Kung Binabasa Mo To, Bakit Hindi Ka Aktibista (O Bakit Ka Nananatiling Aktibista)?

BAKIT AKO NAG-AARAL? Naisip mo ba yun kahit minsan, o dahil sa puntong ito ng buhay mo na bata ka pa naman kaya hindi mo pinag-iisipan? Malamang hindi di ba? Nag-aaral ka kasi lahat ng kaedad mo nag-aaral. Nag-aaral ka kasi pinasok ka sa ekwelahan ng magulang mo. Nag-aaral ka kasi natutuwa ka. Nag-aaral ka kasi hindi ka naman talaga nasa eskwelahan para matuto: gusto mo magkaroon ng kaibigan. Nag-aaral ka kasi... basta. Andyan e. At pag di ka nag-aral pagagalitan ka. Kukunsiyensiyahin ka. Ituturo sa iyo ang mga kaedad mong hindi nag-aaral dahil tamad sila, wala silang utang na loob sa magulang nila, kaya dahil ka ganoon, nandyan ka, nasa isang “mabuting” pamilya, inaasahan ka mag-aral para payabungin pa ang lagay ng pamilya mo.

Maraming dumaan sa eskwelahan na ganyan ang tinakbo ng utak mula pagkabata hanggang mamatay. Hindi na bago tong kwentong to. Nag-aaral kasi gusto nilang umangat ang buhay. Nag-aaral kasi iyon ang tradisyon: nasa pamilya na na nasa eskwelahang ito sila nagsimula at magtatapos kaya dapat huwag sirain ang tradisyon ng pamilya. Nag-aaral ka kasi, gusto mong may patunguhan ang buhay mo, at sinasabi kong “may patutunguhan” sa imahen ng “may magandang trabaho, malaki ang kita, hindi nagugutom, may kaya.” Para maipagmalaki ng magulang, mag-anak at pamilya. Para respetuhin ng lipunan. Para maayos ang takbo ng buhay, may kasiguraduhan. Halos lahat naman yata tayo sa puntong ito takot sumugal kaya laging “play on the safe side.” Sumunod sa utos. Ang sumunod, may biyaya. Ang pasaway, may parusa. Simple di ba?

Pero sa dinami-dami ng sagot na yun, siguradong-sigurado ko, kahit hindi mo sabihin, maiisip mo rin yun: “pero hindi lang yun e.” Sa dami ng rason na ibinigay sa iyo ng ilang taon mong pamumuhay, hindi mo pa rin sasabihing iyon lang ang takbo ng buhay mo. Iyon lang ang tanging rason mo kung bakit mo ginagawa to. Kung mangyari man na yun nga lang ang sagot mo, iniisip mo: “maski hindi ok, matututunan ko namang mahalin to.” Tignan natin yun. Bakit mo gustong “matutunan mahalin” ang isang bagay? Kasi pakiramdam mo, andito ka na e. Ganyan talaga; sulitin mo na lang. Hindi mo man pinili, at kahit baliktarin mo ang panahon siguradong hindi mo mapipiling hindi piliin ito, ganito ang takbo. Kumbaga kinwento nga sa akin ng isang guro: “may pagka-tinapon ka sa lagay mo.” Nandyan ka sa pamilyang yan na pinahahalagahan ang edukasyon nang hindi mo pinili. Nandyan ka sa isang pamilyang wasak-wasak at hindi ka tinuruan kahit minsan ng kahit ano nang hindi mo pinili. Pero may nais kang gawin. May nais kang maabot. At ayaw mong papigil sa kung ano ang meron ngayon upang makuha mo ang nais mo bukas. Kaya kahit pakiramdam mo hindi mo talaga nais gawin ito, kailangan mo gawin, kasi may rason ka. Pinanghawakan mo na.

Kaya naman iisipin mo: “Nag-aaral ako dahil gusto ko, at gusto kong may marating.” Ipagpalagay natin: nais mong mag-aral dahil nais mong magkatrabaho nang matino. Nais mong maging maayos ang buhay mo. Nais mong yumaman, o kaya maging sapat ang hawak sa araw-araw. Kaya kailangan mo ng maganda, matino at maayos ang sweldong trabaho.

~O~O~O~

BAKIT AKO NAGTATRABAHO? Nasabi na natin kanina ang mga rason mo kung bakit ka nag-aaral, para makarating ka sa puntong nais mo magtrabaho. Nagtatrabaho ka dahil ika nga, kailangan mo mabuhay. Kailangan ng pantustos. Kailangan mo para mabayaran mo ang magulang mong gumastos sa iyo ng ilang taon sa araw-araw; consuelo de bobo ika nga (tignan mo mamaya uli yung sinabi ko ha; “consuelo de bobo). Nais mong magkaroon ng maayos na trabaho kasi kailangan mo iyon kung magtatayo ka na ng sariling pamilya, at nais mo na pag nagtayo ka ng sariling pamilya, matutustusan mo sila kagaya ng pagtustos sa iyo ng magulang mo. Simple di ba? Halos pareho ng nasa itaas.

~O~O~O~

BAKIT NAIS KO MAGKAPAMILYA? Nais mo ituloy ang lahi, gaya ng naituro sayo ng magulang mo. Nais mo rin maranasan ang maging magulang para makapagbayad-utang ka sa pagtitiis sayo ng magulang mo noong ikaw naman ang pinapalaki nila: consuelo de bobo uli. Dahil nais mo lumagay sa tahimik. Nais mong may uuwian ka, may nagmamahal sayo at mamahalin mo, na magbibigay kahulugan sa buhay mo.

Hindi mo ninais magkapamilya “bago” mag-aral at magkatrabaho dahil alam mong komplikado to, pangmatanda lang. At hindi ka pa naman matanda. (Pansin mo yun, maraming nagsasabi ngayon na ayaw nila tumanda?) Siyempre, takot sila sa responsibilidad, nais muna nila maging malaya. Nais nila maging handa sa tamang panahon.

~O~O~O~

At sa huli, ipapasa mo ang mga kaalamang ito, ang mga rasong ito, ang mga pagpapahalagang ito, sa magiging anak mo. Kung itatanong niya sa iyo kung bakit ganun, sasabihin mo: ganoon talaga e. Sumunod na lang. Huwag na maraming tanong. May silbi naman lahat iyan, malalaman mo pagkatapos mo maranasan. Hindi mo na pinag-iisipan, kasi naniniwala ka naman na hindi ka lolokohin, na mabuti ang intensyon nila kaya nila pinagagawa sa iyo ang mga bagay na hindi ka talaga okey sa simula pero sinusubukan mong “matutunang mahalin.” Na hindi sila nagkakamali: di ba nga naman, kung mali itong mga ito, e bakit pa ginagawa ng lahat at ng kapwa mo?

At sa mga huling tanong na iyan, diyan na tayo nagkakatalu-talo.

~O~O~O~O~O~

Paano pala kung mali ang mga ikinuwento sa iyo ng mga kamag-anak mo, ng mga magulang mo, ng mga kaibigan mo? Paano kung yung mga pinanghahawakan mong hindi mababali e makita mo pala biglang sira, hindi mapagkakatiwalaan? Paano kung pakiramdam mo niloko ka lang?

Maraming nang sumagot nito. Nagrebelde. Hindi na nakinig sa awtoridad. Itinapon ang buhay. O, sa mas “malalang paraan”, gaya ng sabi ng mga magulang at nakakatanda mo, at isa sa mga simpleng dahilan kung bakit ayaw ng mga kamag-anak mo o ng mga nakakatanda sa iyo na pumasok sa isang pampublikong paaralan o unibersidad: MAGING AKTIBISTA.

~O~O~O~

Bakit tayo takot na maging aktibista? Ano ba ang depinisyong itinuro nila satin ng aktibista? Mareklamo. Hindi sumusunod sa utos. Hindi nakikinig sa matinong usapan. Nanununog. Sasali sa NPA. Magiging kriminal. Mamamatay. Aaksayahin ang buhay sa pagrereklamong walang katuturan.

Sino nagsabi? Ang mga magulang mo na pinagkatiwalaan mong hindi nagsisinungaling sayo. Ang mga kaibigan mong tinuruan din ng mabubuting magulang. Ang administrasyon na pinagkatiwalaan mong hindi ka ginogoyo. Ang mga nakatataas sayong sinasabihan kang sundin lang ang dati mo nang ginagawa para gumanda at guminhawa ang buhay. Yung mga dati nang parte ng buhay mo. At siyempre, hindi mo iisiping nagkakamali sila. Hindi mo iisiping hindi nila pinag-isipan yun.

Pero sa totoo lang, sabihin man nilang pinag-isipan nila yun, kung wala silang pinag-isipang ihahambing doon, hindi talaga nila pinag-isipan yun. Kung sumunod-sunod na lang, hindi nila pinag-isipan yun. Hindi sa minamata ko sila, pero kailangan nila aminin yun: hindi nila pwede angkinin ang di nila alam. Kaya nga consuelo de bobo di ba: consuelo – pampanatag, panigurado. Bobo – hindi alam. Panigurado ng hindi alam. Kasi hindi mo nga pinag-isipan. At natatakot ka na pag pinag-isipan mo na, hindi ka na matatahimik sa buhay mo.

~O~O~O~

PERO BAKIT NGA BA MAY NAGIGING AKTIBISTA? May pinaglalaban, ito sasabihin nila. Madali sa kanilang bigkasin ang mga teoryang panlipunan, ang paniniwala sa di-pagkakapantay-pantay, ang eksploytasyon ng mga manggagawa’t mahihirap ng sistemang piyudal-kapitalista-burukr

ata-pasista (at iba pang label). Ang manawagan para sa pagbabago ng mga istrukturang panlipunan. Ang manawagan para sa isang himagsikan, isang digmang bayan. Basahin mo lang ang Philippine Society and Revolution (PSR/LRP o Lipunan at Rebolusyong Pilipino) ni Amado Guerrero (huwag na itangging si Jose Ma. Sison ito). Dahil ang rebolusyon ang tungo ng daigdig ngayon. Dahil ang tunay na lipunang para sa Pilipinas ay isang komunistang lipunan na pinagtatanggol ng Bagong Hukbong Bayan, na pinagtitipon ng Prente ng Pambansang Demokrasya, at pinangangasiwaan ng Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas. Daling i-label di ba? (Siyempre, hindi ko naman pangangasahan, mga kaibigang Kaliwa, mapa-RA o RJ, na ito lang yun; kinakalaban ko nga ang pagge-generalize.)

Pero hindi pa rin nasasagot ang tanong di ba: BAKIT? Kasi may kawalang-katarungan. Kasi iyong iniisip mo dati para sa sarili mo, naisip mo: bakit ako lang ang dapat makinabang sa mga biyaya ng mabuti’t maayos na buhay? Bakit parang hindi ko inisip kahit kailan na may kapwa ako na dapat ko paglingkuran. Bakit kailangan ko mabuhay at magkamal kung pwede namang simple lang ang buhay? Bakit kailangan ko sundin ang dikta ng merkado na bilhin ang ganito at ganyang bagay na hindi ko naman talaga kailangan? Bakit ko pagsusumakitan ang mangalap ng labis-labis sa kailangan ko e hindi ko na nga maisaayos at ma-enjoy ang mga bagay na mayroon na ako dati? Bakit ko aagawan ang iba na hindi na nga makakain ng perang gagamitin ko lang naman dahil natripan ko lang bumili ng isang kape sa Starbucks na umaabot ng P200+ pesos? Tangina mehn, kape, 200? E isang linggong hapunan na yun ng iba! Hindi ka ba nahihiya sa balat mo?

~O~O~O~

Madali rin naman sagutin itong rason na to e: hindi ko kasalanan iyon. Pinaghirapan ko to. Binigay to sakin ng magulang ko, ang pinaghirapan nila para sakin: bakit ko aaksayahin sa di ko kilala? Tamad sila kaya sila ganyan. Magsumikap sila! Hindi sila sumunod sa magulang nila e, hindi sila sumunod sa sistema e; dapat lang sa kanila yan!

Pero ang problema, hindi na sila ang may kasalanan, ang sistema mismo. Kung ang sistemang ito ay magpapayaman lamang sa dati nang meron at iiwan sa kangkungan ang milyun-milyong nahihirapan, palagay mo ba patas yun? Di rin ba sila taong kagaya mo? Wala rin ba sila karapatan sa mga bagay na tinatamasa mo na dati pa, sila na hindi nakaranas nito kahit minsan?

~O~O~O~

Iisipin ko nakunsiyensiya ka na sa sinabi ko: kung hindi pa, patapusin mo muna ako tapos saka ka magsulat sa comments section. Pero iisipin mo rin: oo, tama, hindi makatarungan, kailangan baguhin. Pero may mga pinoprotektahan din ako e. Gusto kong maayos ang pamilya ko. Wala akong panahon baguhin ang lipunan dahil may tiyan akong pakakainin. At siyempre, yun namang mga aktibistang kilala na natin, tutuyain ka. Isa kang walang-kwentang petiburgis. Isa kang makasarili. Isinusumpa ka ng bayang nag-aruga sayo, at humanda ka sa paghihiganti ng prente. Kumbaga, dahil hindi ka lang umayon, kalaban ka na nila. (Mga kaibigang Kaliwa na makakabasa nito, huwag niyo itangging hindi niyo inisip to. Baka nag-iba ang panahon: sabihan niyo ako).

Pero nanatili doon ang tensyon ng mamamayan sa politika’t lipunan. Susunod na lang tayo sa takbo ng kasalukuyang sistema dahil komportable, dahil ligtas, dahil kahit papaano may kinikita. Ang sumasalunga, itinatakwil ng lipunan. Hinahabol na parang hayop. Pinapatay ng Estado. Ang aktibista naman, ipangangalandakan sa mundo na siya lang ang nakakaintindi sa lipunan. Na dapat mo siya pakinggan at kapag hindi ka nakinig, pasensyahan na lang, wala na kayo ugnayan. Dahil nakamarkado ka na sa takbo ng isip niya. Tinutuya ka dahil hindi mo kaya magsakripisyo nang higit para sa bayang tinatawag ang tulong mo. Walang pinagkaiba sa sinabi ni John F. Kennedy: “Huwag mo tanungin kung ano ang magagawa ng bayan mo para sa iyo, kundi ano ang magagawa mo para sa bayan.”

Pero hindi ba yun nga ang punto kung bakit may naghimagsik sa simula pa lang: kais nga gutom ang marami? Kung yung gutom na yun e masasabit sa laban sa pagpapalaya, hindi kaya nagkakamali? Kung yung nais bigyan ng kalayaan mula sa mga tali ng buhay niya e hindi makumbinsing nakatali siya kaya siya hindi malaya, hindi kaya may problema din ang nagsasalita? Hindi rin kaya sa sobra namang pagpapahalaga sa pagkilos para sa pagkilos, hindi na swak sa orihinal na layuning magpalaya?

Siyempre, sa mga nanghinawa na sa walang-isip na pagkilos na kinahinatnan ng mga kilusang ito, sinabi na natin: mag-isip muna tayo ng tamang gawin. Huwag muna tayo kumilos. Pabayaan muna natin na ganyan tapos saka tayo lumusong kapag alam na talaga natin ang gagawin. Pero ang tanong: sigurado ka ba talaga na alam mo kung kailan ang tamang araw na darating? Katapusan na ng buhay mo hindi ka pa kumikilos, kahit yung paun ti-unting tinatawag mong “neo-liberal,” “dole-out,” at kung ano pang ek-ek?

~O~O~O~

Nananatili yung tanong. Nananatili ang takbo ng buhay mo. Nananatili ka sa isang kalagayang ang ipinagmamalaking halaga ng lipunang ginagalawan mo ay kung sino ang makakakuha ng pinakamarami. Kung sino ang makakapagkamit ng magandang buhay. Itinuturing niyang tanga at masyadong mabait ang mag-iisip ng kapakanan ng kapwa, kahit ipinagmamalaki niya na sumasampalataya siya sa isang relihiyon na ang tinuturo ay ibigin ang kapwa na gaya ng sa kanyang sarili.

Babangon ka sa umaga, mag-aayos ng gamit, tutungo sa kung ano man ang gawaing ipinagpapalagay mong siyang tunay na dapat takbuhin ng buhay mo.

Kung nananatili kang nasa “safe-side,” nabubuhay ka para sa iyong sarili, at kahit pumupunta ka sa simbahan at kinakanta mo na “walang sinuman ang nabubuhay para sa sarili lamang,” sinong niloko mo?

Kung nananatili kang kumikilos para sa pagbabago ng lipunan nguni’t nananatili ka sa iisang pananaw at perspektiba, na wala kang paggalang sa pananaw ng iba at ipagpapalagay mong lagi kang mas may alam ka sa kanila, sinong makukumbinsi mo?

Anuman ang ginagawa mo iniisip mo nakakatulong ka sa pagtakbo ng makina ng lipunang ito. O kaya nakakatulong ka sa paglikha ng bagong makina ng lipunang ito. Pero ang tanong: kelangan ba talaga natin ng makinang nagpapatakbo sa lahat na lang ng aspeto ng buhay natin? Kailan ka titigil saglit at iisipin mo naman: hindi lang ako ang narito. Hindi lang ang mga nakikita ko ang kasama ko sa mundo. May kasama ako. At hindi lang yung iniisip ko o itinuturing kong kasama ko ang tunay na kasama ko.

Kailan mo iisiping magpahinga kahit minsan? Yung pahingang nagbibigay ng linaw sa lahat ng ginawa mo dati, ginagawa mo ngayon, at posibleng makatulong sayo sa paggawa mo bukas? Yung masasabi mong “kahit hindi sigurado, alam ko may katuwiran ang ginagawa ko. Lundagin mo beybeh!”

Punong-Puno na Sa Pamumuno?

Isang pananaw sa mga unang araw ng pagtakbo at retorika ng pamahalaan ni Pangulong Benigno Aquino III

Sa katotohanan, kinatatakutan ng burgesya ang kamangmangan ng masa kapag sila’y nananahimik, at ang kanilang pananaw kung sila’y naghihimagsik.
- Karl Marx, Ika-18 Brumaire ni Luis Bonaparte

Nakakadalawang linggo na mula nang ating tanghalin si Benigno Simeon “Noynoy” Cojuangco Aquino III bilang ikalabinlimang Pangulo ng Republika ng Pilipinas. Bilang isang mamamayang nahubog ang pananaw-politikal sa maliligalig na panahon ng pamamahala nina Joseph Ejercito “Erap” Estrada at ni Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, nauunawaan ko ang malawakang pananabik at matatayog na pangarap ng ating mga kababayan sa kanyang maaaring maibigay para sa pagpapayabong ng pamumuhay ng mamamayang Pilipino. Napakadaling makisali sa mga mapagdiwang na pahayag na ibinabandila ng mass media at ng mga kasapi sa mga kilusang repormista ng panggitnang-uri na siyang nanguna upang ipahayag ang mensahe ng pagbabago sa pagtungo sa “daang matuwid,” isang daan kung saan ang katiwalian ay walang puwang upang sirain ang tiwala’t ugnayan ng pamahalaan at sambayanan. Kung saan ang pamahalaan ay maituturing na lingkod ng sambayanan at ang mamamayan ay siyang magiging kaakibat upang makamit ang mga layuning pangkalahatan ng ating bansa’t bayan. Isang “bagong simula,” ika nga nila.


Takot Na Kami Masaktan

Sa kabila nito, marami rin sa mga nagmamasid ang nag-aagam-agam: masyadong masaya’t nananabik tayo na tila baga ang pagpanaog ni Aquino sa Malacañang ang siyang susi sa malawaka’t malakihang pagbabanyuhay ng politika’t ekonomiya ng Pilipinas sa ngayon. Na para bagang siya, sa kanyang pagkatao bilang tagapagmana ng mito ng tanod ng demokrasya mula sa kanyang mga magulang na sina dating Pangulong Corazon at Senador Benigno “Ninoy” Jr., ay nakatali at nakatadhanang “iligtas” ang Inang Pilipinas mula sa mga kuhilang Kinatawan sa kamara na walang ginawa kundi ang magpataba at ibulsa ang kuwartang ibinubuwis ng mamamayan pagkatapos ng suson-susong paghihirap. Na tila baga ang kanyang kamuntiang pagkakamali ay ating ipag-aalsa’t siyang wawasak nang lubusan sa pag-asa ng mamamayan sa mga demokratikong institusyon. Na para bagang masyado yata tayong ambisyoso, baka pag pumalpak, e malilintikan rin lang pala tayong lahat.

Kauna-unawa ang mga agam-agam na ito, sapagka’t naipit at nabaon sa isang mapagsisi’t walang-tiwala sa sariling kalagayan (self-hating and reproachful state) ang ating mga mamamayan sa ilalim ng siyam na taon ni Gloria Arroyo, na tandisang sumira sa mga institusyong panlipunan at nagwalang-bahala sa interes ng mamamayan sa kabila ng kanyang pagkakalagay sa puwesto noong 2001 sa pamamagitan ng ikalawang himagsikang-bayan (“people power”) sa EDSA. May takot sa atin na magtiwala ulit sa institusyon sa agam-agam na tayo na naman ang maituturong maysala kung magkaloko-loko na naman ang mga bagay-bagay. Nguni’t hindi ito makatarungan para sa ating mga sarili, kung nais natin talagang panatilihing demokratiko, maka-Diyos, makatao at makabayan ang ating lipunan. Tungkulin natin na manatiling mulat, may paninindigan at manatiling nakamatyag upang tiyakin na ang ating mga narinig na gagawin ay tunay na maisagawa ng kasalukuyang administrasyon. Na sana nga ang telos (patutunguhan) ay nakikita sa lakad ng bayan ngayon. Minsan ngang ibinahagi ng kapwa natin mga Atenista, ang SpongeCola: “dehado kung dehado, para saan pa ang mga galos mo kung titiklop ka lang?”


Samantalahin, Huwag Pagsamantalahan

Marami sa ating nagitla at lumundag sa tuwa nang marinig natin si Pangulong Aquino na ipahayag sa Quirino Grandstand noong ika-30 ng Hunyo na “kayo ang boss ko.” Ngayon lamang tayo, kung tutuusin, nakarinig ng isang pinuno ng bansa na kinilala ang kanyang utang na loob hindi sa mga kauri niyang nakaririwasa na nangampanya at gumastos para sa kanyang kampanya, hindi sa mga may-kapangyarihan sa lokal na nibel, at hindi sa mga institusyonal na padron kundi sa mamamayang humalal sa kanya sa unang automated na halalan sa kasaysayan ng bansa. Totoo, hindi madaling paniwalaang naging malinis ang halalan, hindi madaling paniwalaang hindi nakibahagi si Aquino sa mga tradisyunal na paraan ng pagkalap ng boto (na kung pagbabasehan ang mga nakatakdang batas ngayon ay itinuturing nang krimeng ikabibilanggo), kalokohang sabihing walang bahid-dungis ang halalang ito na hindi binago ang mga dinamiko, nguni’t hindi makatarungang sabihing nanalo lamang si Aquino dahil ibinoto siya ng ignoranteng masa na namanipula ng mga institusyon ng burgesya at ng kleriko-pasistang Simbahan (na natitiyak kong narinig niyo na sa mga tagasuporta nina Manny Villar, Richard Gordon at Gilbert Teodoro: huwag niyo sila pakinggan, pikon lang ang mga yan).

Dala nito, may mga taong nangahas nang magtakda ng kanilang mga nais at banta sa kasalukuyang administrasyon kung hindi ito magagawa. Pinalaki na natin ang minsanang pagtuya ni Aquino sa “wang-wang” upang siya mismo’y pagbawalan nating mag “wang wang” kahit mahuhuli na siya sa mga pulong dala ng trapik. Isang batikang brodkaster nga ang nangahas magsabing “dapat hindi na rin lumalabas si Noynoy kapag Lunes dahil coding ang plaka niya.”

Hindi lisensya ang pagkilala ng ating Pangulo sa ating halaga upang putaktihin siya na sundin ang ating balang naisin bilang mga kabahagi ng taumbayang “hindi nag-iisip at sumusunod lamang sa galaw ng tiyan.” Nararapat nating tandaan na sa ating paghalal kay Aquino, ating pinili siyang upang gabayan ang kilos ng mga aparato ng estado at lipunan at hindi karapat-dapat na baliin natin ang kaniyang plataporma de gobierno dala ng ating posibleng makitid na isipang iniisip lamang ang kakanin bukas. Bilang kabahagi ng isang pamayanan, tungkulin natin bilang Pilipino (at bilang taong may kinikilalang mabuti) na mabuhay nang may pagpapahalaga sa kapwa. Kailangan nating kilalanin na ang pakikibahaging politikal ay hindi isang paraan upang magkamal para sa sarili, kundi upang tiyakin na nanatili ang ugnayan natin sa ating kapwa sa mahinusay at mapagyabong na paraan.

Ano ang pinagkaiba natin sa mga trapo at mangungurakot sa mga sangay ng pamahalaan na binabaliti ang kanilang kapwa para sa kanilang sarili kung ating gagawin ito? Ano naman ang pinagkaiba ng isang Pangulong iisipin maski ang pinakamaliit na kibot ng kanyang leeg at kung paano ito makakasama sa sensibilidad ng tao sa isang aliping saguiguilid? Hindi ito makatuwirang kilos, at pinapatunayan lamang natin na tayo’y mga utak-alipin pa rin, sapagka’t “sumusukob sa mang-aalipin ang nangingibig na hindi lumaya.”


Higit Sa Lahat, Magpanagot

Sa pagsasabi kong hindi natin dapat samantalahin ang pagkilala ni Pangulong Aquino sa ating tinig, hindi natin isinasama dito ang katotohanang pangunahing karapatan nating humingi ng katarungan sa mga pampublikong institusyon. Hindi dapat kaligtaang si Pangulong Aquino mismo ay hindi pa rin sinasagot nang mahinusay ang mga patayan sa Hacienda Luisita na pagmamay-ari ng kanyang angkan. Hindi natin dapat kalimutan ang katotohanang nangangahas nang maghain ng kaduda-dudang mga pagbabago sa Saligang-Batas si dating Pangulong Arroyo na ngayo’y kinatawan ng ikalawang distrito ng Pampanga. Hindi natin dapat kalimutan ang daan-daang mamamahayag, aktibista at mga inosenteng mamamayan na pinaslang ng mga galamay ng rehimen ni Arroyo at hindi pa rin napaparusahan magpasahanggang ngayon. Hindi natin dapat kalimutan na ang ating mga kinatawan sa Mababang Kapulungan ay ang mga dating pangalan pa rin na sumuporta sa mga interes ng tiwaling pamahalaan at pumatay sa mga batas na sana’y nakapagbigay-kapangyarihan sa mamamayan para sa demokratikong pagkilos.

Dito natin marapat ibuhos ang ating pagkilos bilang mga mamamayang nagnanais ng pagbabago. Marapat nating bantayan at palaging paalalahanan ang ating Pangulo’t ang burukrasyang sumusuporta sa kanya na tungkulin nilang linisin at panariwain ang tiwalang ginutay-gutay ng mga rehimen nina Estrada at Arroyo. Karapat-dapat lamang nating panoorin ang mga nagaganap sa ating pampublikong lunan at pagdudahan din ang mga samu’t saring opinyon na dati’y tinatanggap na lang nating basta-basta.

Ibinahagi ng Hudyong manunulat na si Hannah Arendt na “ang pagpapatawad lamang ang tanging kilos na hindi lamang tugon kundi isang bagong kilos na di-inaasahan, di-tinakda ng kilos na nagbunga noon, at pinalalaya sa mga kahihinatnan nito ang nagpatawad at pinatawad.” Nangyayari lamang ang pagpapatawad na nagbubungang mahinusay kung ang katarungan ay naigawad sa maysala, kahit sa anyo ng mabigat na parusa. Kung tunay na ibinabandila ng pamahalaang Aquino na “walang pagpapanumbalik kung walang paggawad ng katarungan,” hinihingi nito na tayo bilang mamamayan ay manindigan na ang mga maysala ay magiging karapat-dapat lamang sa awa ng taumbayan kapag sila’y nalatayan na ng hagupit. Hindi naghihilom ang isang malalim na sugat kung hindi dadaan sa masakit na proseso ng pagtatahi nito.

Fourteen Reflections

(Premise: It's been damn long since I have written down something. I do probably have to rethink and reformulate a few of my thought processes [and my lifestyle in general] to finally start writing that first 2 chapters of a thesis I was thinking. Here were a few things I learned after mulling over the past 4 weeks of working outside the academic setting.)

1: Yes, I can live without the internet. For a day. You should try it too.
2: Karma down? Fuck it. Mobilizations down? Fuck me. Public participation should be the end-product of our private processes. Our motto should be LET US BE SEEN.
3: There's a lot of room for fixing public transportation sectors, and the first step is discouraging private transportation.
4: The obsession to work in solely non-partisan action is highly detrimental to more healthy politicization. Nonetheless, the watchman mentality, vigilance, should remain for accountability to be set. The term "watchdog" reeks of disciplinary non-thinking.
5: Citizens should not solely look at processes but in issues and ideas, and must mold civil societies into making them so.
6: The presumption of the law that everyone is innocent until proven guilty is prone to maintaining a liberal setting that permits injustices to normalize. Sovereign power and confrontations should be restored. Justice delayed is justice denied.
7: Growing trends within civil society institutions that acknowledge their ultimate incapacity to effect change outside public institutions should be sustained.
8: The claim that politics is dirty should not be abhorred but is actually the intrinsic nature of interest consolidation. Mudslinging, however, is not, and mudslingers should be eliminated.
9: The use of progress and efficiency in political campaigns and rhetoric is anti-political: that is the province of bureaucratic processes. The fetish for modernization has screwed developing countries: it should be abandoned.
10: Bureaucracies are concerned with national housekeeping. Bureaucracies are for fast and efficiencies that are not open to argumentation. Our elective offices are designed to make these offices accountable to public interest.
11: Political maturity is about troubleshooting and thinking coupled with tempered guts. Therefore, BUREAUCRATIC ACUMEN ≠ POLITICAL MATURITY. To use bureuacratic acumen, track records and past merits as your criteria for electing a political office is stupid, anti-political, and anti-democratic (ERGO, SHUT UP, "COMPETENT CAMPS" and "THINKING CAMPS." Your elitist bearings are stinking.)
12: A healthy practice of politics does not concern itself with personalities, but persons. Not parties of convenience, but communes of ideologies and communities. Authoritarianism and totalitarianism should not be welcome if democracy is to be maintained. Ergo, what we should have is a STRONG LEGISLATURE. Any campaigns with NO STRONG LEGISLATIVE AGENDA, THEREFORE, SHOULD BE REJECTED.
13: Marxism is still the more exciting perspective, hands down. But a healthy dose of postmodernism is never bad.
14: If only education is not bound by bureaucratic requirements and thinking not a monopoly of leaders, perhaps our societies would be thinking better and more loving of their freedom to be willing to be bound by it.

IN THE NAME OF PATRIA: Nationalism and Modernity as Haunted Romance

We agree that modernity, in its basic structurization of its understanding of history, is predisposed to deny the propensity of man to revert to an understanding of time as somewhat without bounds, determined by the seasons, without predictability and therefore should be viewed with caution and preparation whenever possible. Modernity, in seeking to make history its pet, has sought to fetter it with countless chains (reminiscent of Rousseau’s fatally misguided description of what supposedly the state of man is) to make it more understandable, more easy supposedly to understand, and to put it to its logical extremes, deploy it as a means of controlling warm bodies for the purposes of fevered brains. And it is in these fevered brains that are born the notion of a community beyond the local, what the national is deemed to be. Benedict Anderson opens the second chapter of his seminal Imagined Communities thusly (2006, 9):

Why this harkening back to the images of the spectre? Why, one might ask, should we characterize the discourse of nationalism (or nation-building, for that matter) in terms of its ability to inspire feelings of hallowedness or haunted-ness? Perhaps we can take the argument of Rolando Tolentino, in his essay Pitong Welgista ang Napatay, which puts into question the sensitivity of love and hatred as being conflated already, the intensity of such emotions so equal in its capacity to imbalance and violate the normal, natural existence of the lover and the beloved that its ambiguity inspires simultaneously, though unconsciously, tremendum et fascinosum which cannot be identified whether it be because of orgasmic pleasure or of horrifying terror. And it is in this light, we shall see, that the spectre that haunts national imagining is that same phenomenon of conflation that presupposes and blurs the dichotomy of love and hatred, this time confusing creation with destruction and how it consists the struggle of the post-colonial being in striving to claim one’s own space in the world.

Using spectres as a metaphor or a conduit of human desire for expression when communication seems impossible is among the characteristics of subversive and emancipatory movements. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels opened the Manifesto of the Communist Party with a foreboding that seems to have been only imagined, conceived and given life in the depths of the hell where the proletariat has been kept bound, “the spectre that haunts Europe, the spectre of communism.” Even our own prime Filipino patriot, Jose Rizal y Mercado, in illustrating the anguish that is experienced by the Creole displaced in mainland Spain and even in the Philippine colony, has chosen to show Ibarra as haunted by the spirit of his wronged father at the throes of mortality, and then later being torn giving the presumed primacy of Madre Patria between Spain and what he feels is his true homeland, the Philippines.

The mirage that is projected through the spectre reeks of something unwelcome, something that has been forcibly eliminated yet is now governed by its own will to return, to manifest oneself once more, and therefore seek to actualize its presence despite its limitations, its non-corporeality. The spectre is there not to simply communicate a message, but seeks to bend the will of those who see it to its bidding, as might be gleaned from the evolution of Hamlet to an incomprehensible, therefore un-“decodable”, and therefore invincible being after conversing with the presumed ghost of his father. As a somewhat perverse embodiment of the Spirit that G. W. F. Hegel has defined as Phenomenon, the person that embodies the blurring of distinction between the world of ideas and the concrete world, the spectre seeks to actualize where it came from, what it is now, and how it shall be in the future in the futility of no longer existing in time but is now one with time. Its desire for communion can no longer be adequately satisfied by finite means, being in a sense going towards the infinite already.

Nationalism as sought to be achieved by former colonies, as a product of modernity, is a rejection of traditions past, traditions which they claim to have been determined for them by their colonial masters. They are operating under the presumption that they, progressing towards an inevitable flow of history, were interrupted in their potential evolution by the meddling of colonial masters. Thus, select emancipatory movements would seek to restore the pre-colonial being that their people have supposedly been in, the pure native condition (again, harkening back to Rousseauvian hallucinations). Yet as Nick Joaquin in Culture and History would argue, the act of intervention, that moment of contact is already an irreversible phenomenon, history being a sequential abstraction in flow with time, which moves forward towards eternity. To claim and attempt to restore the pre-colonial is as presumptuous as Lucifer’s ambition to displace the Creator: the finite attempting to conquer that which is beyond their capacity to even comprehend. Nationalism, therefore, is also haunted by the desire for articulation of an identity, one which, like innocence, once lost, can never be reclaimed in its purest form. One could only seek to renegotiate the relationship between those nationalities that have been “tainted” by the domination of other nationalities, mutually reinforcing their evolution without the certainty of their paths diverging. In a somewhat mundane insight, one could pick out the scalding verses of performer Stefani Germanotta (better known as “Lady Gaga”) as illustrative of a society’s haunted desire to reclaim itself from those who have crossed their way:

I want your ugly, I want your disease
I want your everything as long as it’s free…

I want your horror, I want your design
‘Cuz you’re a criminal as long as you’re mine…

I want your love and I want your revenge
You and me could write a bad romance
I want your love and All your lover’s revenge
You and me could write a bad romance…

In seeking to recognize itself through consciousness, the nation as a corporeal, imagined body is therefore assaulted as well of the inherent trappings of imagined bodies. Despite seeking to establish itself as the patria grande, one can only do so with the grudging tolerance of the patria chicas, the local hometowns. This fiction has been established through the romanticization of natality and even the romanticization of the tomb, and thus can only borrow its hallowedness from the fiction of tombs.

Ekonomiko Pa Rin Ang Tanong

(o kung bakit sa kabila ng aking pakikibahagi magiging walang-kwentang "footnote to history" lamang na naman ang mga mobilisasyon para sa nasalanta ng Bagyong Ondoy)

Marahil may mga bagay na kailangan akong alalahanin sa pag-alis ni Ondoy at maaaring pagsaglit ni Pepeng. Hindi naman siguro masamang sabihin na naging kabahagi ako ng sanrekwang mag-aaral ng Pamantasan na lumubog sa baha, gumawa ng iilang patawang patama sa ibang lugar na binabaha, at nakaranas ng existential crisis sa kung bakit inabot din ang Katipunan ng ganitong kalaking sakuna. Gaya ng naikwento ko na, naramdaman ko ang pagdating ng bagyo noon pa lamang naglalakad ako patungong Alingal Hall, kung saan pinagtulungan ako ng hanging habagat at ng mga luha ni Tungkung Langit na bigyan ng baradong ilong pagkatapos. Alam na natin ang nangyari. Napanood na sa YouTube. Naipost na ang lahat ng retrato at na-tag na tayo ng mga kaibigan sa ganoon kalaking problema. Seryoso: wala na tayong masasabi pa. Walang pinagkaiba sa isang malupit, nakapanunugat at matalim na pagtatanghal ng isang trahedya. Dalawa lamang ang posibleng ating magawa kapag hinarap ka ng ganitong sakuna, at least sa pananaw ng iba: ang magitla't umiyak nang mapait sa libu-libong namatay, o ang umiyak habang nagbabalot ng mga tulong, kundi ang makasama mismo sa pag-aabot ng tulong sa mga buhay pa nguni't lubhang nasalanta. Dito lang sa pagkakataon ko ito siguro masasang-ayunan, bahagya lamang, si Ninoy Aquino nang noong Abril 6, 1975, sinabi niya sa kapwa niyang senador na si Francisco "Soc" Rodrigo:

If we want our people to follow, I propose, we must cease arguing and start acting, doing what a freeman must do to assert his rights and defend his freedoms. Actions, not words. Selfless examples, not ideas. The time for talking is past!

Pero, siyempre, hindi yun ganoon kadali.

~O~O~O~

Oo, nakita ko ang buhos ng mga tulong sa loob ng Covered Courts para sa mga nasalanta. Nakita't nakasama ko ang sari-saring tao, Pilipino man o hindi, Atenista mang lubusan o hindi, bagong salta man o ilang araw nang puyat, para lamang makibahagi sa pagbabalot, pagsasaayos, pagbubuhat o pagpapasa-pasa. Ngayon ko lang ito nakita nang harapan, at sa totoo lang, hindi ko pa rin ito maipaliwanag. Yung kaluluwa ng batang ideyalistiko't mapangarapin ay laging sinasabihan akong "wow, ang galing, may kabaitan pa talaga sa puso ng mga tao. May pag-asa pa ang bayang ito." Pero sa sandaling lumitaw na ang retorika at dekonstruksyon sa isip ko, eto na naman ako sa pagbutas ng optimismo. Oo, sinisira ng katotohanan ng buhay ang pagkainosente ng bata; pero kung papaano at kung mabuti ba iyon o masama, sa ibang sulatin na natin talakayan. Sabi nga ni Nick Joaquin: "if you not change, you are a cretin, and who wants to be called a cretin?"

Malaon ko na ring pinagsusumikapang unawain kung paano ba pagbabanyuhayin ang kulturang Atenista bilang isang kilusang hindi pampribado't para sa kita kundi, alinsunod sa Vaticano II, para sa isang simbahang itinatanghal ang kapakanan ng mga dukha. Totoo bang kinalasan na ng Atenista ang minsang inilarawan at tinuligsa ng nakakatandang manunulat ng Matanglawin na si Juan Danilo Jurado (mula sa Matanglawin, Tomo XXVIII, Blg. 4: Marso-Mayo 2003):

Oo, inaamin ko na alam ng Atenista na karamihan ng mga tao sa ating mundo ay mahirap at walang salapi, ngunit bakit kung umasta ang Atenista ay parang nakapiring na batang naghahanap ng palayok na mapapalo? Kaya sila mahirap dahil tamad sila... Kasalanan na ng tao kung siya’y mamatay ng mahirap pa rin... Mahirap na nga sila, maram pai sa kanila ang magnanakaw at kriminal... Ay, kawawa naman the poor. Ilan lamang ito sa madalas nating marinig sa ating mga kapwa Atenista. Hindi ko maintindihan kung kanila itong mga sinasabi nang dahil sa katangahan o marahil dahil sa pag-aakalang lahat ng bagay ay nakukuha sa sipag na sang-ayon lamang sa burgesyang kapaligiran na iniikutan ng mga Atenista. Hindi ba’t ang kahirapan ay kasiguraduhan din ng ‘di pagtatapos ng pag-aaral at pagkasumpa sa habambuhay na paggawa? Hindi ba’t ang isang manggagawa o magsasaka ay tinitingnan lamang na parang mga makinang bayaran o dili kaya’y mga sakang tagatanim na kayang palitan at alisin “for a more efficient and lower cost of production”? Paano nga ba makakaalpas ang mahihirap sa kahirapan kung ang kakarampot nilang kinikita ay hindi man lamang sapat para sa pang-araw-araw na gastusin, lalo na kaya sa pag-ipon ng kaunti man lamang na kapital? Kung maraming kriminal sa mahihirap, mas maraming kriminal sa mayayaman... hindi nga lamang nahuhuli.

Paano naging ganoon kadali sa Atenista na makibahagi dito, kung papaanong naging madali sa kanyang samahan ang mga magsasaka ng Sumilao at Calatagan? Hindi mo maiiwasang isipin pero doon ka na rin patungo: DAHIL SA MEDIA MILEAGE, O PARA LAMANG SA PAGKALMA SA KANILANG MARURUMI'T NABABAGABAG NA KONSIYENSIYA. Ito pa rin ang lahi ng uring elitista-kapitalista-burukrata na noong panahon ng Unang Kapatang Sigwa (First Quarter Storm) ay tatakbo kaagad mula sa Barrio Forbes Park (ang "barriong mahal ni Marcos") at pupunuin ang Hotel Inter-Continental, takot na singilin ng bayang mang-uusig sa kanilang kakulangan sa pagiging Kristiyano at kalabisan sa pagkakamal. Ito ang uring liberal na ipinagmamayabang ni Ayn Rand; ang bunga ng pagpipilit sa lubusang indibidwalismo, ang sarili bilang pinakamahalaga sa lahat at wala nang iba, kaysa sa sosyalismong ang sarili kasabay ng bayan, ang sarili kasabay ng kapwa, ang sarili kasabay ng Iba.

Sige, narito, nagbigay na tayo, nagpagod na tayo, nagdasal tayo. At yon lamang, at sasabihin na natin kagaya ng mga taong sumama sa libing ni Pangulong Corazon Aquino na: "tangina pare i was at her funeral, I'm damn proud to be Pinoy pare! O kumusta na nga pala yung bagong SUV na winasak mo? Napakilo mo na? Ano na sa 10 mong kotse gagamitin mo?" Para kang nagkwento ng isang krimen na pwedeng-pwedeng gawan ng pelikula ni Carlo J. Caparas o ni Kaka Balagtas (kung di mo sila kilala, pagpalain ka; wag mo nang subukan) tapos mag-aalok ka ng dinuguan sa kinuwentuhan mo. Kumbaga, para masabi lang. Hindi mo tuloy makita lahat nung sinasabing magis, people- and professionals-for-others, sapientia, wala.

Nakikita natin ang ating kultura bilang isang kulturang reaktibo at hindi pro-aktibo. Ibig nating sabihin, kumikilos lamang tayo kapag nagkawasakan na, kapag nasalanta na tayo't lahat ng ating mga pagkakamali at saka magsisisihan, kaysa isipin ang mga posibleng nangyari sa hinaharap at magtatatag na. Kumbaga, lahat ng sinabi ni Machiavelli na dapat gawin ng isang pinuno upang maging mahusay at handa, walang habas nating di pinakinggan, dinuraan, tinapunan ng basura, pinagpuputulan ng puno, at tinaehan. At ngayon magtataka tayo na bumalik ito sa atin? Mga pare, wag niyo naman sabihing ganoon kayo katanga. Ang DepEd ba talaga ang may kasalanan niyan, ang mga magulang ninyong hindi rin alam ang maaaring gawin, o matitigas lang talaga bungo niyo? Huwag nyo naman piliting piliin namin ang preskripsyon ni Aristoteles sa mga taong "intemperate." At gaya ng ating lubusang pagka-atat sa masisisi, pinili nating bagsakan ng galit ng angaw-angaw na demonyo si Jacque Bermejo (na hindi rin natin alam kung siya ba ang nagsulat, nag-"sleep-type" siya, o talagang hindi lang siya nakapag-isip ng mas magandang Facebook status). Di ko tuloy masisi si Lourd De Veyra na magtanong: "KULANG NA BA TAYO SA TALINO?" Naalala ko tuloy si Tracy Isabel Borres; kumusta siya pagkatapos wasakin ni Anonymous?

Mukhang oo e. Kapag nakikinig ka pa sa mga political ad (oo, lahat) na lumabas nitong nakaraang dalawang buwan at may rasyonal ka nang pag-iisip noon, kaawaan ka ng Diyos kapag sinabi mong "lehitimong kampanya ito."

Hindi na ilang ulit ito. Noong ZTE-NBN Deal ay naglagablab tayo at iniangat si Jun Lozada nang binabayo siyang lubusan ng mga alyado ng Pangulo kagaya ni Benjamin Abalos at ng nag-aalangang si Romulo Neri. Noong niratsada sa Bastusang Pambansa ang Con-Ass, nagwala ang mga gising sa internet at magkakasama tayong nag-ingay sa iba-ibang lugar. Ito lamang pagkain ng "mahal" na Pangulo sa Le Cirque e pinaulanan natin ng batikos. At nasaan tayo ngayon? Wala. Tanungin mo ang karaniwang tao di rin nila maalala. Sinasabi nating magsisimula na ang himagsikang magpapabagsak sa pasista-militarista-patronistang pamahalaang ito sa libing ni Pangulong Aquino. At huwag nating kalimutang sampung taon tayong naghahayag ng mga "kontra-SONA." Nasaan tayo patungo? O mas magandang tanong: alam pa ba natin kung bakit natin kailangang may tunguhin?

~O~O~O~

Palagay ko natagpuan ko yung sagot ko noong, habang napilitan akong maglakad mula Barangay Bayanan hanggang Barangay Putatan, lakaran ng mga may 10 kilometro sapagka't naipit sa trapik ang bus na aking sinakyan pauwi ng Muntinlupa. May tambay na nakasuot ng itim na kamisetang sumisigaw ng mensaheng: HINDI PO AKO EMO, NAKIKIUSO LANG PO.

Uso. What's hip and what's happening. Kung ano'ng dumating, yun na. At pagkatapos, matutulog tayong mahimbing at sasabihing: "responsable akong mamamayan."

Anak ng tinapang nabulok pero kinain ni Arroyo.

Nagagalit tayo kapag sinabihang "minsan lang nagkamali, sinumpa na. Nakalimutan na ang lahat ng nagawang mabuti." At bakit nga ba hindi? Matagal nang sinabi ni Aristoteles: "ang taong makatuwiran ay gumagawa ng kabutihan nang paulit-ulit, walang likat." Sapagka't ang halaga ng katarungan ay di natututunan nang paisa-isa, patingi-tingi. Magpapalusot pa tayo na "minsan lang, di na mauulit." At ilang ulit na ba yang nasira, lalo't matagal nang nakita ni Machiavelli na "sadyang mapanlinlang ang tao?" Ilang ulit nangako si Marcos na ito na ang huling utang niya, at tignan ninyo ang naiwan sa atin. Ilang ulit sinabi ni Arroyo na ito na ang huling pagkakataong "makikisawsaw siya sa politika, pero winawasak niya't sinisiil ang karapatang sibil?" Hindi tayo matatapos kung bibilangin ko lahat.

~O~O~O~

Pero gaya ng sinabi na dati ni Pete Lacaba, mas epektibo ang retorika kapag tumatama sa imaheng nakikita mo araw-araw. Hanggang makakakita ka ng mga batang nagsasabing sila'y mga "Badjao" na hindi makauwi (pare, totoo ito. Kahit na may mga napipilitan o gago lang talagang nakikisawsaw sa tanging desperasyon ng mga Badjao, wag mong sabihing nanloloko na silang lahat; basahin mo uli si Jurado sa itaas), hangga't pinupunit ng kanilang inosenteng tinig ng kawalang-pag-asa ang ihip ng hanging amihan sa loob ng pampasaherong bus, at hanggang nakikita mong sa barung-barong sila pinanganak, sa barung-barong sila uuwi, at sa barung-barong sila babagsak nang patay, dilat at gutom, wala kang karapatang sabihing mamamayan ka. Wala kang karapatang sabihing Kristiyano ka. Wala kang karapatang magsabing Pilipino ka.

Habang nababagoong ang resume mo ng paglilingkod at itinatala mo para may maipakita ka sa iba, wala ka sa kalingkingan ng komadronang handang gumising kahit hatinggabi para magpaanak kahit barya-barya lang ang kita. Sabi nga naman ni Reynaldo Cruz Garcia: maraming mandurukot ang nakakurbata,

At liban pa roon, hindi ka tao pag kinagat mo ang mga info ad ni Bayani Fernando. Hindi natin kailangan ang bayaning alipin, kundi ang bayaning mandirigma ng Himagsikan.

Sabi noon ni Ninoy sa kanyang kapwa senador na si Eva Estrada Kalaw sa isang liham ng Pebrero 21, 1983, mga anim na buwan bago siya pataksil na pinusila sa tarmac ng Manila International Airport:

I realize many will criticize us for even thinking of possibly opening a dialogue with Marcos. Some will call this an imperialist plot designed and conceived in Washington. But if we are to prevent a communist takeover, we must help Marcos inspite of himself find a peaceful solution to our crisis.

I am sure the CPP/NPAs will be most unhappy by the holding of a clean and honest election because this will delay their timetable.

Clean and honest elections will provide fresh hope to people almost desperate. If we are to prevent the radicalization of our people to the left, we must present them with a credible hope and that can be accomplished if we can work out a peaceful transition scenario with the top actor: Marcos.

Only a hopeless people will turn to communism. We must therefore exert every effort to convince Marcos that a genuine return to democracy is the only sure path out of the enveloping red tide.

Only more democracy can defeat communism. Increased repression will only hasten the communist victory.

Alam nating ang layon ni Senador Aquino ay iwasang lubha ang pagdanak ng dugo. Isang pagtatatag sa dati nang pinanghawakan ni Rizal na:

"I do not mean to say that our liberty will be secured at the sword's point, for the sword plays but little part in modern affairs, but that we must secure it by making ourselves worthy of it, by exalting the intelligence and the dignity of the individual, by loving justice, right, and greatness, even to the extent of dying for them,--and when a people reaches that height God will provide a weapon, the idols will be shattered, the tyranny will crumble like a house of cards and liberty will shine out like the first dawn.

"Our ills we owe to ourselves alone, so let us blame no one. If Spain should see that we were less complaisant with tyranny and more disposed to struggle and suffer for our rights, Spain would be the first to grant us liberty, because when the fruit of the womb reaches maturity woe unto the mother who would stifle it! So, while the Filipino people has not sufficient energy to proclaim, with head erect and bosom bared, its rights to social life, and to guarantee it with its sacrifices, with its own blood; while we see our countrymen in private life ashamed within themselves, hear the voice of conscience roar in rebellion and protest, yet in public life keep silence or even echo the words of him who abuses them in order to mock the abused; while we see them wrap themselves up in their egotism and with a forced smile praise the most iniquitous actions, begging with their eyes a portion of the booty--why grant them liberty? With Spain or without Spain they would always be the same, and perhaps worse! Why independence, if the slaves of today will be the tyrants of tomorrow? And that they will be such is not to be doubted, for he who submits to tyranny loves it.

"Señor Simoun, when our people is unprepared, when it enters the fight through fraud and force, without a clear understanding of what it is doing, the wisest attempts will fail, and better that they do fail, since why commit the wife to the husband if he does not sufficiently love her, if he is not ready to die for her?"

Nguni't dama pa rin ang liberal-demokratikong pagka-inosente. Kahit hindi nais ni Rizal ang dahas, may pangarap siya sa pagtatatag ng isang bansa. Si Ninoy, sa kabilang banda, ay ipinagtatanggol ang pamumuhay bago si Marcos. Sa kahulihan, kahit sabihin nating si Ninoy ang naglunsad ng himagsikan sa kanyang pagkamatay katulad ni Rizal, si Rizal pa rin ang tunay na rebolusyanaryong ideologo.

Ang masaklap lang, lahat ng imahen ng rebolusyon, coopted pa rin ng kapitalismong salot:


Kahit bagyuhin tayo ng ilang ulit, lindulin pa, paulanan ng apoy, hanggang ang kaluluwa ng Pilipino ay hindi napapalaya, ano ang silbi ng donasyon? Sabi nga ni Isabel Allende sa kanyang nobelisasyon ng Zorro: isa lamang itong malaking panggagago.

(pagtatapos: utang na loob ang sulating ito sa masinop na pagtatala ni Patrick Manalo at sa ilang mabungang talaban ng isip kay Leiron Martija.)

Dreaming Awake

Why “Heroism” Today?

“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

– George Santayana

“The Filipinos had only one general, and they have killed him.”

– General Hughes, commenting on the death of General Antonio Luna.

Being a child of the 1990’s, I have for role models the confluence of cultures and the overbearing presence of the neo-liberal economies that have been deemed to be the new rulers of the world. I have been exposed to the outlandish narratives of Tenchi Muyo, Zenki, Saber Marionettes, and yes, even Sailor Moon. I dreamed of bringing about world peace through fighting enemies of humanity in various monstrous shapes, together with the friends I have, whenever I see Laser Squadron Maskman, Masked Rider Black, and Space Sheriff Shaider are running around the streets. I once dreamed of terminating terrorism whenever I watched G.I. Joe, Rambo, and Chuck Norris, as well as other vigilantes like Batman. And for once, I actually became acquainted with the insanity of human existence with ABS-CBN making the (fatal? stupid? mistaken?) decision of showing Neon Genesis Evangelion, where Third Impact became an almost certain reality and will wipe out humanity at the flick of a switch.

I am of a generation that grew up in fantasies, but not those of the magical prairies of old as shown by the Grimm Brothers and Walt Disney. I am of an older breed: those of Hans Christian Andersen, those where Little Red Riding Hood was eaten, where the little match girl died on the streets. It was an older ethic of harsh reality but with the grit and shimmer of the new era, the dawn of the metal behemoths.

We graduated from these immersed into the seedy and tumultuous hormonal imbalances of adolescence. As a young man I have strived to contain myself with reading all the texts I have imposed on in classes, taking refuge in the images of pure, unassailed, unadulterated existence. The portrayal of saints as heaven’s messengers incarnate in the flesh, solid without misgivings, tender despite their fierceness, were taught to me hand-in-hand with the pantheon of the heroes of my nation, paragons of selfless patriotism and are honorable in defeat to work with their enemies for the betterment of the nation, in the process becoming brothers who work for the spread of democracy worldwide.

All fantasies which have been dashed when the grim reality of adulthood looms its head above us. All these beliefs and naïveté which has eventually sapped the life away from us, something which reduced us into jaded husks of our former selves spouting the very same things that our failed and tragic first President Emilio Aguinaldo would hold throughout his life: “better be not rash like the moth who died in the flame; it is bad to be learned, you will be hanged; remain little and stay out of trouble.” Yet we glorify now this littleness and claim it as a way to salvation! I will be the change. I’m asking the man in the mirror to change his ways. Ako mismo. Narratives which claim to emancipation but are actually more boxing and therefore more oppressive in their very nature. That "the subaltern cannot speak."

Never have we become so jaded with changing the world than thinking that we ourselves are the center of the world. We have become so much caught up in the necessities and our fears of our daily lives that we have become too deeply anxious of everything, losing our capability to see and hear what is really around us. How it is that our world is not really a small space, but a place big enough despite everything. How science and technology, despite its promise of bringing everything together, only drives everyone apart. All abstractions reduced to a science, an existence predetermined and could therefore be manipulated even before you were born, condemning you to a pathetic existence which all your feel good mechanisms will not at all save you from. And any attempt at audacity is downplayed by the very callous and sarcastic words only George Estregan Jr. could deliver with such gusto you will want to strike your TV screens:

“Nagpapakabayani ka ba? Gusto mo bang magkaroon ng monumento sa Luneta? Laos na yan boy!”

It is because we have been defeated by Jareth, the Goblin King. We have been amazed by David Bowie’s Area so much that he succeeded in taking away what was our most powerful weapon: our dreams. (For the uninitiated, that’s an allusion. See how people who will read this need a joke to be explained to them? That’s how bad it is today.)

We have lost imagination, trembling and fascination. We see life as a game and we want Walkthroughs before we play it. And then we complain that life seems so dull and without mystery? Why of course, you have not just blinded yourself to the glaring truth that you are fatally bound to it, but that you even enjoy such a condition. We have denied the power of dreams and the human soul, and its capacity to steer beyond what appears to be impossible to surmount in order to win and assert our humanity and right to existence. Something which Martin Seligman probably never considered. Something which Gaara rightly rebuked his elder Kages in deciding that only murdering an outlaw could be the solution to saving their villages who lived off the expense of others:

And this is why we need heroes. This is why we need narratives. This is why despite the call to get real, we need flights of fancy. They say poets and writers are madmen who are a threat to society and must therefore be eliminated for stability. Why yes! They are the most dangerous people on the planet and they are proud of it. They do not want monuments; their danger lies not in the constructs but in the ideas and emotions they inspire. Isabel Allende once wrote of an aged fencing master, Manuel Escalante, who believes that “the highest pursuits are not those that have tangible products.” They never were, because only the magnanimity of the human soul willing to break free from the bonds of oppression it was cast into can be deemed the true ethic of human life. Only a person who acknowledges his paradoxical existence of wanting to be free yet as well binding himself to the constructs of what he deems just can dream and be part of the movement to a true liberating society.

Only dreamers will be able to move the cosmos, whilst acknowledging they can never change it but be stewards of the wonders we have to those coming after us. We acknowledge an end, yet it is an end that is never in our capacity to hold back, being finite beings in an infinite plane.

Heroes are not white cloths: they are rags, but they are rags that can be hurled at the face of prevailing oppressive circumstances. They know they are only one but are one; that they cannot do everything but can do something with everyone. They have broken ties with their family because they have espoused a cause: that of the people. They might not have known it, but however dirtied their lives might have been with their failings, they have become sign posts calling us to learn and go on. Postmodernism is a tool, but not an end to emancipation. Caroline Hau has shouted of necessary fictions, and they have been always been an effective rallying cry. It is not without reason Martin Scorsese made Paul speak of truth as “what the people need to believe.” Symbols might be nothing, but they can be everything to a soul who is ever wanting and willing to take the path of responsibility with the free will given him, however painful it might be.

A curious change came over me which I have always noticed in myself whenever anything has stirred my feelings. The flame and the moth seemed to go farther away, and my mother's voice sounded strange and uncanny. I did not notice when she ended the fable. All my attention was fixed on the fate of the insect. I watched it with my whole soul. It had died a martyr to its illusions.

It was a long time before I fell asleep. The story revealed to me things until then unknown. Moths no longer were, for me, insignificant insects. Moths talked; they knew how to warn. They advised, just like my mother. The light seemed to me more beautiful, more dazzling, and more attractive. I now knew why the moths circled the flame.

– Jose Rizal, Memorias a Un Estudiante de Manila

Ang Demograpo

Lahat tayo ay naiipit sa isang usapan o parametro na hindi natin alam kung gaano na katagal nagsimula o kung kailan ba talaga magwawakas. Ipinagpapalagay natin na ang ating kalagayan ay isang lunan at panahon na hindi natin gawa, na nalaglag na lamang tayo dito simula nang tayo'y tulutang masilayan ng araw (o, para sa postmodernong panahon, ng floodlight ng operating room) na hindi natin makikilala kung hindi pa tayo tatapikin, papaluin o hahampasin sa puwitan. Kaya nga naman siguro ang mga fraternity o gang ay mayroong fetish sa pamamalo sa puwit, dahil marahil isa itong pagsasakatuparan ng ritwal ng pagtitibay sa buhay ng kaluluwa ng nangangarap maging bahagi sa isang uri ng pamumuhay.

Ang mahalaga ay lagi tayong ipit sa gitna.

Hindi natin sinusubukang tawirin at talusin, kahit papaano mula pagkabata, ang mga hangganan, gilid-giliran at mga bangin ng pag-uunawa at haraya dahil tayo, sa ating naturalesa, ay mayroon talagang pagpapahalaga sa mga payak na kinalalagyan. Konserbasyon. Pagpapanatili. Pagpapatibay.

PERO LAHAT ITO AY NAWAWALAN NA NG HALAGA SA SANDALING MALAMAN MO KUNG ANO ANG IBIG SABIHIN NG MAHIWAGANG SALITA.

Isang aklat na maputi, ang isinulat: Luha!
Kaya wala kang mabasa kahit isa mang talata;
Kinabisa at inisip mulang ating pagkabata;
Tumanda ka't nagkauban, hindi mo pa maunawa.

Mga ilang pagkakataon ko na rin ito pinagtatakhan, kung bakit kailangan na ang bawa't bagay na paglalagyan ng isang tao ng interes ay magbubunga sa kanya ng ilang ulit na pagkadama ng hapis at dusa. Kung bakit nga ba na hindi ka naman nangangailangan nito sa ilang bahagi't signo ng buhay mo, tapos bigla mo na lang mararamdaman ang di-kawasang alab o kati na sabihin ito para sa isang persona sa iyong paligid, maging ito man ang pinakauna mong pinagbahaginan ng iyong pagkabata o kahit pa ang iyong pinakamapait na kaalit:

There is nothing basically, I mean it quite literally. But then how the things emerge... here I feel a kind of spontaneous affinity with quantum physics where, you know, the idea that the universe is a void but a kind of a positively charged void, and then, particular things appear, when the balance of the void is disturbed. And I like this idea spontaneously very much, the fact that it's not just nothing, something is out there, it means something went terribly wrong. That what we call creation is a kind of cosmic imbalance, a cosmic catastrophe, that things exist by mistake, and I'm even ready to go to the end and to claim that the only way to counteract this, is to assume the mistake and go to the end, and we have a name for this, it's called love.

Isn't love precisely this kind of cosmic imbalance? I was disgusted with this notion of "I love the world," "universal love," I don't like the world, I'm basically somewhere between "I hate the world or I'm indifferent towards it." But the whole of reality, it's just it, it's stupid, it's is out there, I don't care about it. Love for me is an extremely violent act, love is not "I love you at all," Love means I pick out something and it's again the structure of imbalance, even if this something is such a small detail, fragile individual, person, I say I love you more than anything else. In this formal sense love is evil.

Ganoon na rin pala katanda ang problemang ito.

Pero saan ka nga ba magbubuhat kung ang isang bagay ay laging nababanaag sa konsepto ng kawalang-katiyakan kundi sa pinagmumulan ng lahat ng katiyakan at kawalan: ang kadiliman.

Amor mío, en la hora
más oscura desgrana
tu risa, y si de pronto
ves que mi sangre mancha
las piedras de la calle,
ríe, porque tu risa
será para mis manos
como una espada fresca.

Sapagka't ang pag-ibig, kahit kailan, ay hindi isang usapan ng isang pagsibol, kundi ng isang pagwasak. Pagwasak sa buhay ng iyong iniibig sapagka't sino ka nga ba, buhong na matamis ang dila at mapangahas ang tindig, na bigla-bigla na lamang susulpot mula sa iyong pinagmulang sulok ng sangkalawakan upang lapitan ang isang nilalang na nakagiyagis sa iyong kaluluwa at nakabingwit sa iyong mga mata, habang bitbit mo ang pumpon ng mga pinaslang mong sibol ng kapatagan upang ihandog, kasabay ng pagpapaulan ng samu't saring awit at mga pagdakilang hihiyain ang kahit sino pang makata? At sino ka naman, dilag na anak ni Narciso, na mangangahas iwaksi o ipagwalang-bahala ang pagsusumakit ng angaw-angaw na kabalyero, mandirigma't mga mandadalit upang itanghal ka nang higit pa sa mga tala at bathala? Sino kang ni wala pa mang ginawa kundi ang kilalanin ang iyong sarili at wala nang ibang pipiliing gawin kundi iyon, sino ka na may karapatang ituring silang hangal? Sino ka upang tawaging basura ang pinakabuhay na nilang iniluluhog sa dambana ng iyong mga paa?

Sa mga bayang gumagalang sa babaing para ñg Filipinas, dapat nilang kilanlin ang tunay na lagay upang ding maganapan ang sa kanila'y inia-asa. Ugaling dati'y kapag nanliligaw ang nagaaral na binata ay ipinañgañganyayang lahat, dunong, puri't salapi, na tila baga ang dalaga'y walang maisasabog kundi ang kasamaan. Ang katapang-tapañga'y kapag napakasal ay nagiging duag, ang duag na datihan ay nagwawalanghiya,na tila walang ina-antay kundi ang magasawa para maipahayag ang sariling kaduagan. Ang anak ay walang pangtakip sa hina ñg loob kundi ang alaala sa ina, at dahilan dito, nalunok na apdo, nagtitiis ñg tampal, nasunod sa lalong hunghang na utos, at tumutulong sa kataksilan ñg iba sa pagka't kung walang natakbo'y walang manghahagad; kung walang isdang munti'y walang isdang malaki. Bakit kaya baga di humiling ang dalaga sa iibigín, ñg isang marañgal at mapuring ñgalan, isang pusong lalaking makapag-ampon sa kahinaan ng babai, isang marangal na loob na di papayag magka anak ng alipin? Pukawin sa loob ang sigla at sipag, maginoong asal, mahal na pakiramdam, at huwag isuko ang pagkadalaga sa isang mahina at kuyuming puso. Kung maging asawa na, ay dapat tumulong sa lahat ng hírap, palakasin ang loob ng lalaki, humati sa pañganib, aliwin ang dusa, at aglahiin ang hinagpis, at alalahaning lagi na walang hirap na di mababata ñg bayaning puso, at walang papait pang pamana, sa pamanang kaalipustaan at kaalipinan. Mulatin ang mata ñg anak sa pagiiñgat at pagmamahal sa puri, pagibig sa kapua sa tinubuang bayan, at sa pagtupad ñg ukol. Ulituliting matamisin ang mapuring kamatayan saalipustang buhay.

Wala ngang dili iba, ituring mo man na matamis at siyang sing-halaga ng angaw-angaw na daigdig, isa sa mga kasamaang sa ati'y nagpapahapis ay ang tawag ng pag-ibig.

剣は武器である。剣術は殺害の芸術である。 どんなきれいな単語をそれについて話すのに使用するこれは本質である。

The Nature of Hybrids

A reflection on the problematic nature of fence-sitting, merging interaction and the reconcillatory school of thought

Main Entry: hy•brid
Pronunciation: \ˈhī-brəd\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin hybrida
Date: 1601

1: an offspring of two animals or plants of different races, breeds, varieties, species, or genera
2: a person whose background is a blend of two diverse cultures or traditions
3 a: something heterogeneous in origin or composition : composite
b: something (as a power plant, vehicle, or electronic circuit) that has two different types of components performing essentially the same function

— hybrid adjective
— hy•brid•ism \-brə-ˌdi-zəm\ noun
— hy•brid•i•ty \hī-ˈbri-də-tē\ noun

- Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition

Being born and reared as a pacifist in childhood by parents who, despite our meagre means, shares the tastes, mindsets and apprehensions of the middle class and the petite-bourgeois, probably due in part to having been under families of war veterans who, despite their peasant backgrounds, have been beholden to the United States and are always dreaming of “the American dream.” Our families have OFWs on both sides, and are in more ways than one prettily diasporic and liberal-democratic when it comes to matters of finance and politics. In a way, I am part of a typical Filipino family. The circumstances of my formation and education, however, are precisely what my pacifist upbringing has never prepared me for: ceaseless conflict.

For one, I might be stereotyped as the consummate nerd and teachers’ pet due in thanks to my tendency of understanding the administration of our school while rejecting the company of classmates who seem to be members of a rebellious sect. No ID’s, bringing cigarettes and pornographic materials, a penchant for heckling the teachers and more. Disciplinarian mentors and school administrators would often come into the fray and mete out seeming just measures to curb them, though their policies will be always countered by parents who seem to have taken Rizal’s rejection of disciplinary measures too well that they have failed to assert their authority (and eventually causing their booting out of the school administration). That I would be eventually be caught in a period in our school’s history when I would actually deem it just to counter their policies since they are failing to assert their authority and practice an honourable means of managing an educational institution, and yet fail to give out a good point in my capacity illustrates too well how bad am I as a person of opinion back then.

Before I bore you, considerate reader, on why I would open up a reflective piece with a recall of my family history, I believe it has something to do with my reading of the fictional character Hollis Mason’s autobiography Under the Hood from Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons’ Watchmen. I also have no personal memory, other than this, to situate my views on the discussion of what we could call a survey of the middle ground. I intend to look at why we have a somewhat aversion to the nature of neutrality that most of the time, we almost always desire to extinguish it when, in fact, it holds promises of the establishment and inauguration of new ways of understanding and elucidating with the inanities and problematics of human life. There is the seeming potential of the construct which incorporates both points of view in conflicting sides which could produce a hybridity which can bridge the gap. Hybridity might be actually a valuable construct that could eventually become a starting point of new foundations.


Fearful of Commitment

May kaliwa't may kanan sa ating lipunan
Patuloy ang pagtutunggali, patuloy ang paglalaban;
Pumanig ka, pumanig ka, huwag nang ipagpaliban pa
Ang di makapagpasiya ay maiipit sa gitna...

- Magkabilaan, Joey Ayala

I am inclined to believe that it is precisely my pacifist upbringing that has led me to wonder ceaselessly on the current school of thought that regards and proclaims that “peace is overrated.” Most of the time I cannot reconcile, despite my immersion in the violent world of politics, why we should prefer as the human condition the desire to participate relentlessly in conflict and war. Perhaps it is probably our perception and being beholden to action, being mobile beings, that drives us to work and labor to the point of fomenting conflict. In that note, it would appear that wishing to take a stance of neutrality and of reconciliatory purpose is almost always considered a suicidal action. Taking from Niccolo Machiavelli, in speaking of taking expedient sides, gives a scathing condemnation of the practice of neutrality:

Antiochus went into Greece, being sent for by the Aetolians to drive out the Romans. He sent envoys to the Achaeans, who were friends of the Romans, exhorting them to remain neutral; and on the other hand the Romans urged them to take up arms. This question came to be discussed in the council of the Achaeans, where the legate of Antiochus urged them to stand neutral. To this the Roman legate answered: "As for that which has been said, that it is better and more advantageous for your state not to interfere in our war, nothing can be more erroneous; because by not interfering you will be left, without favour or consideration, the guerdon of the conqueror." Thus it will always happen that he who is not your friend will demand your neutrality, whilst he who is your friend will entreat you to declare yourself with arms. And irresolute princes, to avoid present dangers, generally follow the neutral path, and are generally ruined…
.
Never let any Government imagine that it can choose perfectly safe courses; rather let it expect to have to take very doubtful ones, because it is found in ordinary affairs that one never seeks to avoid one trouble without running into another; but prudence consists in knowing how to distinguish the character of troubles, and for choice to take the lesser evil. (Machiavelli 1513).

Neutrality, it appears to this thought, is a manifestation of a sterility of opinion, a means by which an entity would desire to avoid conflict when it is precisely the magnet to it. There seems to be an affirmation of the belief in the human condition of conflict being inevitable and required. This is similar to saying that objectivity is similar to being a cretin, and as such is not worthy of consideration when we speak of discourses and narratives. The late Teodoro Agoncillo would, in a light moment, state a maxim which goes:

What history is not biased… show me a historian, a real historian, who is not biased! You have to interpret, of course. In history, pag sinabing objective ka, you are nothing! You are nothing, absolutely nothing! Absolute zero… the very fact that the student of history chooses what to include and what not to include is proof that history is never objective… The moment the student of history gives what is called the value judgment, and in history you always do that, wala na! Saan nandoon ang objectivity mo? It is important in history to be impartial! Which is different… (Agoncillo in Ocampo, 1995).

As have been mentioned a while ago, conflict seems to be the norm of dealing and relating to particular views whatever they may be. In a way, given the nature of two vantage points meeting each other, there will always be the possibility of clashing and the desire to debunk the beliefs of others before choosing for compromises. In light of current schools of thought practicing and pushing for a policy of reconciliation, the nature of discourse has become so adverse that it is no longer tolerated.

It is in this point, therefore, that we begin to consider the nature of hybrids or the merging of particular entities and points of view in order to see both things in light. It is, somewhat, the rallying cry of Centrist parties which supposedly advocate a train of deliberation that is “not defined by compromise or moderation, it is considerate of them. It's about achieving common sense solutions that fit the current needs; support the public trust; serve the common good; and consideration of short and long term needs.” (USCentrist.org). However, despite our wish to recognize their nature, we will see later on that the belief of hybridism, though in form and modes of propagation novel and seemingly appealing to those who wish to end conflict from differing sides, is eventually problematic and self-contradictory.

A Proliferation of a Bastardic Philosophy

We see advocacies which hold up hybridism almost always everyday. The Philippines has for its lingua franca a mixture of the national language Filipino and of English, which we usually call “Pinglish,” in a way in tone with what Vicente Rafael would call the Martial Law babies (Rafael in Ocampo, 1997) generation’s philosophy would be: a contradiction of certainty and a certainty of contradiction. The phenomenon in various cultural manifestations of “mixed media” would also illustrate it, noting how art is becoming more receptive of photography (once its worst enemy) and now actually incorporating it. Advertisements would always claim that the product being shown is something “everyone” is wishing for, creating an imagined community of people who agree on a point despite their conflicting backgrounds (calling to mind a 1970s soap ad which says in part Lahat tayo’y anakpawis nguni’t hindi natin kailangan maging amoy pawis, or words to that effect). Conrado de Quiros, however, might put it otherwise:

It’s the same effect you see when you buy something from a row of stalls or choose to eat in one particular eatery from a row of eateries. Pretty soon you collect a crowd, and congratulate yourself for having the magnetic personality to do that. It has nothing to do with your personality even if it has something to do with magnetism. People will naturally gravitate toward the tried and tested, or the seemingly popular. (De Quiros 2009).

Hippies have been hailed and decried (depending on your perspective, again another construct of conflict) as one of the best heralds of the belief in hybridism, which advocates a desire for “peace” and the absence of conflict. This is an erroneous belief, as peace is never “absence of conflict” but “harmonization of conflict.” But the main point is to say that hybridism is an organic belief which roots from conflicting sources of ideas and emerges to present itself as “the solution” to the end of conflict.

However, this is in itself contradictory and self-defeating. The institution of a belief is inevitably the inauguration of a new mode of thought which participates in the conflict. The only school of thought which has tried to do so is pluralism and it is still a problematic idea so far. It is precisely pluralism that has given rise to the memetic phenomenon of the Internet which has been the cause of analysis of the Internet’s lack of authority on various ideas (or the mockery of it) as might be gleaned here:



And with good reason, for it is inevitably the conflict by which Rizal’s Noli Me Tangere has put succinctly on the issue of race. Nick Joaquin himself would put it when he would analyse the character of Crisostomo Ibarra and note how Ibarra’s Creole background was eventually his downfall in colonial Philippines, for was viewed with suspicion by natives because of his seeming collusion with the oppressive regimes and the fear of the ruling elite for their capacity for displacing them. (Joaquin 1977).

In short, we can view hybridism as the school of thought which, in accordance with Socratic and Platonic drama, will be the philosopher who would seek to come out of the cave that is the nature of conflict. In a prevailing viewpoint such as ours which is seemingly irremediable given the human condition, they are almost always bound for the tragedy of crucifixion if eminent, and obscuration if deemed unworthy for being “too partisan for scholars, too scholarly for partisans.” Journalism as a discipline will surely agree with the description, claiming to be a hybrid of history and documentation, “history in a hurry” as Nick Joaquin would once more put it, but that is another story.



References:

Agoncillo, Teodoro. Talking History: Coversations with Teodoro Andal Agoncillo, by Ambeth R. Ocampo. Manila: De La Salle University, 1995.

The US Centrist Party. "Overview." USCentrist.org. (accessed May 26, 2009).

De Quiros, Conrado. “There’s The Rub: Survey Says.” Philippine Daily Inquirer. May 26, 2009. <> (accessed May 26, 2009).

Joaquin, Nick. A Question of Heroes. Pasig: Anvil, 1977, 2005.

Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Translated by W. K. Marriot. 2006. (accessed May 26, 2009).

Rafael, Vicente. “Introduction” in Ambeth R. Ocampo, Luna’s Moustache. Pasig: Anvil, 1997.

Evaluating Sheol: A Discourse on Hannah Arendt’s Borderline Liberal Democracy and Notions of Reconciliation

Hansley A. Juliano, II AB Political Science: January 27, 2009

Finishing the study of Hannah Arendt’s monumental work on underpinning the nature of “modernity’s darkest potential,” The Origins of Totalitarianism seemingly sends out a message in the line of the following statements: “Modernity as an order is self-destructive and totalitarianism as a means of governing and community-building prevents the maintenance of communes: therefore, we should abhor it and reject its existence, as well as the possibility of it ever happening again.” Such a position is, in many ways, a comfortable, safe and acceptable one which can be argued to public approval: it is after all a well-accepted notion that totalitarian leaders are the embodiment of the evils of the modern world, most notably Adolf Hitler of Germany. Despite these, however, we would be doing the discourse on totalitarianism a disservice if we are going to close all our doors on it, not trying to understand its capabilities of political action and mobilization. In fact, we must make ourselves aware of it all the more in our daily lives so as to be able to sense its presence and potential to control and warp our very notions of what is just and what is the good for everyone. It must be made clear, however, that allowing totalitarianism to be brought to our collective awareness does not mean that we also open ourselves to accepting and condoning the horrendous crimes it has committed in the name of political progression. Totalitarianism, therefore, should become the post-modern world’s image of Satan: a reflection of humanity’s darkest potential for social change and yet an enduring symbol of what is inherently unacceptable and forgivable in our collective consciousness.

Arendt identifies the tools by which totalitarianism propagates its existence and entrenches itself into power through increasing bureaucratization. There is also the very vital element of using propaganda for the purpose of instilling lies in the minds of the people. Some might make the hasty comparison to the Socratic imperative of establishing “noble lies” for the concretization of the institution of the ideal polis being founded, but they are entirely very different. Totalitarian propaganda does not practice elenchus or persuasion in the process of proliferating these lies as a pragmatic means of strengthening the foundations of institutions; instead, it uses terror and compels everyone, whether possessing one’s free will or not, to participate in propagating such lies to the point that it effaces our own preconceived notions of justice. As such, the transition between a totalitarian movement seeking to attain power and a totalitarian regime striving to maintain power becomes a study of contrasts. On one hand you have an overzealous movement seeking to present a “sincere” and “truly accurate” picture of themselves so as to garner the support of the masses, while on the other hand the same movement, in entrenching itself into power, seeks to hinder or even exterminate the search for what is true and just in order to prevent any possibility of the being replaced the moment they become incompatible to the contexts of the progressing historical dispensation.

In this light, therefore, we look into the case of the Jewish people as a point of reference in understanding how totalitarianism promotes an unprecedented level of incomprehensive, mindless action that leads to the deconstruction of human dignity as something of value. Despite the fact that they are, indeed, the worst victims of a totalitarian rampage which has redefined and demonstrated just how mindless humanity can be even in the face of incomparable evil, they are actually to blame for institutionalizing the mode of community-building through blood relations and not through persuasion and critical thinking. These nepotistic tendencies have given leeway to other people to define themselves as specie beings as well, which found its most disgusting articulation in Hitler’s declaration of the Aryans as a “master race.” Karl Marx rightfully indicted them in his essay On the Jewish Question when he demonstrated how wrong their desire is to gain their own nation-state when they have not contributed to the communal experience of the European countries they have found themselves in. Obviously, this is tantamount to them denying the capability of the nation-state to assure the rights of the German people and deconstructing the concept of the nation-state in general.

The question on whether totalitarianism is still relevant and a potential weapon in the destruction of the existing repressive liberal-democratic global hegemony does persist. Arendt herself has been under fire from the Marxists and other movements which promote a scientific, behavioural approach to the social sciences, being condemned as an apologist of the CIA. This accusation, however problematic, does present a semblance of motivation on Arendt’s part. Being a Jew herself and despite the fact that she has been excommunicated by the Jews, it is not unlikely that she still seeks the attainment of the Jewish cause and their desire to have their own nation-state, which is what the hegemonic United States is pushing in their desire to have a stronghold in Southwest Asia in the same manner the Philippines was their stronghold in Southeast Asia. This is not to say, however, that we should throw away everything which Arendt has argued and laboured to explain about the excesses of totalitarian rule. It is still, indeed, a good counter-reference in the perpetual moving tendencies of totalitarian movements which has been their constant impetus to sow terror on their peoples.

Without question, the inhuman actions and effects brought about by totalitarian regimes should never be given consideration nor should it ever be effaced from our collective consciousness. We cannot sweep under the rug the fact that through regimes of pure action, many lives have been lost senselessly and purposelessly. As such, Arendt’s own proposition of forgiveness as a political action contradicts itself, as the notion of forgiveness entails the downplaying of significant historical events that transpired within peoples. To forget these nodes of historical progression is to be subject to a dangerous tendency of amnesia, which will allow the resurfacing of the ugly capabilities of totalitarian movements without our knowledge. Reconciliation, therefore, should not be rooted in the action of forgiveness but in the transcendence of human limitations and concupiscence to re-establish modes of communication smashed by the desire of totalitarian rule. Systematic disruption of human interaction can only be restored by deliberative means of understanding the human condition, as well as the recognition of one’s own responsibility in these actions despite the benumbing and desensitizing conditions that total politics has imputed on both victim and perpetrator. The notion of forgiveness, however beautiful and binding, can only be practiced in the confines of a communion which shares the same contexts and objects of faith. To compel forgiveness would not be binding or significant at the very least, and as such, will not bring forth the repair of broken lives and milieus which will finally allow people to truly move on and continue the vita activa.

The Blob as Threat: A Discourse on the Nature of the Masses and Its Bifurcating Capabilities through Terror

Hansley A. Juliano, II AB Political Science: January 20, 2009

Inasmuch as the illustration might sound unsuitable, it appears that we Filipinos, in functioning as a democratic unit, always subscribes to the maxim of community-building shared by the iconic 1990s rock band Eraserheads: that every good and relevant action should consider the well-being of what we love to term as “the masses” (para sa masa, sa lahat ng binaon ng sistema). In an appeal to the notion of collective experience and thinking about the practice of politics as a fulfilment of social imperatives, we unwittingly subsume ourselves to a dynamic of communal experience that is, in itself, following the order of modernity which, in turn, proliferate the seeds of its darkest potential in the form of totalitarianism. Consonant with the Hobbesian proposal of power as necessarily centralized, it then appears as if society cannot function if the accumulation of property cannot occur and thus, the necessity of increasing power parallel to the intensity of accumulation for the bourgeois. This imminent greed of the bourgeois catalysed the retaliation of the lower social classes in the form of “the masses” as the proletariat, illustrated by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engel’s The Communist Manifesto. This, however, is problematic if we are going to consider the fact of the claim of historicity in action. To centralize political action into the welfare of the masses is to commit once more the error of the French Revolution in thinking that community-building could and should be equated with the desire to accumulate and preserve property.

Hannah Arendt defines the masses as the product of the breakdown of class structures which, though related, is not at all similar to the relations of the mob and the bourgeois. The mass is, in more ways than one, the conglomeration of directed interests of people displaced from their class in the aftermath of the breakdown of society. In the destruction of the nation-state, the security of each individual is put to question, which leads to the attempt to assure the rights of an individual in the enactment of Universal Human Rights. This is in itself, as may be garnered from the declaration of Jacques Derrida, always suspicious as human rights can only be guaranteed inside the nation-state. In such a situation, we cannot help but be under the suspicion that the supranational agency declaring such is on its way of attempting to establish a world order under its hegemony. Thus, it comes off as no wonder that any action of the United States of America that is claimed to be interventionist will always fall under the lens of scrutiny as an imperialist move.

It must also be noted that, contrary to the belief that the masses are the exact equivalent of the demos in the public sphere, the driving force of the masses is a sense of despair and loss of significance to themselves; a form of “pervasive emo-ness” which makes them think that society and the world in general will never understand nor tolerate their existence. Thus, they are predisposed to all ideologies as these ideologies present “grand narratives” which will explain their situation without them having to deliberate upon it. The masses follow a very Rousseauvian (and therefore problematic) view of the means by which the community caters to the development of the individual. Entering the self no longer produces neither enlightenment nor recognition of desires and appetites but a hysteria acknowledging one’s brokenness and inability to change it.

It is in this context that totalitarianism feeds upon to promulgate its radically evil agenda through the destruction of distinctions between the public and the private. Contrasting to the Classical and Early Modern perspectives of ruling through virtue and/or the utilization of fear, as well as the valuing of honor and material gains, the aforementioned have been eliminated in favour of establishing a regime of terror. A tyranny can only exist in the presence of fear amongst the people, causing inaction among them; in contrast, however, a totalitarian regime encourages action and constant movement, carefully planned and systematically eliminating types of people. The callousness and detachment of the proliferators sends chills down the spine of people who cannot comprehend human capability for inhuman tendencies and, in a disturbing fashion, seduces people with grand personal projections. Such an occurrence is not new not only in the political sphere; in fact, this idea of constant movement with the absence of deliberation for its massed composition also is practiced in the various illegal (or counter-religious) cult organizations.

How then do the masses play into the picture of totalitarian establishment? This is explained by the fact that they, being the most emotionally and psychologically volatile portion of the state, is likely to be taken in by the totalitarian leader’s self-image as a deprecating and non-ambitious person. The charisma of this person will likely draw the attention, support and, ultimately, fanatical devotion of the masses in his quest for setting up the regime of terror organized by his party. This, in turn, will likely pose questions of moral judgment which will test the capability of the human person to actually consider disowning his held scruples. In playing upon ambitions of both leader and followed, they begin to think that one cannot exist without the other, and therefore has to retain semblance of arbitrariness in order to project the image of a normal political state. Yet it is actually carefully deliberated upon by the leaders and they labor enough through propaganda and indoctrination of certain ideologies which will help in their holding sway over the hearts and minds of people.

The conception of ideologies might be considered as an evolution (or a horrible transmogrification, depending on the situation) of the necessity of fabricating “grand narratives,” as Socrates once proposed in his establishment of the polis. And yet, however, the way totalitarianism uses ideology is never for the sake of community-building but, in fact, to destroy communication among the citizens. In seeking to instate the rule of terror through deft massages of ego and ambition, the masses are likely deluded into believing that politics will only be relevant to them through the salvific nature of a totalitarian leader, which is, obviously, against everything politics stands for and will spell the disintegration of the public space.