1. panchodelaluna:

    (Noam Chomsky)


    A good friend of mine, iwriteasiwrite, rightfully observes that “there is a distinct lack of public intellectuals in the Philippines; men and women who not only challenge the system, but seeks redemptive national paths.,” and that this “lack” is “deeply…

    This is an amazing essay and well worth the time to read.

    My friend @panchodelaluna (with his inimitable style and grace) has pointed out a serious shortfall in Philippine public discourse, well actually the major shortfall in Philippine public discourse: The complete lack of worthy public intellectuals. His fundamental basis for that argument utilizes the definitions and discourse of Edward Said; a man who should be far more popular and well known among the limited ‘intelligensia’ in this country. Sadly, I truly cannot say he is even that known, outside of a few people who have studied abroad. Said’s notes on intellectuals and their role in society are incredibly important in the Philippines today. Without individuals taking on that public intellectual leadership role I fear our social and intellectual progress (set aside economic) will remain stillborn.

    The very obvious problem is, the intellectuals have abandoned this task of speaking the truth and exposing lies, that the emperor has no clothes indeed, by associating themselves with power systems and upholding their meritorious profession in disregard of its attendant responsibilities.

    To be regarded as a public intellectual implies undertaking tasks outside his or her own specialized field; which entails, as Edward Said noted and exemplified, “passionate engagement, risk, exposure, commitment to principles, vulnerability and being involved in worldly causes.”

    If the public looks up to politicians as public intellectuals from what Said underlines, from the most objective, rational point of view, politicians are (almost) a compete failure. 

    - @panchodelaluna

    Our politicians have taken it upon themselves to be the intellectual luminaries of the nation. They play both sides against the middle, never taking a stand and instead preferring to pander to the vast needs of the masses. They say they are out to reform the system, while upholding it through corruption and back room dealings. They emasculate the Filipino through sleight of hand and advertising chicanery. The role of the intellectual has been appropriated and what is left are court jesters; men and women who willingly support the machinations of the politicians in exchange for political and economic favoritism.

    There are many though who trying to reform the system. They are found on the ground, in NGOs, working with the people. There are writers and thinkers in the public sphere and the academe who decry the state of the nation, and actually try and do something about it.

    But, let’s be clear here, just because someone says that the system is rotten does not mean they are fulfilling the role of the public intellectual. More often than not those who are most vehement are the most ideologically bound, the most prone to forgoing values in favor of political expediency. By expediency I mean, supporting an empty ideology so wholly and completely that the focus of bettering the lives of Filipinos is lost.

    Being a member of the peanut gallery is not enough; they have to become leaders in trying to reshape the nation. Leadership is far more than the simplistic idea of the man making the decisions. It is about being active and positive forces for public change, in any milieu. Being a leader does not require a position of authority; managers require authority. Leaders just need opportunity.

    Let me be quite clear, those who spend most of their time railing against the status quo primarily because they don’t like the person in power, or they aren’t of the same political leanings, or they didn’t vote for them, or for any number of reasons and remain on that level are part of the problem. The issues facing the Philippines are so vast that it requires not only leadership in government, but leaders in civil society to attack, tear down, and rebuild the system.

    When it comes to the various -isms, I usually reserve my fiercest criticisms, precisely because they inevitably intellectually emasculate their blind devotees. What ever the political or philosophical leaning, these various schools of thought provide the prisms through which to identity and address social and economic issues at hand. The school of thought itself is not the solution. Relying on communism or capitalism to be the solution is the same as expecting a benevolent dictator to take control and lead us to the promised land: It is lazy, it betrays a lack of intellectual fortitude and the much-needed constancy to identify, face, and work to address social ills.

    Instead, we have changeable ninnies in the public sphere; men and women who confuse being subversive with being loud and contentious; with being incisive with being divisive. The end result is a dead public discourse; one burdened with rhetoric and recriminations and little in the way of actual discussions.

    I firmly believe that we need a new focus on the development of public intellectuals to truly reshape the Philippines. That is what we mean when we say we need more Rizals.

     

  2. Useless: A Story about Philippine “Intellectuals”

    It is generally accepted that the Martial Law period politicized and corrupted the military. As well, there was a subversion of civil society leadership at the top of the socioeconomic foodchain. The art of capital cronyism, the repayment of support and favors through preferential treatment in public-private accommodations, undermined Philippine business. It concentrated assets, via government mechanisms of transfer and intimidation, in the hands of a few; a carefully selected and groomed cadre of men and women. Loyalists, who still maintain their patronage ties to the past. We still find visible and passionate defenses of that failed regime and its perverse ideas today. Defenses and gross misstatements that go unchallenged in the public sphere.

    As well the fourth estate, the social mechanism that is supposed to act as both the people’s voice and a check and balance to excess and abuse, was subverted. One of the first orders that went out was to round up journalists who were critical of the Marcos regime. And then jail them. Newspapers were shut down, writers intimidated and jailed. Editors went into hiding; along with some well-regarded and high-profile columnists. The intelligensia was under attack. And in muzzling their ability to speak, to criticize and explicate, to disclose and detail the indiscretions of the prevailing power bloc, one of the safeguards of the people was eliminated. When media and the ability of a country’s intellectuals to speak is controlled, the flow of information, the engagement of ideas, the forms of education are controlled as well. The best, the most effective way to rule with an iron fist, is to manage what people learn; what they discover and understand about themselves. It is part of the reason why an independent art and culture community, a vibrant one at that, is so important. Without it, sans those divergent and clashing views that exist in a dynamic society, a people stagnate. That is what happened during Martial Law. Eventually though, a people find new footing; it rediscovers its soul and voice. Broad response and reprisal follow soon after.

    That is one of the enduring lessons from that period, and any like it in world history. Effective and stable governance is not found through fear and intimidation, it is not found in the continuing miseducation of a people. In the short term, keeping a population compliant through intimidation and ignorance may work. In the short term. But over time, eventually, human spirit rebels. As Edward Said has aptly demonstrated, sometimes the soul of a people is defined in opposition to repression. Art and literature show the way. That is the reason why so much great literature, so much important art, is produced during times that try men’s souls. But the cultural and social process that births voices like Tagore or Rizal takes time. It is not instantaneous by any means. That though is in the case of colonialism from without. What of colonialism from within? What then when a people are trod under by their own?

    The same holds true. However, I truly suspect the process is accelerated in cases of internally imposed totalitarianism. At least initially. Once those early voices are silenced, and the mechanisms for public criticism sealed off, I suspect it takes time for new voices to find their bearing. Control in an authoritarian or imperial environment then does not just derive from political and economic means, it is reinforced through oversight of the intelligensia. That is the untold story of Martial Law: The subversion of the academe and the collaboration of public writers with the Marcos regime. 

    There were historians, columnists, social and cultural commentators, filmmakers, and artists who became part of the ruling elite during the Marcos years. They are still active today; fancying themselves social sages and purveyors of enlightened wisdom. And, in part, this helps explain why so much of the excess and abuse remains untold, unexplained in the public sphere. We still lack a comprehensive and cohesive tale of Martial Law; the reason is the people, the writers and storytellers, who are in the best public position to create it, collaborated. For every F. Sionil Jose, Nick Joaquin or Alejandro R Roces, or Pete Lacaba (public writers and social stalwarts all), who spoke and fought against the defilement of their country, you have even more who joined forces under some sort of ‘nationalist’ claim. In supporting the very regime that denigrated their countrymen, they made a mockery of the term ‘nationalist.’ One prominent example is Rio Alma. A man who fancies himself as a modern day avenging angel of Tagalog-ccentric nationalism; yet he was a speech writer for Marcos. A man who set-up a rival writers guild to PEN, under the aegis of Marcos. He is by no means an exception. Other so-called nationalist social commentators were working hand in hand with Imelda Marcos during those years. Benefiting from that relationship. Is it any wonder that members of our art and culture community frequently shy away from pointed criticisms of Martial Law?

    It was a storyline that played out yet again during the GMA years. The NCCA and NHI were brought inline with GMA’s interests. A negative artistic word was never allowed. The culture institutions were controlled and muzzled. The sad part is some people who were anti-Marcos ended up collaborating with GMA. They committed the same sins decades previously they had spoken out against. There is a lesson to be found here in the damage that results from allowing unfettered power and weaknesses in our institutions to continue.

    The fact is, in so many ways, our intellectual and academic communities in the Philippines have let the country down. They are supposed to be detectives and storytellers. The men and women who not only unearth social ills and iniquity, but are challenged to heal those wounds; to show ways out of the morass in which the country has found itself. Without public writers and artists digging deeper and creating new perspectives a country, and its people, will never evolve. That is the situation the Philippines finds itself in today. Our public writers and historians, with a few notable exceptions, are caught in some sort of cycle of pseudo-intellectualism and perversely twisted and superficial nationalism. Their changeability and lack of intellectual integrity comes most to the fore when commenting on political situations. Very few actually write from positions buttressed by research or even organic philosophies. More than anything, so many writers and historians are bound by ties of ideology and patronage. Those ties also encompass student-teacher relationships. One of the key issues in our historical community is the sheer reverence in which older historians are held. To write an opposing view, or critically of their positions, is almost forbidden. At the very least, it is frowned upon. 

    World views that are so bound by personal relationships or ideology result in almost worryingly limited commentary on all issues. It is the same when it comes to understanding history. It results in superficial understandings of the self and nation; past, present, and future. There are current examples of this limitation. For example, the on-going PCSO expose is one. There are many who glommed onto the pronouncements of Manoling Morato with nary a critical question asked or evidence-backed substantiation requested; yet remain curiously silent concerning the Commission on Audit reports detailing the excesses and errors of previous PCSO leadership. Well, except in the case of attacking wayward bishops. Consistency and constancy are in short supply sometimes.

    Even more amusingly, there are those who spoke glowingly and in whole-hearted support for Jose Rizal and his philosophies; describing in detail how he was their hero, and how his words and deeds were inspiration. Yet, defend warlordism as not only necessary, but appreciated. Our own history belies the very idea that concentrating power in the hands of a select few (and allowing political dynasties to flourish) is worthwhile. This distressing mutability in the basic philosophies results in almost humorous inconsistencies in positions on issues. And publicly, the act of framing and contextualizing issues is quite rare. More often than not, analysis, and criticisms there in, occur almost in a vacuum. Multi-disciplinary thinking remains elusive. And that is a continuing failure of our education system.

    The burden of not only identifying, but offering avenues to repairing, extant social ills falls most heavily on the art, culture, and intellectual community. The reason is simple: They have the ability to do so. In accepting the mantle of being a public historian, writer, artist, or journalist they are dedicating themselves to a higher calling; to national service in a sense. That is the reason why arts and culture are usually among the first civil sectors that are silenced in a totalitarian regime. In driving them underground, the public mechanism for ideas and resistance is abrogated. What else is art, but subversion?

    And that is what concerns me the most, on an intellectual level. It is not just how broken the system is, or the type of people who inhabit it. It is the fact that the road to redemption for the Philippines has become muddied by the very people who should be shining a light and creating paths out of our current situation. Instead of being the backbone of a strong, informed, and dynamic intellectual community, they have become withdrawn, elitist and even intellectually incestuous in a way. Their ideas of what it means to be Filipino are stagnant and old-fashioned. Instead of discovering new perspectives on the country, the same old hackneyed ideas are repackaged in pretty, albeit superficial, forms.

    But, serving the public good does not necessarily mean always being against government. What it demands is something far more difficult than that; because let’s be honest here, the easiest path is just to always be contrarian, to always try and tear down and criticize. Instead it demands adherence to a core set of beliefs; ideas and philosophies from which all personal ideas and positions derive. That means not allowing things like private relationships to influence. It means focusing on issues of content, and not personal likes and dislikes. I remember one writer telling me that he was most proud of the fact that he angered his friends and opponents equally during his career. If everyone agrees with what you have written, then what you wrote is meaningless.

    That is the challenge for the next generation, our generation, of artists and writers. To break the shackles of repressive historical and social thought and the strictures of perverse ideology. In other words, to come up with new meanings on what it means to be Filipino. For me, that starts historically. But for others? It has to begin where passion is found and where new ideas can flourish. Else we are failing ourselves and we will continue to stagnate.

    In a sense, we are even worse off than when we were colonial subjects. At least then there was fire and passion and energy to discover and create a new and cohesive nation. Verve that today seems to be in short supply.