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?
Popularity: 1% [?]
There is an inherent tension between arriving at a commonality of…goals and preserving our individualities.
As can be seen by this blog entry, there is a price to having the appearance of consensus or commonality of purpose (on any matter of substance), which is to be mistaken as a collective when we’re actually a multitude of individuals. I noticed that the ‘globlization from the grassroots’ blog that you write for has a disclaimer in the end. In this thread, i suggested putting such a similar disclaimer, but i was assured by Jon not to worry because we are ‘Filipino Voices‘, which denotes plurality. Unfortunately, my early fears seem to have some basis.
Where i see the value of having a collective blog is to have a common venue with a shared ethics for engaging in discourse. [Maybe one of these days, we'll find ourselves addressing a fellow commenter/blogger as 'dude'. ;-) ]
Nevertheless, i think it is inevitable that a type of commonality will be arrived at, in the form of Common Knowledge. In this, i think maintaining individuality and diversity is important to avoid groupthink which diminishes the value of such common knowledge. The model for such balance in the local blogosphere is still Manolo’s blog (and his comments section).
Hi Abe, just posted a response but is presently under moderation.
I don’t know what it is about themselves that jeepney builders could admire, but I do understand the immense pride builders of hand-built or limited-edition masterpieces of design and engineering like Lamborghinis, Bugattis and Aston Martins would feel.
Furthermore in places like Germany and Switzerland, there are still a lot of small family-owned companies that produce highly specialised machinery and equipment and precision tools.
So given that, 50 years of jeepney making with hardly a change in quality and engineering approach kind of speaks immensely about this Pinoy “ingenuity” we imagine ourselves to possess.
I’m inclined to believe that we possess that ingenuity. We’re just not making the most out of it because we are risk-averse. Just like what Nick Joaquin said.
This post is posing a question that I have pondered upon for quite a while. And I know that most of our writers have pondered and asked for such as well, that we have a unified goal in mind. Not a herd mentality but that of independent minds, with one goal.
I have thought, that this should be that of bringing out the issues through discussion and debate, but it seems there is a need for a more focused goal, which , in my thinking, may have us all heading towards a greater action, outside of this blog itself.
Proposals are welcomed, we may have to develop such a goal collectively, because I know, in the end, there is one unifying trait we all have, and that is love of our great nation, and even though some may be hell bent in criticizing our citizens, that collective trait is also that of love of our fellow Filipinos.
I guess, this is why, such a more substantive talk may be needed within the year’s end, where we can all congregate and meet face to face, to iron out our future goals.. on how we will make an impact in our society..
Nick, I absolutely agree. Blogs are structurally different from the old message forums like PinoyExchange. But the content and dynamic is essentially the same. Just a big online conversation.
I, of course, defer to what your vision is for FilipinoVoices. But I think if we want to truly differentiate ourselves, then there needs to be something that crystallises from all the discussion here. One thing that you’ve achieved is bring together some of the most insightful Pinoy minds on the Net. But the question remains, what do we do with all the stuff accumulated here?
Something structured needs to be built out of all the content being poured into this great site.
structured?
Nick,
Yup. Structured.
The three word sentence “I am happy” contains infinitely more meaning than a dictionary that contains thousands of words.
Although advances in technology has made it vastly easier to accumulate information, there has been very little in the way of structuring the information.
Could we have precise definition of what is meant by Benign0ism? Is it realistic sarcasm? Or maybe sarcastic punditry?
In applied mathematics, a benign zero is not an objectionable argument.
to benign0:
One of the best ways to structure information is with an action plan. And notice that creating the action plan determines if the information is actionable. And actionable information??? Much more valuable than non-actionable information maybe because actionable information can change the world now.
Think again the “Bayanihan Pact”. It gives a number of people a sense of accomplishment for proposing it. It gives other people a sense of elitism that “they” are for it while others are allegedly not.
But “The Pact” does not get to where things really begin to happen (and progress gets seen by the population) because there is no action plan.
Now, while it is tempting to leave the details for the peons to work on, the devil indeed is in the details and the details separate can-do from still-thinking. Evidence? Evidence is that the “rule of 72″ backed with an action-plan creates wealth for some, and the “rule of 72″ as “for-discussion-purposes-only” results in frustration.
Benignoism has many features, one of them his insistence to remove romanticism from the equation. I hear in him this call to “… paddle your own canoe”. Benignoism includes the question — if Pinoy society is really special, why is it where it is, then his mantra similar to achievement being 99% perspiration (and his subtle reminder that spending 99% of one’s time bellyaching that life is not fair is not really considered “99% perspiration”).
Benign0 has no desire to be a benign zero. His practicum includes self-conceit and self-promotion which is his irritating way of saying “… if you think you are defeated, then you are!”.
… but benign0 can speak for himself just as cvj or Abe can speak about what they see wrong with benign0-ism.
and just as some folks would propose making paupers out of the rich (a position that can get you elected), benign0-ism dooms one to never being elected to Pinas Congress with its suggestions for a law or regulation for the bottom-20%-in-income segment of the population to have less children. Also to dispense with one-man one-vote for the bottom-20%.
One way to structure the information generated by this blog is to use the content as input to a Filipino Voices Wiki or Blog Magazine. I prefer to leave the chronological format of this Filipino Voices blog as it is, in the sense that entries come in as the contributors publish them. What the supplemental Wiki or Blog Magazine would then do is rearrange the entries into topics.
nice idea, cvj
Benigs, UP n,
So given that, 50 years of jeepney making with hardly a change in quality and engineering approach kind of speaks immensely about this Pinoy “ingenuity” we imagine ourselves to possess. – BenignO
Benigs, I have actually in mind Alexis de Tocqueville who has written in “Democracy in America” that “the division of labor” has reduced the workingman where “The art advances, the artisan recedes.”
Yes, UP n, I suppose Tocqueville’s observation remains a stirring refutation of BenignO’s claim that “Maybe that is why poverty can never be solved . . .(b)ecause people are not WILLING to see the poor as a problem in themselves” or your paraphrase of him about “his insistence to remove romanticism from the equation” and “call to ‘… paddle your own canoe’.”
Here’s a portion of Tocqueville on “HOW AN ARISTOCRACY MAY BE CREATED BY MANUFACTURES” (a foreshadowing of “elitism,” as we know it today?):
In proportion as the principle of the division of labor is more extensively applied, the workman becomes more weak, more narrow-minded, and more dependent. The art advances, the artisan recedes. On the other hand, in proportion as it becomes more manifest that the productions of manufactures are by so much the cheaper and better as the manufacture is larger and the amount of capital employed more considerable, wealthy and educated men come forward to embark in manufactures, which were heretofore abandoned to poor or ignorant handicraftsmen. The magnitude of the efforts required and the importance of the results to be obtained attract them. Thus at the very time at which the science of manufactures lowers the class of workmen, it raises the class of masters.
While the workman concentrates his faculties more and more upon the study of a single detail, the master surveys an extensive whole, and the mind of the latter is enlarged in proportion as that of the former is narrowed. In a short time the one will require nothing but physical strength without intelligence; the other stands in need of science, and almost of genius, to ensure success. This man resembles more and more the administrator of a vast empire; that man, a brute.
The master and the workman have then here no similarity, and their differences increase every day. They are connected only like the two rings at the extremities of a long chain. Each of them fills the station which is made for him, and which he does not leave; the one is continually, closely, and necessarily dependent upon the other and seems as much born to obey as that other is to command. What is this but aristocracy?
I’m not sure it is romanticism to point out for example:
1. That instead of blaming our heroic OFWs and their families at home “for not spending their money wisely,” we should be vetting and asking why our “paradigms of smarts, remarkable work ethics and industry” are not investing vigorously (but merely content with rent-seeking); and
2. That . . .
At this stage of nation-building . . . the burden of resolving, sans violent upheaval, the economic scarcity the country is facing is upon the laps of those with effective power or those who have access to various institutional sources of power; [that these] powerholders are essentially the society’s elites who may have experienced some sort of Pauline conversion in secular sense . . .; [and that these] change agents could in fact be new breed of productive men who must feel relatively deprived, not materially but morally, because they are challenged (or humiliated) out of individual and national pride for being elites in an economic basket case.
I don’t believe furthermore that it is romanticism to endorse looking at the Rostovian development model that adopts the following course for economic takeoff:
Takeoff is spurred not only by the investment in “social overhead capital” (such as in railways, ports, roads and education) and the expansion of technological development in industry and agriculture, but also by the rise to political power of a group dedicated to the proposition that the modernization of the economy is a national goal of paramount order. Guided by the wisdom and knowledge of this group who trust each other, takeoff happens when:
1) Heavy investment in “social overhead capital” takes place;
2) The rate of investment and savings rises to about 10% of the national income;
3) Imports of capital goods form a high proportion of total investment;
4) There is rapid expansion in new industries, generating profits a sizeable proportion of which are reinvested in new plants;
5) The new industries, in turn, spur (through their rapidly expanding requirement for workers, support personnel, and for other value-added goods and services) a further expansion in urban areas and in other modern industrial plants;
6) Expansion in the advance sector yields returns in the hands of those not content with rent-seeking but who place their savings at the disposal of those engaged in modern sector activities;
7) The new breed of entrepreneurs emerges and expands; and it places and directs the increasing flows of investment in the private sector;
8) The economy exploits untapped natural resources and discovers new methods of production;
9) Agriculture is commercialized, and more farmers are educated to accept and apply the new methods and the transformative changes brought forth;
10) The economic, social and political structures of the society are transformed to allow for a steady and sustainable growth.
Abe: I thought the Rostovian model has been criticized for providing little guidance (or hope) for accelerating the economic development of small countries.
And would you be surprised if I label romantic an economic development plan that depends on Pauline conversion?
UPn, we are *not* a small country. Perhaps you can criticize Rostow in other aspects of his model but our being ‘small’ is not one of those aspects. (Benign0 has a link to Nick Joaquin which you might be interested in reading.)
I already tried setting up a wiki to get some kind of collaborative effort to come up with a structured solution. Check it out here
Unfortunately I think discussion/chatter is more fun than the kind of thinking required to come up with structure, which is why that foray wasn’t too successful or popular.
Benign0, your getrealphilippines wiki effort is a step in the right direction, but i don’t want any part in your Elitist/Filipino-bashing ideology.
cvj, I get the feeling that you don’t like me very much… :D
Benign0, as you say, it’s not about personalities. What i oppose are your ideas, specifically:
1. Ayn Rand style individualism
2. Jesuit school inspired elitism
3. Benign0 style Filipino-bashing
I also disagree with you on matters of methodology as your analyses are based on 30000ft generalizations and/or stereotypes. this leads to to commit Attribution errors. I also agree with one of the commenters over at Manolo’s who says that, in bashing Filipinos, you’re guilty of the Ecological Fallacy.
Benigs,
I’m actually not a great fan of structure and hierarchy because of their tendencies to go the way of elitism. I prefer what some call as “adhocracy” which probably fits well the original conception of FilipinoVoices. What I’m learning about adhocracy is that it is more reflexive and more democratic. Why don’t we look at this concept too and see if we could fuse it with traditionalism (bureaucracy)?
UP n,
Not all of Rostovian model are attractive to me. For one thing, I don’t subscribe to the assumption in the model that the idealized vision of the Western Nations is normative. In fact, I believe there is no single route to modernity (industrialization). There are even certain theories today entertaining the possibility of reaching the stage of “informatization” (or post-modernization) without going through modernization (Didn’t GMA float this idea before when she was earnestly promoting call centers and BPOs?). Indeed, this one is a bit romantic to me. But it’s too hard to ignore for instance the list of reality checks I enumerated above.
What I like most about the development model of Rostow is the idea of the Big Push, led by a group of “purposeful elites” who have experienced a “wider-based revolution in outlook” (a Pauline conversion in secular sense, as I put it rather dramatically) without a Leninist or Maoist revolution. (Note: I don’t consider this contradictory to my “allergy” to elitism since I also consider it as ad hoc.)
Abe, now that you mention it, that is true. It is also a direction that computer engineering seems to be headed — hierarhical computing architectures are giving way to architectures where computing approaches evolve (in contrast with being structurally programmed the way most conventional computers are today) as an inherent property of the system.
The Philippines is a classic example of a system with a hierarchical governance framework (one that evolved in civilisations that are our society’s antithesis) shoved down its throat.
kziwhufa bcumxq cxdefhj ifhdbxt ohywvcn yklwsxg jigbnpqa