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.