Siklo ng Karahasan

Pagmumuni-muni sa malamig-lamig na pagngangalit ng taumbayang Pilipino sa pamamaslang sa 57 tao sa Maguindanao sa ilalim ng mga Ampatuan
ni Hansley A. Juliano

Para sa isang tunay na pangkating subaltern, na ang pagkakakilanlan ay ang kanilang ka-Ibahan, walang di-makakatawang suhetong subaltern na makikilala’t makakapagsalita para sa kanyang sarili; ang solusyon ng intelektwal ay di ang magpigil sa pagkatawan. May suliranin pagka’t ang layon ng suheto ay di matagpuan upang maganyak ang kakatawang intelektwal.

- Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Can the Subaltern Speak?

Hindi na ako magtataka kung marami sa nakatanggap ng mga balita ukol sa mga pamamaslang sa 57 na mga tao, kabilang ang mga 13 mamamahayag sa Maguindanao ay batiin ng tila pagkasanay o kawalang-pakialam ang balitang ito. Kung magpapahayag ng pagkagitla, pagkabagabag, o pagkagalit sa usaping ito ay puwedeng-puwede nating ikahon sa tatlong uri ng tugon:

Shit.

Oh god, so sad. There's just too many evils in the world. I cry... (LOL)

Fuck these Muslim pigs! They deserve to die! Go President Arroyo!

Itong mga kaisipang ito ang siyang nagpapanatili, nagpapatibay, at siyang nagpapalaganap sa mga ganitong pamamaslang. Itong hegemonya ng kamangmangan, kawalang-kaalaman at kawalang-pakialam, kung tutuusin, ang siyang pinakamabuti't matatag na tanggulan ng mga ganitong mapangwasak at mapanupil na sistematikong karahasan hindi lamang sa Maguindanao, kundi pati na sa buong kapuluan kung tutuusin. Napakaraming mga pagkakataon nang tayo ay nakarinig ng mga usapin ukol sa mga patayan, sa mga kawalang-katarungan, sa pagtatanggol ng kulungang estado sa kanyang mga galamay na naghahari-harian sa ating lupain, at sa mga pagnanasa nating ipatimbuwal ang mga sistema’t kulturang ito na pumapatay sa ating mga walang-malay at makatarungang mga kapatid.

Hindi ko malaman kung ano nga ba ang dapat kong sabihin bilang isang aba’t mangmang na manunulat sa harap ng mga ganitong usapin, sa totoo lamang. Napakahirap, napakasakit, at nakapanginginig ng laman ang bawa’t detalyeng aking naririnig sa bawa’t balitang aking natatanggap. Sa sobrang dami na ng aking nakita’t nabasa’t narinig, akala ko naiintindihan ko na ang mga suliranin sa isyu ng separatismo at kung bakit hindi na talaga makaahon sa isteryotipo ng kaguluhan ang Muslim Mindanao. Pero sabi nga ni Socrates: “sa mga sandaling akala mo’y alam mo na ang lahat ay doon ka walang alam, at sa sandaling aminin mong wala kang alam ay doon ka makakaunawa.” Alam na nating ang mga suliranin sa Muslim Mindanao ay historikal, institusyonalisado at kaakibat na ng kultura ng represyon sa mga Moro sa loob ng mahigit 500 taon. Nguni’t ang hindi natin alam (o marahil ayaw aminin at harapin) ay ang katotohanang ang mismong pamumuhay na ating ipinagmamalaki sa ating mga kalunsuran, sa rehiyon ng kabisera, ang Metro Manila, ang siya mismong sanhi ng mga kaguluhang ito, at kung bakit hindi magiging madali kahit pa sa loob ng sampung salinlahi ang ibigkis muli ang Mindanao sa ating pagtatayo ng isang tunay na matibay na estado.


Salamat sa Imperyong Maynila

Naniniwala akong lahat tayo ay biktima ng nakaraan. Pinatunayan na ng kasaysaysan na kasalanan ng imperyalistang Estados Unidos mula pa noong panahon ng kolonisasyon na malaking pagkakamaling ipilit ang integrasyon ng Mindanao sa binubuong bansang-estado (nation-state) sa pamamagitan ng migrasyon na itinadhana ng Homestead Act. Naniniwala pa rin akong napakahirap sa mga taga-Mindanao ang sumunod sa mga patakarang itinatatag ng isang pamahalaang nakasentro lamang sa Maynila at sa mga iilang naghaharing-uri, lalo’t hawak sila sa leeg ng mga naghaharing-uring ito. Hindi madaling ituro na kasalanan lamang ng mga hari-hariang ito ang kasalukuyang kalagayan: napakahina rin naman kasi ng pagnanasa natin na piliing isatinig ang mga hinaing ng mga hindi makapagsalita. Walang ibang paglalabasan ng mga hinaing ang mga taga-Maguindanao. Kinakailangan, sa mga ganitong pagkakataon ang ating kahandaang sundin ang payo ni Karl Marx: “ang proletaryo ay sa gayon hindi maigigiit ang kanilang interés pang-uri sa kanilang sariling pangalan, maging sa parliyamento o isang pagpupulong. Hindi nila maisasakatawan ang kanilang mga sarili, kailangan silang katawanin.”

Napakasaklap na kahit galit ang mass media sa kawalang-katarungang ito, nakakayamot pa rin ang kanilang paimbabaw na pagtanaw sa naganap na mga patayan. Mayroong tila baga maalab na pagnanasa ang media na ipaalam sa mga manonood at patron ang katotohanan sa likod ng mga detalye, pero sa totoo lang may nararamdaman akong pagkakalas sa kanilang mga tinig, isang obhetibong etika na matagal nang iwinaksi ng mga progresibong pahayagan. Hindi ko alam kung sadya lamang nanlulumo si Ted Failon noong umaga ng Nobyembre 25 sa kanyang palabas sa DZMM, pero hindi maganda ang dating sa akin ng sinabi niyang “kung magpapatayan kayong mga magkakalabang pamilya puwede ba kayo na lang? Hindi may nadadamay pang iba!” Totoo, tama naman na hindi makatarungang idamay ang ibang tao sa gulo ng may gulo, lalo na kung pinili na ng mga ito na huwag makisali sa mga ganitong gulo. Pero, tandaan natin na ang usapin ng patayan sa Maguindanao ay isang usaping pampubliko. Hindi tayo basta-basta lamang pwedeng sumaisantabi at sabihing karapatan nating hindi makialam. Hindi naman sa ating ipinapalubog ang ating sarili sa blob of the We na kinokondena ni Ayn Rand, pero ang ganitong usapin ay hindi isang bagay na dapat piliin nating huwag magakaroon ng sasabihin o pananagutan.


Hindi Na Ito Usapin ng Paradigm Shift

Kababawan at kamangmangan ang sabihing ang patayan sa Maguindanao ay bunga ng relihiyosong konserbatismo o panatisismo ng Islam sa Muslim Mindanao. Sa katotohanan, ni hindi nga Muslim ang mga kamay na nagpakilos sa mga Ampatuan at kanilang mga tao upang gawin ang hindi kayang ilarawan ng mahihina ang puso. Tandaan muli natin na nananatili ang konsepto ng strong man sa ating kamalayan dahil isa ito sa mga pinanghahawakan ng ilan sa ating mga teknokrata’t burukrata na konsepto ng Asian-style democracy mula sa dating Punong Ministro ng Singapore Lee Kuan Yew, kung saan ang awtoritaryanismo ay mahalaga. Nguni’t tandaang ang Singapore ay lubog sa paggawa ng isang haka-hakang kasaysayan kahit sa katotohanan isa lamang itong kalas na lungsod ng Malaysia, kaya’t hindi nararapat na paghulmahan ng mga pananaw-Pilipino sa pamamahala.

Nguni’t higit pa roon, nariyan din ang pagnanais ng mga naghaharing-uri na bigyan ng historikal na lehitimasyon ang kanilang kapangyarihan, kahit wala na sa pinanghahawakang ideyal ng estado. Soberanyang kapangyarihan na walang-likat at mapaghiganti ang namamayani sa ating mga lalawigang hindi makontrol nang epektibo ng pambansang kapangyarihan gamit ang Sandatahang Lakas o ng Pambansang Kapulisan. Kaya may basbas ng estado ang mga strong man na kagaya ng mga Marcos at Crisologo ng Ilocos, ang mga Remulla ng Cavite, si Hagedorn ng Palawan, ang mga Lobregat ng Zamboanga, si Rodrigo Duterte ng Davao, at una pa sa mga Ampatuan, si Ali Dimaporo ng Maguindanao. Kapag nakasalalay na sa mga mersenaryo ang pagpapanatili ng “kaayusan” sa estado, hindi ka na magtataka kung bakit supot at walang pangil ang estadong hawakan at parusahan sila sa pangambang iwan sila ng mga ito, at mapunta ang mga botong kinikikil nila sa mga mamamayan sa kanilang mga kalaban.

At sino nga ba ang mga Ampatuan upang kanilang pangahasang gawin ito? Tandaang sina Andal Ampatuan Sr., at ang kanyang mga anak na sina Zaldy at Andal Jr. (na siyang itinuturong mastermind) ay itinuring ni Pangulong Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo na kanyang pinakamatibay na kakampi sa Timog. Karugtong na nito ang mga pangalang Virgilio Garcellano at Lintang Bedol, na kung naaalala pa natin ay ang mga komisyoner ng COMELEC sa Maguindanao na naging sentro ng mga pandaraya: ang una sa halalang pampanguluhan noong 2004, at ang huli sa pinagtatalunang upuan sa Senado nina Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III at ng naluklok na si Miguel Zubiri noong 2007. Makikita ang pagkiling ng administrasyong ito sa maraming aspeto, at ang pamamaslang na ito (na iginigiit ng mga tagapagsalita sa Malacañang na nararapat paraanin muna sa due process) ay hindi na natin inaasahang ikokondena ng Malacañang. Anupaman ang sabihin, sisikapin nilang palusutin ito.


Isipan at Pagkilos

Ayokong manisi sa mga ganitong pagkakataon ng pighati sa aking mga kababayang nananatili pa rin sa kanilang mga patetiko’t walang kuwentang buhay at pinipiling maglagalag na lamang sa Facebook, Plurk (kagaya ko, alam ko) at kung ano pang mga pansariling kapakanan nila. Gusto ko pa ring maniwalang sila ay mga biktima at preso lamang ng isang kapitalista’t disiplinaryong lipunan na walang-patumanggang nililinlang sila na ayos lamang ang manatiling walang ginagawa.

Pero nais ko lamang magtanong: kailangan pa bang maipit ka sa panahon ng kagipitan para lamang makalubog sa karanasan ng mga inaapi? Bakit nga ba napakareaksyunaryo lamang ng ating mga pagkilos sa mga komunidad at hindi progresibo, na makakalimutan din pagkatapos ng ilang linggo kagaya ng ipinagmamalaki nating pagtulong sa mga nasalanta ng mga sunud-sunod na bagyong Ondoy at Pepeng? Naniniwala akong ang pagsusumikap ng ating mga kabahagi sa pagbabanyuhay ay sapat na dapat upang gawing masikhay sa pagkilos ang sampung salinlahi. Nguni’t ang nakikita natin ngayon ay isang kabataang lubog sa mga pagnanasa at unti-unting pinipiling wasakin ang kanyang sarili, habang ang mundong kanyang ginagalawan ay patungo rin sa pagkawasak sa pamamayani ng mga halimaw at ganid sa parang.

Minsang ibinahagi sa akin ng mga kasama sa Agham Politikal: ang kawalang-kapangyarihan ang bagong kawalang-pakialam (“disempowerment is the new apathy”). Hindi ako naniniwala sa anumang estadistika, dito man o sa ibang bansa, na magsasabing ang Pilipinas ay maraming demokratikong institusyon, sapagka’t kung totoo iyon hindi masasaling kahit isang buhok ng mga napaslang sa Maguindanao. Hindi ko naman maimungkahi na magtuon tayo lahat ng ating pagkilos sa mga rally, vigil at iba pang aktibidad ng civil society dahil higit sa lahat, ang usapin natin ay hindi ang mga mamamayan kundi ang pagiging kriminal ng isang administrasyon na nagkakanlong sa mga naghaharing-uri na takasan ang kanilang historikal responsibilidad sa angaw-angaw na salinlahi ng mga inapi. Kaya kung aking tatanungin ang tanong ni Vladimir Lenin at Andres Bonifacio, “ano ang dapat gawin?” hindi rin ako makapagbigay ng pangmatagalang kalutasan.

Nguni’t naririyan ang pag-asa. May magagawa kahit papaano ang sinuman para manatili sa ating kamalayan bilang bansa ang trahedyang ito at mapigilan nating huwag nating maulit ito. Sulatan niyo ang inyong mga kinatawan sa pamahalaang lokal at kahit na sa walang-silbing Kapulungan ng mga Kinatawan upang yanigin sila, at makita nila, na hindi kulong sa mga sulok ng Metro Manila ang konsepto ng pagkamamamayang Pilipino. Magsulat kayo. Magbasa ng diyaryo o ng mga balita sa internet. Harapin na natin ang pangit na katotohanan at hayaang masunog sa ating mga isipan ang mga larawan ng mga winasak na katawan at ginahasang mga pagkatao ng 57 mga biktima. Walang pagbabanyuhay na madali, pulido at malinis; lagi itong maligalig. At sa panahon ng ligalig, isang kasalanan ang manatiling nakatanga’t walang ginagawang pinag-isipan.

Pinakamabigat ang kasalanan ng mga Ampatuan. Mabigat ang irresponsibilidad ng kasalukuyang administrasyon. Nguni’t hindi natin dapat kalimutan na tayo ay may kinalaman at kasalanan, sa ating kawalang-pagkilos sa pananatili ng mga institusyong walang katarungan.

In Belated Remembrance of Christ, the King

We have to remember that our concept of the Kingdom of God is, definitely, neither a concrete nor a political entity. It has this peculiar characteristic of being expected "to come into this world" yet "not of this world." As such, it is not at all to be expected to be understood by human terms of sovereignty. Pope Benedict XVI has already reiterated that the Kingdom of God is established not by coercive forces, its sovereignty and authority not maintained by subjugation but by the exemplary example and practices of virtue.

Thus, the Kingship of Christ is not at all a life of glory and dominance: in fact, the ultimate manifestation of the Kingship of Christ is in the symbol of human's perception of destruction and defeat: the Cross. Yet I remember those lines of Fr. Horacio de la Costa in his timeless piece The Two Standards (which I am pretty confident most of the "true-blue" Ateneans are aware of):

Christ ... invites all to fight under His Standard. But He offers no worldly allurement; only Himself. Only Jesus; only the Son of Man; born an outcast, raised in poverty, rejected as a teacher, betrayed by His friend, crucified as a criminal. But Jesus, the Son of Man, is also Jesus, the Son of God. And therefore His followers shall not be confounded forever; they are certain of ultimate victory; against them, the gates of Hell cannot prevail. The powers of darkness shall splinter before their splendid battalions. Battle-scarred but resplendent, they shall enter into glory with Christ, their king.

Thus is the challenge among us, we who have chosen to go through this life of pilgrimage within a world that has rejected God's call to value the things that remain when all else are ephemeral: FIDES, SPES ET CARITAS. It is that conviction that we must carry on with our lives, despite the persecution of a world too engrossed and blinded by its own constructs (as per Ecclesiastes 7:29: "Behold, only this have I found out: God made mankind straight, but men have had recourse to many calculations. "). We know we have a lot to fix when we see that those we have condemned to damnation due to being outside the Church are actually those who live out the teachings of Christ, and we who profess to be children of God are carried away by the allures and temptations of the world, no better than the Jews of old. I thus remember the poem Open Letter to Filipino Artists by an Atenean, then-leading Leftist cadre Emmanuel Lacaba:

We are tribeless and all tribes are ours.
We are homeless and all home are ours.
We are nameless and all names are ours.
...

The road less travelled by we've taken...
And that has made all the difference;
The barefoot army of the wilderness
We all should be in time.
Awakened the masses are messiah.
Here among workers and peasants
Our lost generation has found its true, its only home.

It was quite beautiful and nostalgic to remember, as Fr. Thomas Steinbugler, S.J. has mentioned in his homily at mass last Monday at the Gonzaga Chapel, that we commemorate the martyred Mexican Jesuit Fr. Miguel Pro at his death last November 23, 1927. When Fr. Pro was about to be executed, he shouted that defiant cry of VIVA CRISTO REY, affirming a lifetime of commitment to the faith, even to the bitter end.

A CRITICAL ANNOTATION OF Resolution No. 20091103 of the Sanggunian

by Hansley A. Juliano

A brief review of the resolution, its totalitarian (therefore anti-democratic) nature and why it is not a just mode of action to express citizenship

The Sanggunian ng mga Mag-Aaral ng Pamantasang Ateneo de Manila has recently released Resolution No. 20091103 which purportedly calls “ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS OF THE SANGGUNIAN NG MGA MAG-AARAL TO INTROSPECT ON INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENTS FOR THE 2010 NATIONAL ELECTIONS.” At face value it would appear as a manifesto to uphold democratic participation, but a closer look would show that it is a quite problematic, even immature, statement of the Atenean’s perception regarding political participation. We quote in length from the manifesto:

3. WHEREAS, the Sanggunian as an institution, in recognizing the rightful and vital role of the Filipino youth in national efforts to advance and preserve freedom, democracy, human rights, national dignity and interest, social justice, unity, peace, and development in Philippine society, has the responsibility to raise the Ateneo student body’s critical awareness of and proactive response to issues and their root causes affecting the life of the nation and the Filipino people,

4. WHEREAS, the Sanggunian, as an institution, has the purpose of helping foster the social, political, cultural, and spiritual life of students; develop a University spirit and work for effective student participation in its activities; and to serve as the official coordinating channel of the students to democratic institutions,

5. WHEREAS, the Sanggunian, as an institution, took on the role of being at the forefront of Ateneo Task Force 2010 (ATF 2010) and upholds as one of its foremost ideals integrity, must remain committed to such,

6. WHEREAS, the Sanggunian, as part of its commitment to ATF 2010, continues to participate in the successive segments of Voters’ Registration, Voters’ Education, Voters’ Mobilization and Accountability Efforts and Engaged Citizenship.

The train of the Resolution already shows a decidedly suffrage-centric train. It appears as if the Ateneans’ collective understanding of social participation is already in its pinnacle manifestation with a focus for electoral participation. Yet the informal and the minute historical, cultural and ethical perspectives of most Ateneans, one that is not written down but seen in the text of their bodies, minds and values, shows a persistent fetish for private satisfaction, shying away from public participation. It is situated as such that any movement for social involvement, even including the programs of the Office for Social Concern and Involvement, only appears as mere apologetic moves, palliatives harking back the image of Pontius Pilates.

7. WHEREAS, the Sanggunian, as an institution, believes that to build the Filipino nation concretely includes engaging its democratic institutions by practicing the right to suffrage,

8. WHEREAS, the Sanggunian, as an institution, believes that commitments of the institution must be upheld by all units of this one body,

9. WHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Sanggunian as an institution appeals to all its duly elected officials to reflect upon their commitment to the founding principles of the student council,

10. WHEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Sanggunian as an institution appeals to all its duly elected officials to recognize the greater cause enshrined in its constitution and to protect its integrity and commitment it adheres to,

These statements are pregnant with the exclusivist nature the Sanggu has been accused of possessing for a long time and what its past administration under Mr. Omar Castañar (AB DS 2009) has sought to do away with. It must remember that as per its name, and as mentioned above in paragraphs 3-4, its responsibility for formation is not only with regards to its officials but also to its constituents, the Ateneans themselves. There should be no presumptions of its leaders’ beliefs trickling down to the student body immediately, seeing how most of the Sanggunian’s movements are not at all reflective of the ideals of Ateneans themselves. In espousing a stance without exhorting Ateneans to hold them as well in a more intrusive and polarizing manner, we could not expect to make the student body affirm those they have supposedly elected to represent: a governing body who thinks making students eat canned goods is ideal to make them more receptive to public participation.

But what could be stated as, decidedly, anti-political, IS THIS:

11. WHEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Sanggunian as an institution does not in any way pass judgment on its duly elected members who have not registered in the national elections but seeks to be a co-formator to its constituents by providing an opportunity for personal discernment and personal action,

12. WHEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Sanggunian as an institution upon immersed reflection, with open, honest, transparent dialogue, calls all its duly elected officials who have not registered for the 2010 Philippine national elections to consider tending their resignation,

This statement is a fatal, totalizing statement unworthy of a call regarding a promotion of democratic participation and action. It appears as if elections are the sum total of political participation and thus it is only the salvific point of democratic responsibility. John Stuart Mill has stated it impeccably in his Representative Government: “The pure idea of democracy, according to its definition, is the government of the whole people by the whole people, equally represented. Democracy as commonly conceived and hitherto practised is the government of the whole people by a mere majority of the people, exclusively represented. The former is synonymous with the equality of all citizens; the latter, strangely confounded with it, is a government of privilege, in favour of the numerical majority, who alone possess practically any voice in the State. This is the inevitable consequence of the manner in which the votes are now taken, to the complete disfranchisement of minorities.” In thinking that elections alone would become the lifeboat which will keep the practice of citizenship afloat, we are actually disenfranchising the responsibility to citizenship altogether.

This idea is precisely what the great thinkers of antiquity have strove to prevent by stressing that the good life is the political life: one that encompasses ethics, virtues and manner of living. Democratic activity is not summed up in the ballot or in the ostrakon, but in manifesting their responsibilities and respecting the laws of the land that are in accordance with the Constitution.

In singling out electoral participation as the end-all and be-all of citizenship, one would be falling to the fatal mistake of actually believing that it is only the vote that makes public life worthy. It is as problematic as the Hobbesian perception that only the sovereign (or for that matter, the “tyranny of the majority”) is the one responsible for the endless structuring of the state, decidedly excluding the voices that have been for so long “sub-alterned” by the repressive remnant systems of the Philippine garrison state. We cannot, in democratic and good faith, support such a resolution forcing our representatives in the Sanggunian to renounce their responsibilities as guides of the student body, their problematic understanding of political participation nonetheless, for it would be more destabilizing to the Ateneans’ ability to reflect their aspirations and their desire for legitimate reform and revolutionary means of practicing and living out their responsibility as Catholics, as Filipinos, and as Ateneans.

Notes on an Elementary Ethical Understanding of Labor

(The following is a potential guide blueprint for a discussion of the trinity of movement that Arendt discusses in The Human Condition. Please critique and contribute some points, as well as point out problematic issues or likely misconceptions).

Labor and work, for Hannah Arendt, are two distinct words as contextualized in her work The Human Condition: the first being a movement which produces products that could be easily consumed and the other one turning out works of craftsmanship seen to stand the test of time. Despite sharing the likely similar ancestor, the Latin word labore which puts forward the image of the person in the movement as being incorporated into the process of creation, they have evolved into highly different denotions. LABOR has been classically shown to be of a “slavish nature,” present in “all occupations that served the needs for the maintenance of life.” (THC 83). I cannot help but remember the character of an old fencing master, Don Manuel Escalante, in Isabel Allende’s rendering of the masked vigilante Zorro, which stated that “the only occupations worthy of a gentleman are those without tangible products.” In devoting oneself to the practices of labor, one would be indeed intimate, but nevertheless sucked up in the cycle of nature’s creation and destruction, one’s means of existence being as flitting as the wind of necessity and therefore dispensable. It is not probably without reason that one would be moved by Edwin Markham’s description of such a condition in his poem The Man with the Hoe.

With the ideal being presented as freedom from necessity, one might argue that Arendt is being elitist (as evidenced by Hannah Pitkin’s critique, Fry 57) in the sense that the practice of politics presupposes a certain level of wealth necessary, therefore exclusive, therefore anti-democratic as well. However, it would be an injustice to Arendt to claim such due to her very persistent stressing of a permanent necessity of pluralistic concerns, a means by which communal unity might be assured for the maintenance of the importance of the political life. It is unfortunate, we have to give it, but there are also opportunities of satisfaction to be had from practices of labor by which one partakes in being an animal laborans. (Fry 42). They may have an understanding that their condition and formation is suited for such an activity (which probably necessitated the mythology of elemental biology [i.e. rulers have qualities of gold while the participants of labor have qualities of bronze or iron] in Plato’s The Republic, 451a-c), which contributes to an organic view of the functioning of an ideal state. We might even think of it as actually consistent to our Christian understanding of vocation, in the sense that though they are put there as per ideas of predestination, they still choose to persist as practice of whatever little freedoms they have as slaves, and not commit suicide or choose to rebel and run away, bearing another proscription (as in the conflict discussed in the Epistle of Paul to Philemon). The reality remains, though, that in such conditions participants to labor are not considered persons worthy of public life as well, so that is, to use an economic term, an opportunity cost. It gives us an idea as to why it would not only be anti-democratic to forcefully emancipate people from their slavish duties as proponents of the radical Left are prone to, it would also upset the field of politics as discourse, elucidation and persuasion.

With such contexts and situations being understood, we see why labor is more often than not mostly related to the maintenance of the family, the private sphere by which most of us are given sustenance for the development of ourselves as participants in the public life. The danger, however, lies when labor has become the fetish for existence and accumulation, as Marx would appear to have noticed in Capital Volume 1:

… the means of production and subsistence, while they remain the property of the immediate producer, are not capital. They become capital only under circumstances in which they serve at the same time as means of exploitation and subjection of the labourer. But this capitalist soul of theirs is so intimately wedded, in the head of the political economist, to their material substance, that he christens them capital under all circumstances, even when they are its exact opposite.

If labor is characterized as already traipsing the fine line separating humans from animals, the fetish for labor as the very existence is an unhealthy assumption of the animalistic capacity of humankind. We might even dare to say it is a violation of the Machiavellian balance regarding virtu which in itself promotes the utilization of animalistic tendencies when the situation of necessity arises.

We must remember that labor is an essential tool, a stepping stone if you will, by which the practices of work and action are given potential to exist and therefore proliferate. The sustenance by which people outside the labouring force enjoy permits the fabricating or “working” nature of humans, the homo faber. As Arendt has succinctly proposed: “No work can be produced without tools, and the birth of homo faber and the coming into being of a man-made world of things are actually coeval with the discovery of tools and instruments.” (THC, 121). And yet work appears to be more destructive than labor due to its nature of “wrestling raw materials” from the Earth before being made into more stable fabrications. Though “labor, too, joins to nature something of man's own, but the proportion between what nature gives— the "good things"—and what man adds is the very opposite in the products of labor and the products of work.” (THC 103). Work, though essential to the fulfilment of praxis, is no less destructive, binding and, to a current perspective “dehumanizing” than labor.

Why I Still Hope For a Youth Revolution

Frankly, I have not been into writing much lately. Most of you know that I have been so bogged down by ideas and responsibilities and much shit has hit so many fans recently. However, they say that the Muse of Writing does drop by sometimes to give you a pinch and turn out some ideas sifting in your brain for a long time.

The following writing after the video jump is my response to the video "Lost Generation" by AARP, which was assigned as a point of discussion for our Th 131 discussion under Ms. Maria Elisa Borja. This is actually raw me: all my idealism bottled up and tempered by discourse waiting to explode for such a long time. Sure, they are not what you would expect to hear of me if you read my writings for about a year now, but I recall them.

I've come across these inspirational "bad pessimists then reverse to be optimist" messages for quite a while. On a formalist note, they look good. But it does not end there.

Now, on to my idea on this. I don't know if anyone will respond to this, this is quite long.

There are many grave problems that face the world that, more often than not, we are prone to just take them in stride, following the life-saving trait of the chameleon. We follow the conditions by which we find ourselves in to make us more pleasable, more acceptable to our societal constructs and the values of the world we were born in. "When in Rome, do what the Romans do, right?" I have had many elders telling me these since I was a child: "matuto kang makibagay. You cannot bend everyone to your will, let them be." Not one of us got the message of Rizal about the story of the moth and the flame: "the flame, though dangerous, is worth dying for."

Yes, they have promoted "stable societies." And they also have fueled lynch mobs.

True, I would not deny it, the youth are becoming more and more, at face value, apathetic and lethargic. They have elected to be more on the safe side, the side of authority, the good life. And in more ways than one, they are proud of it. They think of it as their privilege to be beyond issues of political participation because they have no stake in it, because they are of those sectors which do not have any supposed NEED, I stress, NEED to speak out against injustices and the problems of people. And they even have the gall to speak of them being among the Silent Majority, those who are content with the world as it is as if creation is so beautiful it ended at the seventh day when God rested, not knowing that they forebears have done every mentionable blunder to make our "pale blue dot," as Carl Sagan put it, awash with blood, "all to conquer a speck of dust on the face of the universe."

I have not seen it better than last Monday, the anniversary of the Hacienda Luisita massacre. With a handful of course mates we decried the 15 years of injustice that have been denied to tenants who have been gunned down mercilessly while all they did was to ask for rights, a peaceful dialogue for the preservation of a relationship of tenant-landlord towards a more developmental one. We sought to be heard and were met by blank stares and ridiculing smiles. I have not seen a more MANHID bunch of youth than here, to be quite blunt about. Forget about all your momentous Ondoy relief support, forget about your JEEP, forget your NSTP. When push comes to shove, when issues of justice come into play, when ideals are put to the test, I wonder if Ateneans really possess that sapientia et eloquentia the Jesuits have promised will impart to us.

But are they really apathetic? Are they really too habituated to be benumbed to the endless cries of a society in chains?

I do not think so. I believe the past four decades has done so much to form and rattle a hundred generations to become aware, to become stakeholders in the future of a world that will end but should be made to last while it can. But in the ensuing new world we have opened, our activists have been consumed by anger and thirst for equity they have lost their reason in a momentum that will leave them dead in our hinterlands. The state that has lost its legitimacy in our community has resorted to systematic repression, first by confrontaion, then by denying education to a majority of our countrymen. And the result of this is a generation that has been disillusioned from birth, a generation habituated to playing the safe side. A generation of spoiled brats of history, as a 14 year old Florianne Jimenez would write in the Philippine Daily Inquirer's Youngblood about six years ago.

But I still refuse to believe the youth is apathetic and lethargic. They know what is happening. They know what should be done. They know justice. But they are afraid. And they are disempowered. As a colleague of mine succinctly described: DISEMPOWERMENT IS THE NEW APATHY.

We have been so habituated to happiness we do not know how to be sad, and we are afraid of loneliness. We have been so habituated to be seeking comfort we have refused to become exposed to hardship even though it is what we need to steer a world on the twilight years of its existence. And when we are faced by hardships, we deny. We escape. We drown ourselves in vice only to feel. And then we snuff our own lives.

I don't think this is what God wanted with us when he gave us free will.

He would have wanted us to be inflamed. He would have wanted us to see His Son in the millions that die in our midst. He would want us to be at every parapet and tell every living soul in our midst to stop a while and ask ourselves: "Have you looked at your neighbor today." He would have wanted us to engage our emotions, have splagchnizomai.

HE WANTS US TO BE MAD.

I remember this clip from the film Network. The newscaster Howard Beale, in a fit of rage, told every person with a television what they should feel in times of challenges:

I don't have to tell you things are bad. Everybody knows things are bad. It's a depression. Everybody's out of work or scared of losing their job. The dollar buys a nickel's worth, banks are going bust, shopkeepers keep a gun under the counter. Punks are running wild in the street and there's nobody anywhere who seems to know what to do, and there's no end to it. We know the air is unfit to breathe and our food is unfit to eat, and we sit watching our TVs while some local newscaster tells us that today we had fifteen homicides and sixty-three violent crimes, as if that's the way it's supposed to be! We know things are bad - worse than bad, They're crazy! It's like everything everywhere is going crazy, so we don't go out anymore. We sit in the house, and slowly the world we are living in is getting smaller, and all we say is, 'Please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms. Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted radials and I won't say anything. Just leave us alone!' Well, I'm not gonna leave you alone! I want you to get MAD! I don't want you to protest. I don't want you to riot - I don't want you to write to your congressman because I wouldn't know what to tell you to write. I don't know what to do about the depression and the inflation and the Russians and the crime in the street. All I know is that first you've got to get mad! You've got to say, "I'm a HUMAN BEING, GODDAMNIT! My LIFE has VALUE!!" So, I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now, and go to the window, open it, and stick your head out and yell: "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!!" I want you to get up right now, sit up, go to your windows, open them and stick your head out and yell - 'I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!' Things have got to change. But first, you've gotta get mad!... You've got to say, 'I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!' Then we'll figure out what to do about the depression and the inflation and the oil crisis. But first get up out of your chairs, open the window, stick your head out, and yell, and say it: I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!!!

Sure, we need a clear thinking mind when we get down to the nitty-gritty of our problems, but I don't think anything can be solved without this seeming understanding of urgency. Hannah Arendt has stressed action with deliberation. I think we have been too reified by our desires for the good life. We think we are privileged, that like its namesake, this is Athens, the space of freedom where we can think of only ourselves without introspection and understanding of the necessities of those beyond us. But I think it is about time we have our katabasis, towards the Piraeus we just pass by and never contemplate on. It's about time we answer that faded cry of going down from the hill.

Why I Still Hope For a Youth Revolution by Hansley A. Juliano is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 Philippines License.
Based on a work at kalisnglawin.blogspot.com.