If we go back to the original version of “classical liberalism,” the phenomenon was really about the right of the individual to control his own work, his creation being considered as an extension of his personhood. Liberalism was therefore a rebellion against serfdom or slavery. Unfortunately, the emergence of this “libertarian” attitude has been co-opted by the invention of wage labor (or the “commodification” of labor).

Our ancestors have understood that labor is basically an individual creation and a social relationship (because, in the case of the latter, the use of one’s creation moreover provides the creator a direct enjoyment of having satisfied another’s need). But as a result of commodification, labor becomes “alienated” from its essence, and further pursuit of “specialization” has transformed labor as mere particles of the system or the machine (“de-humanized,” so to speak) in the name of, to use Benigno’s fixation, “efficiency.”

So (business) efficiency produces a world-class Grand Jeep Cherokee Laredo, which we admire (although the worker in this instance is denied a sense of ownership of the product) but autonomous creation produces the Pinoy Jeepney, by which the creators admire themselves (seeing their creation as objectification of their individuality). When the worker has control over his work, the human facet takes precedence over machine-like efficiency.

The foregoing is essentially humanistic and Marxian. Now, is our colleague BenignO, despite bewailing about “the crisis of modernity” in the Philippines, in fact an apostate who has yet to come out of the closet? ( Or, bluntly, is he a reverting proselyte to Mr. Marx’s ancient thoughts?)

Here’s the revealing and thoughtful heckle from Down Under in Establishmentization:

I draw some parallels to the blogging debate from the difference I now see between Independent (”Indy”) Films — motion pictures created and produced by real artists with real visions, and Studio (”Establishment”) Movies — motion pictures produced with the singular aim of drawing an audience.

Studio movies use formulas — proven cinematic devices that appeal to as broad a range of viewers as possible. In contrast, Indy films are driven by their creators’ visions and passions. As a result, Indy works are far more edgy, risque, and often (the good ones, at least) leave a deep impression on their viewers. The Indy world is the cauldron of creativity that spawned groundbreaking works like Pulp Fiction using styles and stories that no produced-by-committee movie could ever pull off.

For Indy film producers, an audience is a bonus. For Studio movie producers, an audience is the whole point. The latter is driven by credentialism and the former by insight. We all know mass appeal brings home the bacon, whilst edginess and loyalty to vision attracts a far smaller subset — insightful minds. That ultimately is the choice faced by every content producer, be they film makers, illustrators, writers, and — yes — bloggers.

As Web authors, we need to ask ourselves:

Are we seeing our vision through?
Or are we selling out to the Establishment?

From this one facade of BenignOism, I guess one would be hard put to tell it apart what I have also written in Lean on me:

The same scenario may obtain, on a relatively cognate plane, when a blogger reaches a million hits daily on a sustained basis and starts attracting advertisers and financiers and then ultimately gets engulfed into the same self-interested order he’s been working to upset in the first place.

BenignO echoes anew my sentiments with this follow up comment of his:

I dare say, the Web seems to be particularly good at commoditising human relationships (think the MySpaces and Facebooks of this world).

But not all human relations can be captured by what appears to be the totalizing effects of commodification.

One recent case close to heart has been the solidaric production – set off for the greater part of it by tingog.com – exactingly brought to bear on supposedly mainstreamer and elitist Malu Fernandez’s infamous acerbic wit against our heroic OFWs. None, I’m certain, has expected a “wage labor” quid pro quo for being part of that uncommodified production. The solidarity, as many of us know, has been driven by some ad hoc commonality of purpose (the adhocracy of preserving the dignity of OFWs), the efforts being essentially pro bono or as the whole blogging production stands today (with the rarest of exceptions) remunerated only by way of some form of “socialized wage” - comparable to the creators’ direct enjoyment of having satisfied another’s or each other’s needs.

If this could be seen as part of Marck Ronald Rimorin’s “localized solutions outside of a metanarrative-like” one to our “grand problems,” is FilipinoVoices ready to form a consensus at least on this one score – that one of our teloi (end goals), in the face of some grueling vetting, exchanges and debates, is creation based on the commonality of such goals while in the process always zealous in preserving our individualities? I then draw certain parallels here to the countless, and often thankless, efforts of town-based Filipino diasporic communities all over the world pursuing globalization from the grassroots.

Aren’t we, after all, more passionate in producing relationships (as an expression of our personhood) by way of blogging (for many of us on company time?) than being merely a well-fitting cog drudgingly compliant with our bosses’ playbook of efficiency?

Fatal error: Call to undefined function p75HasVideo() in /homepages/39/d169067170/htdocs/voices/wp-content/themes/NewFV/single-default.php on line 57