the effect of colonialism on the filipino minds[ how colonization willaffect the iraqis as well] psst jt
Renowl
Vol. 1 No. 1
2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
| HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | EDITORIAL BOARD | CONTRIBUTION | ARCHIVES |
THE PRIMITIVIZATION OF THE INDIO MIND AND THE
EXPLOSION OF RATIONALITIES
The Politics of Knowledge in the
Spanish Colonial Philippines
F. P. A. Demeterio III
To articulate the past historically does not mean to recognize it 'the way it
really was'. It means to seize hold of a memory as it flashes up at a moment of
danger.
- Walter Bejamin, Theses on the Philosophy of History
If the powerful trample over your, you are infected by the soles of their feet.
- Salman Rushdie, The Satanic Verses
The colonial moment has two faces, one belonging to the colonizer and the other
to the colonized. When the moment of liberation severs these faces' ties two
sorts of anguished vacuum emerge, one a tormented forgetting of guilt ridden
past, the other a harrowing remembrance. Just as the colonizer has to
systematically forget the past to be freed from a soiled and blood drenched
conscience, the colonized has to systematically remember to be freed from the
lingering twilight pre-modernity. To the colonizer belongs a moral ordeal, but
to the colonized a social and political ordeal. Just as in the colonial moment
there is inequality, so it remains even long after the moment of liberation.
For a moral ordeal is nothing compared to a social and political one.
This paper is a sort of remembering, a sort of freeing the colonized from the
social and political bondage sown by the colonial moment, a sort of ushering in
the long-awaited dawn of modernity. More specifically, this paper investigates
the sociological nature of knowledge within the context the Spanish colonial
Philippines. This paper is a historical inquiry into the processes and the
conditions involved in the destruction, concealment, creation, re-creation,
importation and circulation of knowledge under the specific power relations of
colonization. The investigation is done with the purview of understanding how
the sociological nature of knowledge functioned, or malfunctioned, resulting to
some distinctive markings on the Philippine society which, to the opinion of
the author, persisted up to the present moment, creating on the process a
modernly structured and seemingly rational society inhabited by a people with
pre-modern minds.
PRE-MODERN MINDS IN A RATIONALIZED SOCIETY
As a historical investigation, this paper had to deal first with files and
files of data, and as far as the Spanish colonial period is concerned data
indeed abound. To make sense out of such massive collection what was necessary
is some fine conceptual tools that can be used as an analytic frame. Thus,
conceptual tools were borrowed from sociology and anthropology, namely: the
binaries of pre-modern/modern modes of thinking, tribal/modernized societies,
and subjugating/subjugated knowledge.
The main contention of this paper is that the mind of indio had been
systematically made to remain pre-modern by the colonial regime, in effect
making this mind maladjusted to the nuances of a society that had been
drastically transformed by the same regime from being tribal to modern; yet
despite such a procedure to coral the native mind away from the circulation of
modern knowledge, knowledge of sorts exploded within the archipelago subverting
the intentions of the colonizers. But owing to the fact that these exploding
knowledges were class-specific and purpose-specific systems, these were not
enough to engender a really rationalized and modern collective mentality. Thus,
we have today an anomalous phenomenon of a practically modern society inhabited
by a people with pre-modern mentality.
The Pre-Modern and the Modern Modes of Thought
The question whether there is a real qualitative difference between the
pre-modern, or the primitive, and the modern modes of thinking is an issue that
is still being debated by anthropologists. On one hand, mental sharpness,
logic, and capacity to deal with abstract thoughts are the main contentions of
those who claim there is difference. Anthropologists who belong to this camp
assert that the pre-modern or primitive thought is pre-logical while modern is
logical, or that the primitive is hopelessly bound to concreteness while the
modern is capable of operating with the abstract. On the other hand,
anthropologist who contend otherwise have carefully marshaled a number of
ethnographic proofs that the pre-modern mind certainly is logical, at least in
its own proper way, and can operate with abstract matters. `Naive
ethnocentricism' is their battlecry against those who desired to maintain
qualitative difference in between. The structural anthropologist, Claude
Levi-Strauss, is one sort of theorist who denies qualitative difference. In his
book The Primitive Mind, he casts a sardonic remark on the theorists belonging
to the other camp.
Every civilization tends to overestimate the objective orientation of its
thought and this tendency is never absent. When we make the mistake of thinking
that the savage is governed solely by organic or economic needs, we forget that
he levels the same reproach at us, and that to him his own desires for
knowledge seems more balanced than ours (Levi-Strauss 1966: 3).
The anthropological camp that tends to deny qualitative difference between the
pre-modern and the modern modes of thought, argue that the difference between
them does not lie on the mind's mode of operation, but on its contents. They
mean to say, there are of course differences between pre-modern and modern
minds, but such differences are not caused by their alleged difference in terms
of functioning, but by the fact that these modes of thought simple have
different contents. And difference in content in no way means that the
primitive mind contains less ideas than the modern mind. In fact, Levi-Strauss
in the same book took great pains in illustrating the astounding conceptual
mass present in a number of Indian tribes' collective representations. Pushing
their line of argument further, these anthropologists arrived at a logical
entailment that if the pre-modern mode of thought is educated with modern and
scientific knowledge, then the marked difference between the primitive and the
modern modes of thought would simply disappear.
Lucien Levy-Bruhl is one anthropologist who staunchly defended that other than
differences of content there is something more that differentiates the
pre-modern from the modern mode of thought. Levy-Bruhl shifted the debate away
from the individualized comparison on how a primitive and a modern man thinks,
to the comparison and contrast of the differences and similarities in
collective representations. He wrote: "a primitive man, considered as an
individual... will usually feel, judge and behave in the way we would expect.
The inferences which he will form will be just those which would seem
reasonable to us in the given circumstances"(Levy-Bruhl 1972: 44). Levy-Bruhl
suggests that there is a big difference between the thinking of the primitive
and the primitive mode of thinking. Following Levy-Bruhl's line of argument,
there can be primitive men that are capable of having modern thoughts, just as
there are modern men having primitive thoughts. After marking such a
distinction between the individual mental processes and the collective
representation, Levy-Bruhl focuses his attention to the latter. Levy-Bruhl
tried to pin point what are the characteristics that mark the collective
pre-modern mode of thought, and how different would it be from the collective
modern mode of thought. Raul Pertierra, in his essay `Levy-Bruhl and the Modes
of Thought', gives a description of such a collective phenomenon:
Levy-Bruhl's examples of collective representations always stress their
importance in ritual (i.e., their collective and communicative aspects) and
involve ideas, feelings, and activities with great social import and
legitimation. For him, the collective representations found in primitive
societies differ fundamentally from those found in complex literate societies
since the affective and cognitive aspects of ideas are not sufficiently
differentiated (Pertierra 1994: 142-143).
For Levy-Bruhl the conflation of affective and cognitive aspects of the
concepts is the distinctive mark between the primitive and the modern modes of
thought. This conflation of meaning and being, of the cognitive and conative
aspects of meaning would then conflate the levels of reality-commonly the
physical and the spiritual realities. Pertierra says: "These worlds, although
different, are not, however, conceptually separate. In primitive thought these
halves constitute one world, an integrated and socially legitimated field of
experience"(Pertierra 1994: 143). Hence, Levy-Bruhl has successfully created a
contrast between the pre-modern and the modern modes of thougt by pointing out
that in the modern mode of thought, belief in other levels of reality may be
present but the delineation between the different levels is quite clear. The
modern mode of thought has a slant towards the empirical, the regulated and the
predictable, and hence the arbitrary impingement from the spirit world would
have to be bracketed off. On the other hand, for the primitive mode of thought,
the impingement from the other levels of reality is common place and often
operate to legitimize areas of thought and perception. But for the
anthropologists, like Levi-Strauss, who deny qualitative difference between the
primitive and the modern modes of thought would only point to their difference
in terms of content, that is the primitive mind simply lack the modern and
scientific ideas which the modern mind possess. Added, however, to this
difference in content would be that slight difference in terms of the tendency
to conflate conceptual aspects as well as levels of reality.
In the bottom line, both camps of the debating anthropologists would agree that
the primitive mode of thought can be characterized by some deficiencies in
content and the tendency to conflate distinct levels of reality.
Tribal and Modern Societies
If delineating the differences between the primitive and the modern modes of
thinking became a complex incursion into the battlegrounds of warring
anthropological camps, certainly delineating the differences between the tribal
and modern societies will not be as complicated. The structures in the tribal
society is much more simpler than that of its modern counterpart. A tribal
society is definitely small compared to the modern society. Its smallness,
moreover, is self contained, it has little cares and concerns for the other
tribal societies. It exists in its own idiosyncratic space and time, such that
in actuality, it would have immense difficulties interacting with other
societies. The modern society, on the other hand, no matter how small it may be
from modern standards, is not self-contained. Through the modern societies run
grids and networks of commercial, intellectual, and cultural conduits. Modern
societies are less and less entrenched in idiosyncratic notions of space and
time.
The manner of interaction in a primitive society is governed by strong kinship
ties. Hence, the personal mode of interaction is the rule. This personal mode
remains true even in cases of hostile interactions, that is to say in a tribal
society even the foes are individuals who are personally known. In a modern
society, owing to its size and heterogeneity, kinship ties can no longer be
counted as an apparatus of order. The more involved personal mode of
interaction has to be supplanted more and more with the superficial and
detached mode of impersonal interaction. Corollary to these, the legal system
in the two societies vary greatly. Whereas in the context of a personalized
interaction, laws are may not be rigidly drawn and are more or less contingent,
in a society where the impersonal mode interaction predominates, laws become
more numerous and the system of interpreting and applying them becomes more
consciously structured.
Another distinctive difference between the tribal and the modern societies
pertains to their use of and access to bodies of knowledge. It is quite clear
that man is totally dependent on the acquisition and transmission of knowledge
for survival. The earliest hominids, who were obviously weaker and more
sluggard compared to the other predators had to use their heads to get food and
to avoid death from the other beasts. When Francis Bacon trumpeted his famous
new-age tidings that "human knowledge and human power meet in one.... therefore
knowledge is power" it was something remarkable, but that was in an England of
the early 17th century. At present, to say that knowledge is power is to utter
a hackneyed clich‚. What Bacon said with a throbbing heart, is so true that
today it is taken fro granted. Yet such a Baconian clich‚ can have different
nuances when contextualized in tribal, or primitive, and modern societies. In
the tribal society, a farmer has power in the sense that he has knowledge on
practical agriculture, and a shaman is likewise is powerful, in fact more
powerful, in the sense that he has a monopolistic access to shamanistic
knowledge. But knowledge in the tribal society is not so much of a power. It is
prowess not knowledge that is the paradigm of power in the tribal society.
Power is personified in the warrior, and not in the sage. The modern society
has a different pattern for the creation and circulation of knowledge. It is in
this context, where knowledge is really power, and as Michel Foucault would
later on elaborate, power is really knowledge.1 Hence, the more knowledge one
has in the modern society, the more power he wields, and the more power one
wields, the more knowledge he can create. Knowledge regime is what
characterizes the modern society.
The modern society's peculiar obsession with the production, storage and
transmission of knowledge requires textualization.2 Hence writing is another
distinctive feature of the modern society. Writing allows the wider circulation
of knowledge. With the invention of the printing press, circulation transcended
all sorts of geographical barriers. These contributed more to the commercial,
intellectual and cultural interaction between modern societies which later on
would more and more result to homogeneity.3 Writing may have existed in
primitive societies, yet this writing more often than not is not necessarily
geared towards the production, storage, transmission of ever-growing bodies of
knowledge, but more on the tribal religious and magical concerns.
Subjugated and Subjugating Knowledge
In both tribal and modern societies, bodies of knowledge may co-exist. As
already alluded to, knowledge is not an inert compilation of facts and theories
but more of a writhing mass of power. Even in their co-existence, bodies of
knowledge have a general hostile politics in between, each trying to inscribe
upon the other a mark of domination. Hence, following Foucault there are such
things as subjugated and subjugating knowledge. He defines the former when
wrote:
I believe that by subjugated knowledges one should understand something else,
something which in a sense is altogether different, namely a whole set of
knowledges that have been disqualified as inadequate to their task or
insufficiently elaborated: naive knowledges, located low down on the hierarchy,
beneath the required level of cognition or scientificity (Foucault 1980: 82).
Along this line, the subjugating knowledge is not merely that set of knowledge
that is considered legitimate, adequate, sufficient and scientific. Subjugating
knowledge is in fact the factor that subjugates the other knowledge. Hence, in
between the two knowledges is not a calm space, but a complex structure of
power relation.
The Context of the Spanish Colonial Philippines
The pre-Hispanic Philippine societies were definitely tribal societies. They
were small, self-contained, kin-based, and sacred communities, which retained
the vestiges of their maritime voyage from their Asian origins in the name of
their political unit, the barangay. When Spain finally decided to occupy these
islands which were brought to their attention some decades earlier by the
Portuguese navigator, Fernao Magalhaes, these scattered tribal societies were
drastically transformed into new political organizations with some strappings
of a modern society. With force, diplomacy, treachery and religion, the
Spaniards conquered rather swiftly the lowland and the coastal areas of the
Philippines. The self-containment of the several scattered barangays could not
offer significant resistance to the Spanish invaders. Spain started to impose
its own notion of order. For easier administration and surveillance, the
collections of some rustic barangays, through the process of reduccion, was
strategically rationalized into pueblos. The chaotic conglomerations of native
hamlets were fused into a more unified pueblo following the Roman grid
patterns. The Church occupying the central point, the plaza, and the main
streets, the sturdy houses became the template for each pueblo. To ensure
domination, not only space was re-ordered, even time was restructured. David
Sturtevant says:
The religious edifices-more lasting than any structure built in the Philippines
before or since -- supplied a centripetal element which had been absent from
pre-Spanish life. Confessionals, christenings, marriage, funerals, and
repetitive masses interrupted everyday routines (Sturtevant 1976:27).
Many natives resisted the move, by refusing to settle in the pueblos, by
returning again and again to their old settings, or by running to the mountains
to become bandits or tulisanes. Yet in the long run, the colonizers seem to
accomplish their agenda.
A highly organized government bureaucracy was imposed both on the `national'
and local levels. The power structure was as follows: the king of Spain ruling
through the viceroyalty of Nueva Espana, aided by the Real y Supremo Consejo de
las Indias; then, the governor general as the chief-executive, chief of the
armed forces and president of the supreme court; then, the alcade major for the
pacified `provinces' or the corregidor for the unpacified regions, acting as
executives, judges, chief of police, and tribute collector; followed by the
post of the gobernadorcillo, which is open for the natives; and finally the
cabeza de barangay, also open for the natives. The new bureaucratic order which
is very susceptible to abuses had its own mechanism of checks and balances with
the institutions of the residencia and the visita, wherein officials are
inspected by higher authorities periodically as in the case of the residencia,
or unannounced instances as in the case of the visita.
With the political re-structuring, the western legal system was introduced into
the archipelago, supplanting the natives' crude systems of justice. The Real
Audencia functioned as the supreme court, the tribunal of appeal from the
subordinate courts and at the same time the consultative body of the governor
general. Later, the Tribunal de Comercio was established to settle commercial
disputes. Gradually, the uncodified native legal systems were defaced from
history and alien codified laws became the uncontested legal system.
The spindles of colonization crept deeper into the colonized fiber. The
Spaniards imposed their system of educating the natives, as well as instructing
them of the Christian doctrine. Schools, colleges and universities were
established for this purpose.
Gradually, even the initial discreteness of the pueblos merged into one organic
whole and definitely a modernized society, the Philippines.
THE POLITICS OF SUBJUGATION
Supposedly, it is in these stages when a society is systematized and its
domestic interaction intensified that knowledge should become more and more a
public phenomenon. But such seemed to be not the case with the Philippines.
Some anomalous stroke of misfortune happened somewhere.
Hidden Lights
The Enlightenment is an 18th century Western phenomenon engendered by the rise
of modern science and the aftermath of the bitter religious conflict
accompanying the Reformation. The Enlightenment espoused some highly secular
views based on human reason alone that were thought to create beneficial
changes permeating all areas of human life and thought.
a. The Luces of Spain
Most of the themes of the Enlightenment originated from England and the
Netherlands, but they were circulated in Europe through the writings of the
eighteenth century French intellectuals, such as Montesquieu, Voltaire,
Condillac, Rousseau and others. Spain though separated from the rest of the
European world by the rugged mountain ranges, the Pyrenees, got an easy access
to the ideas of the enlightenment through their new ruling dynasty, the house
of Bourbon. Together with the first Bourbon king of Spain, Philip V, came a
retinue of French courtiers and intellectuals who created the preparatory
ground for the spread of the new ideas. Spain experienced the influx of the
ideals of the Enlightenment which they called luces, or lights. No sooner,
Jeronimo de Ustariz together with Capmany echoed the economic insights of the
Frenchmen regarding the need to radically increase agricultural and industrial
productions. Campomanes, Aranda and Floridablanca, theorized with the new
political ideas of the continent. Feijoo and Jovellanos spread the skeptical
attitudes engendered by the enlightened science and philosophy. Andres Piquer,
a Valencian doctor, published novel medical discoveries. By the time of Charles
III (1759-1788), more and more writers joined the ranks of the those who spread
the luces to their fellow citizens. Societies were established for this reason,
starting with the Amigos de Pais in 1764. Periodicals such as the Correo de
Madrid (1786-91), and more notably the Espiritu de los mejores diarios
literatos que se publican en Europa (1787-91) which according to Richard Herr:
translated or summarized for Spanish readers the latest articles on economics,
science, and political theory appearing in France and elsewhere. Here the
Spaniards could learn the theories of Newton on the universe, Montesquieu on
the forms of governemnt, Rousseau on Education, Beccaria and Filangieri on
legal reform, and Condillac on the Theories of learning, even though many of
the original works of these authors had been prohibited by the inquisition
(Herr 1971: 53).
With the proliferation and circulation of the new ideas, pressures appeared
against the dated educational system of Spain. Subsequently, the Council of
Castille, Spain's highest administrative and judicial body, ordered the
universities to make reforms to accommodate the new ideas and theories. The
university of Seville, in 1769, was first to make reforms. The move for
educational reform was however not without opposition. The clergy, who were
labeled as Aristotelians, opposed the order. Nonetheless, by the time of the
demise of Charles III, reform in the universities was more or less
accomplished. University texts were up-to-date.
With the outburst of the luces was born the Spanish liberalism, which later on
would influence much of the Filipino illustrados. Liberalism came with its two
dominant themes of resentment against arbitrary authority intertwined with the
desire to recast it along more rational means, and the fascination for free
expression individuality.
Aspects of the Spanish Enlightenment and liberalism would treacle into the
archipelago with the advent of the Bourbon reformers such as Jose Basco y
Vargas, serving as governor general, who organized the Real Sociedad Economica
de amigos del Pais in 1780.
Though Spain was lit with the luces, only glitters of these lights reached the
Philippines, and the masses never saw their glimmers. While the Western world
was splendidly blazing, Philippines remained in darkness.
b. The Politics of Language
A German hermeneute once said that through language truth is revealed, but
through the same language truth can be concealed. In its grossest sense, the
double edged power of language became a colonial strategy. Spain occupied the
Philippines for three centuries. Astonishingly, when its regime ended, no more
than five percent of the Filipinos were able to use the Castilian language.
Benedict Anderson, in his essay Cacique Democracy in the Philippines: Origins
and Dreams, commented:
Spanish never became a pervasive lingua franca, as it did in the Americas, with
the result that, certainly in 1900, and to a lesser extent even today, the
peasants and fishermen in different parts of the archipelago could not
communicate with one another: only their rulers had a common archipelago-wide
speech (Anderson 1995: 6).
On official papers, things were quite different. There were several decrees
from the Peninsula ordering that all the natives should learn the Castilian
language, yet none of them was ever implemented. Was this a political strategy
to consolidate the Spanish colonization? Was the indio intentionally excluded
from learning the Castilian language so that he could not have access to more
learning and knowledge? Things were not really that clear at the outset.
As early as 1550, Emperor Charles V, had already decreed that the Castilian
should be the language of preaching. This was done with the pre-conception that
all the native languages lacked the precise words to explain the most sublime
Christian mysteries. In the Philippines, the missionaries claimed that it is
more convenient not to use the Castilian. Instead of teaching the indios the
Castilian language, they instead learned the native language. The 1586 Synod of
Manila formally approved the use of the Philippine languages and dialects as
the media of Christian instruction. Quite expectedly, this happened while the
1550 law was in full effectivity.
The articulation of the politics of domination happened when another major
change was about to occur. Part of the Educational Decree of 1863, was the
specification to teach Spanish in all schools. At this point the implicit was
foregrounded. Many colonial officials objected the move. Fray Francisco Gainza,
OP presented the famous argument that once the Castilian language was given to
the masses they would gain access to the Enlightened and liberal (which for the
friars meant immoral and anti-clerical) ideas from the continent. This would
ensure the masses' loss of faith in the Church and loss of loyalty to the
Crown. Moreover, learning the Castilian tongue, would give the masses a common
language which potentially would unify them. Once a native leader would rally,
they can easily rise against Spain. After some tedious rounds of casuistic
debates, the law favored that Castilian be taught to the natives. But that was
not the end. In papers, Gainza and his supporters lost their case, but they
ended as victors, for the Decree of 1850 was never implemented due to lack of
funds.
c. Education and Literacy
There were several Europeans who were impressed by the literacy of the
Filipinos. Sinibaldo de Mas, Jean Mallat and Robert MacMicking all commented
that the Filipinos were much more better than some of their European
counterparts. But these Europeans were only talking about literacy as the
ability to read and write. Taking a closer look at what they are actually
referring to would easily reveal the contrary. The children were educated by
the parish priests. There was no uniform educational program then. Hence, the
quality of education depended much on the personal qualification and zeal of
the pastors. As a whole, education in this system consist primarily with
religious doctrines, which was often done through rote memorization. This was
supplemented with a little math, language, and more religious hymns, rosaries,
and novenas. Definitely, education in this system was monkish.
At the higher institutions of learning, things were a little bit sophisticated.
The University of Santo was the center of colonial education. Sir John
Bowring's memoirs of 1859 provides an eyewitness' account of the situation:
In the University of St. Thomas there are about a thousand students. The
professorship are of theology, the canon law and civil law, metaphysics and
grammar; but no attention is given to the natural sciences, to the modern
languages, nor have any of the educational reforms which have penetrated most
of the colleges in Europe and America found their way to the Philippines
(Bowring 1963: 118).
By some stroke of misfortune, the Aristotelians who in the Peninsula tried to
counteract the educational reform of the 1760s, and who were more and more the
object of anti-clericalism there, reigned unchallenged in the archipelago.
Bowring gives a rather kind description of their holy ignorance:
The personal courtesies, the kind reception and multifarious attentions which I
received from the friars in every part of the Philippines naturally dispose me
to look upon them with a friendly eye. I found among them men worthy of being
loved and honored, some of considerable intellectual vigor; but literary
cultivations and scientific acquirements are rare. Occupied with their own
concerns, they are little acquainted with mundane affairs, politics, geography,
history, have no charms for those who, even had they the disposition for study,
would in their seclusion and remoteness, have access to few of its application
(Bowring 1963: 127).
Hopes seems to be stirred with the decree on educational reform of 1863,
kurakot
"Renowl" <ren...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040820004543...@mb-m07.aol.com...
> url :http://www.geocities.com/philodept/diwatao/index.htm
>
> Hopes seems to be stirred with the decree on educational reform of 1863
======
rp culture MUST be nourished with good literature
too bad they're still stuck with RIZAL
k
Renowl
Renowl
tansong tumbaga
There's a lot of good Filipino literature, some of them in komiks.
Because that's what readers are reading.
kurakot
"tansong tumbaga" <ta...@hindiginto.ito> wrote in message news:lduVc.9055> >
> There's a lot of good Filipino literature, some of them in komiks.
> Because that's what readers are reading.
>
= = = =
this is THE problem in my opinion. everything starts in our coconuts di
ba?
if its cluttered with mess - its no good
rp must nourish its culture with heavy duty stuff from the eastern and
western
europe, north america and latin america. not only that it must nourish its
culture
with some good music....anything....even terror music like DIAMANDA GALAS
k
Renowl
by Edilberto Alegre
BusinessWorld, 1 May 2002
Some have asked me why I bother with Pinoy pop art such as our movies, Max
Surban, Yoyoy Villame, TV popular program? They are the hoary academicians of
University of Philippines (UP) Diliman (Quezon City, Metro Manila), of course.
And a few are architects in Cebu (Central Visayas) and other academicians
there.
"Because they are our heritage too and probably say more about us than our
copies of the seven arts of the West," I'd reply and refuse to go beyond that.
Their question manifests a haughtiness that should not be bothered with. They
are not part of my small reading public obviously. Pinoy culture encompass all
our products and actions and the distinction high art -- low art, literature in
English -- literature in a Philippine language, music composed by a degree
holder -- music composed ouido, say, are categories not made by culture
analysts. High art, literature in English, or music composed by a UP College of
Music graduate are also cultural expressions and are, therefore, legitimate
concerns of cultural anthropology too.
They are studied amply by undergraduates, graduate students, scholars, and
practicing art critics. They are also rewarded generously by the National
Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA), our official cultural institution.
And the Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP) continues to honor the
Filipinos who excel in the seven arts of the West. Those who excel in the
indigenous arts and crafts, such as kulintang music and abaca weaving, receive
kudos and monetary award of a lesser degree. These manifest the hierarchy in
the arts. Copying the west still pays.
The situation can change only by showing through force of logic and adamantine
data that there is much to admire in not completely westernized Pinoy pop art.
i.e. indigenized Western cultural borrowings. Examples abound: our movies, OPM,
romance, novels, TV shows
Millions enjoy our pop art. Millions spend viewing, listening to or reading
them. That should be valid enough reason to study Pinoy pop art. In contrast,
the Pinoy version of Western art is enjoyed, viewed, listened to, or read by
only a very minor trickle of our population. But they, the Pinoy copies of
Western art, take a dominant position -- in our textbooks, in our mass media,
in the eyes of our own government. Not because they are Pinoy, but because they
are copies of the West.
That says a lot about our educational system, our mass media, and our
government. What is common to these three is this: they are manned, managed,
and operated by the ingliserong Pinoy, the Filipinos who are proficient in the
English language. By the elite, in short.
The communication loop of the Pinoy version of the seven arts of the West
consists of the artist as producer of art works which are "consumed" by the
viewer-listener-reader appreciator. The artist is a product of an educational
system which is biased toward the West. The consumer is also shaped by the same
system. The middle person critic who explains, explicates, expounds and praises
the art work derives his livelihood and reputation from the loop. The loop
passes on their preferences to those outside of it via the schools, the media
and the relevant government institutions which are also owned or managed or
operated by the same socio-economic class, the rich inglisero.
The only way to counter this vicious, oppressive set-up without bloodshed is to
present an alternative view that is acceptable, because it is logical and is
based on field data, and therefore, incontrovertible. The viciousness derives
from its spitefulness to anyone and anything which does not belong to the loop.
It also stems from its erroneous reasoning: any art which is not Western or
like the West's is inferior.
There are those who belong to the loop who go slumming outside of their vicious
circle so they can entertain their kind about having gone "native", and, oh,
how so very iba (different) the natives are! Some get their paper thesis or
dissertation data from the natives and score pogi points for their promotion
and prestige. Of course, after short, sporadic forays into the land of the
natives they return to their lovely homes and lovely offices in which they have
been ensconced. Such are the habits of class, so very difficult to break
because they are so very good.
The said loop is oppressive since it bears down on the rest of our population
and keeps the latter subservient by harshness and coercion, though the means to
achieve this can be subtle and, therefore, appear to be neither harsh nor
coercive. That elite has been in power for centuries and knows all the tricks
to stay unchallenged.
To study pop art is thus, for me, an act of self-liberation. Unfortunately, I
am an opsi -- math and my road to freedom started only 18 years ago when I
boldly turned my back to the ways of the academe, where I was employed, and
took the first steps to know who we are and what we are like.
I have never looked back.
The only equipment I had were those which I acquired in the academe --
traditional criticism, neo-criticism; structuralism, a bit of
post-structuralism. Quite very Western apparatus.
However, I had an abiding passion for linguistics, the study of the laws which
govern languages, since 1958 when I first enrolled in M.A. Comparative
Literature in UP. It was my way to our culture. Language was what I had as data
and for this there was no need to go to the field.
PINOY TIME AND POP ART
Using language as the starting point, let us examine our concept of time and
its relation to art, pop or otherwise. How did we divide time? From the
smallest to the biggest: araw or day (which we broke into, beginning from dawn
-- madaling araw (dawn); umaga (morning); tanghali (noon); hapon (afternoon);
takip-silim (evening); gabi (night); kahapon (yesterday); ngayon (now, today);
bukas (tomorrow); buwan (month); taon (year). There are compound expressions
for the day before yesterday (noong isang araw) and the day after tomorrow
(bukas makalawa). These are time indicators though just like kahapon, ngayon,
and bukas.
Time as a quantity are, strictly speaking, indicated by araw, buwan, and taon.
A numeral or counter can specify the number of the days, months or years --
e.g. isang araw, dalawang buwan, tatlong taon (one day, two months, three
years). Or the length of time can be one-half (kalahati, kalahating buwan); a
fortnight or whole -- buo, buong araw, buong umaga, buong gabi -- meaning the
whole day, the whole morning, the whole night, respectively.
Time as a quantity which can be measured to the tick of a second or minutes or
hours is a Spanish introduction, as the words indicating them immediately
shows: segundo, minuto, oras. Relo came from Spanish reloj. We also call the
watch orasan, the suffix -an is a Pinoy construction. It was the Americans
though who introduce wrist watch for that to the Spaniards is reloj de pulsera.
Our term for it is riswats.
Our sense of clock time and the idea that time has to be or can be measured to
the briefest second are borrowed.
The millions of Filipinos who do not punch time cards or do not have deadlines
to meet simply ignore watches, clock time, and measurements of time. They are
more numerous than the Filipinos who are tied to and enslaved by time machines.
Since time is a measurable quantity, in a linear manner an action has a
beginning, a middle, and an end. Transferred to fiction, a narrative image of
life, then the Western plot must have a defined beginning, middle, and end.
Rising action, climax and denouement are logical aspects of time as a quantity
or length, which is an expression of quantity, which moves in a linear manner
from time1 to time2 time3 and so on.
American fiction is specially action-oriented. Action pushes the story forward.
Overt action also depicts the character of the protagonist, of course. Western
fiction is plot-oriented because the protagonist is unraveled in time. The
unraveling requires conflict which leads to rising action, climax, and
denouement or resolution (of the conflict).
This plot as a structure fits aptly for it rose from the Western concept of
time. The problem of adaptation rises when we realize that that is valid to
them, the Español and the 'merkano, but not to us. For we have a different
concept of time. And must therefore have a different approach to or ideas about
plot line and narrative structure.
The epitome of the action -- oriented Western narrative is the whodunit or
detective story. That genre never quite took roots here.
The Rambo series is interesting but our hero is FPJ who's low-key in
comparison. And always has a sidekick. Hindi siya nag-iisa (he is not alone).
Hero that FPJ is, he is never alone. There is Dencio Padilla who is forever
loyal and a lady love.
There is the terrible aloneness of all the Western tragic heroes -- Oedipus,
Macbeth, King Lear, Loman, the American salesman. They experience a fall. Rambo
might be on a different trajectory. But they, as all Western heroes, are alone.
Time is a linear path which they travel or traverse. A beginning, a middle, an
end. Rising action, climax, denouement.
We have no such tragic heroes. No such terrible aloneness. FPJ, Juan Tamad,
Dolphy. Unlike the Western heroes, our main protagonist is always connected --
to one other, a friend or a lady love; to several others -- parents, sibling,
family. Not tragedy but comedy. Not rising action based on conflict but
melodrama. Less height and less acute on angle but rolling hills and flatlands.
Look at their sentence constructions. An explicitly named subject and a
predicate, an action word, and, if required, a recipient of the action e.g. "I
love you." There's no other way to say this. In our case, "Mahal Kita": verb,
pronoun. Where went "I"? Literally, these two words translate as "Love you"
(and that is how we say it, "I love you"; the very Pinoy English of "Mahal
kita").
The relationship comes first, mahal. Kita is the distinctive "exclusive dual",
second person, plural number, nominative case, in many Philippine languages. It
means "I-and-you (singular) only" and nobody else.
Still on relationship. "Kumain na ko. Kinain ko yong natira sa mesa." (I've
eaten. I ate what was left on the table.) Kumain refers to who ate. Kinain to
what was eaten. The infix (-um, -in) depends on whether the speaker is
referring to himself as actor or the object of his action. Speaker-self,
speaker-object. A verb for us reveals not so much who and action or who object
of the action, but the what of the action. Relationship, in short.
Too, we are not conflict -- resolution driven. We shun away from
confrontations. Put this relationship -- driven in the same linear time of the
West and what would result is not tragedy but a comic, melodramatic story. In
that time line (t-1, t2, t3) he'd seek not ako, the nominative case, first
person, singular "I" but "I" in it's many relationships: Juan Tamad and the
princess. FPJ and Dencio and a lady love or FPJ and a daughter like Judy Ann
Santos, Dolphy and his family who resides in a "Home Along Da Riles" (home by
the railroad tracks) -- ako in kita, tayo, and kami (tayo includes the person
addressed; kami excludes the person addressed).
We borrowed the movie camera and we came out with Pinoy na Pinoy movies -- weak
on the plot structure, abloom with deep and meaningful relationships even if
there are bakbakan (fight) scenes. Emphasis on the relationships. With and
through the movie camera we have been telling our own story.
So with our TV soap operas. So with our OPM. So with our romance novels.
It would be folly to demand Western standard on these very Pinoy pop arts. What
we need is a canon of appreciation so we can "upgrade" our popular art to
academic, aesthetic criticism. We direly need theories about ourselves so we
can better appreciate our own art.
Our concept of time and our "I" -persona, of course, created and continues to
create our own form of fiction, movies, TV soap operas. Our own art, which very
unfortunately is dismissed as just merely pop by the inglisero critics. But in
the end they don't matter. What they are there or not our own art will continue
on.
Instead of rising action -- climax -- denouement we should graph our
di-pagkakaunawaan misunderstanding and our tampuhan, for which there is no
English word. For these are the stuff of our daily lives which are there
already embodied and expressed in our popular art. It is in our popular art
where we truly are.
Back to Top
tansong tumbaga
What are you talking about, all arts have influences from somewhere
else, there is no problem there.
The problem is that people are not collecting arts during certain
periods when they flourished. The best Philippine literature had been
published during the 20s and 30s then after the war... there's a period
in the 70s... now we have today. A lot of good literature today.
The styles change as the taste of the public change. You have to read
them to appreciate them though.
Pook
Some thing to ponder.
After World War II, the Nazi and the Japanese was send to trial for
war crime, their respective countries pays the countries they invaded.
Heres my question, if Spain colonize Philippines for 300 years,
surpress the freedom of Filipino, did not provide education, took some
of the natural resources and precious metal back to Spain [plunder],
jailed and execute some of the aspiring Filipino leaders.
Can we sue Spain and reclaim what was lost?
tansong tumbaga
> Some thing to ponder.
>
> After World War II, the Nazi and the Japanese was send to trial for
> war crime, their respective countries pays the countries they invaded.
>
> Heres my question, if Spain colonize Philippines for 300 years,
> surpress the freedom of Filipino, did not provide education, took some
> of the natural resources and precious metal back to Spain [plunder],
> jailed and execute some of the aspiring Filipino leaders.
>
> Can we sue Spain and reclaim what was lost?
>
Isn't there a statute of limitations on this?
Only murder has no limit.
Just JT
>
> Some thing to ponder.
>
> After World War II, the Nazi and the Japanese was send to trial for
> war crime, their respective countries pays the countries they invaded.
>
> Heres my question, if Spain colonize Philippines for 300 years,
> surpress the freedom of Filipino, did not provide education, took some
> of the natural resources and precious metal back to Spain [plunder],
> jailed and execute some of the aspiring Filipino leaders.
>
> Can we sue Spain and reclaim what was lost?
>
Which court will hear the case and who will respond on behalf of Spain?
--
DalubIt'sBetterToJustForgetThePastAndMoveOn
Pook
Well it all depend on the Philippine government willingness to open
the book, which means that RP goverhment have to have balls in
squaring off with Spain, then RP will also need a couple of suppport
from countries that believe or recorded or had witness the acts, in
this case you can either get the Dutch, the French, the American all
who fought with Spain in Philippines, or the Chinese who were also
treated harshly by the Spaniards during the colonial times.
One article in New York Times about China and South Korea talking
about the border dispute, and the border incident occurs during 37
B,C. to 688 A.D., that was longer than the 16th century colonization
by Spain.
Caveat, the Spanish blue blood in the Philippines will lobby against
this though, since the Ayala received their land as a gift from
Spanish crown, it can be disolve if the RP goverhment prevails in the
dispute.
tansong tumbaga
It would be silly but a good excersize for those who wants to study
international law. Like a mock trial.
otso_otso
no people still alive who were DIRECTLY harmed (as opposed to indirect
harm) by such alleged war crimes.
Perhaps we should focus our attentions on helping ourselves in the
here and now instead of imagining ourselves to be some sort of
historical victim?