse but it is more concern on arrested systematic as discourse object (Ritzer, 2003: 72).

Meanwhile, genealogy analysis in reading phenomenon of Keyae Islamic Boarding School leadership in Madura will try to see how the relation of leadership in dominate, control, and lead the society. Hence, from the explanation, the leadership phenomenon of Keyae in Islamic Boarding School in Madura will be discussed from the perspective of Michel Foucault theory.

1. Archeology and Genealogy Method in Michel Foucault’ Discourse Analysis

Foucault using archaeology concept to differ the approach regarding with history, especially hermeneutic which is generally need understanding in discourse basic or scheme clarification subjective meaning. Moreover, it is dealing with the difference between any kinds of history model which has causal or superficial characteristic.

The Archaeology of Knowledge basically reflects Foucault’s intuitive thinking, which tries to change the research methodology with speculative improvisation, yet still based on facts. Foucault completes the archeology approach as tool to test and understand complex social phenomenon through the way it is produced.

Further, Foucault also underline four principals of archeologist method that can be summarize as follow:

1. 1. Archaeology is not trying to define thinking, representation, description or image, themes, pre occupation either implicit or explicit in discourse. Meanwhile, it is trying to explain discourse itself which should be obligate the certain regulations.

2. 2. Archeology is not trying to discuss continuity and insensible transition in discourse, rather it is discuss the specification to show regulation set behind.

3. 3. Archeology is not aiming to discuss enigmatic point in which individual and society is influence each other. Further, it is also not a sociology, psychology, or anthropology creation, but it is merely focus with the determining regulation types to discursive practical.

4. 4. Archeology is not trying to restore what being thought, hoped, purposed and desired by human expressed in discourse. It is more concern on systematic description about discourse object.

The way Foucault thinking show that archeology approach basically a field to investigate discourse, especially power that regulate and produce discourse. Walshaw (2007: 9) dealing with this concern, explain that archeology place discourse as field object.

In its application, archeology approach should view the observed subject as not merely psychological, sociological, or anthropological subject, rather it is discursive subject. Wherever a discourse and the subject are found, hence the field to investigate archeology is found as well. Afterward, in recognizing discourse, it is not enough only by tracking the talk and written. The systematic practical and determined regulation to organize the way people talk and act should be the concern as well.

In this case, archeology should be view beyond the surface of the subject. For instance, religious texts are the surface. Individual should be tracking in discursive system, applicable rules, and power, hence the text can be acknowledged and practiced broadly by adherents of such religion. All of these things will be closely related to the analysis of discourse, especially by involving episteme, archives, power, and discourse itself.

As for genealogy method is still continuous part of archeology method proposed by Foucault. Through this method, Foucault tries to connect discourse with daily practice which useful for testing and understanding how the subject is formed as discursive or real in the same condition.

Foucault (1977: 139-140) explains further:

“Genealogy is gray, meticulous and patiently documentary. It operates on a field of entangled and confused parchments, on documents that have been scracthed over and recopied many times... genealogy retrieves an indipensable restraint: it must record the singularity of events outside any monotonous finality; it must seek them in the most unpromising places, in what we tend to feel is without history–in sentiments, love, conscience, instincts; it must be sensitive to their recurrence, not in order to trace the gradual curve of their evolution but to isolate the different scenes where they engaged in different roles. Finally genealogy must define even those instances when they are absent, the moment when they remained unrealized… Genealogy requires patience and a knowledge of details, and it depends on a vast accumulation of source material.”

Genealogy basically focuses on daily activities and tries to explain statements in society but more concern on the power. Genealogy introduces power through history of present, how the statements are processed, and concentrate in the use of archaeology strategically to answer any kind of problems that appeared in society.

This approach is actually important to reveal power and determine discourse meaning, and the aims which taken for granted by the subject. Walshaw (2007: 14) explains genealogical analyses as a tool to explore the interaction of power and knowledge within the practices and social structures of education. Moreover, it uses as highlight the profound influence of discourse on shaping everyday life in education. Genealogy analysis makes people possibly to observe relation between the power and knowledge in practical and social structural that will be formed everyday life.

At first glance, there is no significant difference between archeology and genealogy method in its application, since both of the method should be run together. However, Smart (in Mills, 2003: 25) reveals the difference between archeology and genealogy method in which archaeology is directed in the analysis about rules of the unconscious from formation which organize the emergence of discourse in human science. Meanwhile, genealogy analysis is try to open the emergence of human’s knowledge, conditions of existence, which are closely related to technology or certain powers contained in social practice.

Therefore, these two approaches or analysis are two sides of one coin. Nevertheless, in its practice, as stated by Mills (2003: 25), the two methodologies can be difference method. Archeology can give people a snippet, a slice in the existing discourse, while genealogy focuses on the process aspects of the network of discourses.

Foucault (1980a: 85) also argues as follow:

“...if we were to characterise it in two terms, then “archaeology” would be the appropriate methodology of [the] analysis of local discursivities, and “genealogy” would be the tactics whereby, on the basis of the descriptions of these local discursivities, the subjected knowledges which were thus released would be brought into play.”

Then, based on Foucault’s explanation, archeology can be used as method to analysis local discourse, whereas genealogy can be used as tactic genealogy which based on the local discourses description.

2. Analysis and Discussion

In the analysis of Foucault’s model discourse analysis, the leadership of Keyae in Annuqayah Islamic Boarding School can be viewed as discourse formed through a long historical journey. This leadership discourse is involving many factors and other discourses in the forming process start from society development of the cultural complexion, the existence of Islam and its influence on the values and beliefs of society, to the subjective role of cross-generation Keyae who continue to confirm their leadership discourse in the community itself.

Thus, in this case, following the Foucault’s analysis flow, there will be several things that can be reviewed from Keyae leadership as follow:

3.1. Discursive Formation of Keyae Leadership in Annuqayah Islamic Boarding School in Madura

Leadership discourse not merely seen as language of leadership, or definitive explanation, yet it is more than that. Leadership discourse means it covering the way people interpret the existence of Keyae, the perspective of people in their behavior and attitude toward Keyae.

In the reality, the leadership of Keyae in Annuqayah Islamic Boarding School is acknowledged by Madura society due to the support of several subjects as like Keyae Syarqawi as the foundation of ideological and pedagogical in Annuqayah Islamic boarding school, the generation of relatives who also became Keyae who ran the Islamic Boarding School and continued to preach, the santri of various teaching classes who attended the Annuqayah Islamic Boarding School. These subjects are united in the form of teaching activity, teaching books, religion doctrine, togetherness and others.

Seeing into its history, the leadership of Keyae nowadays, is not separated from the roles of the Keyae. The Keyae has fight in practical religion preaching to the society. In addition, the existence of Keyae Syarqawi and other generations, has successfully make their existence as the main knowledge authority or a person who master the religious matters in its application in all aspect of society.

When the authority is successfully obtained and continuously existing and forming in the teaching activity and daily interaction, then the role of Keyae is not merely concern on solving society’s problems based on Islamic values, but it is also as main preference to attitude, behavior, and good life model as thought by Keyae to its society.

The authority in the scientific field and the understanding of Islamic teachings are increasingly reinforced by the establishment of religious education institutions in the form of Annuqayah Islamic boarding schools. The presence of Annuqayah Islamic Boarding School is not only reinforces their scientific legitimacy, but also binds the community's need for education for their children. The presence of an Islamic boarding school educational institution besides being an affirmation of Keyae’s title, which generally in Madurese society is considered as a person who has scientific qualifications and has santri, can also be a place where Keyae build the Islamic discourse he wants. The utterances of Keyae which manifested in the form of texts, documents, and discourse, in further has successfully affirming the leadership discourse of Keyae in society, especially Annuqayah Islamic Boarding School in Madura.

This process then called as discursive formation of leadership Keyae in Annuqayah Islamic Boarding School. The reason of successfulness of formation discursive is supported by religious and feudalistic society culture in which religion is assumed as the most important thing in life. Moreover, the Islamic figure as like Keyae is the one who is worthy to be glorified (in the high position of society, even above the nobleman position and government officials).

In traditional and feudal society, the statements which based on religion doctrine will be more eased to get acknowledgement from society rather than utterances that contain of ideologies. In this case, when the Keyae in the Anuuqayah Islamic Boarding School successfully acquiring trust and recognition of the community in terms of religious authority or interpretation of religious texts, hence they will also be easier to display their presence as leaders in other aspects of life.

The formation of leadership discourse of Keyae in Annuqayah Islamic Boarding School basically has same Keyae leadership as like in other regions as long as the supporting discursive system factors are the same.

However, the result of leadership discourse can be different, especially because each individual who plays a role in it, is also has a different understanding of what he wants to build. But, when discourse begins to form, then the people or individuals, who are bound in it, are actually no longer able to freely speak and believe other statements that do not conform to the existing discourse. When the discourse is formed, it does not stop dialogue and development (production) in itself, whether through conflict between statements, internal and external exclusion, which in practice has moved quietly and controls the way of thinking of the subjects.

A belief or perspective built on established discourse will be difficult to change, unless there is a certain dispersion and pause (discontinuity of discourse), which usually starts from a subject that is more able to take distance from existing realities, or when conflicts occur between different statements and not succeeded in being suppressed by the existing power. In other words, discursive formation is not a container or a passive process. There is a process of interaction, dialogue, conflict, and exclusion in it, which all contribute to the level of establishment of a discourse in the community, including the leadership of the Keyae of Annuqayah Islamic Boarding School.

3.2. Episteme and Leadership Archive of Annuqayah Sumenep Islamic Boarding School Keyae

Keyae’s leadership discourse is not only formed by a discursive process but also formed through the process in deciding the right and proper statements to be distributed or spread to public. Focault explained that discourse works with collecting and debating some statements in order to take and produce a proper statement as a compromise result to become an applicable authentic standard in society. Episteme, in the context of Keyae’s leadership discourse of Annuqayah Islamic Boarding School, refers to a complex set that summarize various relationship between statements, religious teachings, or Islamic scientific knowledge and life ethic. This leadership function is most visible in certain time, such as in the first period of Annuqayah Islamic Boarding School’s Keyae or the period in which Keyae had succeed in establishing education locality and the rules that underlined the production of statements, teachings, and developed scientific knowledge at that time. Meanwhile, archive refers to the valid rules set in a certain period, especially on the boundaries between what can be made as a statement and what form of statement produced by society. These boundaries are valid for both society as the consumer and Keyae as the producer.

Every leadership period has its own episteme and archive that differ from one period and other. However, in Annuqayah Islamic Boarding School, discourse is built by the first Keyae and has not undergo the essential transformation, except the institutional development needed to accommodate the need and education. The episteme and archive of the first Keyae period in Annuqayah Islamic Boarding School is still limited and narrow due to the Islamic discourse that still not yet complex. The way people thought, act, or expressed their cultural identity is not what it is like nowadays. A harder challenge will be faced by the next generation in which they will not only charged to defend the old leadership discourse but also charged on how to anticipate and accommodate further discourses.

Defending a discourse is an effort to build new episteme and archive for society, along with strengthening the existed Keyae’s leadership discourse. Building episteme and archive is surely a complex effort since it is not merely a process in denying statements which considered as inappropriate with the religious understanding and interpretation but on how to accommodate various statements and perspectives that newly developed in society. Keyae should be able to formulate statement and documented it in the form of text in religious teaching taught in Islamic Boarding School or Communal Quran Reciting based on the religious ideology, either in the group of Keyae itself or general public.

The educational institution of Annuqayah Islamic Boarding School has significant role since it becomes the place for Keyae to produce statements, teachings and/or religious interpretative texts taught to santri and society around. Santri will continue the Islamic discourse and wider the discourse itself. Moreover, Annuqayah Islamic Boarding School in its continuity, has become the authoritative institution that have legitimation to validate between proper and improper statements. A proper statement will become the learning source and be documented in the form of book, text or document to spread to public. Through this way, Islamic Boarding School institution has played its role on Keyae’s leadership and its influence in society. The process in producing and denying statements by making authentic religious standard is the effort in creating the boundaries for santri and society to issued statements outside the existed ideological narration. In this case, every subject within the episteme and archive of Keyae leadership was slowly formed to have the way of thought, to behave, to run the religious ritual and even to live based on the validity standard that has been created.

The unwritten boundaries and rules that appeared from the discursive are were not only interfere the occurrence of other narration that unsuitable with the desire of powerful authority, but also limit the freedom of thought and creativity of the main subjects in the discursive authority circle.

In other words, boundaries and rules that managed the statement productivity within Keyae’s leadership discourse are valid for every subject that involved, including Keyae, teacher of Annuqayah Islamic Boarding School, santri, and society around Annuqayah Islamic Boarding School itself. Thus, what should be done by the next generation is to justify the discursive assumptions that have been built before.

Nevertheless, in a certain context, the transformation on Keyae’s leadership generation in Annuqayah Islamic Boarding School is similar to Foucault’s analysis that open the probability on discursive interlude in which some new statements can occur by taking the whole different form of the old statement. The existed discourse also can get counterwork within, if it is cannot be anticipated, it will create new Keyae’s leadership discourse in Annuqayah Islamic Boarding School. This new discourse will colorize the new Keyae’s leadership period along with discursive episteme and archive in Annuqayah Islamic Boarding School and society around it.

3.3. Authenticity Statements and Regime of Kyai Annuqayah Sumenep Islamic Boarding School Leadership

Statements that occurred within the discursive room, either in the form of utterance, teachings, da’wah, or daily speech, is the main element to form a discourse. For instance, Keyae’s leadership. The more the leadership is being talked in society, then it will create a discourse on Keyae’s leadership along with shaping a certain community. However, it should be noted that in discursive room, not all people can utter their statements or make their statements accepted and recognized by other people. Some statements delivered by certain parties will be more acceptable and recognizable with authenticity value rather than the statements issued by other subjects. Discourse, through existing episteme and archive, will give a structure based on the uttered statements and the condition in which the statements can be considered as right and proper to then distribute and spread to society.

When Keyae delivers the materials on religiosity and character value of life ethic, the utterance or statements issued by Keyae will be considered as authentic statements and the guidance for society to pursue their life. Keyae’s statements have become the discourse since it is already covered various things as a guidance. Similar to Foucault’s argumentation that discourse could replace the individual role in filtering the statements. This called as statement exclusion that happen in both internal and external discursive environment. The role of Keyae is not only becoming the source of statements production but also the authority in filtering the statements in society. In its practice, Annuqayah Islamic Boarding School Keyae is the legal source for society since they can ask about the laws related to religious things, whether it is obligatory or not, or it is forbid by religion or not.

Referring to Foucault, there are four internal procedures for statements exclusion that appeared in discursive room, namely; (1) commentary; (2) the author; (3) discipline; and (4) rarefactions. These four procedures can be drawn in Annuqayah Islamic Boarding School Keyae’s leadership discourse as; The first is commentary. Commentary is a statement issued by a certain subject, such as Keyae, that acceptable by other subjects, (santri or society), to be talked, discussed, and/or practiced in a certain act as a comment to existing statement. Commentary is functioned as a determination and, in some contexts, as an explanation on what has been intended by Keyae for santri and other subjects who received the statements. It then leads to the boundaries for other interpretations on the existing statement. The commentary that has been uttered and distributed will become the filter for other statements that unsuitable with Keyae’s statements.

The second is the author. Keyae is the author when he produces a certain statements even it is a mere material, in the beginning, which not yet collected in the form of text, document, or book. Keyae is considered as the authoritative subject to produce right or authentic statements then if there is a differentiation between one statement and another, it can be considered as something that connect each other. In other cases, Keyae’s statement can be the law and authentic standard that make Keyae difficult to issue the opposite statement. Keyae, as the author, is presenting a certain boundary for statement that he built.

The third is discipline. Keyae’s statement on something that determine his leadership in general environment is often limit to his expertise. Other Keyae’s statements in his daily interaction can be measured again for its authenticity when his statement has no relation or do not based on the religious teaching. Keyae had limitation that could exclude the statements within his expertise. Nevertheless, in Annuqayah Islamic Boarding School, Keyae’s statements, even for problem which not related with religion, is often have similar value with his religious statements.

The fourth is rarefactions. According to Foucault, rarefactions is a limitation on who and who does not has the right to speak. In the context of Annuqayah Islamic Boarding School, those who have right to speak and represent Keyae as the leader of his institution is teachers or Keyae’s relatives. While santri have different limit when they appear in society. Santi are becoming the subject that considered good to speak and represent Keyae in public since they received direct teachings and informations from Keyae.

Besides the internal exclusion, the external exclusion is also built. According to Foucault the external exclusion has three elements; (1) taboo; (2) mad and sane; and (3 true and false. These three elements were worked as below;

The first is taboo. In a society, it often finds a rule or value that limit the discussion on something that considered can damage the moral structure, change the behavior, and even harmful for others. A belief on things that inappropriate or taboo to be talked is the form of external exclusion in society. In Annuqayah Islamic Boarding School Keyae’s leadership discourse, taboo has role as a law that limits the occurrence of improper statements to be uttered. One of the examples is the criticism on Keyae’s leadership and his role in society. This attitude is considered as an abuse toward the noblest figure in society. This rule can be the external exclusion that effective enough to limit the discourse or statements, also to strengthen the discourse of Keyae’s leadership in society.

The second is mad and sane. The term mad and sane, according to Foucault, are pointed to the clinical history and how Western treat people outside the normality boundary (people with mental health disorder). These people can be categorized as people who had different arguments or perspectives with society in general. In the context of Annuqayah Islamic Boarding School Keyae’s leadership discourse, the distinction between normal and abnormal can be found on how society treat people who does not have similar understanding with Keyae in religious interpretation. This distinction appeared along with the discourse on Keyae’s leadership and his role as a leader in spiritual and other aspects in society. Therefore, people within the Islamic Boarding School environment who have different view toward Keyae will end up as a public gossip material. Statements which issued by people who considered as improper to be heard should be guided in order to have the same point of view of the general society in viewing Keyae.

The third is true and false. The distinction between true and false is usually involved the institution role or certain party that considered of having authority to define or decide between the true and false of the statements. In the context of Annuqayah Islamic Boarding School Keyae’s leadership discourse, the authority in defining whether the statement is true or false was under the Islamic Boarding School institution itself, especially the subjects with certain scientific legitimation within, including Keyae, teachers and/or people that came from the same circle. Keyae and educational institution of Islamic Boarding School are supporting each other. Keyae can manifest various statements as his teaching materials which transmitted to santri, and the educational institution of Islamic Boarding School can confirmed Keyae’s authority through the establishment of educational practices. Both have authorities to support each other in defining which one is the right and proper statement and which one should be spread in society.

The statements that appeared and formed an Islamic discourse have strengthen the Keyae’s role and authority as a leader in either educational institution of Islamic Boarding School or society around. Thus, the statements that occurred nowadays has appeared as an authentic affirmation and/or support on Keyae’s leadership discourse and his role. In addition, the absent of conflict on Keyae’s statements showed that Keyae’s leadership discourse has an established discourse in society. However, this condition may change if the occurrence of other different statements has giving another point of view on how society view on the existence of Keyae.

3.4. Power relation and production of Annuqayah Islamic Boarding School Keyae’s Leadership Discourse

The other important point in discourse analysis by Foucault is there is always certain power relation appeared on a discourse. An established discourse is mean to strengthen the authority of a certain parties against the other party by controlling the statements or discourse developed within the society. Discourse can control which one is the proper statement and which one is not. This probably happen when there is a certain party that has power or authority. It means that the final destination of a discourse is the society hegemony which dismissed them from conflict that could damage the harmony. Authority is not only seen as a physical power or the availability of a certain sources, but also the ability to control the authenticity as the most essential basic for human to act. The ability to control the authenticity is becoming the main power to a discourse that developed in society.

Keyae’s leadership discourse in Annuqayah Islamic Boarding School also has certain authorities, including the scientific authority, religious understanding, leadership characterization and also the Islamic Boarding School institution as an authoritative to produce statements or Islamic discourses for society. Referring to Foucault analysis, the authority within Keyae’s leadership discourse of Annuqayah Islamic Boarding School in Sumenep is not centered on the figure of Keyae or Islamic Boarding School institution. The authorities within the discursive room are plural and connected one and another. Similar to Foucault’s argument that it is a set of relation spread to whole society classes. Foucault claimed that authority as something that not fully repressive and coercive but productive. Repressed authority will create opposition in the form of new action and thought from society as a way to adapt with repressive condition. In other words, even if Keyae and/or Islamic Boarding School institution along with other figures around is becoming the authoritative parties, but their authorities are not accepted in absolute way by society. If the teachings are pressing them or making them uncomfortable with their life, then conflict will be occurred. Authority is not something acceptable but something that could be managed continuity. If Keyae is not managing his Islamic Boarding School anymore, then the authority that he had can be erased slowly and changed to another authority. The relation which built between Keyae and educational institution of Islamic boarding school is not as simple as dominative relation. The society’s obedience toward Keyae’s statement is not resulted by the repressive effort by the Keyae. In its practice, Keyae is not preaching religious teachings in both coercive and repressive way, such as punish people who do not follow his teachings, because it will lead to rejection by society. The society obedience is the accumulation from many factors, start from cultural characteristic of a society, Keyae’s attempt to spread the statements based on religious dalil or postulate.

The authority within Annuqayah Islamic Boarding School Keyae can be the basic law toward what was done by society. This can only be happened because of the acceptance and recognition by the society itself. However, the acceptance and recognition by society also becomes a part controlled by the existing discourse.

4. Conclusion

Dealing with the analyisis and discussion section, this article is hoped to give a good conribution to the Madura society in which they are able to know the roles of Keyae besides as the leader of Islamic Boarding School.

Afterwards, based on the analysis on Keyae’s leadership discourse, it can be concluded as below:

1. 1. Keyae’s leadership is a complex discourse since it consists of many factors and individual subject within. Keyae is not the single actor in discursive room, but stand on the authority circle to give authentic statements that should be accepted by society.

2. 2. Keyae’s leadership discourse that developed in society, especially Annuqayah Islamic Boarding School, Sumenep, is the result of a complex process in formulating certain statements. These statements related to the role of Keyae and culture in society, which accepted and recognized by society, until create its own legitimation on related Keyae as the one who had authority to deliver some statements in society.

3. 3.Keyae’s leadership discourse has become the rules to control the way society thought, act and behave toward Keyae, also the way they understand about Islamic teaching and the application in daily activity. For society within and around Annuqayah Islamic Boarding School, Sumenep, the discursive rules and limitations were working with the way that often hard to be noticed. For instance, society without any kind of forces from Keyae had strengthen the authenticity of Keyae’s statements and had no courage to issued their own statements because they feel that they had no right to issue a statement.

4. 4. Keyae’s leadership discourse in Annuqayah Islamic Boarding School had been established through a long process, therefore it is hard to transform related to society’s assumption on Keyae or Islamic Boarding School. The discursive transformation could probably happen when there is condition that support the transformation, such as the changing of leadership generation, society’s point of view on new intervention values in society, and others that showed new discursive that is more powerful to be spread in public.

From the points that has been described above, the researcher suggest that for the future research can analyze or observe the role of Keyae in other regions, since the existence of Keyae in Indonesia is not merely exist in the Madura.

References

Basyuni, Ison. 1985. “Dakwah Bil Hal Gaya Pesantren”. M. Dawam Raharjo (ed), Pergulatan Dunia Pesantren. Jakarta: P3M.

Bertens, Kees. 2001. Filsafat Barat Kontemporer. Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama.

Dhofier, Zamakhsari. 1982. Tradisi Pessantren; Studi Tentang pandangan Hidup Kiai. Jakarta: LP3ES.

Dirdjosanjoto, Pradjarta. 1999. Memelihara Umat: Kiai Pesantren-Kiai Langgar di Jawa. Yogyakarta: LKiS.

Effendy, Bisri. 1990. Annuqayah: Gerak Transformasi Sosial di Madura. Jakarta: P3M.

Foucault, Michel. 1972. The Archaeology of Knowledge. New York: Pantheon Books.

Foucault, Michel. 1977. Discipline and Punish; The birth of the Prison. Terj. Alan Sheridan. London-Worcester: Billing and Sons.

Foucault, Michel. 1980a. “Prison Talk, Interview by J. Brochier”, in C. Gordon (ed). Power/Knowledge: Selected interview and Other Writings 1972-1977. New York: Pantheon Books. pp. 37-54.

Khusyairi, Akhmad. 1989. “Agama, Orientasi Politik, dan Kepemimpinan Lokal di Antara Orang-Orang Madura”, dalam Huub de Jonge (ed), Agama, Kebudayaan dan Ekonomi. Jakarta: Rajawali Press.

Madaniy, A. Malik. 1981/1982. Pola Motivasi Berhaji di Kalangan Masyarakat Madura. Jakarta: Proyek Peningkatan Sarana Pendidikan Tinggi Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.

Mansumoor, Iik Arifin. 1990. Islam in an Indonesia World Ulama of Madura. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada Press.

Mills, Sara. 2003. Michel Foucault. London dan New York: Routledge.

Pribadi, Yanwar. 2013. Religious Networks In Madura; Pesantren, Nahdlatul Ulama and Kiai as the Core of Santri. Vol. 51. No. 1, Al-Jami'ah.

Ritzer, George. 2003. Teori Sosial Postmodern. Jogjakarta: Kreasi Wacana.

Turmudi, Endang. 2004. Perselingkuhan Kiai dan Kekuasaa. Yogyakarta: LKiS.

Ummatin, Khoiro. 2002. Perilaku Politik Kiai. Yogjakarta: Pustaka pelajar.

Walshaw, Margaret. 2007. Working with Foucault in education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.