Beyond the grade: A letter to students

A letter made by my Philosophy Professor in light of the events today. A must read.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Photo by me during relief operations last September 30

To Our Dearest Students,

With the release of your class standing this week (either in this board or in your classes), we are freeing most of you from your academic obligations so that you will be free to do your moral ones.

Last week was a time of great pride for all Ateneans. As soon as the flood waters rose to calamitous proportions, we as a community responded with great generosity. By the thousands we came, you most of all, to respond to the need for relief of those whose lives were brought to a painful halt by the floods. So many of you and so much of your energies were gathered in doing good when and where it was most needed. If there is anything that will most genuinely mark our being Ateneans in this Sequi year we celebrate, it is you passing bags and sorting clothes despite your own worries and pains. If only for that, I can say my work has a meaning.

Now that we are freeing you from your academics, we are calling you to continue that quiet heroism that you exhibited last week. When the floods rose, homes were ruined, the foundations of many lives lost, and psyches were hurt. Beyond being a time for relief, this is a time for rebuilding. Our task now is harder and costlier than relief, and that is why such a drastic step was taken by the VP and the deans. They have faith that if you are free to respond you will rise to the call of the moment.

This past week, I have heard many comments about how it might have been a mistake to let go of you this way. Some people said that not too many of our population were affected and that we should just have moved on and not lingered in this drama. I don't agree at all: 150 faculty, staff and maintenance personnel and 1000 students were directly hurt by this. Multiply that to the many more who are disturbed by their worry and concern for those among the hurt that
they love. I would say that this is a substantial number of our population.

I heard from some that if we let you go, most of you will just go back to your malls and your computers. But this is what I say to that: "I have been teaching in this university for 20 years and I know that it's probable that many of you will do just that. However, we need to free the energies of the responsible ones among you to come to the aid of our Ateneo family." Certainly we will lose many to cyberspace and the malls, but I believe that more will come with shovels, notebooks, ideas, and energies to help the wounded realize that there is life after the flood.

One remark I got was that we are babying you by absolving you of any more academic obligations. We should teach you to be tough by pushing you to persevere with your duties despite the hurting. The truth is that we are not babying you but challenging you to be strong enough to be able to rise to your higher duty the infinite responsibility for the other.

And so our dear students, with the posting of these grades we free you. Know that your philosophy teachers have faith in you--that without reluctance or doubt, we let you go to respond to the call.

Be safe and come back next semester with the wisdom you will gain in the lessons ahead of you.


Love,


Agustin Martin G. Rodriguez
Chair
Department of Philosophy

First world does not mean leading the pack

After watching the documentary "Who killed the Electric Car" for IR class a while ago, I came to realize an important thing about First World countries, that they are not necessarily leading the pack.

Take the US on it's take on electric vehicles. A great potential for the future, electric cars is a viable solution to the perennial problem on gasoline, emissions, and oil crisis. California's idea of having electric vehicles (examples of this are the GM EV1, the Honda EV Plus, the Ford Th!nk, and many more) was a good way of addressing the problem. People were liking the idea of it. Launched in the late 1990's (around 1996), it was a revolutionary idea. Up until it's elimination and destruction of these electric cars in 2003 to 2005.

It was a sad and stupid idea for the US to eliminate this budding solution to environmental problems. Japan has been in the progress of further developing these electric vehicles back in the early 1990's (if I remember clearly, it was 1992 when Japan presented to the world the electric vehicle), and Japan is still in a progress of developing this technology (which is very evident with the recent popularity of Toyota's Prius hybrid vehicle). How about the US? Because of pressures from consumers, oil companies, and the government itself, the electric car was killed by the United States. So sad.

Looking this in a liberalist perspective, the US' move to eliminate these potential ideas was because of the persuasion and pressure it received from pluralist groups, such as the CARB (California Air Regulation Board), Petroleum and oil companies, some consumers, and even the Automobile industry themselves. Claims of dubious zero emissions of these vehicles, plus a low demand for these vehicles killed the electric car. Such persuasions caused by conflict forced the government to cooperate with pluralist groups by going in what they want, which bred to the upsurge of these big, gas-guzzling vehicles, such as the Hummer.

The consequence, in my opinion, is that the US dug its grave deeper. A couple of years later, the recession hit the country, prompting their citizens to sell their gas-guzzling cars because of surging oil prices, and worse, people were losing jobs, and the US started to be in deep shit, that despite President Obama's efforts to stabilize the US economy, it was a problem that will take time to solve.

In the end, I think US' decision on killing the electric car proved to us that first countries are not necessarily to be leading the pack. In fact, when it comes to such technology, Japan is doing far much better than the US, that they sell the Prius not just in Japan, but in the US and in the Philippines as well (During my trip to the US in 2007, around 10% of the cars I saw there were Priuses, and in the Philippines, there is still an experimental run on putting the Prius into market). In this aspect, the US made a significant lapse in decision-making that created a chain reaction of events to them and their citizens.

The end of rivalries? I doubt.

During Cory Aquino's wake at the Manila Cathedral, among one of the main issues there was the visitation of the Marcoses and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo herself. The Aquinos accepted the visitation of Bongbong and Imee Marcos, but somewhat was "cold" upon GMA's short 7 minute visit to the wake.

In my opinion, there seems to be a problem with this, epsecially with media's portrayal of it.

First, let's dwell with the Marcoses. Ok granted they have visited the wake of Cory, with the Aquino siblings confronting Imee and Bongbong, does this mean that the rivalry has ended, as how media portrays it? In my opinion, I think this is just a partial ending to the rivalry. The bigger part of the rivalry is still missing. For me, if the rivalry has truly ended, then Imelda Marcos, the first lady of the dictator, should have visited at least. Did she paid her last respects to Cory? As far as I know, she wasn't there at the wake, save for her daughter Imee and her son Bongbong. There's still some unresolved conflict behind it.

How about GMA? Well we all know that she did cut her trip short in order to visit the wake of Cory. People were cold about it. Media portrayed it in a cold way as well. Well yeah, GMA used to be an ally of Cory during People Power 2, up until the election fraud issues that GMA had in 2005, starting with the Hello Garci scandal. Not that I am Pro-GMA or Anti-GMA (I'm more of neutral when it comes to this), but at events like this, politics should step aside. GMA did have the freedom to visit or not to visit Cory's wake. She decided to do the former, and we should not politicize or be cold about it. If we are talking about sincerity issues here, well at least GMA did made a short visit amidst issues about her and the conflict she has between her and the Aquinos.

The point here? GMA did made a last-ditch effort to fix up her reputation by paying respect to the late president, and even offering a state funeral (which the Aquinos declined). Behind all the numerous issues behind her, the latest being her supposedly last SoNA, she still paid respect to a political figure that became her rival after the 2004 elections. In my opinion, GMA somewhat did something right for once as she made an effort to visit the late president. I'm not saying that the rivalries are over, but the good point here is that rivalries are set aside for this particular event.

How I wish Imelda Marcos visited and also paid her last respects to the woman behind People Power 1.

An illusion of superiority

All of us are scared of North Korea. Armed with powerful nuclear weapons, the United States considers them as a threat. Despite that, does North Korea present a powerful, domineering force that all of us think of? I beg to differ.

Through the documentary "Holidays in the Axis of evil" one may perceive that North Korea, being on the talk when it comes to nuclear weapons and their "great leader" Kim Jong Il, is of a supremely evil state, who is against practically everyone. Heavily guarded, the host of the show had to comply with numerous rules before entering the North Korea proper. There was no forms of communication, whether it may be television, internet, or telecommunication. North Korea is depicted here as a place of isolation.'

Upon entering the North Korea proper, it is noticeable on how North Korea exemplifies communism: People wearing same clothes, working at different tasks, and have a great honor to their "great leader". Their book stores in fact sell only books talking about their "great leaders" in various versions and languages. Their museums are all about their victories and conquests against other states, particularly the United States. In their exhibits, they even have the axe they used to kill hundreds of Americans, and a Naval ship that they took from the United States because of espionage issues. Even their military bases and monuments of the great leader are heavily guarded by soldiers, who dedicate their lives on fulfilling this task.

On these initial observations, it is clear that North Korean residents have a very high sense of Nationalism to the point that they look up to their leader, Kim Jong Il and Kim Il Sung as their gods. Their approach towards nationalism hence is very radical when you would compare streamline nationalism in other countries.

Yet, how come North Korea seemed to be not threatening to the world, given the observations made throughout the documentary? Are we being brainwashed by the elite countries about what is North Korea? Frankly speaking, this whole issue on North Korea can be seen in two perspectives.

In the first perspective, North Korea, being a state that is inferior to that of the elite states such as the United States, would have a hard time to compete against them. The solution to their insecurity? Brain wash the citizens, make them honor the leader, promote communism through the principle of every North Korean Citizen working for North Korea, and the like. Hence in this manner, even if North Korea is not exactly that strong (the evidence of communal life presents to us that they are not as technologically advanced as other countries), they create an illusion that they are threatening through the use of communism. Why illusion? First, the people are not as fit as those from the United States. Second, they rarely talk about Kim Jong Il and his condition (sources say that he's critically ill, but given North Korea's isolation to the world of media, this can not be assured as well). Third, they are not technologically advanced! But since the people believe that they can win no matter what, this strategy that North Korea implies results in a high morale among its citizens, having deep faith in themselves that they can win no matter what.

In the second perspective, we can see this as the United States refusing to give away its reputation as the most powerful state to a country like North Korea. The United States, in fact, can be likened to the master who refuses to step down of its power. The United States as well is the one who has the lust and greed for power, not the states that they perceive as "most evil". Hence, they are insecure in the sense that they don't want to lose that power and domination. The solution? Threaten North Korea, gang up on the state (with the help of other elite states), and do "peace talks" with the North Koreans. Again, this is the US' coping strategy to ensure them of their domination (which they actually do the same thing for China, Russia, and other "threatening states")

So what does this show us? Countries have the greed for power. They don't want to be overthrown by other countries. As a response, they create and attempt to execute actions in order to balance that power. In the end, this war on domination can be seen with the phrase "fight to the death", through employing different strategies, both active and passive, violent and non-violent.

The harsh reality

I remember the story of Jonas in the book The Giver , wherein as he was given the role of the giver, a role only given to a selected few in their community, Jonas was exposed to the harsh reality, which is far from what seemed to be an ideal and perfect community.

Just like him, as kids we would be happy with the world around us, but as we grow older, we are slowly become exposed to the painful realities in society. Presently, it would be our current government system.

Grabbing the news from my friends like Kurt and Omi, I was angered at what happened to the nuns, priests, farmers, and supporters of CARPER. Treating people through the means of threatening the rejection of the CARPER and water cannoning the protesters shows the arrogance of the senate and congressmen towards the issue. I'd bet that they are not discussing about CARPER but instead they are discussing all about Hayden Kho and his promiscuity (which 1) is pure bullshit, 2) has no political relevance, and 3) is not of importance as compared to national issues). Seeing our country act like this saddens me.

Even coming from a middle class family, I am infuriated with where our taxes go. AND THEY GO TO PROSTITUTES LIKE KATRINA HALILLI AND NOT ON THE IMPROVEMENT OF EDUCATION AND ROADS!? Screw you congress and senate. You guys are just wasting the people's money over your selfish desires.

How I wish the reality could still be changed.

How a spark became fire

In light of the ongoing events of what is currently happening to the Ted Failon case, I have some things to point out.

1) Inconsistency. The primary problem here is the mere fact that all the evidences pointing to the crime are simply not connecting to each other. Ted said that he rushed home after his Radio program and saw the body of his wife bathing in blood. The police think that Ted went back home and supposedly shot his wife in the head, wiping off the bloodstains with the help of their helpers and drivers. Also, what the police did not consider is the fact that the wife was brought to the hospital, which should explain something significant.

2) All about the fame. For crying out loud, the Ted Failon case is like any other suicide / murder case out there. The only difference? Ted Failon's famous, and we all know what the media would usually like to selfishly present to its audience, and that is the "woah Ted just killed his wifey OMFG" issue. Nasa pera lang iyan. Where there is a lot of money, that's where the media goes. And I bet a million pesos that there would not be such a diverse publicity if it the crime involve some poor Filipino who killed his wife because of financial problems.

3) The politics. I've been hearing stuff that the supposed motive of Ted killing his wife is because Ted was making ligaw (sorry for the conyo-way of writing) to Korina, who we all know is the fiance of Presidential candidate Mar Roxas. And what does that tell us? Most probably it is GMA putting all the dirt and controversies straight into Mar's face so that he would not win in the upcoming 2010 elections. Again, it is dirty politics playing a role in the world of Philippine politics. Even if we know of Mar's honesty and integrity, it just happens that he has haters out there who are willing to do anything just to stop him from getting a significant position in the government. And again, it's all about the corruption that is going through an endless cycle within our Philippine politics, where people would go through the shortcut of things and step over other people in order to gain their selfish desires.

4) Reign of the outlaw. The maids, the driver, and relatives of the Failons were arrested by the police, dragged away from their homes, without any warrant to them. What do you call that? Where is the law then if the lawmakers themselves are the outlaws. This is not far and different from the shooting incident at EDSA a couple of weeks ago, where policemen shot down suspected car nappers down to the bone (meaning shooting them down until they are sure that the supposed car nappers are dead). What does this tell us about our police officers? One of my classmate commented the corrupt spending of the PNP, where they would scrimp on gear used for getting evidence (ie. cameras for use in photographing evidences) and spend a lot on unnecessary and excessive stuff (ie. gas for the patrol cars who you would rarely see roving around the metropolis). Also add to the fact that they are the ones involve with red tape and stuff like that, it comes to a point that we would even doubt our Police system here in the Philippines.

It's a sad story, but at the same time an annoying one. How can we expect significant changes if such corrupt acts are not tolerated? How can we be sure that justice is given fairly? How can we ensure the honesty and integrity of not just the police officers and officials involved in the case? A lot of questions can be asked about this single case.

Let's just hope justice is FAIRLY served.

Three unexpected partners: Zoe, Bios, and the Homo Sacer

What makes a beauty of Giorgio Agamben’s depiction of the homo sacer (in English, sacred man) is the fact that even if the said individual is condemned by the state to death, wherein anyone can kill him, he is at the same time forbidden to be sacrificed. The beauty of this, in contrast to Michel Foucault’s biopolitics, is that Agamben goes back to the classical Greek politics of Aristotle, wherein life is distinctively different into two terms, which is the zoe and the bios.
The zoe is referred to life in general, as life is an essential part of man, that man should know how to manage and live his life. On the other hand, the bios, as Aristotle said in his book Nicomachean Ethics, is the life that is desired in a city, which is the good life. The good life, hence, is the kind of life the city wants to share with the individuals who are a part of that state. Agamben’s separation of life into the traditional way, as opposed to Foucault’s biopolitics where the very essence of life is the source of political power, and hence invested with politics, is very clear to the people that there is a distinction of life, which was pointed out by Aristotle but Foucualt has neglected.
Going back to the distinction of the zoe and the bios, such distinction is made that in the bios, a series of exclusions in the polis is involved, giving the zoe no involvement in politics. But although the zoe is excluded in the political sphere, which is here represented by the bios, it has been explicitly mentioned that the zoe is still, in one way or another, included within the bios. Although the bios is a privileged space that the zoe cannot be part of, it can still be seen that the inclusiveness of the zoe is still evident by the fact that a particular aspect of life is still respected in the polis. Even if the zoe, which can be likened to the aliens and outcasts of the polis, is excluded in being involved together with the bios, which is likened to the intellectual elites, middle class, and businessmen of that state, the inclusion of the zoe would still manifest to life in general as a basic structure to politics, similar to that of Foucault’s biopolitics.
But however, it must be clear that Agamben is pointing out the involvement of life with politics as different to that of Foucault’s biopolitics: Foucault makes no distinction of life in his definition of biopolitics while Agamben makes that distinction in his work on the homo sacer.
In contemporary times, the homo sacer can be likened to threats that are imposed to structures on a daily basis. As these threats, like the homo sacer, which cannot be sacrificed but can be destroyed, these threats are addressed by the sovereign through making ways or means in order to destroy that threat and at the same time maintaining the overall integrity of the state. In such manner, the use of power here is not for legitimization purposes but for emergency and critical situations, which is similar in matter in the formation of martial law in the Philippine constitution, wherein the threat becomes to strong for the traditional sovereign to handle, causing the government to make more use of the power it has to address that threat. In addition, the homo sacer cannot be likened to the bare life, the life where only the basic necessities that man needs for survival, as bare life does not have the sacredness the homo sacer has. Because of the sacredness of the homo sacer, of which bare life does not have, democracy is possible such that the homo sacer can be killed by anyone but at the same time contradicts it because of the fact that is sacred.
To understand the homo sacer much better, Agamben points out that he is not contradicting what is Foucault pointing out with regards to biopolitics; instead, what Agamben wants us to do is not to resist biopolitical power but to rethink the ethics behind it.
By rethinking the ethics means understanding the human body, specifically ourselves, as a limiting figure in terms of power. For me, such makes sense as the human body itself has its own unique limits. The human body is no invulnerable figure like that of a God; it is because of our limits that we can only do so much, and hence, the presence of the specialty system that Plato has pointed out in The Republic, as individuals have specialized jobs in order to benefit society the most. By understanding ourselves as limiting figures, we are able then to set the limits in society as well, creating what is to be called an ideal type of democracy: a type of political system that gives freedom to its people and at the same time sets just limits to maintain the integrity and equality of society.
Hence, the homo sacer, being a paradoxical figure of the state, is essentially a powerful figure, possibly more powerful than those individuals who make the most of being part of the bios. What makes the homo sacer powerful, despite its paradoxical function in the sovereign, is that it is a determining figure in the state, as despite its condemnation by the state and its mere exclusion to the bios, the homo sacer is still forbidden to be sacrificed by the state, as the state that desires for the bios has still respect for the zoe as well.

Sex was never boring

Among the several theories that may seem easy but is complicated to understand is on the whole notion of sexuality and the politics of gender as for many years, there have been debates on the domination of the female gender or the male gender in various fields. Such was formed out of the female’s desire to gain equal treatment as compared to the male gender; hence the birth of Feminism.
However, the whole notion of Feminism is widely debated, with different beliefs and notion of what is the source of the problem that the phallic remains superior. Feminism is divided into four groups, that is liberal feminism, socialist feminism, radical feminism, and postmodern feminism. All four have clear points, but however, all four of them have loopholes, thus, making their beliefs problematic.
First, let us discuss liberal feminism. In this type of feminism, the main objective it wants is for women to be given rights and ultimately, to work like men. It is good in the sense that it addresses the problem of the legal system being too much in favor of men, but it is still considered to be problematic in the sense that it does not totally address the equality issue properly as their argument would end up with women being identified as men and not as women, which was addressed with the postmodern feminism.
As for socialist feminism, the problem with the economy is addressed through the payment of the wife, who would stay at home to take care of the child, for her duties in forming and rearing the child so that it grows up to be of good use in society. The problem here is that there is no basis on how the wife should be paid, and that it makes love and commitment a commodity, of which cannot happen. In the end, what social feminists are doing to women is that women are treated as a “necessity” for men and society, hence further stripping women of their rights, which liberal feminists were able to address.
Radical feminism takes steps a bit “beyond borders” as it sources the problem at the physical characteristics of the woman. As a resolution, radical feminism aims to create a woman dominating structure through going beyond the body of the woman and creating a reversion of the roles of the male and the female, which is problematic because first it creates a overly dominating woman sphere, and second, their beliefs are just as problematic as that of liberal feminism as the reversal of identity is the same as distorting the identity of the woman into that of a man, which for me is the primary reason why radical feminism is the most problematic of the four types of feminism discussed.
As for postmodern feminism, in my opinion this has to be the least problematic and easiest to understand form of feminism as it properly addresses the identity of women properly through the reformation of women’s way of writing as stories with broken narratives and illogical sequences rather than writing in a phallocentric manner like how men would write, having stories following a single climactic scene. It is similar with radical feminism but it addresses the identity of women in a more rational way.
In light of the issue of sexuality, Michel Foucault, in his book The History of Sexuality, further goes in depth about sexuality, giving the notion of understanding sex as the master explainer behind everything. In his book, he made a clear, elaborated point that even if the Victorian era made an emphasis that sex was considered a taboo and must not be talked about in public, while at the same time people are the more tempted to talk about sex in private, a result of the repressive hypothesis, Foucualt said that sex was never repressed in the first place. The repression issue was just an illusion for people to comply.
In addition, Foucault wants us to understand that such is being done in order to make sex of something useful and productive in society, just in the same light of the birth of the prison as a form of punishment in his other book, Discipline and Punish. Through the use of power, the state has found a way in making the use of sex as “productive” through various sources of power such as the Christian pastoral, the field of medicine, and the like. For the former, as pastors act as shepherds, their role is to be a consultant to the confessor at the confession box, resulting with the confession box as a box wherein the individual asks help in order to improve his/ her sex life, thus giving the pastor the power to “discipline” the sexual desires of the individual.
The rationale behind the “trimming” of sexual practices is in order for the state to first manage the population well and second, in order to prevent individuals from the state to practice unorthodox sex, such as necrophilia, pedophilia, bestiality, and the like. Hence, the objective of repressing sex is to trim the extreme aspects of sex, as there is a multiple center of production, of which Foucualt points out as the general problem of Feminism, as feminism tends to concentrate on one aspect wherein the role of gender involves multiple sources, hence the role and power of gender involving pluralistic sources of power.

Does the subaltern have rights?

As Gayatri Chakavorty Spivak imposed the question on whether the subaltern have the right to speak, I believe that the subaltern have the right to speak; they are able to air out their complaints through the higher classes. For me, the question should be rephrased with “Are the subaltern represented” to dwell deeper into the argument.
Starting off, we should understand that the subaltern Spivak is talking about here refers to not just the oppressed or the proletariat class, but instead she refers to everything in general that has limited or no access to cultural imperialism, which is not being part of a majority culture.
But to understand Spivak’s subaltern definition would need to be carefully dissected and analyzed as the subaltern is often being misused or misdefined by many people. In the context of what Spivak wants to point out about the subaltern, we will focus on the subaltern as not being addressed within the space of difference.
To start things off, let us analyze cases of subalternity that is happening within the world. First case in point: Orientalism. Edward Said explained in his book Orientalism that the rise of Orientalism is an effect of the heavy criticism of the west, or the Occidental, of the works made by the east, or known as the Oriental. In his argument, he explains that it is not because the works of the oriental is classified to be weaker and inferior to that of the Occident that would mean the Occident is considered to be superior over the Orient. Instead, Said elaborates that this is how the Orient is represented in the perspective of the Orient. Although the scope of Said’s study covers mostly the Arab countries, his conclusion on the Orient being inferior to the Occident. In understanding Orientalism, Said then pointed out that what is needed is a proper representation of the Orient countries from the perspective of the West, giving them an opportunity to air out their voices towards the West, and for the West to respond to them. To make things clear, the problem with Orientalism, as Said further explained, is not because of sheer discrimination, but it is more of a lack of representation that gives us our present notion on anything that is made within the Orient sphere. In fact, I would say that there are indeed works from the Orient that are much better than the Occident, such as the fact that the people who founded algebra was not from the West (the Occident), but the Orient (the east), and that person who founded it comes from the middle east.
Second case in point: colonized countries. One of the very observable things and characteristics on colonized countries is that through the domination of their colonizer to them, the colonized loses their representation as an independent state. Instead of being able to be heard and represented, what happens is that their representation becomes dependent to that of its colonizer.Hence, the colonized, through being controlled by its colonizer, loses its right to be heard by the public. Culture-wise, the domination of the colonizer, in one way or another, distorts the culture of the colonized as it infuses its values into the values of the colonized, of which the Philippines is a good example of it. After the Spaniards and Americans have colonized us, we have been greatly influenced by their values such that because of the effects of colonialism to our country, we tend to forget our original Filipino values and instead dwell more on the Western culture, such as TV shows like Gossip Girl, fashion, and music. As these continue to affect the colonized, the eventual outcome will be the loss of the identity of the colonized as it makes its identity related to that of the colonizer.
Third case in point: gender indifference. Feminism has pointed out the problem with society between the two genders, wherein it has been observed that the female gender has often been repressed by its limitation to contribute to society, such as in being leaders, in voting for elections, in educational attainment, and the like. In addition, a result of this is the lack of representation of the women from performing significant roles in society, and it is through Feminist theories that they were able to address the importance of the female gender in society, giving them the opportunity to speak, be heard, and represent along with the male gender. Although women representation is not fulfilled in all parts of the world, just as Spivak describes the Bengali woman in her work “Can the Subaltern speak?”.
Giving in consideration of these three related cases, I would say that the Subaltern should be given rights to be heard and represented, even if Spivak concluded that the subaltern cannot speak at all. Just like every human person, I believe that every person, even the poorest and the most oppressed, should have a voice and be represented into society. That way, they also get to establish their identity in society as they make themselves represented and heard by others.

Love and Politics: A harmonious relationship?

One of the topics that intrigues me a lot in the field of politics is the possibility of love being in a harmonious relationship with the field of politics. In our discussion about spacing desire, we have talked about how our desire for someone special becomes a present feeling within the space in between you and that special someone. As discussed, it is through that space that allows the existence of desire, but this becomes a problem in contemporary political theory as it is through transcendence that space is abolished, and it should not be the case in terms of love?
Why space should not be abolished in love anyway? The reason is plainly simple: in true love, a couple shows sincere love for each other if they understand and stage their differences towards each other. Even if they may have conflicting personalities, the fact that they understand each other is a good way of defining how space is well-addressed with desire for the other.
But unlike love, contemporary politics destroys that space by making everyone conform to a certain standard, and this is well-evident with communism.
Although communism addresses equality with the state, communism abolishes, however, the space as it gives no room for addressing differences towards each other, meaning there is no understanding between the elite and the commoner and the middle man; it is just a single class all alone within the state. The problem becomes worse as discussed by Foucault, as through making power relations subjective we are changing our discourses for discipline. The more we change our discourses, the more difficult for us to propose a solid, reliable, and usable alternative to improve society.
Having said that, the downfall of contemporary political theory as compared to classical political theory is the fact that the differences between the classes of people within the state are eliminated such that the ultimate objective of contemporary political theory is creating a classless society, where everything is universal and uniform. Such thinking eliminates the hierarchy of the state, which plays an essential role as discussed in Plato’s The Republic, as people have their respective roles, and that they cannot be do-it-all people, one-man bands, or a Mr. Handyman.
In my personal opinion, love and politics can be related to each other in harmony if we talk about it in terms of classical political theory, where classes and hierarchies exists. In classical political theory, differences are well-addressed through the presence of political masks as Machiavelli discussed in The Prince, and the existence of a mysterious creature called the Leviathan in Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan. During these era of political theory, differences were addressed well in a hierarchal fashion, wherein the public sphere gains control of the law, as these classes conform to rules made by the public and the presence of an unknown entity that people fear the most, thus presenting stability in the state through these laws made by the public for the individual to follow. As the individuals have laws to follow, love can therefore be related to the classical form of politics as the differences between the various classes in the sate, from the elite all the way to the common masses, are addressed through the formation of laws for everyone to comply.
Now going to the modern context, of the likes of Marx and Foucault, the notion of love and politics being able to live together in harmony is destroyed as it treats the human soul as if it were just a part of a never-ending cycle of history that goes on and on. The progression seemed to be not as much as the progression seen through classical times. As evident with Foucault, the use of power relations as means of forming the individuals hence destroys the harmonious relationship of love and politics because instead of an understanding nature where people would be focus on addressing the differences between them, the situation being presented in the contemporary context shows an image of a person who is on top saying “follow my orders or I have you killed” kind of thinking. There leaves no room for any form of change or proposed alternative in improving society. In addition, it has to come always from the laws made from the private sphere and not from the public sphere, as represented through classical political theorists.
Hence, going back to the debate on whether love and politics can go together in a harmonious relationship or not, I believe the answer is a big no given the context of contemporary political theory as it destroys the most important part of desire, which is the space within that desire. Without space, there is no room for change nor room for correction. Through eliminating change we are left with creating various discourses without proposing a concrete alternative to change society. Imposing classless societies and the panopticon as a basis for discipline shows to us our refusal to address our differences towards each other and hence, becoming selfish, which is never the point of true love.

The panopticon and Orientalism: the bridge

One of the very noticeable things that have been observed for the past decades is the constant discrimination of the west to eastern culture, or to make things simple, to a culture of Orientalism. Because of this certain form of discrimination, what is happening to the East culture now is that they have this tendency to be over-influenced by the Western culture, and this is very evident in our own country.
In the Philippines alone, it is evident of how we are overly influenced over the American culture: the preference for McDonalds over Jolibee, Starbucks over Figaro, Levi’s over Bench, and many more countless examples. Also, this mentality that we have possessed affects us Filipinos such that we think very low on ourselves and on our abilities to make world-class products. Our basis of having world-class products are based on how the Americans do it.
This is how capitalism makes the world go round; like the panopticon that Michel Foucault has discussed in his book Discipline and Punish, the panopticon monitors every prisoner it has within the complex such that each prisoner is very conscious of his actions. Going back to the panopticon, the structure of it is circular, with the watchtower located at the center of the circle and the prisoners’ cells are arranged in a way that the watchtower and the person inside the watchtower can see everyone inside the structure, evaluating their every move inside their cells.
The same applies to the Orientalism that Edward Said has presented to us. In his discussion on Orientalism, Said points out that because of the domination of the Western culture over the Eastern culture, a bias was developed that the works from the Western culture are deemed to be superior over the works of the Eastern culture; hence, causing the Eastern culture to conform to the standards of the Western culture to maintain a status of superiority.
Due to the non-recognition of the Eastern works of the Western culture, the competition of the best work, in the literary, movie, scientific, medical, and in other various fields has become always towards to the western culture, of which would not be the case all the time since there are Eastern works that are proven to be greater than those of the Western works, but are, unfortunately, not recognized.
The panopticon, therefore can be applied in a larger, more global scale with the discussion of Said on Orientalism. From our previous discussion of the panopticon, we have said that it is applicable in the Philippine setting as we are given the norms of what it means to be “in” at the fashion scene, and on what it means to be ideally beautiful through the constant persuasion of the capitalists to the masses by telling them to buy their products so that they can be accepted into the societal norm.
Being able to maximize the effect while minimizing the costs, the panopticon concept makes the most of what is expected from the prisoners, which is to make the prisoners docile enough so that he can be productive and of use to what society needs from him. As the prisoner becomes conscious of his acts, he is then trained and exercised to become beneficial and hence, become a norm of society.
As for Orientalism, the application of the panopticon concept is very applicable such that it promotes monopoly on a global basis through removing the competition between the West and the East, making the East docile enough to adapt to Western culture and beliefs, and thus the Western people make the Eastern people docile enough so that they can be of greater use for the West, and hence, creating monopoly on a global scale.
Yet, although the panopticon concept can be well integrated into Said’s Orientalism, there still remain one distinct difference: the panopticon makes the prisoners docile enough for the benefit and for the good os the society, while Orientalism on the other hand makes the Eastern culture docile enough for the benefit of the Western culture, which then arise to racial discrimination.
This, therefore, is the problem of Orientalism that Edward Said wants to point out.
In his work, he emphasized that what is needed to be corrected is that that Western culture should understand that the Eastern culture is not to be considered an inferior culture as both cultures have their unique traits. For Said, it does not mean that what the Eastern culture believes is different from that of the Western culture does not necessitate that the Eastern culture is inferior to that of the Western culture. After all, the Western culture has its good and bad sides.
With this in mind, I believe that although the panopticon is a very useful concept for reforming convicts and prisoners to make them useful to society, the application of the panopticon has its limits, as it is evident with the rise of Orientalism and the West’s discrimination over the East.

Someone is watching over your whole self

As Michel Foucault discusses on the panopticon, one would try to imagine that the panopticon, as Jeremy Bentham conceptualize in 1785, as a place that is best equated to the modern prison. Examples of this would be that of the Muntinlupa prison here in the Philippines.
And yet, one fails to see that the concept of the panopticon can be seen beyond the image of the prison. In fact, there are a lot of good examples of panopticon-structured places, like malls, hospitals, and even your typical school.
The idea of the panopticon was to ensure that the inmates who are within the system will assume that they are always being watched by the watchguards, even if there are times that there are no watchguards actually guarding the panoptic structure.
Because the panopticon is structured such that it sees everyone, this then gives a double edged sword for both the watch guard and the inmate. It benefits the watchguard such that he has a view of practically everyone within the structure, making his guarding duties much easier. On the other hand, this pressures the inmate as he / she cannot determine if he is being watched by the watchguard of his / her acts, making him unable to do whatever act he / she would desire to do.
In the modern context, the panopticon gives an internalization of the gaze by us being succumbed through all of the advertising materials made by the capitalist society. This internalization of the gaze can be seen in quite a number of examples, of which some of them are actually common to the everyday, normal, typical person.
The first case to be discussed is on clothing. Basically, the essence of clothing is to protect our bodies from the harsh particles, from the bad weather, from germs, and the like, which would mean that as for basic clothing all we need is just something to cover our bodies. But in a capitalist perspective, the big companies actually dictate to the human what is in for a particular season in the field of fashion, what is out, what is hot, what is not, what is cool, what is the fad. Because of the existence of “fashion watchdogs”, the typical everyday consumer is then pressured to conform to these standards as he / she perpetually assumes that someone is looking at his / her choice of clothing. Because of this constant watching over him / her, the person would try to avoid such criticism by choosing the good clothes.
An analogy to this is that for example in buying a pair of pants, since the consumer would like to be in and fashionable with his / her friends, that person would have a tendency to buy a pair of pants from Zara or Levi’s, of which costs around three thousand pesos, rather than buying pants from Jag or Bench, in which their pants would not even reach the one thousand mark. The point here is that since the person is being conscious of the kind of clothes he / she would buy, that person would buy a branded one that is suppose to be “more fashionable” than other brands; hence, this creates the continual flow of capitalism in our country. Even if the pants of Bench is similar in terms of function as compared to the pair of Levi’s, the consumer would spend two thousand pesos more for the sake of trying to be “in”, and to prevent any criticism from his / her peers.
The second case would be in terms of beauty. With the advent of beauty critics, people tend to strive for the ideal beauty: white skin, thin and lean structure, straight hair, white and straight teeth, perfect nose, perfect butt, perfect bosom (for the girls) and the like. As a result, the capitalist community respond to the needs of the masses for the ideal beauty through the advent of whitening creams, metathione pills, diet pills, and forms of cosmetic surgery like breast and butt augmentation, face lift, liposuction and many more. As the people, the masses., become more conscious of their overall appearance as they are being “watched” by watchguards, thus pressuring the masses to have a take on these beauty services in order for them to be accepted in society and in order for them to avoid further criticism. For example, if a person knows that he / she’s fat, that person will avail of liposuction services in order to be accepted into society and not be discriminated by their peers as well. If their peers would criticize them for having dark skin, the consumer will find his / her way on how to have a fairer skin, regardless of the cost of having the skin whitened or the cost of taking metathione pills.
If you would come to think of it, the whole panopticon idea of having these watchdogs monitoring inmates and inmates being paranoid that they are being watched is best exemplified with the big brother principle first evident with the advent of Totalitarianism, wherein the phrase “Big Brother is watching you” entails to the people fearing big brother, and thus being more careful of their acts.

It's time to throw pies at her. Again

*I just visited the website of our home organization (The Assembly) today, and little did I know that one of the stuff that I wrote was published. So, here is the article.

(sourced from here)

As President Macapagal-Arroyo’s immunity to impeachment complaints come to an end recently this October, it seems like the opposition, especially those who are against her, seem to be throwing their evil spells against the recently-vulnerable president.

And now that the president is finally vulnerable with impeachment complaints, here goes the opposition, doing all the things possible to oust the president. Is it a wise and worthy decision? Well not really, in what I am seeing now.

There are several factors that I oppose to such ouster of our current president. First of all, each impeachment complaint would mean and demand a lot of funds from the people who will complain, and given the fact that the whole world is suffering from a financial crisis, with the financial sector of the United States collapsing and going into a recession, getting funds would seem to be not easy. Well not unless the opposition makes a shortcut, that is, through corrupt ways like using the people’s money for their selfish desires of ousting the president where in fact I do not think people would like such idea. If ever they would do such, this would just result into a greater chaos, where people would go against these opposition members who have used every citizen’s hard-earned money for going against the president.

Second, impeaching the president is a stupid idea, considering that the elections are coming near already. Could the opposition bother to even wait it out instead of wasting precious money on impeachment complaints? Seriously, impeaching her prior to the elections plus the financial crisis the world is facing? I do not think that would sound really good to an ordinary citizen like me. For me, it is inappropriate for the people to launch such attempt at the premature way; it would be in fact better to just let the president do the best that she can possibly do in the next one or two years she has left. We all know that she has made a significant number of mistakes recently, like her recent approval of executive pardon to the cold-blooded murderer Claudio Teehankee Jr., but in my opinion, her last one or two years as president of the Philippines would be just enough (assuming she uses her remaining years wisely) for Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to make up for her mistakes.

I’m not being pro-Arroyo (nor am I anti-Arroyo), but for me, she has made both good things and bad things. We cannot say that she is corrupt per se, but let’s just give her a chance. Think of it this way: we all made good and bad deeds as well, right? So why impeach the president anyway.

And lastly, by impeaching the president prior to the elections would mean that our government will be the one to choose the replacement for Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as she is impeached. This indeed becomes unjust to the masses, the masa, as they once again lose their rights on selecting their leader / president through elections, which happened during the impeachment of Joseph Estrada during People Power two.

So if I were the opposition, I would rather just sit down, chill and do things normally rather than standing up enraged and throwing pies at her simultaneously with other fellow opposition members. Let’s give her the last hurrah in her last years (hopefully) as president.

The Evolution of Punishment

When the word punishment comes into mind, I think of such a word as a tern that refers to the repression of certain privileges due to an unacceptable behavior. Punishment, in my own understanding, has been an important element towards reforming the person from his or her unacceptable behavior in society through the forms of repressed freedom, penalties, fines, and the like. But that was not the same form of punishment Michel Foucault has talked about in his book, “Discipline and Punish”, towards the first few pages.
Through reading the first few pages of Discipline and Punish, one can perfectly visualize the ancient way of punishment, and that is through a means of public humiliation and brutal, merciless, and slow death of the convicted. The description of such a spectacle during the medieval times may be very disturbing and bloody for the modern man like me, but such spectacle was for me the perfect execution of absolute and infinite power of the prince, the kings, and various leaders. This execution of power was able to present to its people the sense of discipline in the eyes of a prince. This imagery of the overwhelming power of the prince (or any leader during the medieval age perhaps) was the primitive form of punishment that has existed.
Imagine: breaking bones, burning hot pincers, beheadings, horse pulling, limb separations, burning bodies - these very graphic images were not of horror for the people back then, but more of a spectacle. It is like they do not care for the body of the convicted. It is like they do not fear God. It is like the princes are the God themselves. And yet this grand execution of power just showed how fragile it is at the same time; these grand representation of power can go down to the ditch. An example? When people would find out that their prince is useless. The overwhelming power of the Prince in this case can be destroyed or overcome by the people, leading to a great downfall to the prince.
And after decades of years, the definition of punishment has drastically transformed from a brutal, spectacular, majestic scene into a humane, static, and reformist scene.
Through the introduction of the prison, the brutal killings were stopped. The majestic power is gone. The people no longer see a fantastic spectacle of a ruthless death. Instead, we are now faced with the reformation of the human convict through going through a daily routine as he is deprived of his freedom, a cause for his unacceptable and immoral behavior in society. To make things simple, punishment in the modern sense has become a light of hope for the convict instead of a fatal nightmare, as represented with the spectacular death of Damiens the regicide in 1757. Eighty years after his spectacular death, the way convicts were punished became a time-table based way of punishment, where the officials reform the convicts instead of killing them publicly.
Sure the way convicts were punished became somewhat very bland and static, but I believe such change occurred for a reason. One main reason is that power is not absolutely strong and overwhelming at all. Through the existence of a time-table based schema for a prisoner’s daily life, the power of officials are re-channeled such that these officials realize after eighty years since Damiens’ death that these prisoners can actually do something less inhumane; simply speaking, I guess that the officials have a more merciful heart and soul as compared to before, that is why they had a one-hundred-eighty degree change on how they would punish the convicts.
Another plausible reason for this is that the rationale behind a time-based schema as a means of punishment is the fact that the objective of punishment was changed by itself: instead of eliminating the convicts and keep the state pure of immoral individuals, they instead insisted on correcting these individuals, which for me is the more appropriate part. Instead of killing them brutally, they are corrected through enclosing them in a protected area, where they have a daily set of activities, from waking up, eating lunch, attending class, praying, to even leisure time. Such time-based principle has helped the convict to reform himself and save himself from humiliation for his inappropriate acts at the same time.
As a result of this, reforming the convicts would mean for the leader better productivity of the state; through reforming them, they go back to society after serving a number of years in the prison, being able to be of help in the constant progression of the state and society.
This long duration of labor being implemented at the prison becomes like a purgatory for the convicts; they stay in this enclosed, heavily guarded area, they follow a certain schedule and a particular set of activities, and become reformed through education, interaction, and the like, coming down to a point wherein once they go out of the prison, they are a totally different person: a person who is no longer a convict but can serve society.

To forgive and forget?

The reign of totalitarianism has ended for many years now, but through critiquing the flaws and the terror totalitarianism has come into mind, the question to ponder with totalitarianism as being a part of history is on whether we should forgive and forget the existence of totalitarianism or not. Such an act seems to be very plausible in modern society, of which President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is the best example for such an act as she granted executive pardon to the ousted president Joseph Ejercito Estrada for his case involving plunder and corruption, among a long list of crimes committed by the ousted president. It may seem to be the ideal act, given in the context of the Christian Roman catholic Church, where we are taught to forgive our enemies for any wrong acts they have committed on us.
And yet this act is heavily debated when it comes to the case of the totalitarian government. Some people refuse to forgive and forget it, while others would prefer to simply forgive it and forget all about it. When asked about my opinion regarding the said debate, I would go for the former. But why be unforgivable to a type of government that has not even existed during the time I was born? Why be mad still at Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, and Lenin, even if they are dead already? Why should I support Arendt’s view of totalitarianism as an evil government, even if the real intention of totalitarianism was not meant to be as evil as how Arendt has pictured it?
First of all, we should put in consideration the very fact that the human being is by itself an historical being, meaning that by being historical, we all progress ourselves throughout the course of time, by learning the successes, failures, mistakes, and good decisions of the past. Having said that, I beg to disagree in forgetting the evil Totalitarianism has brought us in the books, the documentaries, and the testimonies of people who were a part of such reign of terror. Forgetting totalitarianism is tad amount to saying that totalitarianism was nothing, and that totalitarianism is something of insignificance to the human race. It is obviously not like you can make up for the millions of deaths it has occurred. I mean, even if Adolf Hitler’s descendants pay the Jews even a trillion dollars just to make the Jews forget the brutality of Hitler’s reign and in his effort in exterminating the Jews, the past is past; you can never pay up for the death of a human person
Second, we should not forgive totalitarianism because of the inhumanity it has caused to people, especially to the Jews. By the mere fact that totalitarianism is incomparable to any other form of government system that has ever existed and by the fact that totalitarianism has degraded the state of humanity is a clear, pinpoint indication that it should never be forgiven or forgotten as being part of history. Hitler may be dead, but that does not mean that we forgive him for his brutal acts. The same applies to the likes of Joseph Stalin and Pol Pot. These leaders, no matter what, have become perfect representations of abusive power and reigns of terror, that our descendants should hand down to their children and beyond. This era of terror should serve as a reminder of the flaws that man has made in an attempt to stabilize society.
Hence, although there have been recent criticisms on Hannah Arendt that she made the idea of totalitarianism purely evil in her own perspective, I guess she had every humanly possible right to do so, even if it may be right or wrong. First of all, she is a Jew, and seeing Germans brutally killing her race by itself can be very traumatic to a typical Jew like Arendt. If I were a Jew (realistically I am a Roman Catholic), I would do the same thing that Arendt has presented totalitarianism to my fellow Filipinos as well. How would you feel if a certain leader attempts to exterminate your race for no particular reason but just because of black propaganda? I myself would be perpetually infuriated by such an act. If it was possible, I would plan a counter-attack against the race of Hitler, doing the same brutal acts to his fellow people. But that is on the ideal perspective.
In the more realistic perspective, the rationale on why Hannah Arendt had to describe totalitarianism that is because she wanted the world, her audience, to see how injustice, racial discrimination, and dehumanization was done to a particular group of people, in her case, the Jewish people. By describing the horrors of totalitarianism, Arendt depicts to the audience that although the era of brutal killings and excessive racial discrimination has ended already, Arendt wants to serve this as a reminder of the mistakes committed in the past and through this she hopes that these mistakes should not happen again.
Hence, my rationale why I refuse to forgive and forget totalitarianism for what it has done and for what it has contributed in history is that what totalitarianism has caused should mark as a reminder that we should be careful with what we want in the progression of both history and humanity; going beyond human means could possibly destroy this important progression if we just forget about totalitarianism.

Totalitarianism: The surprising facts

Through re-analyzing the important points and view on Totalitarianism through Hannah Arendt’s book, The Origins of Totalitarianism, one can see many unexplored views on Totalitarianism that most of us would often misinterpret about.
Among the first essential points I would like to discuss here is the fact that the concept of a stateless society. One of the potentially dangerous things Totalitarianism has done is the fact that when it meant a socially equal society, it meant the removal of the identities of the human person, that is, the human person as being unique and different. In the case of Totalitarianism, it has transformed every human person into a mere big group of species. Resulting from the abusive power of Capitalism, as seen through Marxism,Totalitarianism likewise treats history as a perpetual process, revolving on the cycle between the totalitarian leader and the masses following the totalitarian leader blindly. Likewise, Totalitarianism is considered to be a part of modernity due to the exchange of roles of the public and the private sphere. Before, the public sphere in classical political theory is managed by the lawmakers while the private sphere is managed by the people of the state. In modern political theory, what happens is the the public sphere becomes the people, in the case of Totalitarianism, the masses, while the private sphere became the rulers, and in the Totalitarian aspect, the Totalitarian leader who has absolute control over the masses.
Like how Arendt discuss how Totalitarianism came about, we can look at Totalitarianism as being originated from Capitalism. How? Because in Capitalism, the main goal of it is to gain as much profit as possible with the least investment. Hence, Capitalism attempts to expand the overall power of the nation state, but what it has underestimated is the fact that this “stretching of power” has a certain limit; there will come a time wherein there are little to no possible ways of expanding the profit power of the nation state. As a result of this Imperialism was born.
Through Imperialism, the emerging capitalist nation state now then expands without any concern for territorial borders, capturing as many states as possible. Now because of this further expansion of the capitalist nation state to other states, the capitalist nation state would then give an illusion of helping the other states of their needs, yet in reality, this certain support the capitalist nation state can give would be only guaranteed to its people; hence, it does not give absolute protection to every state it captures since the capitalist nation state would not bother to protect nation-less states. The main priority of the capitalist nation state is always its people first.
As a result, the captured states are then absorbed to a bigger blob - that is, the capitalist nation state, and hence would result into the degradation of the people of these captured states into the mass man, wherein they are species being who do not belong to anywhere, which has been the case for the anti-semitism approach of the Nazi party during the rule of Adolf Hitler.
Another important point that is seen with Totalitarianism is the nature of the masses being discussed here. The masses here are being described into a feeling of uselessness - a result of the first point - and hence bringing the masses into a state of loneliness. What happens is that the totalitarian leader, through the power of propaganda, tries to “relate” to these masses, and hence persuading the masses to join his movement. What happens then is the masses becoming obedient blindly to the totalitarian leader, and because they are the followers of the totalitarian leader, they end up being dependent with the totalitarian leader.
Now what makes the totalitarian leader problematic? First of all, the problem with this is that the masses, which would amount to millions of people, end up trusting this sole human person leader they have when it comes to outside relations, giving the image of the totalitarian leader having control of one big blob, that with the one big blob, everyone should agree to it at all costs. In addition, because of the existence of mass movements being for the leader, criticizing the leader for his wrong decisions or flaws is now an impossible task since the mass movements are people who are brainwashed in the first place, and because they still remain powerless, the result of it becomes simple: the masses believe therefore that the leader is always right.
This does not mean therefore that because of this the totalitarian leader is absolutely powerful; it has its downfall as well. The major downfall of Totalitarianism, which is surprising, is its lack of ambition. Because of the totalitarian leader being “perpetually” right in away, this makes the leader himself not desiring for more as he has reached the end of the line. Also, because of the blurring between friends and career in a Totalitarian government, the leader therefore is torn apart, ending into an uncompromising desire.

Totalitarianism: The evil child

While learning about the principles behind totalitarianism, which is best associated with leaders like Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Vladimir Lenin, a quick and concise way of describing what totalitarianism is all about can be summed up with five words: Big Brother is watching you.
I am referring here to both the reality show and beyond it. In lay man’s terms, the idea behind a big brother society is simple: we stay in an isolated community, where we are voided of any contact from outside that state we live in, and every move we make is constantly being monitored by a certain person that the residents of that state should follow to. In this isolated community, every request and order the “Big Brother” says to the people must be followed or else they will face a certain consequence. Whatever “Big Brother” likes, his people should conform. This is how the reality show goes on.
In a totalitarian sense, the “Big Brother” show is indeed a less violent form of totalitarianism, since the real totalitarianism that we are talking about here, of which had its peak from the 1920s up to the 1940s, is that totalitarianism injects violence and fear to its people in order to make everyone in the state follow and supposedly “live in a stable environment”.
The real totalitarian government is not as simple as what “Big Brother” is doing in the reality show; instead, the totalitarian leader has total control (hence, a derivation from the root word or totalitarianism which is total, meaning complete and whole) over the whole state. In addition, when I mean total control here, I mean that the totalitarian leader has control from what he likes the media to show to the public to the days when certain activities, such as sports and entertainment, should be held. And not just that the totalitarian leader watches every move of the individual living in his state, he in fact forces each of the individual to not be unique and instead have every individual carry the same thought and beliefs all throughout every aspect regarding the state, which therefore discourages the formation of elite classes, middle classes, and lower classes in the state.
A classless society who think alike - that is what totalitarianism is all about. No one can go against the government, no one can say that the government is wrong, as the government is always right. No one can share ideas and innovation as it is forbidden by society. No one can have it their way; it has to be always in the favor of the totalitarian leader. What the totalitarian leader says must be followed. If the totalitarian leader does not like you, he can have you killed instantly; if he does, then good for you. The whole point of this? The individual becomes like a toy or pet of the totalitarian leader, where he can do whatever he would like. The totalitarian leader is a child - an evil child - that does brutal things to his toys and pets. This evil child does not care what happens to his toys or pets whether they get destroyed (in the case of the toys) or if they die (in the case of the pets); the important thing is that he is happy and satisfied.
The result with such? The people living in a totalitarian state become paranoid with their every move, with what they say, with what they do, and with what they know. They have been degraded from intellectual human beings into just mere species of animals with no intellect in the sense that the uniqueness of the human being, and its ability to reason, has been stripped out of them by the totalitarian leader. Because of this, people belonging to the totalitarian state act like robots, who follow orders unconsciously even if it is wring in the first place.
Hence, the idea behind totalitarianism resulted into pure horror to the human race. The degradation and the violence it caused has transformed the classless society of human beings into just a society of robots being governed by a lone “human” being. Instead of promoting equality in a peaceful way, totalitarianism forces people to be equal, robbing them of their basic rights as humans. For me, the ultimate flaw with totalitarianism is the fact that induces violence and that it gives overwhelming power to the said totalitarian leader, which in the end would still not lead to equality but instead would lead to injustice, making the totalitarian leader use up all his power to force people to follow him, creating an illusion of an “equal” society where in reality it is never equal.
Maybe through what totalitarianism has caused within our history, we should realize that although we would desire to have a equal society (as what Marxism and Communism desired in the first place), it is indeed ideal to form a equal society where justice is served properly, people are treated equally, and everyone is given basic human rights, but realistically such is an herculean task that will be really hard to accomplish, but nonetheless, we can still work it out to make society as equal as possible, but not in a violent way as what totalitarianism promoted.

A remedy, but not a permanent solution

Among one of the current conflicts within the principle of capitalism is the fact that given the ideal of the capitalist’s mind of thinking of higher profits with lower investments with their business, there will come a point wherein with all the efforts of the capitalist to increase the maximum profit of his business, from increasing work hours to replacing his men with machines, which are supposedly “more reliable and more efficient”, he will end up decreasing his total profit due to the abuse of the capitalist, as Karl Marx has pointed out with Marxism.
In the modern context of discussing Marx with its transition into imperialism, it is said and discussed in class that although Marx’s predictions were proven to be wrong by modern critics, his contribution to the world of modern political theory is nonetheless relevant in terms of criticizing capitalism and its problems towards human society. What makes Marx’s criticism of capitalism with Marxism relevant is that through pointing out the flaws of capitalism, much is remedied with regards to capitalism, thus preventing the flaws of capitalism to occur again. With this in mind, Marx actually made an effort in improving the state of capitalism though pointing out the flaws of it.
In addition, although the idea behind Marxism and Imperialism, which will be discussed later in this paper, leaves a radical impression of which is not totally new to the human being. That being said, the origin of being radical started even before Marxism has ever existed; in fact the radical approach can be rooted upon the early capitalism era, wherein the abuse of humanity prevails the most. As the radical approach is rooted upon capitalism, it is through this root, or primary cause, that the radical approach is used as a means of instigating a revolution, which is clearly seen with the birth of the French revolution. Likewise the instigation of a revolution has brought upon a progression through history, as mankind learns overtime from the good and bad points capitalism has caused. A good example of this is the existence of class struggle, as stated by Karl Marx, wherein because of a capitalist society, two clashing classes existed, which are the bourgeoise and the proletariats. Because of the oppression the bourgeoise does to the proletariats, the proletariats, through class struggle, work their way towards eliminating the bourgeoise class, which is among the key points in Marxism. Hence, the bourgeoise class, the capitalists, are the supposed “bearers of universal evil”, of which the proletariat class, the working class, has to work upon through propaganda to eliminate the evils of the bourgeoise lass, and eventually replacing capitalism. This occurred in the French revolution as the proletariat class manage to crush the bourgeoise class, which then leads us to the birth of imperialism.
Vladimir Lenin, a primary figure of imperialism said that through the abolition of the capitalist state and the creation of a new state, a state dominated by proletariats is therefore created after the elimination of the bourgeoise class and the capitalist. Through this, the state starts from scratch, and therefore reorganizes itself; as capitalism is replaced, it therefore replaces the modes, the means, and the cycle of production through a proletariat perspective. Although the idea of a state dominated by proletariats may seem good as there is no capitalists or anyone form the bourgeoise class controlling them, the idea of having a purely proletariat state can still become problematic. Despite that the proletariat is defined to be universal and progressive with our discussions in class, the problem that lies within the proletariat state is the problem of representation.
In the proletariat class, we should be aware that there are various divisions within the class and because of that it is hard to determine how to create representation, and in order to remedy this, the vanguard party is therefore formed. The vanguard party, of which represents a particular group of people from the proletariat class, exists so that the proletariat state can become stabilized and not end up in chaos, which could possibly result from the abuse of the newly-discovered freedom of the proletariat class. In the end, creating a proletariat state would not be entirely proletariat since the existence of a vanguard party being in the forefront of the proletariat state would mean that hierarchies would still exist and therefore abuses of power would still remain.
Although the conversion from a capitalist state into a proletariat state would be a great idea as it puts an end to abusive capitalists, it is not indeed a permanent solution to the proper distribution of power among the people, the proletariat class in particular, since it is realistically impossible to create absolute equality and absolute communal sharing in a proletariat community. The fall of communism in the early 1990s attest to this, as since a leader is still needed in a communist society, there are still possibilities of abuse, of which exists even with a capitalist society.

Let’s kill the Capitalist

Among the main topics discussed for this week’s session on Marx is about his principle of alienation through labor. Though the activity of labor itself, man has eventually become alienated through acting instead of a human into a mere robot at work. How come? In the capitalist society, everything is governed by these pieces of paper and metal objects called money. Through this, the relationship of the slave and master, basing it from the Hegelian philosophy, eventually becomes a relation between the slave, who is the worker, and the master, who is the capitalist, wherein money is the one that bridges between the two in a Marxian context.
Among the key points with regards to the Marxian philosophy is that 1) Alienation is the result of the labor of activity itself, and not the product of labor, 2) That in order to stop alienation we should do it through production and not consumption, and 3) The solution to the full freedom or emancipation of man is to abolish private property.
In the first two key points, the main reason why we should be targeting the production instead of the consumption is that alienation itself affects the worker more than the buyer or the consumer. Why?
Let’s analyze the work in a capitalist state; in a capitalist state, a worker is given a minimum wage for his daily labor of work by his boss, the capitalist itself. For this, I will use a hypothetical principle of manufacturing tables as an example. Provided that a worker works for a fixed rate of 50 pesos per hour, and works for 10 hours, he is able to make 5 tables in that span of that time period. So this should mean then that the worker can make a table in a span of two hours, and theoretically speaking, the table’s manufacturing cost is at 100 pesos. Given that he is able to make five tables, and works for ten hours, he then earns 1000 pesos on a daily basis. Now what does the capitalist do? In order to gain income, he sells the tables at double the price at 200 pesos per table, and while the capitalist can sell the 5 tables the worker has made during the day at a total of 2000 pesos, the capitalist ends up paying the worker only the minimum wage, which is 1000 pesos, for that particular labor. Where did the other 1000 pesos go? It went eventually to the pockets of the capitalist, and the other 1000 pesos that the capitalist kept is his profit from selling the tables, hence creating a surplus value with the tables the worker has made.
What makes this unfair then? It is the mere fact that the capitalist makes use of the worker as a commodity to his expanding business, such that by thinking of money, profit, and income, he dehumanizes the laborer by making him into a mere robot that does an automated task of manufacturing tables for the benefit of the capitalist and for the use of the consumers. Marx makes sense when he says that it is the laborer who gets alienated rather than the consumer. Although in one way or another the consumer becomes alienated since he is dictated by the capitalist to buy his products for various reasons (take in the marketing strategy of Apple’s iPods for example), it is still the laborer at the end who is deeply alienated at this modern, capitalist society since he becomes dependent with the work and the (unfair) pay he gets from his master the capitalist. Having said that, this causes the worker in the end to be powerless against the capitalist, his master, as he becomes a dependent entity of the master.
And we all know that in the capitalist society, capitalist always desire for a higher profit while at the same time, investing less. So how does the capitalist compensate for this given that he has given the maximum number of hours to work for the laborer and thew maximum number of laborers he can have in his company? The answer to that is the use of machinery to do the work. Since theoretically speaking the machine can do much more work than the laboring human in a fraction of a time, this then will give the most profit to the capitalist, of which he deeply desires.
In both cases, whether the laboring man is replaced by the machine or the laboring man is abused by the capitalist, you cannot remove the sense of exploitation in the capitalist society. If you use machines, you don’t address the means and needs for survival of the laboring human by not having him work. On the other hand, abusing the laboring man instead of being replaced by machines would jeopardize his health and condition, no matter how much benefits or insurance can the capitalist give to his workers.
And at the same time, machines are like humans; they sure may be much more efficient than humans but we should know that they have to be constantly maintained; wear and tear with its use overtime can make it inefficient, reaching to the point that the capitalist would merit a negative profit because of neglect and abuse to the machine, just like what the capitalist does to the human laboring worker.
And given these problems with Capitalism, and given the Marxian principles of alienation, what should be done to resolve the conflict? Simple. Kill Capitalism, the capitalists and the bourgeoisie class..

Why not have a unified stand anyway?

When one of Marx’s teachings meant that we are the one who actually makes the world, I would say no more but to simply agree with that teaching.
Why? Because there has never been a time in history ever that views the rise of a nation as a result of ideas helping in the development of the nation. In fact, Marx’s materialist perspective does make things more sensible through viewing the development of the world through the actions of man. Of course, it is no one but man that makes the changes in the world a possible task. After all, we are told by God (and I’m speaking here in behalf of theology) that we humans are stewards of his creation and that we should be responsible for these creations.
Hence, I agree with what Karl Marx said that theory is practiced, and put into action. A good case study for this is the emergence of corruption in the Philippines. We keep on complaining about our government officials, the President and the senators to be specific, to be corrupt. We blame the tycoons for being inconsiderate to the poor in their ambitions to increase their wealth. We blame the thieves who steal our things, or even kill people just to have something on their tables. They did not happen because it just happened or it was a result of a discriminative society, but it all bends down to the actions of every human being who is part of that society that aggravates to the problem.
Try to take the analysis to a micro perspective, say in schooling for example. Have you ever wondered how do government officials have this certain tendency of becoming corrupt, doing illegal activities yet at the same time they are perceived to be good by the public? Believe it or not, these large scale illegal acts starts in as early as during schooling, even to the grade-school days. How? Through small scale acts such as copying, stealing, teasing, and the like. From these small acts, they develop overtime, enhancing the skills of a corrupt adult-in-the-making, until they have become seemingly impossible to solve problems, into a large scale, macro perspective, into these corrupt government officials. In addition, these seemingly small but illegal acts committed by children and teenagers gets aggravated through peers and other factors like economical factors, making the idea of corruption and injustice a bigger problem to deal with.
Another example that we can put in consideration on theories being put into action are the existence of the People Power revolution in both the times of Ferdinand Marcos and Joseph Estrada. Since all three classes then believe at the fact that these presidents are not doing their duties well anymore, then the acted as one for a revolution to make these two tyrannical presidents step down.
Having said that, given the fact that all of us are essentially a part of this problem with corruption, Marx further elaborates his argument, stating that there is no such distinction between theory and practice, wherein we should maintain our biases and hence, recognize our one-sidedness towards the problem. Since we are a part of this problem, the solution to it is essentially not to be for or against solving the problem, but instead abolish those who are against solving the problem, and instead make everyone be on the side on being in favor of solving the problem, in this case, the problem of corruption.
What interests me with Marx “one-sidedness” is the fact that it contributes to a conflict-less society, wherein everyone would simply agree with each other, and together as one community help each other in battling corruption. Yet such an idea is idealistic in nature, and is a challenge for it to apply in terms of the present situation of the Philippines. Why? Because of the conflict between three conflicting classes: the rich elite, the emerging middle class, and the struggling poor. In such case, it becomes more complex since we are not dealing with two sides but with three sides instead. When applying the one sided principle in the context of the Philippines, it is hard to determine which of the two classes should be abolished and which class should remain. Ideally speaking, in my own perspective, the rich elite and the struggling poor should be abolished because once these two distant classes are abolished, then therefore there may be no more conflict within the state, and hence people will be equal in treatment, both sociologically and economically since every one would end up belonging to the middle class, wherein everyone is not too rich, and not too poor.
Again, that is the ideal situation we are talking with that, because with what is happening now in our Philippine political situation, it is perceivable that the rich elite, with all of their wealth and power, will make most of what they have in efforts of eliminating the struggling poor and the emerging middle class in the process. Despite that the Marxist principle of one-sidedness would seem to be impossible to apply in the context of the Philippines, it would be a very effective approach in combatting corruption when it is applied properly and fairly.

I’d rather be the slave than the master

From the lecture and discussions about Hegel’s Phenomenology of the Spirit that has been discussed for this week, what interest me the most is the discussion of the slave and the master and the need for a fight as a means of determining who is going to survive or who will not throughout the course of history.
The interesting part on this is the fact that it can be perfectly applied in our modern context here in the Philippines. But before going to the application, let’s review the differences between the slave and the master.
The master is the more powerful of the two, who in most cases fights and most of the time wins the fight, and seeks recognition only to a person of equal stature to him. The master also is greater than the slave, and he is the one who gets all of the recognition in the significant events throughout history.
The slave, on the other hand, is the person who works and bows down to his master, who recognizes the master for everything, and seeks recognition elsewhere. Also the slave is never recognized by the master and is not given due credit throughout the significant events in history.
History, as Hegel explained, is of pure energy, which is always in a n perpetual motion, and most of the time, is rough. Because of the nature of history in Hegelian thought, man goes through three premises: the first is through speech and desire, where he attempts to speak his desires as a means of his satisfaction and survival. Then he goes through the process of negating his actions, wherein his moment of thinking and acting are performed at the same time, resulting to the alienation of his being, thus negating his actions and therefore concentrating on what he thinks instead of concentrating of his actions. Combining the two will then eventually make the human lead into fighting against one another, wherein the fight is no ordinary fight, but is a fight to the death.
But why fight to the death anyway? Why not just a competition of who is the better of the two?
I think the Hegelian way of thinking can be related to Charles Darwin’s theory of Natural selection, wherein beings have to evolve in order to survive. In this case, the slave and the master have to live up to their desires in order to determine who would win in the fight. But sad to say, the competition between the slave and the master is an unfair means of competition, analogous to the outcome of the third Punic war, where the Romans annihilated the powerless Carthaginians, killing even the women and children, and burning the whole Carthage down into ashes.
The battle between the slave and the master is unfair for two important reasons. First, although the slave is responsible for the creation of the world, and hence the creation of history, it always ends up to the master claiming such historical feat. A perfect example of this principle is the creation of the numerous pyramids in Egypt during the ancient Egyptian era. Although Egyptian slaves are fully responsible for the creation of these breath-taking structures of the ancient era, it always end up in history that the pharaohs, Djoser and Khufu to name a few, are the one responsible for the creation of these structures instead of the hundred million Egyptian slaves who worked with blood, sweat, and tears, and some of them dying of fatigue, hunger, and unexpected circumstances just to create such a historical feat. These slaves never got the opportunity to be honored of this endeavor. The second reason for the unfair fight is the extremely uneven powers of the slave and the master. Comparatively speaking, the master is ultimately powerful, evident to his commanding, managing, and strategizing abilities, while the slave has no such power expect the power to conform to the desires of the master. Because of this, the phenomenon of the slave and the master ends up with the slave creating his work, being satisfied with his creation, then the master partakes and consume of the slave’s work, the master desiring more than what the slave has created, then the cycle goes on.
In the debate on whether it is better to be the slave or the master, I would answer that I would prefer to be the slave than the master. This may be an unexpected answer from a human being perspective, given that being the master has more benefits than being the slave, since I believe that being a slave, you know deep in your mind and soul that you work hard for your creation, that you have poured down your efforts just to make that feat, unlike the master, who doesn’t really work as hard as the slave. Also, the advantage of being the slave rather than the master is the fact that the slave can get satisfied with his work, unlike the master who has the tendency to desire for more, despite of the desire reaching to a status wherein it is very impossible to accomplish. Overall, I believe that the slave should be the one who would win the fight against the master. The problem is that the slave is too scared to fight against the master. Just like Philippine politics, in the competition between the masa and the government.

An herculean principle of being

The rise of modern political thinking is not entirely political in the first place but more of a social thinking. The involvement of the social and the political has to be the biggest flaw modern political theory has made. Instead of creating a progression with the thoughts and theories of the likes of Aristotle, Plato, Machiavelli, Hobbes and other classical political theorists, modern political theory, as Hannah Arendt said, became the downfall of the political.
How has modernism devolved the human race in terms of political thinking? First is the individualistic tendencies of the human, through the reversal of roles between the public and the private. As we all know, in the classical political thought, the public is governed by law, while the private remains to be free. In the reversal of the public and the private, as evident with modern political thought, the public now becomes a free space for reasoning while the private is now governed by law, and thus promoting self-legitimization in modern political thought.
In fact, in Michel Foucault’s “What is Enlightenment?”, he conforms to the fact that the idea behind enlightenment was never meant to be evolutionary. Instead, Foucault stated that what Kant was proposing with the enlightenment was simply a mere illusion to the human soul, since human being the ultimate arbiter of knowledge can never be placed into context, no matter what manipulation you can make to present the enlightenment as a means of a humanistic and political evolution.
The evidence to such principle? Classical political theory. In St. Augustine’s “City of God,” we have been said and emphasized that man by nature can never be perfect unless he is God. I would use this text in emphasizing the fact that by all means, you can never ever place man as the ultimate person, the perfect being, the creator of perfect laws, and the perfect follower of these crafted laws. That is why social classes exist in the human society, in the “city of humans”!!!
By saying that man is an ultimate arbiter of knowledge, then it is as if you are saying that all of us have the same characteristics, the same abilities, the same knowledge, and the same social classes, which realistically and historically speaking was never the case. Because man is a historical being as Foucualt said , we are formed and we develop through the course of history, and hence, we are crafted by our being overtime, as we gain additional knowledge through innovations and inventions. Through what the Enlightenment is saying, we are all final and can never step up. This has to be one of the major flaws of the Enlightenment, equating society with the political.
Although I am not entirely saying that the Enlightenment has totally wrecked out the evolution of being --- in fact, I am in favor of Kant’s proposal of having the courage to use your own reason ---but for me the Enlightenment has not been crafted very well to fit in the political. The association of the social, as Arendt said, has degraded the being of the human.
In addition to devolution of the being, Foucault also states the fact that with the proposal of the Enlightenment, the “courage of reasoning out on your own” in the public should be placed in a proper context such that there is a boundary on “daring to reason on your own” in the public. In this aspect, Kant conforms to Foucault’s proposition as he states that this “dare to reason” has a limit, as evident in the context of Frederick. Although it may be of something positive to reason out publicly and become quiet in the private, the limit on reasoning out freely in the public can be explained as the sake of preventing any abuse of freedom of reason in the public. Hence, Foucault would explain the courage to reason as a risky move as the Enlightenment challenges in fact the sovereign, the ordered power relations of the state.
The rationale behind this is the distinct difference of living out freedom and having absolute freedom, as discussed by Karl Marx in the Jewish question. Living out freedom means that you are not being repressed by the absolute sovereign of your concerns regarding the stability of the state. Absolute freedom, on the other hand, entails to having no sovereign preventing the public mass on exercising their freedom, whether it is necessary or not. The former is preferred than the latter as it promotes further stability to the state and that the former is what the Enlightenment is pointing out as an emphasis: having the freedom to reason on your own understanding for the good of the state through a better craft of the laws. Foucalt agrees to this as there is a need for critiquing since we are historical beings, and hence, we try to make things better through time. The latter is considered to be dangerous as having no control on the freedom of the being can lead to unnecessary exercise of freedom “based on one’s own understanding”, causing chaos into the state, which for Marx has been the flaw of the Jews as they desire for not having a state at all.