. . . I do not have problems sa Pinoys who are now Canadian or USA citizens. To ask them to mind-your-own-business forget Pilipinas (is) over the limit, sa wari ko. Eh these Pinoys katulad ni Abe Margallo . . . Normal na sila ay kibo pa rin ng kibo tungkol sa Pilipnas hindi lang sa may ari-arian pa sila sa Pilipinas, marami pang kaklaseng nasa Pilipinas, at ang mas tunay ay dahil meron pang kamag-anak sa Pilipinas, ayaw pa nilang kalimutan, okay lang. – Mike H
If what’s “normal” for expats is, as MB also pointed out, instead of being “obsessed about the Philippines they should be concentrating on becoming a part of their adopted homeland,” then I should be counted as among the deviants. My soul never really left the Philippines; if at all, as a hybrid citizen in a technology-mediated world, I’m fully reunited with it now.
I will elaborate but first, there’s probably a need to juxtapose expats we assume ourselves to be to the benignOist variety, the one that has unfortunately metamorphosed into the Anti Pinoy paradox. I submit the claim that the depreciatory attitude of rambunctious practitioners of the latter toward their supposedly second-grade compatriots in the Philippines could not seem to rise from being a mere reflection of an unabashed “cringe” (or fawning deference) towards what they perceived to be first-class and all-mighty in their diasporic enclaves. That to me, I submit furthermore, is the real “damaged culture” of lost souls (which could only mean shoddier than third-rate) who are neither here nor there.
That disposed of, let me address now the concerns of Mark H and MB if in some roundabout way. The proposition is: If the conception of the State as we know it were to be demystified or seen as an anomaly, then those concerns would cease to be of the moment.
I would argue that the State being a mere construct for convenience can be demystified. In fact, the demystification process is taking place now. The State construct, come to think of it, is under threat today by the self-same power that created it and could go the way of the State’s precursor, the Divine Right Theory, that ultimately lost its relevance. On the other hand, there is a new counterpoise (and an equally demystifying process) to the State concept (or its emerging new form – the so-called “network of Empire”) that is not coming from the powers that be and, of recent, the Filipinos have had something to do with it. It is called People Power – in a number of dimensions.
Let me share what I have blogged on these thoughts before:
. . . both nation-state and a “world of the multinational corporation and supranationalism” are not something given, but constructed by those with the power to do so for a reason and therefore the concept (or process) could be deconstructed or reconstructed also for a reason either by the self-same power to further their interests or by those whose ends are not thereby served or in fact jeopardized in the wake of it.
On the juristic (legal) level, a parallel could be drawn between the conception of the state and that of the (private) corporation, an artificial being no less bestowed by law with certain attributes of a person than a state personified by being invested with a mind and a will of its own. So, if the legal rationale fades out or lapses (e.g., the law is abrogated), what actually break the surface are real people socially relating to each other, or working and collaborating together . . . .
The artificial entity, it is well to note, is not just legitimized by a statute or by some agreed upon international legal arrangement, it is also reinforced by a belief system. If we look back at history, the myth of the territorialized nation-state has supplanted another myth, the open and frontier-less kingdom of the absolute monarch. The belief system then was that the king was supposed to have unchallenged authority (sovereignty) because his power was derived directly from God. The Devine Right of Kings was however undone when the struggle for parliamentary democracy was won by once disempowered individuals.
It needs to be underscored too that while we are certain the tectonic transformation of the global village is happening, its consequences are still very problematic. . . How serious is the concern at this point to reconsider the locus, indivisibility or indispensability of sovereignty, or, just like Divine Right of Kings, consign it to oblivion . . .?
The question then is not that “we cannot” resist as inevitable the paradigm shift but more appropriately whether we are unwilling or not to exercise the choice to tame or undo it. For if there is emerging a so-called “network of Empire” (of powerful nation-states in combination with supranational institutions and transnational corporations) poised to rule over a new global order, there is also a “movement of peoples” that is materializing as a countervailing force. In the Philippines, we also call the latter phenomenon as People Power.
During the ancestral domain for Bangsamoro (or the MoA-AD) debates, I have expounded on the same idea in this fashion:
The reality that stares at us is that even the concept of sovereignty born out of modernity is under assault today by the realpolitik of post-modernity and global empire. Haven’t we seen the network of power (USA, Japan, Australia, OIC and foreign energy and corporate plantation investors) that’s been at work in the making of the MoA-AD? Can’t we see how some of these geopolitical players are virtually heedless, at the sufferance of our naïve politicians, of the sovereignty – yes that sacrosanct notion of power relations among nations based on equality blessed by international law and convention – of an inconsequential country, the Philippines? Could it be that sovereign statehood or territorial sovereignty is not even a final telos of human society because it is as primitive as the divine kingship of the ancient?
Yes, go figure and think of the Lilliputian counterforce that’s sprouting from below probably best exemplified by the diasporic Filipinos . . . the Filipino global communities running away for the most part from the outbreak of economic privation while permeating territorial boundaries like wild vines in a reverse colonialism of sort, and whose national solidarity though may be bonded only by emails or the blogosphere finds strength in the commonality of good intentions for their homeland, or as somehow the Other in their adopted country, in their simpleness, only by some prideful symbolism like Manny Pacquiao who looks like them or by a grand celebration of Barrio Fiesta in Vienna, New York or Toronto?
That’s where I believe FV (whose network of bloggers is global so to speak) could distinguish its collective (from the Anti Pinoy, for example) – to serve both as a means and an end for the purpose of this solidarity.
I have started to discourse on the solidaric FV in A thought on BenignOism and FilipinoVoices telos, more specifically in the following portion of it:
. . . 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.
In Why we blog I have attempted to define blogging (with the FV project in mind, although blogging is not the only community enterprise we undertake for the homeland) in the same means-and-end vein:
. . . blogging as a social process is thus about empowerment to act not only upon commonplace, albeit serious, issues but on grand problems of society that may impact its core institutions or do something about the obtaining caesura of critical opposition to the well-entrenched and encompassing structures, in different forms or chimeras, of a status quo that may have lost its reason for being . . .; if allowed full sway . . . blogging per se, in the form of Jurgen Habermas’ “communicative action,” may eventually force the powers that be to allow change towards a just and democratic social order sans a proletariat revolution.
I have noted in the same post the rise and fall of this people’s liberty which had “gone to the margins owing to the apparatuses of modernity/rationality enamored by the logic of efficiency.” It is however bound to remain unsinkable and unquenchable and continue to defy physical or mythical boundaries (yes, state territoriality included) as long as domination persists in our complex global society.
Yet the rules of the game are axiomatic and motherhood: develop practices of consultation, bargaining and cooperation among our social partners with a view to fashioning a consensus to serve the common good under more or less the following requirements:
- Discourse has precedence over oppressive action or violence
- Everyone is entitled to participate and express his preferences
- All claims are criticizable
- No argument as long as relevant is curtailed or excluded
- No force but the logic of better argument is imposed
- Participants are motivated only by the desire to reach an agreement to accept the better claim.
Popularity: 1% [?]
This is most sobering, Professor Abe.
The best AntiPinoy blogger we have is Jose Rizal. But unlike the present crop we have, this one chose to come home and get shot!
To label Rizal as anti-Pinoy even if perfunctorily is to vitiate his profound passion to uphold the Filipino race. Rizal’s two novels were anti-friar, anti-government and anti- (Filipino) elites, a scathing commentary of all the “cancer” afflicting the Philippine society of his time that cost his dear life. But they were not anti Filipino.
And you are right that just as the martyred Ninoy Aquino, Rizal “chose to come home and get shot.” He ended his sojourn in Europe and returned to the Philippines despite the perils awaiting him at home because he also believed the “Filipinos are worth dying for.”
I had occasion to blog about Rizal’s ardent defense against the denigration (by anti-Pinoy) that his compatriots were “indolent” by deftly turning the tables. My post reads:
Wonderful post, Abe. It will undoubtedly cause me several days worth of reflection, particularly on the tension between the state and the individual that defines the lines of freedom and a whole lot of lawmaking.
The blogosphere brings out the best and worst of this natural opposition. The best is an immediate and comprehensive dialogue. The worst is the ease of name-calling, erroneous statements, sound bites and other distortions.
Thanks for igniting my thought process.
Back later. . .
Joe
This is an important issue. Balik ng balik. Just read this comment just a year ago:
———————–
jcc
February 25, 2009 at 1:25 am
one commenter said that overseas pinoys have lost their right to make comment about patriotism when they have abandoned the motherland in the first place. einstein said that the patriotism is the famous refuge of the scoundrels and so those who profess patriotism, whether they be mainland patriots or overseas patriots are both refuge-seeking scoundrels.
but i think B0, Bencard, Abe, Nick and others like myself were not pontificating about patriotism. We are simply joining the big debate on what ails the country and our leaders. I allways believe that overseas Pinoys, whatever be their circumstance in life do not lose their birthright to speak their minds as Filipinos.
Mr. La Paz,
You seem to forget that Statehood in the Philippines is an artificial construct of Empire.
For one Filipinos are too obsessed in their tiny worlds to care much about what happens anywhere else. If anything only the Communists seem to have a conception and care for “nationhood”.
But to quote Rizal from “Come se gobiernan las Filipinas”
KABATAAN PARTYLIST (shameless plug) SaLi too.
Oops wrong article… hehehe
Abe,
A host of thoughts provoked by your article on states, individuals and blogs:
The Philippine state derives from multiple tribal and national sub-states haplessly glued together by the Spanish and then the Americans, the former via a faith that is practiced without real commitment, the latter via a democracy that is practiced without commitment to the values that drive economic success: freedoms that release individual initiative rather than constrain it, the notion that individuals are protected from the predatory nature of religions, and where the state indeed leans on its citizens for sacrifices to remain whole: taxes, wars, and sacrificing individual liberties for laws that protect the common good.
The problem with the bangsamoro condition is that people cling to the past as if it still existed rather than working to build a more progressive present. The impossibility of returning current worlds to old allegiances and territories is like trying to put those stuffed dinosaurs you find in natural history museums back on the range, expecting them to leap to life. It just cannot be. Call it the laws of social physics. You change a society, you cannot go back. The universe is always expanding outward and our customs along with it. ‘Tis best to move forward from where we are now, not from where we once were. People around here seem to hang on to their pasts as if it were an anchor that determined their self esteem. Rather, it is the anchor that will drag them to the bottom of the sea.
The blogosphere has no constraints or disciplines so groups form and disappear with the ease of Houdini in a set of loose chains. The FV premise is superb as a global collective of good intent. There are two problems, however. One, it has been managed with little discipline to this point, causing some of the recent disputes and encouraging some brains to abandon the global ship. Two, it is only words, not actions.
The internet has the power to unify disparate tribes, faiths, and social groups for the common good, to form a new unified force that plunges into the power vacuum of neglect and bad governance created by too many elected representatives who serve themselves first and the people if convenient. All that is needed is a concept (build a progressive social infrastructure), an agenda of achievements that will put that progressive social infrastructure in place, and an organization bent upon organizing a whole lot of good-willed people real-time on-line, including publicity noisemakers and lawyers who get high on litigation. Oh, yes, and a web site.
I think we are seeing and saying the same thing, although how we got there is a little different. My personal interest is how to get from words to action.
Joe
Joe,
I was once asked in a forum to share my thoughts on whether the American system the Filipinos borrowed could ever work in the Philippines. My answer was as follows:
_________
. . . the real challenge is how to make the Western/American model work based on the Filipinos’ own distinctiveness taking into account the other civilizations or cultures that make up the Filipino essence. I explained that the Western culture, while promoting hierarchical governance, brought to us constitutional and liberal (market) democracy as well as the Christian teaching of service and humility. The new culture was introduced by the West in the midst of the “politics by consensus” our ancestral barangay folks and chieftains, and their Muslim mentors had practiced together at the community level as going concern.
[Ma. Luisa Canieso-Doronila has documented certain instances of this “politics by consensus” among the Samas, a community of sea nomads in Tawi-Tawi, as follows: “The leader of the fishing expedition is elected by consensus based on physical prowess, knowledge of navigation and climatology, good leadership abilities, reputation and conduct. Since everyone knows the requirement of the voyage and the implications of a successful expedition to the community survival, the leader is chosen wisely by everyone. There’s no place in the leadership for the buffoons or weak-willed, greedy and incompetent individuals. When the catch comes in, everyone gets the same share, and voluntary deductions are decided on again by consensus with additional amounts going to the leader and to those who contributed.... The whole process is transparent to all.” Maria Luisa Canieso-Doronila, “An Overview of Filipino Perspective on Democracy and Citizenship” in Democracy &Citizenship in the Filipino Political Culture, Maria Serena I. Diokno, ed. (Quezon City: The Third World Study Center, 1997) p. 77.]
I then noted that today, governance by consensus is being reexamined for its efficacy as an alternative to traditional governance through elected representatives (often a subterfuge for “elite governance”) in the same manner as legitimation through popular sovereignty (as opposed to the “divine right theory”) and government by example, which are essentially Confucian values of our early Chinese ancestors, are being revalued for their true worth. On another sphere, I mentioned that the proper approach toward ecological conservation for the benefit of the next generation could be explored by drawing from the wellspring of our Malayo-Polynesian respect for and love of nature.
__________
And please read in full the blog I have linked to the main entry where I stated:
Joe,
The main reason why the Bangsamoro has to think of their past glory is the fact that it’s the only period wherein they had the full exercise of their freedom and independence. Of course, they fought for these democratic ideals to the last drop of their blood. Unfortunately, waves of western colonization have diverted the brighter prospect that the Moro people were about to tread on until their political custody was committed under the ward of Filipino ilustrados who seized the rein of the government at the expense of the rightful claim of those natives who really fought for. Again, these were all against the will of the Moro people.
More unfortunately, the “Filipino nation” (WITH DUE RESPECT) can not do the same i.e. glorify their past and think of returning back to such past grandeur not only because they have nothing in the past to glorify and cherish but more tragically because all their past can offer are only episodes of subjugation and slavery.
The Bangsamoro can not move forward with their present neo-colonial circumstances under the hands of Filipino elites who capitulated the Filipino struggle for freedom to foreign colonizers as the present political set up tainted with colonial trademark is detrimental to both the Bangsamoro and Filipino. Hence, these calls for reform and change in the Philippine politics!
Similarly, America can not simply shove democracy inside non-Americans’ throat because of the fact that it’s not only democracy which advocates for people’s freedom and liberty. My opinion is that democracy can be interpreted relatively, let alone perverted, depending on its usability and applicability in the context of a particular foreign policy adopted by certain American president.
Best regards,
danilo u. ignacio
Abe,
Thanks. I think US style democracy does not float well in the Philippines, and I would argue for something far more progressive, a corporate style government, with CEO and his admin staff, Board of Directors (supplanting the legislative carnival), and independent Judiciary. But that is just my fictional brain dreaming.
danilo,
I understand and appreciate the history. And I agree completely with your last paragraph. Thanks.
Best regards to you, too.
Joe
Great post, Abe — thanks. U know, I’ve never been particularly tribal (making “kampi” to someone because they’re my friend or relation, unless I actually happen to agree with them), nor do I believe in Manichaean polarities. Like patriotism in its more extreme forms, both can sometimes lead to xenophobia. So it is more likely for me to agree with someone about a, b and c, while disagreeing with them about d, e and f; at the same time, I can remain indifferent to their views on g, h and i. Where do I stand on the actual person? Well, as a matter of fact, I rarely do position myself categorically in opposition or in favor of another person or group.
Stereotyping individuals/groups/countries/races/sexual orientations, etc, can lead to a socially-incremental continuum that can sometimes result in xenophobia and even genocide (the latter was the subject of my MA thesis, so I ended up having to research it a lot). Of course, this is not always the case, but the fact is that, when one group establishes itself as “core” (hegemonic) at the expense of those at the periphery, u have a historical and cultural narrative that tends to be selective, biased and ultimately limited. But then that is in the nature of historical writing itself, as I once tried to explain to sparks — in the end, everything one writes is, to a large degree, mediated by one’s point of reference, whether one considers one’s race, class, gender, sexual orientation (or wardrobe choice!) to be the the most important criterion. In the end, try as we might, we all exhibit some degree of subjectivity in all our choices and in what we do.
But this doesn’t mean that we can’t try to be fair and objective. Even if, by definition, one can never attain absolute truth, we can still attempt to be as asymptotically close to the x or y axis as possible, right? So I would NEVER categorically reject the antipinoys or the overseas Pinoys and their ilk altogether. As far as I’m concerned, all voices are valuable and useful, particularly those on the margins, to get the broadest vision possible, even (and especially) those we happen to disagree with. Any rigorous fray would welcome dissent, provided it is ultimately respectful. As I have tried to say, intellectual differences don’t have to lead to conflicts or intractable hostility.
So: while there r a great many people I have disagreed with here and elsewhere, the only two I have a problem with r Benign0 and Bong V; with the rest, as far as I’m concerned, at any rate, there isn’t really a problem. This applies even to Ilda, who I feel tends to stereotype people before she even gets to know how they really think. Ultimately, I wish her and all of them well.
My insistence on specificity and precision applies to diasporic Pinoys too. I would never say that they should mind their own business, focus on where they’re at, and just shut the h..ll up. I’m working on comparative migration at the moment, and will just add that, even in a transnational era such as ours, migrant and ex-pat voices contribute so much to their respective countries of origin. To paraphrase Carlos Bulosan, home is where the heart is, after all… Some of the best writing about India in this day and age is being written by writers who don’t even live there. So let a thousand flowers bloom, I say! There is a great deal of work being done abroad to help the Philippines and we really do need all hands on deck, regardless of people’s political persuasions. As long as you’re doing something constructive, it’s all good: criticism is inherently valuable because we desperately need to look at things in rigorous ways, but then u also need to be prepared to help build the nation once you’ve made that fateful analysis.
The most xenophobic remarks I have read from the antipinoys have tended to come from Bong and Ben — hence my decision to keep my distance. Because the possibility for dialogue has already been killed off anyway… But not all antipinoys r xenophobic (even if they do tend to follow the leader a little), just as not all overseas Pinoys look down on their own country of origin. I have known many who r quite proud of who they are, even while they subject everything around them to careful scrutiny. So I would hope that we give everyone a chance here unless their behavior really does indicate otherwise. And that whatever rules we decide on as a group should apply to everyone equally, regardless of whether we happen to agree with them or not. Perhaps if we all made an effort to be a little more precise about what we mean and who we’re really referring to (i.e., please don’t project unfinished business from your childhood onto these threads or mistake Nick for your parents; when u say “the state,” which set of power brokers r u actually addressing?), that would probably go a long way too. So let’s try not to generalize, ok?
Thanks! :-)
Lila,
Wonderful statement. Let a thousand flowers bloom, indeed.
Joe
Mainland China did that. Mao called for people to express themselves — Let a thousand flowers bloom was the slogan. They who voiced themselves in boisterous dissent just became that much easier to identify. Pinag-huhuli ang mga maiingay who were duped into introducing themselves.
Huwang lang kakalimutan na you’re not in Kansas anymore, mister Gene my tocayo. Writing behind pennames has benefits. Besides, hindi ba u want da audience discuss and argue at the idea you propose, not if u r bald or are pilantod?
Mike H,
I am not bald and I am afraid to ask my wife for the definition of pilantod.
hahahaha
Yes, writing behind pen-names allows the writer the latitude to fictionalize, play devils advocate, say things he would not say as “hisself”, and otherwise stir up trouble without the neighbor getting pissed and shooting him.
I hear that happens in this part of the woods.
Joe
Thanks, Lila. I wish I could write as clear and straightforward as you do.
Anyway, you said that “In the end, try as we might, we all exhibit some degree of subjectivity in all our choices and in what we do.”
We really do. I suppose our subjective view of human nature determines our beliefs or value system and how we behave towards other people or, more relevantly, our vision on how our society and government should be organized and how to offer solutions to the many infirmities that afflict them.
What we should guard against however is the implicit “normalizing” of certain beliefs or values for the benefit of specific groups so that they are safely unquestioned. That’s where exchanges like we are having become invaluable serving as they do as public cross-examination to expose biases, pretenses, vacuity and as you noted sheer generalizations. This jibes moreover with what you also hold that “criticism is inherently valuable because we desperately need to look at things in rigorous ways.”
And you ask: “when u say ‘the state,’ which set of power brokers r u actually addressing?”
I actually subscribe to your Uncle Ed’s diagnosis.
FVR said: The Philippine state is still too weak to prevent politically influential parsonages, families and clans from using their privileged access to the machinery of the government to bend public policy and implementation to their purpose.
This is how I reacted to the foregoing statements of FVR employing Patrick Kennon’s formulation of private sector-political sector-bureaucracy triad:
Yes, Abe, I agree. In fact, the word “elite” can be so messy because the political elite can be a very distinct set of people from the economic and social elite. They can also have a very distinct set of interests. Of course, their agendas can often co-mingle, but it can also be argued that they tend to diverge on many occasions. Naturally the economic elite calls the shots in the end, but this is not to say that there is no resistance to them… For instance, some of my wealthier Chinese friends (I went to a Chinese school as a kid) r backing at least two or three political candidates this season. That’s pretty unheard of for many folks in the political elite!
And then there r people like the Villars who were economic elite and gain positions of political influence, which is when u observe a pretty serious conflict of interest…
So, yes, specificity, above all. Thanks again!
Some Pinoys abroad have dual citizebships. some have brothers, sisters,
fathers, mothers, relatives, etc…back in the Philippines. They are
all extended families. You cannot prevent Pinoys from abroad from giving
opinions and being nosy about how the country is being governed.
Overseas Filipinos will always have a say in the governance of their
country.