Reactions
to F. Sionil Jose's Lecture on
Revolution
and the University of the Philippines
‘Responsibility
is a shared burden’
Sociology Professor
Randy David
‘Nagsimula
na ang rebolusyon’ (a transcription)
Professor Emeritus
Bienvenido Lumbera
‘The
University and how it teaches about power’
Philosophy Professor
Zosimo Lee
‘Responsibility
is a shared burden’
Sociology Professor Randy David
I agree
with our distinguished lecturer and National Artist, Francisco Sionil
Jose, that mass poverty is the biggest problem of Philippine society
today. The poverty of our people, he says, is the result of three factors:
the loss of our “ethical moorings,” our lack of a “sense
of nation,” and the betrayal by our leaders of the people’s
interest. Let’s look at his argument more closely.
I have a little
problem with the term “ethical moorings,” which I take to
mean the same thing as the word “values.” To speak of “moorings”
is to suggest that a people’s relation to the world must be fixed.
Yet all values change, some faster than others, reflecting the changing
circumstances in which human beings make their lives. Frankie would
be hard-pressed to define what these basic ethical moorings that have
been lost are, and to explain why he thinks we need them in these times.
I am quite certain that for every ethical ideal he proposes, ten different
others will come to mind. And there would be no objective way of deciding
which ethical ideals are more important to Filipinos than others.
My own view is that
values are in the final analysis a society’s defense and necessity,
their ultimate objective being the preservation and growth of the community
over time. Some values are worth strengthening, while others need to
be discarded – depending on whether they promote or threaten the
survival of the nation in changing times.
I think that a nation’s
core values must help its people not only to survive but also to grow
and mature as a community. Two things come to mind when we talk of growth:
first, the capacity to feed ourselves and take care of our people’s
needs without having to rely on other nations; and second, the ability
to govern ourselves and set our own goals as a nation. The first is
self-reliance; the second is autonomy. They are interrelated: a dependent
nation can never hope to be free.
Have our values
as a people helped us to grow? Or is it the loss of our ancestors’
values that arrested our growth? If it is the latter, as Frankie suggests,
I would be interested to know what these are that we have lost, and
how their loss has made us poor.
“Sense of
nation” is another one of those concepts that are difficult to
pin down. I am more comfortable with notions like “national pride”
or “national esteem” and the extent to which this is strengthened
or eroded in the course of a nation’s history. I also believe
that Filipino national pride has diminished greatly since the formation
of the Filipino nation. Today this is most manifest in the continuous
migration of demoralized and disenchanted Filipinos who feel betrayed
and see no hope for themselves and their children in these shores. Not
to look back, rejection, anger – these are reactions of émigrés
who think they must peel off the history of their nation from their
bodies before they can begin an entirely new life in their chosen country.
This is a form of violence upon the self that often enough some Filipino
immigrants also try to inflict on their children by erasing any trace
of the Filipino in their hearts.
It is not the simple
loss of sense of nation that I worry about, but rather the loss of pride
in one’s nation. In the global age, it is no longer unusual to
live and work abroad and remain a national of one’s country of
birth. There is no need to apologize for leaving one’s country,
just as there is no need to reject it in anger as a condition for one’s
happiness as an immigrant.
A nation is the
collective responsibility of all its citizens, not just of its leaders.
While it is true that the leaders of a nation must bear a large share
of the blame for its failure, responsibility is in the final analysis
a shared burden. We must not stop reminding ourselves of this because
it is usually easier to blame everybody else but ourselves for the problems
of the nation. We blame the country for failing to provide its citizens
a worthwhile future, but we seldom ask what we have done or are doing
to make it a better country. A nation is not something that exists independently
of its citizens. It is something its citizens gradually create across
generations.
Having said this,
I think there is little to gain -- except maybe rhetorical satisfaction
-- from blaming the leaders of a country for the problems of its people.
Needless to say, it is equally pointless to blame the victims. But we
must bear in mind that leaders do not become leaders, or remain leaders,
without the consent or sufferance of the people. The more important
question therefore is: If the leaders have made a mess of the nation,
why do they remain leaders? Why have the people not thrown them out?
Why do we keep electing the “wrong” leaders?
The answers to these
questions point to structural weaknesses and historical conditions that
are glossed over when our attention is focused entirely on subjective
causes like ethical foundations, sense of nation, and betrayal of leaders.
These structural conditions constrain us in what we do or wish to do,
even as they provide the opportunities for overcoming our problems.
It is in this sense that Marx once said: “Men make history, but
they do so under circumstances not chosen by them.” It behooves
us to interpret the meaning of these circumstances, in ways that concretely
allow us to eventually supersede them.
Thus, to Frankie’s
argument, I will add: We are poor primarily because our economy has
remained stagnant. Our productive capacities have not grown in proportion
to the increase in our population and the growing needs of our people.
We have not maximized the use of the vital assets of our nation –
the talent and industry of our people, the wealth of our soil, the richness
of our waters, the beauty of the land, and so on. We are wasting these
resources – our people above all. By failing to nurture and educate
our young properly so they can become productive citizens, we now confront
them as a burden.
We are poor because
a backward-looking landed oligarchy managed to capture the postcolonial
State, and placed it entirely in the service of their conservative interests.
We are poor because
we have surrendered national planning to the vagaries of global capitalism,
wrongly believing that if the State stepped aside to allow private entrepreneurship
free rein, the immanent rationality of the market would ultimately bring
the economy into the circuit of development. The experiences of Japan,
Singapore, and South Korea – economies we most admire –
demonstrate the opposite of that. Late developing societies cannot afford
to rely on the logic of capital alone because that means giving up control
of the nation to the forces of global capital.
Where domestic capital
is weak, the State has no choice but to strengthen it even if this means
playing an aggressive economic role. This is what the Koreans, Singaporeans,
Thais, and Malaysians did. This is what Marcos supposedly also had in
mind.
Of course, this
solution carries with it its own inherent dangers. The most important
is the danger of such an experiment ending up in “crony capitalism,”
where the wealth and power of the State are placed in the hands of favored
entrepreneurs who then abscond with the money. The other danger is that
when political leaders are too close to business, they end up enriching
and protecting the business of a few at the expense of the rest of the
nation.
Frankie calls for
a “nationalist” revolution, yet his analysis hardly problematizes
foreign domination. When he says that the vanguard of the future revolution
should be the masa, I believe what he has in mind is a democratic or
anti-feudal revolution.
Interestingly, he
also thinks the leadership of the revolution will be produced by the
University of the Philippines, as if the UP were exempt from elitism.
He seems to forget that a great number of our past political leaders
who became servants of the oligarchy are also products of this university.
I do not see very many children of the masa in the campuses of our university,
since these children seldom get to finish high school. And even if there
are, they usually join the ranks of the professionals who serve the
elite after graduation, or go abroad to use their minds in the service
of other nations.
I do believe that
the UP’s principal mission is to breed leaders of the nation,
hopefully, revolutionary leaders. But such leaders may not necessarily
come literally from the ranks of the peasantry, the working class, or
the urban poor. They may not themselves be the fighters in the streets
or the cadres in the countryside. In fact, they may not even be the
political leaders of the future. For me, it would be enough that they
nurture an intense pride in their country, care enough for its future
to want to spend the rest of their lives building it, have a passionate
concern for the underprivileged and downtrodden in our society, and
love learning enough to make it a lifelong obsession.
You cannot force
a revolution. I think the moment of revolutionary rupture comes when
it is least expected. The kind of students we breed in this university
must be such that no matter who the leaders of a given period may be,
they will have no choice but to serve as the worthy pillars of a strong
independent nation.
‘Nagsimula
na ang rebolusyon’ (a transcription)
Professor Emeritus Bienvenido Lumbera
Nang matanggap
ko ang kay Frankie na abstract, ang una kong reaksyon ay bakit sa kanyang
pagsasabi na ang kanyang papaksain ay ang University of the Philippines
and the Revolution, tila nakalimutan niya na nagsimula na ang rebolusyon
na kanyang hinahanap, na sa mga huling taon ng Dekada ‘70 ay lumitaw
ang isang kilusan na ang layunin ay agawin ang kapangyarihan mula sa
kamay ng mga naghaharing uri upang mabigyan ang mga Pilipino ng tunay
na kalayaan at ng demokrasya. Para bang ang hinihingi niya ay for UP
to reinvent the revolution dahil sa kanya ang rebolusyon ay tinawag
niyang nationalist, at sa kanyang pagpapaliwanag kanina, binanggit niya
ang pangalan ni Bonifacio at kanyang sinabi na tila pagkakamali ni Jose
Maria Sison na siya ay tumanaw sa Tsina upang humango ng ideolohiya
na magiging tuntungan ng rebolusyon na kanyang nilalayon.
Ngayon, kung ating
babalikan ang kasaysayan ng UP at ang relasyon nito sa rebolusyon, makikita
natin na ‘yung tinatawag na First Quarter Storm ay isang panimulang
hakbang ng mga kabataang nasa Unibersidad ng Pilipinas kaugnay ang iba
pang kabataan sa iba pang unibersidad na simulan ang pag-agaw ng kapangyarihan
mula sa kamay ng naghaharing uri, na sa pananalita ni Frankie ay ang
elite ng Pilipinas. Sa hanay ng mga estudyante na naging bahagi ng FQS,
totoo na mayroong mga lider na bumaliktad at ito ay isang bagay na hindi
kataka-taka, dahil sa kasaysayan ng anumang rebolusyonaryong kilusan,
habang tumatakbo ang panahon at kilusan, mayroong mga lider na tunay
na bumabaliktad, pero ating pakasusuriin ang mga taong naging bahagi
ng FQS. Marami sa kanila ang nagpatuloy at hanggang ngayon ay nasa kilusang
pambansang demokrasya, na ang kanilang pinanghahawakang mga prinsipyo
ay mga prinsipyo na kanilang natutunan sa Unibersidad ng Pilipinas bukod
pa sa kanilang pag-aaral ng iba pang kaisipan mula sa ibang bansa.
So, hirap kong tanggapin
na may bagong rebolusyon na dapat harapin ang Unibersidad ng Pilipinas.
At ito ay tinatawag niyang nationalist revolution.
Ang isa pang okasyon
na ipinamalas ng UP ang kanyang rebolusyonaryong orientasyon ay ang
Diliman Commune. Totoo na ang Diliman Commune ay naging tampulan ng
maraming puna ng mga intelektwal, ng mga lider ng bansa, dahil sa mga
kalabisan o pagmamalabis na nangyari noong panahon ng Diliman Commune.
Pero iyon ay isang matatawag nating necessary step, necessary preparation
for stepping up a revolutionary movement.
Matatandaan din
natin na noong panahon ng martial law, isang panahon na ang media ay
kontrolado ng estado, sa Unibersidad ng Pilipinas lamang nanatiling
buhay ang tinatawag nating freedom of the press, dahil sa pamamagitan
ng Collegian at Diliman Review ay napaabot sa mga tao ang mga kaisipan
na hindi pinapayagang malathala sa mga medyang kontrolado ng gobyerno.
Ang tatlong bagay
na ito ay pagpapatunay na mayroon nang rebolusyon na nasimulan at nilahukan
ang Unibersidad ng Pilipinas at hindi na kailangan na umibento tayong
muli ng isa pang rebolusyon upang maganap ang pagbabagong hinahangad
ng mga Pilipino. Sa pananalita ni Frankie—na medyo hindi kapani-paniwala
para sa akin—‘yung kanyang pagsasabi na hindi siya naniniwala
na kailanman ay magtatagumpay ang isang rebolusyong pinamumunuan ng
mga komunista, dahil aniya, ang mga komunista ay katulad din ng mga
liderato natin na may ego at paghahangad na itampok ang sarili sa halip
na ang pag-ukulan ng pansin ay ang kalagayan ng masa.
Sa palagay ko, mahirap
nating tuunan na mayroon na kaagad na parameters na ang isang revolutionary
movement ay kinakailangang obserbahan. Ang tunay na rebolusyonaryo ay
laging handang baguhin ang pagkilos, baguhin ang mga panukala, upang
umangkop sa kalagayan at mapagtagumpayan ang lahat ng balakid sa rebolusyon.
Kaya ‘yung inherent prejudice ni Frankie sa kilusan na pinamumunuan
ng Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas ay hindi dapat maging pananaw ng lahat
ng mga taong naghahangad ng pagbabago sa Pilipinas.
Several months ago,
mayroon akong ginawang pag-aaral sa isang nobela ni Frankie, ‘yung
nobela niyang Ermita. Ang Ermita ay isang nobela tungkol sa isang babaeng
naging puta dahil gusto niyang maghiganti sa mga elite na nagtulak sa
kanya upang mapabilang sa mga mahirap, ‘yung pamilya ng driver
noong mayamang pamilya. Doon sa nobelang iyon, isang pagkakataon, minor
plot point pero mayroong isang kabataang babae, anak ng isang dating
puta, ang pangalan ay Lily, na bigla na lamang nawala. At ‘yung
nanay ng kabataan ay nag-usisa, nagtanong sa maraming tao, pagkatapos
ay inireport doon sa pangunahing tauhan na si Ermita, na nawawala ang
kanyang anak. Ngayon, alam na noong si Ermita na ang anak ng babaeng
ito ay namundok at sumali sa NPA. Ang sabi ng pangunahing tauhan ni
Frankie, si Ermita, doon sa nanay, “Alam mo, dapat mong ipagmalaki
ang iyong anak kasi ang ginawa niya ay isang bagay na dapat ay ginawa
ko rin noong ako ay bata-bata pa.” So, wari, sa tingin ko, nandoon
sa likod ng consciousness ni Frankie na mayroong magagawa ang isang
rebolusyon na sinapian ni Lily. Ang nobela ay naganap noong martial
law—ang lahat ng mga aksyon ay nangyari noong martial law—at
ang kabataang ito ay nagsimula bilang aktibista, inililihim sa kanyang
magulang ang kanyang pagiging aktibista hanggang magsuspetsa ang nanay
na marahil ang kanyang anak ay nagpuputa na rin. Kaya nabahala masyado
ang nanay at inireport doon kay Ermita. At si Ermita ang nagsiyasat
kung ano ang talagang nangyari sa bata. Natuklasan nga niya na naging
aktibista ang bata. Nag-usap sila, sinabi ng bata na siya ay natutong
magsinungaling sa kanyang ina dahil alam niya na di siya mauunawaan
ng kanyang nanay sa kanyang pagpapasya na sumali sa mga demonstrasyon
at mga rally. Ngayon, nang mamundok si Lily, doon nga sinabi ni Ermita
na ‘yon ay dapat ginawa na rin niya. Kaya tila sa tingin ko mayroon
ding pagkilala sa nobela ni Frankie na mayroong maibubungang mabuti
itong pagsali ni Lily sa kilusang rebolusyonaryo.
Ngayon, sa Unibersidad
ng Pilipinas, bagama’t binanggit ko ang tatlong pangyayari na
nagpapakita ng kaugnayan ng UP at ng rebolusyon, makikita natin na pagkaraan
ng Edsa, nagkaroon ng paghupa ng revolutionary fervor sa hanay ng mga
estudyante at ‘di lamang ng mga estudyante kundi pati sa hanay
ng mga guro. Ang pinakahuling manipestasyon nito, at palagay ko isang
bagay ito na dapat ungkatin dahil may kinalaman ito sa nationalist revolution:
Nang magkaroon ng muling pagsisiyasat sa general education curriculum,
ang isang kapansin-pansin ay ang pagtatanggal ng mga kurso na siyang
pinaka-votive power ng nationalism sa ating Unibersidad, at ito ay ang
pag-aaral ng kasaysayan ng Pilipinas at ang pag-uukol ng pansin sa mga
usapin na may kaugnayan sa kalagayan ng Pilipinas. ‘Yung RGEP
sa tingin ko ay isang manipestasyon—hindi siya mismo ang dahilan
ng paghupa ng fervor kundi manipestasyon na nagkaroon na ng pagbabago
sa hanay ng mga namumuno sa Unibersidad tungkol sa mga pangangailangan
ng isang tunay na makabayang edukasyon. Kaya binanggit ko ito ay sa
kadahilanang kung ang hinihingi natin sa Unibersidad ng Pilipinas ay
isang nationalist revolution, sa kasalukuyang takbo ng mga patakaran
sa ating Unibersidad, tila hindi na mangyayari iyon. Inaasahan natin
na magkakaroon ng muling pagsusuri sa kalagayan ng Unibersidad ng Pilipinas
at sa mga darating na araw ay maibabalik ang pagkilala sa kasaysayan
ng Pilipinas bilang isang susing aralin sa Unibersidad upang mapatingkad
ang nasyonalismo sa ating bansa.
‘The
University and how it teaches about power’
Philosophy Professor Zosimo Lee
Instead
of talking about the university and revolution, I would rather share
some questions and tentative answers on the concept of power. Power
I think is something that the university has, and power is also something
that the university can nurture, bestow and acknowledge, or thwart and
challenge. I think it will serve to reflect on how we understand the
phenomenon of power. ‘Power’ is basically the ability to
do something, and the doing here includes the activity of thinking.
It sounds better in Filipino actually, ‘kapangyarihan’,
merong nangyayari, o merong kakayahan para merong mangyari, o kaya nagdudulot
ng pangyayari o patungo sa pangyayari.
We exercise power
in the university in the way we guide our students, acknowledge their
achievements, recognize our colleagues, and distribute rewards or sanctions
to everyone within the institution. We also generate power when we build
arguments, write original and creative works, construct new perspectives
and discover new insights and processes. The power of the superior argument
comes from our belief that, first, there are criteria for superior arguments,
and second, that we can recognize and bow to those better insights.
Should we not be able to recognize the criteria nor be able to recognize
the better insights, I think we enervate ourselves and become weak.
We also generate
power when we are better able to see what is to be done that addresses
fundamental questions we raise. There is an architectonic to our mind
and we ourselves create the ramparts upon which we are able to see the
horizon. The ability to see the whole, and pinpoint where there might
be weaknesses or failures, problems or impending disasters, as well
as achievements and strong points, is a source of power, even leadership.
We hope that through the academic discipline that we practice, we are
able to imbue ourselves with this capacity to view the horizon and the
whole, and anchor that vision on stable and strong ramparts. That power
is something that can energize and guide, inspire and motivate, create
and fulfill.
I think we seek
a certain completeness, depth and breadth to what we conceive of. Even
in the creation of small interventions, somehow it becomes more satisfying
when we can locate the detail within a larger picture. The rhythm and
cadence of our speech and thought, seems to derive from a wider sense
of the architectonic we aim to build. The superior insight derives from
this more complete sense, that then helps locate the other activities
within a meaningful whole. So the exercise of power must arise from
this meaningful whole.
Finally power can
also be oppressive or domineering, when it does not seek common ground,
or attempts to build secure argument, but rather is an exercise of prerogative
that is not defensible on rational grounds, when it becomes self-serving
or self-interested. In contrast, power can be nurturing when it explains
or bases itself on reasons that can be accessible to all, and even transformative
when it seeks to replace weak or limited thinking, with more robust
or rigorous argumentation. When it seeks to transform the inchoate incomplete
insight into more robust ideas. Such that when the logic or the way
of thinking is improved based on criteria that the individual recognizes
and legislates for herself, the individual can rise up to an equality
of power because she is able to argue on the best possible grounds.
A university that
is able to do these is a source of power for the nation, and it can
also instruct the nation as to how that power is generated and used.
