Why is it that the description of Japan and things that are Japanese becomes a text for a class in poststructuralism? Is Japan really a country that perfectly defies structure, and hence becomes an example of poststructuralism? This seems to be the contrary of what we see because Japanese people are also accustomed to several protocols. They are also among those people who are rich in their traditions. They are the people who brag of their history. They are particularly proud of their sense of honor. Hence, if we talk about poststructuralism as a contemporary term for anarchy, Japan seems not to be an example of poststructuralism.
Yet, why would Roland Barthes call Japan a bricolage, nation which is itself a system born out from emptiness and fiction?
I believe Japan becomes fiction for Barthes because of the fact that his personal experience in the country affords him of a sense of emptiness and meaninglessness. It is the country that offers him no meaning during his first encounters with it. He knows that there are many things written, many customs done, many places to go and visit, and yet none of them give him the usual comfort of a sense of understanding and comprehension. Japan is an empty place for him.
But personally, when I was reading the book, there was one observation I got and which gave me a possible way of understanding why Japan becomes an example of poststructuralism for Barthes. I believe, Japan is poststructuralist in Barthes’ perspective as a western man. Quite often in his short exposition of things that are Japanese, Barthes would compare them to things that are Western. For example, we read of Barthes’ comparison of haiku to western literature, of chopsticks to western fork, of Tokyo to Western cities.
For Barthes, Japanese things defy the Western paradigm. Such defiance perfectly fits to what we call poststructuralist. Poststructuralism defies the reigning paradigm. It denies the center, and so it denies the comfort of a certain assurance of comprehension or understanding. It frustrates the triumphant feeling of being able to control things that one has understood. Japan has deprived Barthes the privilege to grasp, control and even manipulate things. Japan rendered him helpless especially in things that are not usual, ordinary or even normal for him.
Japan is poststructuralist not because it is anarchic and lacking of any system. It is poststructuralist because it denies the author his usual meaning or paradigm. It denies the author his own center of comprehending things. Japan is but a sign for him. But it is a sign that is bereft of any content. It is a sign that is in itself meaningless.
Japan is an empire of sign. It has abundance of signs, yet it does not provide Barthes the meaning which he normally finds and attributes to a western signage. Japan is a mysterious, new or monstrous thing, place or nation for him. In fact, for Barthes, Japan is but a fiction, bereft of reality, lacking of any real content and meaning.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
FOUR POLITICAL LEXICONS OF THE EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITINGS
INTRODUCTION
This article is an attempt to name four political lexicons of the early Christian political writings. The works taken as basis for this composition are the writings of the early Apologists down to the philosophical-theological writings of the Saint Augustine. This background then must enable us to see the context of the ideas pursued in the mentioned works. This is the time when Christianity was yet a young religion, and was yet constantly criticized and even persecuted by the powerful Romanic and Greek cultures. The writings of the apologists are the first attempts of Christianity to give “intellectual” justifications for the Christian religion. It was said that Christianity was scorned by the Greeks who could not accept a God who would die for his people on the cross. The Greeks simply believed that Christianity is ridiculous, and they considered the Christians as simply superstitious and “un-intellectuals.”
The early apologetical writings then are attempts to show to the Romans and Greeks that Christianity is as rational as the philosophical systems of the Greek classical philosophical writings. The Apologists were the first philosophers of the Christian religion, who argued that Christianity is in fact logically viable. In fact, some of them have argued that the Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle were Christians despite their ignorance about their being Christians. Some Apologists said that by the fact that the early philosophers have pursued the truth, they were already pursuing Christ, hence, they were already Christians.
Bearing this Christian bias at the background, it has to be understood first that the concepts to be presented are thus Christian concepts, that is, they are serving the purpose of proving the existence of a God, and in addition, they were also taken from the Apologists who were trying to argue against Roman and Greek critics on behalf of the Christian religion. In what would follow then are the four political lexicons chosen for this particular exposition:
THE FOUR POLITICAL LEXICONS
KINGDOM
Christianity came out of a culture whose people have been once accustomed to a monarchy. We know in history that the Israelites were once a known monarchy especially during the time of King David and Solomon. Even though the monarchy of the Israelite people has deteriorated and has eventually led to the invasion of the Roman empire, the Israelite people were still expecting that they would one day restore such monarchy. Hence, the Israelites were long waiting and wanting for the coming of the messiah, whom they believed to be a King-warrior like the great King David, and this messiah would finally lead Israel to a successful revolution against the rule of the Romans in Israel. This expectation is evident in the Scriptural emphasis that the Messiah, Jesus Christ, came from the line of David. The first followers of Jesus were themselves unsure of what really Jesus is for. They were in fact keeping that very same expectation. They were expecting Jesus to become their political leader who would re-establish the kingdom of Israel.
Hence, this is the expectation that Jesus raised when he announced that the “Kingdom of God” is at hand. The people around him took this pronouncement as a signal that the rebellion is about to start. His disciples grew in number with many of them keeping the expectation that they would soon rise in arms to topple down the foreign rule of Rome. Such revolution is nothing new for the people of Israel for they were also accustomed with having religious leaders who would soon become a political inspiration. There were already stories of people who raised a good number of followers to revolt against Rome, though unsuccessfully. Some of the followers of Christ were also thinking that he would do the same. Hence, we see for example, the intervention of the mother of two of Jesus’ apostles, asking Jesus that when the time would come that he would sit on his reign, he would allow one to sit on his right, and the other to sit on his left. This is one of the earliest attempts to lobby a political decision. There was an expectation that Jesus, given his charisma and other powers, would soon rise to a political seat.
The same expectation was present not just among the Jewish followers of Christ, but also with the ruling Roman government. The Romans were also aware of the earlier attempts for revolution. Hence, they were already anxious of the growing number of Jesus’ disciples because such following may become so great that they might successfully repel the Roman government away. Hence, the Roman government did treat Jesus harshly because considered him to a dangerous leader of the rebels.
But this expectation for a “KINGDOM” died when Christ was crucified to the cross. The crucifixion both frustrated the peoples’ expectation and eased the Romans’ anxiety about the supposed rebellion of Jesus. With the crucifixion, many of Jesus’ followers had left.
This was also the reason of the big surprise of the Roman and the Greeks later on when they learned that the followers of Jesus persevered in their respective communities despite the death of Christ. These Roman and Greek critics then believed that these Christians were truly superstitious people because they clung to their belief about the restoration of their “kingdom” despite the death of their leader.
This criticism then becomes the object of the apologists’ defense. Against the ridicule of the Greeks and Romans, the apologists argued that the latter were mistaken to think that Christianity works for the restoration of an earthly kingdom because Christians are working for God’s kingdom. The apologists clarified that the worldly kingdom is not the Kingdom of God, and the former is far inferior compared with the latter. For this, the First Apology says in paragraph 11: “And when you hear that we look for a kingdom, you uncritically suppose that we speak of a human one; whereas we speak of that with God, as appears also from the confession of their faith made by those who are charged with being Christians, although they know that death is the penalty meted out to him who so confesses. For if we look for a human kingdom, we would deny it, that we might not be slain; and we would try to escape detection, that we might obtain the things we look for. But since we do not have our hope of the present, we do not heed our executioners, since death is in any case the debt of nature.” (p.11)
But what is important in this Christian discourse about the kingdom is that, Christians argued that despite the fact that they were not looking for a human kingdom, they promise to be cooperative with the rulers of the earthly kingdom. They for example argued that they are peace-keeping, and peace-loving persons, and so, Christians should not be treated as menace in the society. Rather than be treated as rebellious people, Christians can be supportive of the state in the sense that Christians, who aspire for the kingdom of God, are non-covetous people, non-wicked people. Hence, they can truly contribute for the building up of this earthly kingdom, despite their non-belonging to this kingdom.
The discourse on the kingdom then is a big discourse in the early Christian writings, especially because of the fact that Christ himself has referred to a Kingdom in the ministry. Though it was claimed that the kingdom of God is different from the earthly kingdom, it has to be born in mind that the human kingdom can bear semblance to that of the Kingdom of God. Hence, the ideals of the Kingdom of God such as peace and harmony can also be pursued as ideals of this human kingdom. In the same way as the Kingdom of God is the perfect kingdom, the earthly kingdom may also imitate it.
AUTHORITIES OF THE STATE
One evident political lexicon which we can also see in the gospels is the talk on the political authorities. There was once an attempt to discredit Christ as a teacher, and so his regard to the political authorities was tested. The critics of Christ had heard him speak of God as the only ruler and King, and so they ask Jesus on how should the people regard the emperor of Rome, or the political authorities. To this query, Jesus replied: “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and give to God what belongs to God.”
In the writings of the apologists, it could obviously be seen that despite Christianity’s claim that God is the absolute ruler Christians are still respectful of the political authorities. But Christians’ regards to the political rulers may however be different from that of a non-Christian.
Christianity believes that the authorities of the state, human authorities, are not absolute leaders. They do not hold powers by virtue only of themselves. Rather, leaders are said to be ministers of God. In the Book 5 of Against Heresies, the apostle Paul was cited, “Be ye subject to all the higher powers; for there is no power but of God, now of those which are have been ordained by God.” (p.16) The earthly rulers, the early Christians believed, are ministers or ordained by God. If they are so, then we need to respect them. In the book of Romans it was also mentioned, “For this cause, pay ye tribute also; for they are God’s ministers attending to this very thing.” (Rom. 13:1)Two things can then be concluded from here: (1) cooperation with the state is a Christian service because it is at the same time a service for God, (2) Civil service is primarily rendered through the civil servants’ moral integrity because he is acting on behalf of God. This then is not too different from other lines of thought. It can even be compared to the Confucian concept of a minister that is, a minister has to be morally upright. Hence, Christianity calls for moral rectitude if one goes to civil service not just because such is needed for a good administration of the affairs of the state, but more importantly even, because such is the civil servants’ responsibility and accountability to God.
Now, if this is the Christian understanding of the authorities, how do the Christians treat rebellion then? Implicitly, the apologists justify a rebellion when the legitimate need arises. But rebellion however should not be treated as an attack against the authorities of the state. Rebellion is not against the authority held by the civil servant, for as mentioned such authority flows from God. But rather the people’s rebellion is in itself a solution to be offered against the rebellion of the civil servant himself. Rebellion is done against the civil servant who first rebelled against the authority leased on him. Book 5 of Against Heresies said, “Behold I confer on you the power of treading upon serpents and scorpions and upon all the power of the enemy, in order that as he obtained dominion over men by rebellion, so again his rebellion might be deprived of power by means of men turning back to God.”(p.18)
Rebellion then is justified. However, it is not to be understood as an attack against power but rather as a “turning back to God.” The abusive leader is the first rebel himself, and it is but the responsibility of a conscientious Christian citizen to do justice to the authority of God accorded to a particular office, and so, the citizens have to rebel, which at the same time is an act of journeying back to God.
Hence, with regard to authorities, we are all enjoined and morally obliged to respect authorities because they are acting on behalf of God, and their authority and power comes from God. But once they turned to become abusive leaders, it is our duty, as citizens, to preserve the dignity of the authority of God, by taking away such authority from an abusive leader.
LAWS
The concept of Law is another political lexicon which even finds a place in the mouth of Christ: “I have come not to abolish the law but to perfect it.” Jesus is considered to be the new Moses because Jesus is the bringer of the new Law, whereas Moses was the one entrusted by Yahweh with the Law that governs Israel’s covenant with God. In Book 1 of Stromateis, the argument was rather simple in order to defend the Christian-Jewish tradition of the Law. When the Greeks and Romans were ignoring Christianity, the Apologists simply said that Moses is among the ancient leaders of a group that has even become inspiration to Greek and Roman writers. One example cited was Moses’ strategy of bringing the Israelites to the desert rather than treading the straight path going to Canaan. The Christian writer believed that such action is Moses’ military strategy: he escaped attention from their pursuers. The author said that this strategy was even used by the Athenian general, Miltiades. The author said, “Miltiades, the Athenian general who conquered the Persians at the battle of Marathon, took note of this and modeled his tactics on it.” Using other examples, the author used this argument to claim that Moses, a pillar in the Jewish and Christian, tradition is even the inspiration of the Greeks. Then how can the Greeks call Christianity a base religion?
But one of the most striking convergence of thought between Moses and the Greek classics is in Plato’s teaching about politics. For Plato treated politics in two spheres: law and politics proper. The discourse on the Law is particularly important because the Greek concept of Law seemed to have been patterned also from that of Moses.
Moses was given the law in Mount Sinai. But these laws are more than provisions for exacting punishment to the erring members of the community. Rather, these laws are systems of training those who are in their way of becoming responsible. (p.35) The people of Israel have to be trained first to become responsible before the promised land is given them. Further the text says, “The law in its care of the obedient, educates them in piety, prescribing what is to be done while restraining them from misdeeds.” Law is then construed in a more positive light, that is, as a venue of formation for the people. Later Christian thinkers would pick this up, and this can even be a helpful vantage point of view nowadays. We now talk of restorative justice. We employ justice not really to exact the same degree of pain and evil to the one who committed the crime, but rather, to aid the sinner in his transformation so that he would refrain from sinning further. Thomas Aquinas himself said, law is designed to establish friendship among men. If men are lawful, then they can easily become friends to one another. This can also be the reason why Augustine would claim that there cannot be unjust laws. He says, “I think that a law that is not just is not a law.” (book 1, On the Free Choice of the Will; p.113) Laws are formative, and so it cannot be one that is unjust.
JUSTICE
Related to the previous lexicon mentioned is the discourse on justice. In Book V of Divine Institutes, there was a discussion on Justice, where it says that there are two virtues that are intimately bound with justice. These are namely, piety and equality.
The apologist had to mention these two virtues in order to give justification for a monotheistic religion as it stood face to face the polytheistic cultures of the Greeks and Romans. The author again cited Plato who “had much to say about one God, who has created this world.” (p.52) But interestingly, Plato discussed no religion. Hence, the author argues, to believe in one God only is really proper to the nature of man. The author then claims here that piety is one expression of justice. It is rendering something that is proper to our nature. Justice must allow the Christians to believe in one God, and hence Christians should not be persecuted, because even Greek philosophers like Plato and Socrates admits as reasonable the existence of one God.
Secondly, justice is related to the virtue of equality. The argument of the author simply is: “we are all equal as men, and justice demands that we simply treat each other as one’s equal.” He also said that to treat each other as each one’s equal is present also in the teaching of Cicero. The latter calls this as “equability.”(p.52) Hence, the author also argues that Greeks and Romans, if they truly are just must allow Christianity, because Christians are also their equals. The fact then that Christians were persecuted in the Roman empire would mean that the Romans did not consider other people as equals, and that they are themselves unjust. Their injustice is attested not just by their Christian victims but even by Cicero who adheres to the concept of “equability.”
CONCLUSION
The above exposition is a mere attempt to name some of the political lexicons among early Christians. These words were again used for a specific purpose: in defense of Christianity. Hence, they may not have really displayed reference to actual universal practices in the society, except when they directly affect the Christians. But despite that, these lexicons were carried over by the succeeding Christians who become thinkers of their own time, and hence in a way affect the progress / development of the political thought of the world.
This article is an attempt to name four political lexicons of the early Christian political writings. The works taken as basis for this composition are the writings of the early Apologists down to the philosophical-theological writings of the Saint Augustine. This background then must enable us to see the context of the ideas pursued in the mentioned works. This is the time when Christianity was yet a young religion, and was yet constantly criticized and even persecuted by the powerful Romanic and Greek cultures. The writings of the apologists are the first attempts of Christianity to give “intellectual” justifications for the Christian religion. It was said that Christianity was scorned by the Greeks who could not accept a God who would die for his people on the cross. The Greeks simply believed that Christianity is ridiculous, and they considered the Christians as simply superstitious and “un-intellectuals.”
The early apologetical writings then are attempts to show to the Romans and Greeks that Christianity is as rational as the philosophical systems of the Greek classical philosophical writings. The Apologists were the first philosophers of the Christian religion, who argued that Christianity is in fact logically viable. In fact, some of them have argued that the Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle were Christians despite their ignorance about their being Christians. Some Apologists said that by the fact that the early philosophers have pursued the truth, they were already pursuing Christ, hence, they were already Christians.
Bearing this Christian bias at the background, it has to be understood first that the concepts to be presented are thus Christian concepts, that is, they are serving the purpose of proving the existence of a God, and in addition, they were also taken from the Apologists who were trying to argue against Roman and Greek critics on behalf of the Christian religion. In what would follow then are the four political lexicons chosen for this particular exposition:
THE FOUR POLITICAL LEXICONS
KINGDOM
Christianity came out of a culture whose people have been once accustomed to a monarchy. We know in history that the Israelites were once a known monarchy especially during the time of King David and Solomon. Even though the monarchy of the Israelite people has deteriorated and has eventually led to the invasion of the Roman empire, the Israelite people were still expecting that they would one day restore such monarchy. Hence, the Israelites were long waiting and wanting for the coming of the messiah, whom they believed to be a King-warrior like the great King David, and this messiah would finally lead Israel to a successful revolution against the rule of the Romans in Israel. This expectation is evident in the Scriptural emphasis that the Messiah, Jesus Christ, came from the line of David. The first followers of Jesus were themselves unsure of what really Jesus is for. They were in fact keeping that very same expectation. They were expecting Jesus to become their political leader who would re-establish the kingdom of Israel.
Hence, this is the expectation that Jesus raised when he announced that the “Kingdom of God” is at hand. The people around him took this pronouncement as a signal that the rebellion is about to start. His disciples grew in number with many of them keeping the expectation that they would soon rise in arms to topple down the foreign rule of Rome. Such revolution is nothing new for the people of Israel for they were also accustomed with having religious leaders who would soon become a political inspiration. There were already stories of people who raised a good number of followers to revolt against Rome, though unsuccessfully. Some of the followers of Christ were also thinking that he would do the same. Hence, we see for example, the intervention of the mother of two of Jesus’ apostles, asking Jesus that when the time would come that he would sit on his reign, he would allow one to sit on his right, and the other to sit on his left. This is one of the earliest attempts to lobby a political decision. There was an expectation that Jesus, given his charisma and other powers, would soon rise to a political seat.
The same expectation was present not just among the Jewish followers of Christ, but also with the ruling Roman government. The Romans were also aware of the earlier attempts for revolution. Hence, they were already anxious of the growing number of Jesus’ disciples because such following may become so great that they might successfully repel the Roman government away. Hence, the Roman government did treat Jesus harshly because considered him to a dangerous leader of the rebels.
But this expectation for a “KINGDOM” died when Christ was crucified to the cross. The crucifixion both frustrated the peoples’ expectation and eased the Romans’ anxiety about the supposed rebellion of Jesus. With the crucifixion, many of Jesus’ followers had left.
This was also the reason of the big surprise of the Roman and the Greeks later on when they learned that the followers of Jesus persevered in their respective communities despite the death of Christ. These Roman and Greek critics then believed that these Christians were truly superstitious people because they clung to their belief about the restoration of their “kingdom” despite the death of their leader.
This criticism then becomes the object of the apologists’ defense. Against the ridicule of the Greeks and Romans, the apologists argued that the latter were mistaken to think that Christianity works for the restoration of an earthly kingdom because Christians are working for God’s kingdom. The apologists clarified that the worldly kingdom is not the Kingdom of God, and the former is far inferior compared with the latter. For this, the First Apology says in paragraph 11: “And when you hear that we look for a kingdom, you uncritically suppose that we speak of a human one; whereas we speak of that with God, as appears also from the confession of their faith made by those who are charged with being Christians, although they know that death is the penalty meted out to him who so confesses. For if we look for a human kingdom, we would deny it, that we might not be slain; and we would try to escape detection, that we might obtain the things we look for. But since we do not have our hope of the present, we do not heed our executioners, since death is in any case the debt of nature.” (p.11)
But what is important in this Christian discourse about the kingdom is that, Christians argued that despite the fact that they were not looking for a human kingdom, they promise to be cooperative with the rulers of the earthly kingdom. They for example argued that they are peace-keeping, and peace-loving persons, and so, Christians should not be treated as menace in the society. Rather than be treated as rebellious people, Christians can be supportive of the state in the sense that Christians, who aspire for the kingdom of God, are non-covetous people, non-wicked people. Hence, they can truly contribute for the building up of this earthly kingdom, despite their non-belonging to this kingdom.
The discourse on the kingdom then is a big discourse in the early Christian writings, especially because of the fact that Christ himself has referred to a Kingdom in the ministry. Though it was claimed that the kingdom of God is different from the earthly kingdom, it has to be born in mind that the human kingdom can bear semblance to that of the Kingdom of God. Hence, the ideals of the Kingdom of God such as peace and harmony can also be pursued as ideals of this human kingdom. In the same way as the Kingdom of God is the perfect kingdom, the earthly kingdom may also imitate it.
AUTHORITIES OF THE STATE
One evident political lexicon which we can also see in the gospels is the talk on the political authorities. There was once an attempt to discredit Christ as a teacher, and so his regard to the political authorities was tested. The critics of Christ had heard him speak of God as the only ruler and King, and so they ask Jesus on how should the people regard the emperor of Rome, or the political authorities. To this query, Jesus replied: “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and give to God what belongs to God.”
In the writings of the apologists, it could obviously be seen that despite Christianity’s claim that God is the absolute ruler Christians are still respectful of the political authorities. But Christians’ regards to the political rulers may however be different from that of a non-Christian.
Christianity believes that the authorities of the state, human authorities, are not absolute leaders. They do not hold powers by virtue only of themselves. Rather, leaders are said to be ministers of God. In the Book 5 of Against Heresies, the apostle Paul was cited, “Be ye subject to all the higher powers; for there is no power but of God, now of those which are have been ordained by God.” (p.16) The earthly rulers, the early Christians believed, are ministers or ordained by God. If they are so, then we need to respect them. In the book of Romans it was also mentioned, “For this cause, pay ye tribute also; for they are God’s ministers attending to this very thing.” (Rom. 13:1)Two things can then be concluded from here: (1) cooperation with the state is a Christian service because it is at the same time a service for God, (2) Civil service is primarily rendered through the civil servants’ moral integrity because he is acting on behalf of God. This then is not too different from other lines of thought. It can even be compared to the Confucian concept of a minister that is, a minister has to be morally upright. Hence, Christianity calls for moral rectitude if one goes to civil service not just because such is needed for a good administration of the affairs of the state, but more importantly even, because such is the civil servants’ responsibility and accountability to God.
Now, if this is the Christian understanding of the authorities, how do the Christians treat rebellion then? Implicitly, the apologists justify a rebellion when the legitimate need arises. But rebellion however should not be treated as an attack against the authorities of the state. Rebellion is not against the authority held by the civil servant, for as mentioned such authority flows from God. But rather the people’s rebellion is in itself a solution to be offered against the rebellion of the civil servant himself. Rebellion is done against the civil servant who first rebelled against the authority leased on him. Book 5 of Against Heresies said, “Behold I confer on you the power of treading upon serpents and scorpions and upon all the power of the enemy, in order that as he obtained dominion over men by rebellion, so again his rebellion might be deprived of power by means of men turning back to God.”(p.18)
Rebellion then is justified. However, it is not to be understood as an attack against power but rather as a “turning back to God.” The abusive leader is the first rebel himself, and it is but the responsibility of a conscientious Christian citizen to do justice to the authority of God accorded to a particular office, and so, the citizens have to rebel, which at the same time is an act of journeying back to God.
Hence, with regard to authorities, we are all enjoined and morally obliged to respect authorities because they are acting on behalf of God, and their authority and power comes from God. But once they turned to become abusive leaders, it is our duty, as citizens, to preserve the dignity of the authority of God, by taking away such authority from an abusive leader.
LAWS
The concept of Law is another political lexicon which even finds a place in the mouth of Christ: “I have come not to abolish the law but to perfect it.” Jesus is considered to be the new Moses because Jesus is the bringer of the new Law, whereas Moses was the one entrusted by Yahweh with the Law that governs Israel’s covenant with God. In Book 1 of Stromateis, the argument was rather simple in order to defend the Christian-Jewish tradition of the Law. When the Greeks and Romans were ignoring Christianity, the Apologists simply said that Moses is among the ancient leaders of a group that has even become inspiration to Greek and Roman writers. One example cited was Moses’ strategy of bringing the Israelites to the desert rather than treading the straight path going to Canaan. The Christian writer believed that such action is Moses’ military strategy: he escaped attention from their pursuers. The author said that this strategy was even used by the Athenian general, Miltiades. The author said, “Miltiades, the Athenian general who conquered the Persians at the battle of Marathon, took note of this and modeled his tactics on it.” Using other examples, the author used this argument to claim that Moses, a pillar in the Jewish and Christian, tradition is even the inspiration of the Greeks. Then how can the Greeks call Christianity a base religion?
But one of the most striking convergence of thought between Moses and the Greek classics is in Plato’s teaching about politics. For Plato treated politics in two spheres: law and politics proper. The discourse on the Law is particularly important because the Greek concept of Law seemed to have been patterned also from that of Moses.
Moses was given the law in Mount Sinai. But these laws are more than provisions for exacting punishment to the erring members of the community. Rather, these laws are systems of training those who are in their way of becoming responsible. (p.35) The people of Israel have to be trained first to become responsible before the promised land is given them. Further the text says, “The law in its care of the obedient, educates them in piety, prescribing what is to be done while restraining them from misdeeds.” Law is then construed in a more positive light, that is, as a venue of formation for the people. Later Christian thinkers would pick this up, and this can even be a helpful vantage point of view nowadays. We now talk of restorative justice. We employ justice not really to exact the same degree of pain and evil to the one who committed the crime, but rather, to aid the sinner in his transformation so that he would refrain from sinning further. Thomas Aquinas himself said, law is designed to establish friendship among men. If men are lawful, then they can easily become friends to one another. This can also be the reason why Augustine would claim that there cannot be unjust laws. He says, “I think that a law that is not just is not a law.” (book 1, On the Free Choice of the Will; p.113) Laws are formative, and so it cannot be one that is unjust.
JUSTICE
Related to the previous lexicon mentioned is the discourse on justice. In Book V of Divine Institutes, there was a discussion on Justice, where it says that there are two virtues that are intimately bound with justice. These are namely, piety and equality.
The apologist had to mention these two virtues in order to give justification for a monotheistic religion as it stood face to face the polytheistic cultures of the Greeks and Romans. The author again cited Plato who “had much to say about one God, who has created this world.” (p.52) But interestingly, Plato discussed no religion. Hence, the author argues, to believe in one God only is really proper to the nature of man. The author then claims here that piety is one expression of justice. It is rendering something that is proper to our nature. Justice must allow the Christians to believe in one God, and hence Christians should not be persecuted, because even Greek philosophers like Plato and Socrates admits as reasonable the existence of one God.
Secondly, justice is related to the virtue of equality. The argument of the author simply is: “we are all equal as men, and justice demands that we simply treat each other as one’s equal.” He also said that to treat each other as each one’s equal is present also in the teaching of Cicero. The latter calls this as “equability.”(p.52) Hence, the author also argues that Greeks and Romans, if they truly are just must allow Christianity, because Christians are also their equals. The fact then that Christians were persecuted in the Roman empire would mean that the Romans did not consider other people as equals, and that they are themselves unjust. Their injustice is attested not just by their Christian victims but even by Cicero who adheres to the concept of “equability.”
CONCLUSION
The above exposition is a mere attempt to name some of the political lexicons among early Christians. These words were again used for a specific purpose: in defense of Christianity. Hence, they may not have really displayed reference to actual universal practices in the society, except when they directly affect the Christians. But despite that, these lexicons were carried over by the succeeding Christians who become thinkers of their own time, and hence in a way affect the progress / development of the political thought of the world.
SYMPOSIUM ON DERRIDA’S Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences
SYMPOSIUM ON DERRIDA’S Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences
GROUP 2
Derrida, in his “Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences,” talks about a certain “event” or the “rupture” in the history of thought. I believe this event has reference to the series of deconstruction pioneered by thinkers like Nietzsche, Freud and Heidegger. They were criticizing the concept of a “center” in the philosophical systems of the West, the center which assures the unity of a discourse. I could speak a little about Martin Heidegger since I read a few things about him. Heidegger was critical of metaphysics, whose source of unity or “center” was the concept of essence. For example, when Heidegger spoke about “truth,” his language was no longer of “connaturality” between the mind and the objective real things, but rather of the mind’s encounter with the unfolding of the thing’s Being. There was no longer a presupposition of an objective essence of a thing that could measure the truthfulness or falsity of an idea. Rather, Heidegger says that truth is the projection of a thing’s Being to an observer’s mind. In effect, truth is but the mind’s determination about the present state of an outside reality. Truth is one’s interpretation or consciousness of a thing or reality.
Heidegger’s criticism against metaphysics counts among the events which Derrida refers to when he spoke about the rupture. Derrida was well aware that there are emerging philosophical thoughts that question the existence of a “center” which in the history of metaphysics was equated with essence and presence. Derrida even says, and I think Heidegger has also said the same, that the center or essence has received several names in the history of metaphysics. It was once called as arche, telos, energeia, ousia, consciousness, trascendentality, God or the Spirit. The rupture was basically the moment or event when these previously held cornerstones of metaphysical – or philosophical – thinking are stripped of their previously held privileged status.
The talk about the strong center is a basic requirement for a durable building. Carpenters have their so-called cornerstone which holds the entire structure, and without which the entire structure collapses. In our mention of structuralism in our past lectures for example, the meaning of a story rests on a kind of structure or unity that can actually be discerned even in seemingly varied plots of novels or stories. The structure remains more or less the same even if the details are changed.
Yet, with the rupture that Derrida talks about, the durability and even the possibility of a center is questioned. Derrida, taking his cue from Strauss contends about the illusionary character and even the impossibility of the center. Derrida noted Strauss’ mythological studies that point out the weaknesses of the epistemological search for unity of a structure. Derrida observes that Strauss’ work criticizes structuralism as it becomes the critique of itself. He cited for example Strauss’ work on The Raw and the Cooked where Strauss uses the concept of a “reference myth.” This “reference myth,” the Bororo myth, is supposedly the center of the structure of his mythology. However, Derrida observes that the Bororo myth deserves no more than any other myth its referential privilege. Then, he surmises that the Bororo myth was favored by Strauss not because of its special character but rather by its irregular position in the midst of a group of myths. This is in itself a criticism of the concept of a structure for in the search of a center, it was shown that there is no valid basis for choosing a particular center. The choice of a center is ultimately still an arbitrary choice.
Pointing out the origins of the critique or denial of a center, Derrida also realizes that words are but mere signifiers void of any real content. The sign is denied of a presence. Language could no longer demand for a unifying center. As already mentioned, the center becomes an impossibility not just because of the breadth of the reality that it tries to signify, but rather also because of the language’s freeplay character. Signs are polysemic or not just polysemic, but its signification is unlimited or undefined. It is the nature of language to defy pre-defined signification. Once the message is out, it becomes susceptible to infinite interpretation.
Hence, here is the entry of post-structuralism. Derrida drags the name of Strauss in order to show that structural analysis of reality is already under investigation and is already facing a possible criticism.
Practically, we can inquire as to why structures undergo strong criticisms in our time. Poststructuralism can be said to be a reaction or even a hoped corrective to the weaknesses inherent in structuralism. First, structuralism cannot deny the fact, that the structures it imposes are arbitrary structures. It can even be noted that even the “center” as authority that is operational in our ordinary dealings are not really objectively present in reality but rather are also constructions and in themselves can even be tyrannical and offensive to human persons’ freedom. I remember one heated debate among my co-teachers who were discussing about the need for a textbook in a classroom instruction. The pro-textbook teachers are structuralist in their belief about the textbook as an assurance for a quality instruction. At least, they argue, a textbook assures us that the teacher is telling the students the things that the students need to know. The textbook somehow assures that the lessons are in line with the demands for orthodoxy. However, the unbelievers of textbooks find the imposition of the use of textbooks offensive to their academic freedom. The textbook limits the teacher. The textbook dictates to the teacher. The textbook diminishes the interest for research. It kills the teachers’ eagerness to update their lessons. The structure, in this case, has become both arbitrary and tyrannical.
Another example is the implementation of the U-turn slots in our main avenues. The structuralist agendum behind this is the smooth flow of the metropolitan traffic. But for taxi drivers, the structure is a disservice for them. It requires them to burn more gas as they take extra meters just to reach the next turn. They complained that in the past, they could just simply cross the street and save more gas in the process. Of the taxi drivers I consulted about the value of the U-turn slots, majority of them claimed that these structures did less help than to reduce their much needed income.
I also remember a friend of mine who is a Secondary School teacher. Their school is currently applying for an accreditation and hence several structures were implemented. They have weekly meetings, they are asked to regularly submit several reports, and they are required to attend several other activities. These are structures that are thought to be assurances of the quality of education that the school would offer. But on the part of the teachers, these structures are arbitrary (for one, they were unsure whether the implementation of a uniform improves their performance in class). The structures are arbitrarily imposed, and in effect, have also become tyrannical.
With these growing criticisms against structures, many people have begun to shy away from it. Many people, for example, hate the structure that implements the use of IDs. These IDs are rather perceived as means for a more efficient control and manipulation. Structures for all their value, are oftentimes arbitrarily implemented and they can oppress the people. Hence, oftentimes, structures are criticized.
Derrida warns us about these problems of structures, and he suspects that the potential consequence of oppressive structures is the total rejection of it. He saw the birth of poststructuralism that denies any center and any form of control. Though, he calls this growing phenomenon as a birthing of a monstrosity, he recognizes that poststructuralism is something that can hardly be prevented or avoided.
In this so-called manifesto, Derrida tries to show to us that indeed the denial of our structures is coming. It comes from the perspective of freeing people from the tyranny of structures. It liberates those who were once excluded because of structures. Poststructuralism is a liberation for those whom the structures regard as abnormal, as insane, as sick, as sinful, as weak, as ugly, and many other pejorative categories. With the denial of structures, the lesser members of the old society are freed of their old stigma, and so they would welcome the coming of a freer society. In this free society everything is possible. Hence, Derrida calls it freeplay. Everything is acceptable. Anything can be done. A poststructuralist criticizes a basketball game saying: why should these idiots fight for just one ball when they could get a ball for each? Why should they limit themselves to that rectangular court when in fact there are wider spaces at the sides? For poststructuralists, there is freedom in not limiting oneself to structures. The more a person adheres to structure, the more a person limits himself, and hence, the more he loses his opportunity to grow and perfect himself.
Derrida believes that there is no way to prevent this increasing appreciation of a non-structured existence. It would come regardless of the vehement objections of big institutions and authorities. Freeplay is growing, and it has become the more acceptable paradigm or rule (if we are allowed to use these terms in poststructuralism) in our contemporary time.
However, Derrida is also worried about the possible outcome that freeplay would bring. If poststructuralism is an undeniable force, it remains to be seen as to what kind of a community an absolute freeplay would bring. If a basketball game would no longer be played in the way it’s done today, and should there come a time when anyone who wills to play could just simply enter the court, bring his/her own basketball and play his/her own undefined game, what kind of basketball games would we then have? If every driver could simply drive in our streets in an absolute freeplay that is, disregarding the structures we set through our traffic rules, what kind of traffic would we have?
Derrida is aware that poststructuralism or the denial of structures is coming. But should this denial of structures become absolute, what kind of civilization would we have? Derrida could hardly find any better description than to call it a monstrosity.
GROUP 2
Derrida, in his “Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences,” talks about a certain “event” or the “rupture” in the history of thought. I believe this event has reference to the series of deconstruction pioneered by thinkers like Nietzsche, Freud and Heidegger. They were criticizing the concept of a “center” in the philosophical systems of the West, the center which assures the unity of a discourse. I could speak a little about Martin Heidegger since I read a few things about him. Heidegger was critical of metaphysics, whose source of unity or “center” was the concept of essence. For example, when Heidegger spoke about “truth,” his language was no longer of “connaturality” between the mind and the objective real things, but rather of the mind’s encounter with the unfolding of the thing’s Being. There was no longer a presupposition of an objective essence of a thing that could measure the truthfulness or falsity of an idea. Rather, Heidegger says that truth is the projection of a thing’s Being to an observer’s mind. In effect, truth is but the mind’s determination about the present state of an outside reality. Truth is one’s interpretation or consciousness of a thing or reality.
Heidegger’s criticism against metaphysics counts among the events which Derrida refers to when he spoke about the rupture. Derrida was well aware that there are emerging philosophical thoughts that question the existence of a “center” which in the history of metaphysics was equated with essence and presence. Derrida even says, and I think Heidegger has also said the same, that the center or essence has received several names in the history of metaphysics. It was once called as arche, telos, energeia, ousia, consciousness, trascendentality, God or the Spirit. The rupture was basically the moment or event when these previously held cornerstones of metaphysical – or philosophical – thinking are stripped of their previously held privileged status.
The talk about the strong center is a basic requirement for a durable building. Carpenters have their so-called cornerstone which holds the entire structure, and without which the entire structure collapses. In our mention of structuralism in our past lectures for example, the meaning of a story rests on a kind of structure or unity that can actually be discerned even in seemingly varied plots of novels or stories. The structure remains more or less the same even if the details are changed.
Yet, with the rupture that Derrida talks about, the durability and even the possibility of a center is questioned. Derrida, taking his cue from Strauss contends about the illusionary character and even the impossibility of the center. Derrida noted Strauss’ mythological studies that point out the weaknesses of the epistemological search for unity of a structure. Derrida observes that Strauss’ work criticizes structuralism as it becomes the critique of itself. He cited for example Strauss’ work on The Raw and the Cooked where Strauss uses the concept of a “reference myth.” This “reference myth,” the Bororo myth, is supposedly the center of the structure of his mythology. However, Derrida observes that the Bororo myth deserves no more than any other myth its referential privilege. Then, he surmises that the Bororo myth was favored by Strauss not because of its special character but rather by its irregular position in the midst of a group of myths. This is in itself a criticism of the concept of a structure for in the search of a center, it was shown that there is no valid basis for choosing a particular center. The choice of a center is ultimately still an arbitrary choice.
Pointing out the origins of the critique or denial of a center, Derrida also realizes that words are but mere signifiers void of any real content. The sign is denied of a presence. Language could no longer demand for a unifying center. As already mentioned, the center becomes an impossibility not just because of the breadth of the reality that it tries to signify, but rather also because of the language’s freeplay character. Signs are polysemic or not just polysemic, but its signification is unlimited or undefined. It is the nature of language to defy pre-defined signification. Once the message is out, it becomes susceptible to infinite interpretation.
Hence, here is the entry of post-structuralism. Derrida drags the name of Strauss in order to show that structural analysis of reality is already under investigation and is already facing a possible criticism.
Practically, we can inquire as to why structures undergo strong criticisms in our time. Poststructuralism can be said to be a reaction or even a hoped corrective to the weaknesses inherent in structuralism. First, structuralism cannot deny the fact, that the structures it imposes are arbitrary structures. It can even be noted that even the “center” as authority that is operational in our ordinary dealings are not really objectively present in reality but rather are also constructions and in themselves can even be tyrannical and offensive to human persons’ freedom. I remember one heated debate among my co-teachers who were discussing about the need for a textbook in a classroom instruction. The pro-textbook teachers are structuralist in their belief about the textbook as an assurance for a quality instruction. At least, they argue, a textbook assures us that the teacher is telling the students the things that the students need to know. The textbook somehow assures that the lessons are in line with the demands for orthodoxy. However, the unbelievers of textbooks find the imposition of the use of textbooks offensive to their academic freedom. The textbook limits the teacher. The textbook dictates to the teacher. The textbook diminishes the interest for research. It kills the teachers’ eagerness to update their lessons. The structure, in this case, has become both arbitrary and tyrannical.
Another example is the implementation of the U-turn slots in our main avenues. The structuralist agendum behind this is the smooth flow of the metropolitan traffic. But for taxi drivers, the structure is a disservice for them. It requires them to burn more gas as they take extra meters just to reach the next turn. They complained that in the past, they could just simply cross the street and save more gas in the process. Of the taxi drivers I consulted about the value of the U-turn slots, majority of them claimed that these structures did less help than to reduce their much needed income.
I also remember a friend of mine who is a Secondary School teacher. Their school is currently applying for an accreditation and hence several structures were implemented. They have weekly meetings, they are asked to regularly submit several reports, and they are required to attend several other activities. These are structures that are thought to be assurances of the quality of education that the school would offer. But on the part of the teachers, these structures are arbitrary (for one, they were unsure whether the implementation of a uniform improves their performance in class). The structures are arbitrarily imposed, and in effect, have also become tyrannical.
With these growing criticisms against structures, many people have begun to shy away from it. Many people, for example, hate the structure that implements the use of IDs. These IDs are rather perceived as means for a more efficient control and manipulation. Structures for all their value, are oftentimes arbitrarily implemented and they can oppress the people. Hence, oftentimes, structures are criticized.
Derrida warns us about these problems of structures, and he suspects that the potential consequence of oppressive structures is the total rejection of it. He saw the birth of poststructuralism that denies any center and any form of control. Though, he calls this growing phenomenon as a birthing of a monstrosity, he recognizes that poststructuralism is something that can hardly be prevented or avoided.
In this so-called manifesto, Derrida tries to show to us that indeed the denial of our structures is coming. It comes from the perspective of freeing people from the tyranny of structures. It liberates those who were once excluded because of structures. Poststructuralism is a liberation for those whom the structures regard as abnormal, as insane, as sick, as sinful, as weak, as ugly, and many other pejorative categories. With the denial of structures, the lesser members of the old society are freed of their old stigma, and so they would welcome the coming of a freer society. In this free society everything is possible. Hence, Derrida calls it freeplay. Everything is acceptable. Anything can be done. A poststructuralist criticizes a basketball game saying: why should these idiots fight for just one ball when they could get a ball for each? Why should they limit themselves to that rectangular court when in fact there are wider spaces at the sides? For poststructuralists, there is freedom in not limiting oneself to structures. The more a person adheres to structure, the more a person limits himself, and hence, the more he loses his opportunity to grow and perfect himself.
Derrida believes that there is no way to prevent this increasing appreciation of a non-structured existence. It would come regardless of the vehement objections of big institutions and authorities. Freeplay is growing, and it has become the more acceptable paradigm or rule (if we are allowed to use these terms in poststructuralism) in our contemporary time.
However, Derrida is also worried about the possible outcome that freeplay would bring. If poststructuralism is an undeniable force, it remains to be seen as to what kind of a community an absolute freeplay would bring. If a basketball game would no longer be played in the way it’s done today, and should there come a time when anyone who wills to play could just simply enter the court, bring his/her own basketball and play his/her own undefined game, what kind of basketball games would we then have? If every driver could simply drive in our streets in an absolute freeplay that is, disregarding the structures we set through our traffic rules, what kind of traffic would we have?
Derrida is aware that poststructuralism or the denial of structures is coming. But should this denial of structures become absolute, what kind of civilization would we have? Derrida could hardly find any better description than to call it a monstrosity.
LESSONS FROM FRANZ KAFKA’S THE CASTLE
Franz Kafka’s The Castle is an unfinished novel. The Wikipedia reveals that Kafka began writing the novel on the evening of January 22, 1922. Kafka however had no intention of publishing all his works. In fact, shortly before he died, he instructed his friend, Max Brod, to destroy all his works on his death. Max Brod however did otherwise and decided to publish Kafka’s writings, hence the first publication of this novel.
The original title of the novel is Das Schloß, which can variably be translated as “the castle” or “the lock.” The English title The Castle could have referred to the castle which the protagonist, K, had earnestly desired to go but which he also failed to reach. However, the second translation (the lock) could also be significant because it could have meant the inaccessibility of the castle. K and the villagers, despite their desire to visit the castle, never actually saw it. The castle remains to be a mystery. It is revered and is obviously known by the people because nobody would dare not to recognize it. However, the people’s knowledge about it is very limited. The castle is practically locked from them.
A glimpse at the novel
The story revolves around the experiences of K. It started with K’s arrival in a village that is governed by a castle. In fact, K initially thought that the village is already part of the castle. He entered the place because of an alleged demand for a Land Surveyor. However, when K set out to see his employer, he got lost and was unable to find his way. With this, K was forced to stay in an inn, the Bridge Inn. This was differentiated from another inn named as Herrenhof. The first inn was for the lower class – the peasants of the village, while the second was for the Gentlemen from the castle. The Gentlemen were supposed to be coming to the village for some business, although the novel also revealed that these Gentlemen do not actually handle any business at all. When they visit the village, they simply stay at Herrenhof to rest, where they also required the company of beautiful women from the village.
When K failed to find his way to the castle, he was forced to stay in the village. This allowed him to encounter many people. Among the most noted ones is Frieda, who became her fiancée and who was also a former mistress of a Gentleman named Klamm, the one who actually requested for the services of K as a Land Surveyor.
K also met his two assistants, Jeremiah and Arthur. But these two assistants had no real knowledge about surveying. They were only sent to K to spy on him. There was also the landlady of the Bridge Inn, who had openly shown contempt on K’s either indifference or objections against the customs of the village.
There was the Superintendent from whom K was supposed to seek for instruction about his work, but who also ironically informed K that the village and the castle had no need for a Land Surveyor. The Superintendent tried to explain to K that the clamor for a Land Surveyor was only a mistake and was a product of a semi-political struggle. In reality, the Land Surveyor would have nothing to do in the village. The Superintendent had also read and examined Klamm’s letter or order for K. This letter was K’s basis for saying that he was to be employed as a Land Surveyor. But when the Superintendent read it, he told K that the letter did not actually mean to employ him for work. The letter simply said that should there be a need for a Land Surveyor, K may be employed. But, there was no mention of actual hiring for work. If this were the case, K’s journey to the village would be useless because, as the Superintendent had already informed him, the village was not in need of a Land Surveyor.
Then, there was also the Barnabas family whose members were hated and despised by the other villagers. K was drawn to them because of the young Barnabas who serves as the messenger who brought correspondences between K in the village and the Gentleman Klamm in the castle. K’s association with the Barnabas family would later damage his relations with his fiancée Frieda, although, K also discovered many things about the Barnabas family, who seems to be mere victims of the customs and traditions of the village.
Citing all these associations, the novel was basically a chronicle of the ventures of K in the village from where he tried to penetrate the castle in order to prove that he was indeed employed by somebody powerful/influential, and that his coming to the village was not useless. This inkling to prove his worth was prompted more by the seeming reluctance of the village people to accept him. The people seemed to have been expecting and even anticipating his coming, but they were unhappy that he had already come. As K gambled his way to the castle and tried to find means to contact his yet unseen employer, he began to know more of the life of the village. The day to day events in the life of K had also unfolded the village to the reader. It showed for example how the village people revered the Gentlemen from the castle. The former would want to do anything that the Gentlemen from the castle would wish, even the granting of daughters to become the Gentlemen’s mistresses. In fact, Frieda, the fiancée of K, once had the distinguished honor of being the mistress of the Gentleman Klamm. From an outsider’s point of view, to become a mistress would not bring much honor, but the village customs attached great distinctions to women who had the privilege of providing sexual pleasures to the Gentlemen. An outsider could also hardly explain why should the abuses of the castle’s Gentlemen be tolerated and even appreciated by these village people. K resented the fact that the villagers were contented with their lot of not having the right of even speaking to or confronting the powerful Gentlemen from the castle, even in cases when the latter were clearly at fault. K had particularly begrudged against the fact that the villagers were always at the mercy of the whims and caprices of these Gentlemen.
But K’s reaction was precisely the root of the villager’s contempt against strangers like him. Every stranger was perceived to be ignorant and unmindful of the customs of the village. Strangers were prone to complain against customs, not because they knew better but because they were ignorant.
K’s further associations with the other villagers brought more light about the kind of culture that the village had. The story of the Barnabas family was particularly striking. The family was once respected in the village. The father was a well-known shoe-maker and a trusted member of the village Fire Brigade. Even financially, the family was very much capable. But an unfortunate event turned the family’s fortune upside down. It began with their encounter with one Gentleman from the Castle, Sortini. One member of the family, Amalia, had a distinctive beauty that caught the attention of Sortini, who claimed that Amalia’s good looks were offensive because they bothered him even from his sleep. So, the morning after their meeting, Sortini summoned Amalia through a letter brought by the messenger. The letter ordered Amalia to go to the Herrenhof Inn where Sortini was waiting. Of course, this was not just any invitation. This was a command for Amalia to see Sortini for a sexual union. Amalia took the letter as an insult against her person. In her anger, she tore the letter in front of the messenger. Soon the news spread that there was a woman who was insane enough to refuse an invitation of a Gentleman. When the villagers had known that it was Amalia who did it, they cut all their associations with the family. The father lost his shoe-making business and was even terminated from the Fire Brigade.
But what truly puzzled K about this story was the way the people, including Olga, Amalia’s sister, viewed the quality of Amalia’s act. The people seemed to have unanimously agreed that it was wrong for Amalia to resent the summons of Sortini. Olga even claimed that, though she admired the bravery of Amalia, should that incident fall on her, she would have gone to the Gentleman, or at least should have looked for other excuses that would at least delay her going to Sortini. But almost everybody, even the family, seemed to agree that Sortini’s invitation for Amalia was not really insulting. In fact, Sortini even did Amalia the favor of inviting her to him.
K found these incidents difficult to grasp, yet at the same time, it allowed him to understand the people better. He may not have approved of their ways but he began to understand why the people valued things in the way they did. It was the people’s reverence to the castle that dictated their values, so much so that whatever the people from the Castle decided to be right, they had to be regarded by the villagers also as right.
The story progressed with K’s discoveries of many other things about the village. K has begun to realize the disparity of the values of the village and that of his own. Yet, recognizing the differences, he seemed to have understood better the villagers. His encounters with them had slowly erased his prejudices against their judgments. On one occasion, for example, towards the end of the story, K found himself in a corridor in the Herrenhof Inn, with the Gentlemen staying in the rooms crying in panic, and in fact, ringing their bells to ask for help. At first, he was curious about what was going on, for this happened at around five o’clock in the morning. K was very tired then because he too had not slept the night before. Then he saw the landlord and the landlady rushing toward him and pulled him out of the corridor. He began to realize that the turmoil was because of him. K somehow understood that the panic was created by the presence of an outsider like him. He was a taboo in the corridor. K had then recognized the impropriety of his seemingly innocent act of simply having passed through that corridor which belongs to the Gentlemen.
The Novel’s Conclusion
It is hard to say how Kafka did intend to finish the novel. It was said that Kafka had once written to his friend, Max Brod, that the story would end with K’s death after his stay in the village, and on his death, the castle would notify him that “his legal claim to stay in the village was not valid although, taking auxiliary circumstances into account, he was permitted to live and work there.” However, in another letter, Kafka was also said to have written to Brod to inform the latter that he no longer has any plan of finishing the novel, and he would already abandon working on it.
As such, the story has no end. In the translation of the original German version, the story’s end was about K’s quarrel with Frieda, who was once his fiancée but is now determined to leave K in favor of Jeremiah, who was also once K’s assistant. But in the extended version, the story ended with K’s agreement with another woman, Pepi, who has invited K to join her and her girl friends in their house. K has accepted the offer because such seemed to be the only viable option left for him.
Themes of the Novel
There could have been several themes that may be gathered from this unfinished novel. Commentators have even pointed out a theological significance of the story. Some claimed that Kafka was writing about a particular man’s search for an unnamed God. The “castle” can be compared to God who governs the life of the villagers (the people), and yet at the same time remains to be highly transcendent and somehow inaccessible to the people.
But among the more obvious themes of the story are the issues of power and bureaucracy. The way the Gentlemen brag about their many undertakings, and yet little is seen on them as they come to the village, is a testimony of how inefficient these people in power are. These Gentlemen always claim that they are in a hurry because they have many concerns to attend to, but whenever they are seen by the people in the Herrenhof Inn, they are oftentimes sleeping rather than working. Even if they summoned people for interrogations, the people are always at the mercy of their availability, and the people have to wait while the Gentlemen calmly sleep in their well-prepared rooms. The people are even made to believe that the carriage of the horses, in which a Gentleman rides, would have its windows closed because the Gentleman is busy doing paper works while traveling. But when K had the chance to enter the carriage of a Gentleman, Momus, the only things he found are the comfortable pillows and the flasks of wine.
The novel highlighted the shortcomings of several bureaucratic requirements. It showed how elaborate the affairs of the castle are, and yet at the same time, the reader would get the impression that no work is properly/correctly carried out. K’s sad predicament was already a strong testimony of how inefficient that bureaucracy was.
This has remained to be relevant even nowadays. This in fact is even prophetic of what we perhaps encounter now. The imageries of the Gentlemen can be a good source of reflection as we think about the kind of services, vis-à-vis their power, that our government leaders now give. Not all their professions about love, concern and hard work for the people may be well-meant. Oftentimes, these are but empty words and hopeless promises. This is the kind of dissimulation which Baudrillard talks about: the conscious faking of images in order to win the support and sympathy of people. These are not foreign in our time when people wanting to stay in power busy themselves with creating or dissimulating their good images. They utilize the available means of the media and advertisement in order to project an aura of concern, efficiency and even intelligence, regardless of whether they actually possess them or not.
The novel also showed the process of knowing the truth as aletheia. The journey of K was a process of unfolding. Every new experience was a new discovery of a truth about the village. The novel showed that toleration could happen only when we allow the other to unfold to us. When we do not allow this disclosure to occur, we would forever be deprived of knowing the other as an “other.” It may not be possible to fully grasp the Being of others, but when we allow them to manifest themselves to us, we open ourselves to a possible path for dialogue and communion. This, I believe, was one value that K had learned when he allowed the other characters of the story to reveal who they were. K was peculiarly fond of the Barnabas family despite the prejudices of the entire village. K’s capacity to allow the family to reveal themselves to him had also equipped him to understand them better. In contrast, the villagers “closure” towards the predicament of the same family had also shut them down from sympathizing with and understanding them.
Furthermore, the novel also highlighted several postmodernist themes. At the start of the story, it seemed that the village was a traditional village that was guarded by its customs and traditions. K sounded to be more postmodern in outlook especially because of the fact that K had initially shown several objections against customs. But a deeper look into the story may prove to us that postmodernist tendencies were better illustrated by the villagers. It was the kind of indecisiveness in the people’s choices, despite the established customs, that would show us how postmodern this seemingly traditional village was. Olga’s indecisive assessment about her sister’s reaction to Sortini could somehow remind us about the kind of world that we now have. We at times know that certain things are bad and yet we continue to condone them due to no other reason than the fact that they have been normally and repeatedly done. For example, we wonder about the extent of corruption in our country, and we may even have promised to ourselves to stop it if only we have the means. But at one time, I processed some documents in an office at the Quezon City Hall. When I was asked to photocopy the document that I wanted to get notarized, I was led to a canteen, where several employees were at that time taking their lunch. I have clearly heard the following conversation from two among them:
Person 1: Nasaan na ba kasi yong pinapirmahan natin? Kaya ko nga nilakihan yong nilagay dun kasi alam kong talagang manghihingi sila, e. Pero bakit wala pa rin hanggang ngayon?
Person 2: Eh, baka gusto pa ng dagdag. Wala pa raw eh.
Person 1: Hayop talaga yang mga yan, gusto pa yata talaga ng dagdag.
I was not really sure about the exact matter of the conversation but I was suspecting that they were talking about the release of the results of a filed “annulment case.” What made this conversation more disgusting is the fact that this came from two government employees who are even wearing their uniforms. This conversation shows us the kind of tolerance that our culture provides for practices that we traditionally assess as wrong. Tolerating these things have certainly contributed to the moral crisis that sadly cripples our nation.
The village culture, in the novel, was a postmodern one because the issue of the right and the wrong was blurred. In fact, there apparently were no laws. The commanding precepts were highly dependent on the wills of the Gentlemen who had direct influence to the village.
Even K had transformed or was transformed through his associations with the people from the village. When at the start of the story, he was clear about his stand on the issues and has unequivocally raised his objections against those which he considered to be unjust/improper policies, towards the end of the story we also find K at a loss of which things were really right and which were not. He had also become unsure of himself, confused as to which was right: either to stick to his opinion and in a sense remain prejudicial against the policies of the village, or to become tolerant to the village customs and let go of some of his former beliefs.
This is indeed a dilemma even in our time. The youth of our time are unsure about many things, and even some adults are afraid of making their stand. For example, when in the past, we had a more or less clear notion of what is modest, especially with regard to women clothing, these days, we can hardly call any dress as immodest, even if they hardly cover any part of the body at all. Today, we are unsure of what is right and what is wrong, for who really has the power to say which things are right and which things are wrong?
We can be likened to K who had gone confused about his values after his many acquaintances in the village. When he was resistant, he was called ignorant. But when he became approving and more tolerant, he too had seemed to have also departed from who he was once.
Moreover, K had lost his sense of direction. He had lost sight of his primary intentions in coming to the village. He had gone to so many side streets. He had his affair with Frieda, he had become a school janitor, and at the end of the extended version, he was about to join another woman, Pepi. K is certainly lost. He no longer knew where he must go. The story began with K’s earnest interest to reach the castle. But until the end of the story, he has not succeeded. Why? Was it really because of the inaccessibility of the castle, or was it simply because K was lost?
K had also lost his identity. He could hardly even say who he was. Was he a land surveyor, or a school janitor? The Superintendent, after arguing that there was no need for a land surveyor, has offered K a temporary post as a school janitor. K however is pretty sure that he could do more than what a janitor normally does, and yet he was also certain that he could never exercise his surveying skill in a land that does not need it. So, who was he then?
At one time, I described a postmodern man as: “isang taong windang” (somebody who is lost). With the many alternatives, he gets lost on which of those is really the proper choice. Franz Kafka’s novel was prophetic in this sense. It was a warning about the possible dangers of postmodernism, even if postmodernism was not a fad of his time. The novel anticipated the possible dangers of the ultimate erasure of standards: the possibility of getting lost, and of forgetting who we really are.
The original title of the novel is Das Schloß, which can variably be translated as “the castle” or “the lock.” The English title The Castle could have referred to the castle which the protagonist, K, had earnestly desired to go but which he also failed to reach. However, the second translation (the lock) could also be significant because it could have meant the inaccessibility of the castle. K and the villagers, despite their desire to visit the castle, never actually saw it. The castle remains to be a mystery. It is revered and is obviously known by the people because nobody would dare not to recognize it. However, the people’s knowledge about it is very limited. The castle is practically locked from them.
A glimpse at the novel
The story revolves around the experiences of K. It started with K’s arrival in a village that is governed by a castle. In fact, K initially thought that the village is already part of the castle. He entered the place because of an alleged demand for a Land Surveyor. However, when K set out to see his employer, he got lost and was unable to find his way. With this, K was forced to stay in an inn, the Bridge Inn. This was differentiated from another inn named as Herrenhof. The first inn was for the lower class – the peasants of the village, while the second was for the Gentlemen from the castle. The Gentlemen were supposed to be coming to the village for some business, although the novel also revealed that these Gentlemen do not actually handle any business at all. When they visit the village, they simply stay at Herrenhof to rest, where they also required the company of beautiful women from the village.
When K failed to find his way to the castle, he was forced to stay in the village. This allowed him to encounter many people. Among the most noted ones is Frieda, who became her fiancée and who was also a former mistress of a Gentleman named Klamm, the one who actually requested for the services of K as a Land Surveyor.
K also met his two assistants, Jeremiah and Arthur. But these two assistants had no real knowledge about surveying. They were only sent to K to spy on him. There was also the landlady of the Bridge Inn, who had openly shown contempt on K’s either indifference or objections against the customs of the village.
There was the Superintendent from whom K was supposed to seek for instruction about his work, but who also ironically informed K that the village and the castle had no need for a Land Surveyor. The Superintendent tried to explain to K that the clamor for a Land Surveyor was only a mistake and was a product of a semi-political struggle. In reality, the Land Surveyor would have nothing to do in the village. The Superintendent had also read and examined Klamm’s letter or order for K. This letter was K’s basis for saying that he was to be employed as a Land Surveyor. But when the Superintendent read it, he told K that the letter did not actually mean to employ him for work. The letter simply said that should there be a need for a Land Surveyor, K may be employed. But, there was no mention of actual hiring for work. If this were the case, K’s journey to the village would be useless because, as the Superintendent had already informed him, the village was not in need of a Land Surveyor.
Then, there was also the Barnabas family whose members were hated and despised by the other villagers. K was drawn to them because of the young Barnabas who serves as the messenger who brought correspondences between K in the village and the Gentleman Klamm in the castle. K’s association with the Barnabas family would later damage his relations with his fiancée Frieda, although, K also discovered many things about the Barnabas family, who seems to be mere victims of the customs and traditions of the village.
Citing all these associations, the novel was basically a chronicle of the ventures of K in the village from where he tried to penetrate the castle in order to prove that he was indeed employed by somebody powerful/influential, and that his coming to the village was not useless. This inkling to prove his worth was prompted more by the seeming reluctance of the village people to accept him. The people seemed to have been expecting and even anticipating his coming, but they were unhappy that he had already come. As K gambled his way to the castle and tried to find means to contact his yet unseen employer, he began to know more of the life of the village. The day to day events in the life of K had also unfolded the village to the reader. It showed for example how the village people revered the Gentlemen from the castle. The former would want to do anything that the Gentlemen from the castle would wish, even the granting of daughters to become the Gentlemen’s mistresses. In fact, Frieda, the fiancée of K, once had the distinguished honor of being the mistress of the Gentleman Klamm. From an outsider’s point of view, to become a mistress would not bring much honor, but the village customs attached great distinctions to women who had the privilege of providing sexual pleasures to the Gentlemen. An outsider could also hardly explain why should the abuses of the castle’s Gentlemen be tolerated and even appreciated by these village people. K resented the fact that the villagers were contented with their lot of not having the right of even speaking to or confronting the powerful Gentlemen from the castle, even in cases when the latter were clearly at fault. K had particularly begrudged against the fact that the villagers were always at the mercy of the whims and caprices of these Gentlemen.
But K’s reaction was precisely the root of the villager’s contempt against strangers like him. Every stranger was perceived to be ignorant and unmindful of the customs of the village. Strangers were prone to complain against customs, not because they knew better but because they were ignorant.
K’s further associations with the other villagers brought more light about the kind of culture that the village had. The story of the Barnabas family was particularly striking. The family was once respected in the village. The father was a well-known shoe-maker and a trusted member of the village Fire Brigade. Even financially, the family was very much capable. But an unfortunate event turned the family’s fortune upside down. It began with their encounter with one Gentleman from the Castle, Sortini. One member of the family, Amalia, had a distinctive beauty that caught the attention of Sortini, who claimed that Amalia’s good looks were offensive because they bothered him even from his sleep. So, the morning after their meeting, Sortini summoned Amalia through a letter brought by the messenger. The letter ordered Amalia to go to the Herrenhof Inn where Sortini was waiting. Of course, this was not just any invitation. This was a command for Amalia to see Sortini for a sexual union. Amalia took the letter as an insult against her person. In her anger, she tore the letter in front of the messenger. Soon the news spread that there was a woman who was insane enough to refuse an invitation of a Gentleman. When the villagers had known that it was Amalia who did it, they cut all their associations with the family. The father lost his shoe-making business and was even terminated from the Fire Brigade.
But what truly puzzled K about this story was the way the people, including Olga, Amalia’s sister, viewed the quality of Amalia’s act. The people seemed to have unanimously agreed that it was wrong for Amalia to resent the summons of Sortini. Olga even claimed that, though she admired the bravery of Amalia, should that incident fall on her, she would have gone to the Gentleman, or at least should have looked for other excuses that would at least delay her going to Sortini. But almost everybody, even the family, seemed to agree that Sortini’s invitation for Amalia was not really insulting. In fact, Sortini even did Amalia the favor of inviting her to him.
K found these incidents difficult to grasp, yet at the same time, it allowed him to understand the people better. He may not have approved of their ways but he began to understand why the people valued things in the way they did. It was the people’s reverence to the castle that dictated their values, so much so that whatever the people from the Castle decided to be right, they had to be regarded by the villagers also as right.
The story progressed with K’s discoveries of many other things about the village. K has begun to realize the disparity of the values of the village and that of his own. Yet, recognizing the differences, he seemed to have understood better the villagers. His encounters with them had slowly erased his prejudices against their judgments. On one occasion, for example, towards the end of the story, K found himself in a corridor in the Herrenhof Inn, with the Gentlemen staying in the rooms crying in panic, and in fact, ringing their bells to ask for help. At first, he was curious about what was going on, for this happened at around five o’clock in the morning. K was very tired then because he too had not slept the night before. Then he saw the landlord and the landlady rushing toward him and pulled him out of the corridor. He began to realize that the turmoil was because of him. K somehow understood that the panic was created by the presence of an outsider like him. He was a taboo in the corridor. K had then recognized the impropriety of his seemingly innocent act of simply having passed through that corridor which belongs to the Gentlemen.
The Novel’s Conclusion
It is hard to say how Kafka did intend to finish the novel. It was said that Kafka had once written to his friend, Max Brod, that the story would end with K’s death after his stay in the village, and on his death, the castle would notify him that “his legal claim to stay in the village was not valid although, taking auxiliary circumstances into account, he was permitted to live and work there.” However, in another letter, Kafka was also said to have written to Brod to inform the latter that he no longer has any plan of finishing the novel, and he would already abandon working on it.
As such, the story has no end. In the translation of the original German version, the story’s end was about K’s quarrel with Frieda, who was once his fiancée but is now determined to leave K in favor of Jeremiah, who was also once K’s assistant. But in the extended version, the story ended with K’s agreement with another woman, Pepi, who has invited K to join her and her girl friends in their house. K has accepted the offer because such seemed to be the only viable option left for him.
Themes of the Novel
There could have been several themes that may be gathered from this unfinished novel. Commentators have even pointed out a theological significance of the story. Some claimed that Kafka was writing about a particular man’s search for an unnamed God. The “castle” can be compared to God who governs the life of the villagers (the people), and yet at the same time remains to be highly transcendent and somehow inaccessible to the people.
But among the more obvious themes of the story are the issues of power and bureaucracy. The way the Gentlemen brag about their many undertakings, and yet little is seen on them as they come to the village, is a testimony of how inefficient these people in power are. These Gentlemen always claim that they are in a hurry because they have many concerns to attend to, but whenever they are seen by the people in the Herrenhof Inn, they are oftentimes sleeping rather than working. Even if they summoned people for interrogations, the people are always at the mercy of their availability, and the people have to wait while the Gentlemen calmly sleep in their well-prepared rooms. The people are even made to believe that the carriage of the horses, in which a Gentleman rides, would have its windows closed because the Gentleman is busy doing paper works while traveling. But when K had the chance to enter the carriage of a Gentleman, Momus, the only things he found are the comfortable pillows and the flasks of wine.
The novel highlighted the shortcomings of several bureaucratic requirements. It showed how elaborate the affairs of the castle are, and yet at the same time, the reader would get the impression that no work is properly/correctly carried out. K’s sad predicament was already a strong testimony of how inefficient that bureaucracy was.
This has remained to be relevant even nowadays. This in fact is even prophetic of what we perhaps encounter now. The imageries of the Gentlemen can be a good source of reflection as we think about the kind of services, vis-à-vis their power, that our government leaders now give. Not all their professions about love, concern and hard work for the people may be well-meant. Oftentimes, these are but empty words and hopeless promises. This is the kind of dissimulation which Baudrillard talks about: the conscious faking of images in order to win the support and sympathy of people. These are not foreign in our time when people wanting to stay in power busy themselves with creating or dissimulating their good images. They utilize the available means of the media and advertisement in order to project an aura of concern, efficiency and even intelligence, regardless of whether they actually possess them or not.
The novel also showed the process of knowing the truth as aletheia. The journey of K was a process of unfolding. Every new experience was a new discovery of a truth about the village. The novel showed that toleration could happen only when we allow the other to unfold to us. When we do not allow this disclosure to occur, we would forever be deprived of knowing the other as an “other.” It may not be possible to fully grasp the Being of others, but when we allow them to manifest themselves to us, we open ourselves to a possible path for dialogue and communion. This, I believe, was one value that K had learned when he allowed the other characters of the story to reveal who they were. K was peculiarly fond of the Barnabas family despite the prejudices of the entire village. K’s capacity to allow the family to reveal themselves to him had also equipped him to understand them better. In contrast, the villagers “closure” towards the predicament of the same family had also shut them down from sympathizing with and understanding them.
Furthermore, the novel also highlighted several postmodernist themes. At the start of the story, it seemed that the village was a traditional village that was guarded by its customs and traditions. K sounded to be more postmodern in outlook especially because of the fact that K had initially shown several objections against customs. But a deeper look into the story may prove to us that postmodernist tendencies were better illustrated by the villagers. It was the kind of indecisiveness in the people’s choices, despite the established customs, that would show us how postmodern this seemingly traditional village was. Olga’s indecisive assessment about her sister’s reaction to Sortini could somehow remind us about the kind of world that we now have. We at times know that certain things are bad and yet we continue to condone them due to no other reason than the fact that they have been normally and repeatedly done. For example, we wonder about the extent of corruption in our country, and we may even have promised to ourselves to stop it if only we have the means. But at one time, I processed some documents in an office at the Quezon City Hall. When I was asked to photocopy the document that I wanted to get notarized, I was led to a canteen, where several employees were at that time taking their lunch. I have clearly heard the following conversation from two among them:
Person 1: Nasaan na ba kasi yong pinapirmahan natin? Kaya ko nga nilakihan yong nilagay dun kasi alam kong talagang manghihingi sila, e. Pero bakit wala pa rin hanggang ngayon?
Person 2: Eh, baka gusto pa ng dagdag. Wala pa raw eh.
Person 1: Hayop talaga yang mga yan, gusto pa yata talaga ng dagdag.
I was not really sure about the exact matter of the conversation but I was suspecting that they were talking about the release of the results of a filed “annulment case.” What made this conversation more disgusting is the fact that this came from two government employees who are even wearing their uniforms. This conversation shows us the kind of tolerance that our culture provides for practices that we traditionally assess as wrong. Tolerating these things have certainly contributed to the moral crisis that sadly cripples our nation.
The village culture, in the novel, was a postmodern one because the issue of the right and the wrong was blurred. In fact, there apparently were no laws. The commanding precepts were highly dependent on the wills of the Gentlemen who had direct influence to the village.
Even K had transformed or was transformed through his associations with the people from the village. When at the start of the story, he was clear about his stand on the issues and has unequivocally raised his objections against those which he considered to be unjust/improper policies, towards the end of the story we also find K at a loss of which things were really right and which were not. He had also become unsure of himself, confused as to which was right: either to stick to his opinion and in a sense remain prejudicial against the policies of the village, or to become tolerant to the village customs and let go of some of his former beliefs.
This is indeed a dilemma even in our time. The youth of our time are unsure about many things, and even some adults are afraid of making their stand. For example, when in the past, we had a more or less clear notion of what is modest, especially with regard to women clothing, these days, we can hardly call any dress as immodest, even if they hardly cover any part of the body at all. Today, we are unsure of what is right and what is wrong, for who really has the power to say which things are right and which things are wrong?
We can be likened to K who had gone confused about his values after his many acquaintances in the village. When he was resistant, he was called ignorant. But when he became approving and more tolerant, he too had seemed to have also departed from who he was once.
Moreover, K had lost his sense of direction. He had lost sight of his primary intentions in coming to the village. He had gone to so many side streets. He had his affair with Frieda, he had become a school janitor, and at the end of the extended version, he was about to join another woman, Pepi. K is certainly lost. He no longer knew where he must go. The story began with K’s earnest interest to reach the castle. But until the end of the story, he has not succeeded. Why? Was it really because of the inaccessibility of the castle, or was it simply because K was lost?
K had also lost his identity. He could hardly even say who he was. Was he a land surveyor, or a school janitor? The Superintendent, after arguing that there was no need for a land surveyor, has offered K a temporary post as a school janitor. K however is pretty sure that he could do more than what a janitor normally does, and yet he was also certain that he could never exercise his surveying skill in a land that does not need it. So, who was he then?
At one time, I described a postmodern man as: “isang taong windang” (somebody who is lost). With the many alternatives, he gets lost on which of those is really the proper choice. Franz Kafka’s novel was prophetic in this sense. It was a warning about the possible dangers of postmodernism, even if postmodernism was not a fad of his time. The novel anticipated the possible dangers of the ultimate erasure of standards: the possibility of getting lost, and of forgetting who we really are.
THE STORY MUST BE TOLD!
THE STORY MUST BE TOLD![1]
I have been an ambitious story teller a long time now. I dreamt of sharing lines that would touch hearts of people, but I had been a failure so far. I think, it is only me who found my stories great. I couldn’t even keep my grammar altogether correct, and how should I accurately express what I want people to hear? Oh, I was a ‘trying hard writer.’
But, who cares if people won’t mind what I am going to say? Is it not enough gift to be pleased by my own work? What else would I seek if my stories alone could make my life better? Should I still wish for others’ praise when my heart enlarges, not because of sickness but of joy, wherever I have to read my own work? I think, my very self is enough reason why should I say that my story must be told!
I couldn’t deny of moments that I found life so hard. There are really moments when I could not think of anything good to do. There are times when what I only wanted is to sleep and fantasize, and dream while awake. These are the times that I needed someone to talk with but found none. Times that I only have to pity myself for falling into such a sad predicament. I am fond of writing letters; making friends bins of my own problems. But I couldn’t also ignore the fact that every person has his own concerns; and I fear that I may suffocate one with personal sentiments, burdening him/her with problems that are not really his/hers. Furthermore, words are often misinterpreted. Francis Bacon would even say that words are indefinable. The more one tries to define words with words, the more words would there be to define. But, what am I to do when boredom should come? Should I continue to burden people so often? Or should I refrain from talking about problems and keep things within, and thus suppressing my own feelings? I couldn’t bear it all! The story must be told else my heart would burst in pieces because of boredom and loneliness. THE STORY MUST BE TOLD.
I couldn’t claim of a good writing. I may not please people when they read the contents of this story-teller’s notebook, but I am assured of my own relief whenever I write my own stories. These stories are testimonies not just of events but also of LIFE. Now, the story-teller’s story has to be told.
[1] First entry in my diary…. J
I have been an ambitious story teller a long time now. I dreamt of sharing lines that would touch hearts of people, but I had been a failure so far. I think, it is only me who found my stories great. I couldn’t even keep my grammar altogether correct, and how should I accurately express what I want people to hear? Oh, I was a ‘trying hard writer.’
But, who cares if people won’t mind what I am going to say? Is it not enough gift to be pleased by my own work? What else would I seek if my stories alone could make my life better? Should I still wish for others’ praise when my heart enlarges, not because of sickness but of joy, wherever I have to read my own work? I think, my very self is enough reason why should I say that my story must be told!
I couldn’t deny of moments that I found life so hard. There are really moments when I could not think of anything good to do. There are times when what I only wanted is to sleep and fantasize, and dream while awake. These are the times that I needed someone to talk with but found none. Times that I only have to pity myself for falling into such a sad predicament. I am fond of writing letters; making friends bins of my own problems. But I couldn’t also ignore the fact that every person has his own concerns; and I fear that I may suffocate one with personal sentiments, burdening him/her with problems that are not really his/hers. Furthermore, words are often misinterpreted. Francis Bacon would even say that words are indefinable. The more one tries to define words with words, the more words would there be to define. But, what am I to do when boredom should come? Should I continue to burden people so often? Or should I refrain from talking about problems and keep things within, and thus suppressing my own feelings? I couldn’t bear it all! The story must be told else my heart would burst in pieces because of boredom and loneliness. THE STORY MUST BE TOLD.
I couldn’t claim of a good writing. I may not please people when they read the contents of this story-teller’s notebook, but I am assured of my own relief whenever I write my own stories. These stories are testimonies not just of events but also of LIFE. Now, the story-teller’s story has to be told.
[1] First entry in my diary…. J
Monday, September 29, 2008
Negotiating the Traditional Filipino Familial, Communal and Social Institutions
Is it possible to talk about “the Filipino essence?” Is it possible to classify a group of behaviors or characters as uniquely Filipino? Is there really such singularity in the culture of Filipinos?
These are among the questions that can be raised when we talk about postmodernism, which proposes the erasure of a unifying principle or essence that would classify several individuals into a single group. To define the Filipino becomes a difficult endeavor simply because we know the diversities of the Philippine population. How are we to determine the Filipino whom we are talking about? Is he a Mindanaoan, a Visayan or a Manileño? Is he a Christian, a Moslem, or an indigenous person? Is he the Filipino of the cities or the Filipino of the hills? Is he from the urban or the rural community? Is he from an exclusive village in Makati or from the squatters’ area in Payatas, Quezon City? The attempt to come up with a unified concept of the Filipino is challenged by the particularities that affect every individual.
Nevertheless, let me start my reflection with some popular impressions about who the Filipinos are. These characterizations may not really exhaustive but they are oftentimes used by literatures that talk about the Filipino people.
The Filipino Familial and Communal Ties
Filipinos are group-oriented people. This is the claim of authors like Armando de Jesus, who argues that Filipinos “like most of the orientals, are said to be group bound.”[1] Filipinos, especially those of the rural areas, have shown perceivable leaning towards their community. This even allows Leonardo Mercado to claim that the Filipinos in general are cognizant of the so-called sakop system[2], which means that the Filipino values are largely determined by the approval of the community.
These authors even cite as proof of the Filipino sakop-system the latter’s tendency to preserve a large scope of familial relations.[3] It is often claimed that Filipino families include those relatives who are even beyond the range of the immediate household like the aunts, the uncles, the cousins, and the grandparents. It is not uncommon that in some Filipino families, the aunts and uncles who are more financially blessed than their siblings do feel responsible in helping the latter even to the point of owning the responsibility of sending their nieces and nephews to school. There seems to be an implicit rule that morally obliges those who can financially afford to become responsible for securing the well-being of the families of those siblings who are financially hard up. This sense of responsibility can be said to have stemmed from a consciousness which says that the family does not have its boundaries in the immediate household. The proximate relatives are still part of that household, and so even the nieces and nephews are not just the responsibility of their respective parents but also of the latter’s brother or sister. This shows that Filipino families are large not just because of the big number of children, but also because of the consciousness that dictates them to treat the members of the extended family as constitutively part of their own.
Futhermore, there are practices, especially among traditional rural Filipino communities, that portray strong manifestations of the Filipino sakop system. The bayanihan[4] is an example of a much taken for granted fact about being a Filipino. It is often taken for granted that Filipinos are willing to sacrifice some of what they have in order to help others. The bayanihan is a description of this Filipino sense of responsibility of making oneself available to serve the other, especially a neighbor or any person to whom one is related.[5]
This bayanihan practice is extended to many practices in Filipino communities. Any form of help for another person has already become an instance of bayanihan. When a group of young people starts a project, for example, in order to help a destitute family, the group is said to have done one concrete act of a bayanihan.[6] Hence, the presence of the word bayanihan in the Filipino vocabulary can be taken to imply the strong ties among Filipino families and communities. We are connected to other people and that connection makes us feel responsible for their welfare.
Albert Alejo even claimed that our interpersonal ties happen in our innermost being which he calls as the loob ng tao.[7] Other authors even claimed that this loob is the innermost core of the person. The loob defines the person.[8] Hence, when a Filipino say: ito ang aking saloobin (this is what my loob wants), this can also mean that I bring my entire being into this thing.
The loob of persons allows them to connect with others in the community. When Alejo claims that the connection of a person with those whom he heard or read in the news is internal, he insinuated that the basis of our communal relationship has also to be internal, that is through our loob. There is an inner feeling of sympathy or commiseration, an inner connection that drags our being to somehow be one with the other, no matter how imperfect our attempt for communion would be.
Furthermore, the loob constitutes our similarities, our oneness as a people. We share the same loob and so we have the capacity to feel as one. Dionisio Miranda describes each person’s loob as: “It is the same in essential nature (structurally, in having the same essential elements) and basic processes. This would mean that the processes within each element and level are basically the same in any loob.”[9]
Such connection with others is a cherished value in most Filipino communities. In fact, to lose this inner connection may even cause a social stigma upon the person. A person who does not feel any connection with any other is, in the Filipino language, a manhid (indifferent or emotionless) na tao.[10] A manhid is one who can remain emotionally undisturbed even after learning about the difficulties and sufferings of others. He loses the capacity to help primarily because s/he has lost his/her connection with others. Furthermore, to be branded as a manhid na tao is a kind of a social stigma in Filipino communities. When one is called as a manhid na tao that also means that the person is treated more as a nuisance rather than a help in the community.
This bond in the community, this sense of connection especially with those people who are physically proximate to one another, allows the Filipinos to rely more on social approval as gauge in the moral quality of their actions. It is not uncommon among Filipinos that they prefer not to be straightforward about their bad impressions on others because of the fear that to bluntly express these thoughts would disturb their cherished communal relations. Some Filipinos find the act of bluntly offending another person socially unacceptable. Social approval plays a big part in Filipinos’ lifestyle, and hence any disturbance of social relations should be avoided as much as possible.
This results to the kind of morality that is largely based on social pressure. In my years of stay in the community of Agno, Tatalon, Quezon City, whose population is mostly composed of people from the Visayas and Mindanao, kapitbahayan or “neighborhood ties” is a prized commodity. They measure the moral quality of a person largely on the network of influence that the person exercises among his/her neighbors. A good person is one who is befriended and is respected by most number of neighbors, while a person becomes morally suspect if he/she gains no friends in the community. The gauge of respect is on the person’s ability to please the expectations of the neighbors. Hence, among the most hurting insults that one can get in that community is the reputation of somebody “na walang kapitbahay” (one who has no neighbor), which refers to a person who fails to gain the approval and affection of the people in the immediate community.
This then illustrates the strong ties within Filipino communities. Each member wishes to be connected to others, and so, everyone would also want their actions to be in consonance with others’ judgments. Sadly however, most of their dealings with others remain superficial because they are mostly external. The demand for social acceptance is so strong, and some of them would rather sacrifice sincerity and integrity just to appear good to others.
The Hierarchic Nature of Filipino Families and Communities
In addition to our awareness about our connectedness, of our sense of belonging to a family or a larger community, it is also observed that Filipinos are normally aware and respectful of hierarchies in their midst. We are aware of the fact that there are superiors and subordinates in our communities. We are accustomed, for example, to accept the hierarchies in our households. It is quite common among Filipino families, especially of the olden times, that the parents’ opinions are held respectable not because of any other reason than the fact that they come from the parents. Regardless of whether the parents actually know more about the case or not, the parents’ opinions in the Filipino households have greater weight because of our wide acceptance of the hierarchic nature of the family.
Even in the larger community, we are mindful of this hierarchy. In our political structure, we consider public officials as our patrons. They are there to help us in times of our need. This is even the reason why one of the most sought-after qualities of a public official, especially in the rural areas, is the latter’s capacity to feel for or sympathize with the people. The more approachable official normally wins the respect of the community. This is because the people think that the public officials are to be there especially to assist them in their needs, no matter how petty or personal these needs are.[11]
Hence, public officials are patrons. They are providers of the community, and as such they merit the people’s respect and loyalty. Traditional Filipino communities understood this mutuality among the people and the leaders.[12] This mutuality also somehow preserves the leaders in their office.
The hierarchic structure in the community defines the role of each of the members. This preserves the smooth mutuality of the citizens and the patrons in the community. The acknowledgment of the “proper places or positions” of each allows an ordered social life.
The challenge of postmodernism
The influx of recently developed thoughts such as postmodernism is now also affecting the consciousness of the people in the Philippines. The new ways of thinking clash against the traditional Filipino situations that value connectedness and hierarchies. The things valued by traditional Filipino ethical systems are the very same items that the postmodern thoughts are trying to do away with.
With the postmodern agenda of erasing the existing value systems, the Filipinos are faced with a particular crisis: to either preserve the traditional views but reject the emerging postmodern philosophies, or to do otherwise, that is, to embrace the emerging thoughts and discard the traditional views. It seems that the traditional views and the postmodern ideals can hardly go together. That is why, when the latter are gaining prominence especially among the youth, the traditional institutions are faced with the challenge of reanimating themselves. For what have been traditionally held as important are now becoming more and more insignificant. The Filipinos then are faced with the challenge of facilitating this dialogue between their traditions and that of the emerging postmodern alternatives.
Moreover, to dialogue with an emerging mentality, even if it’s a foreign mentality, is already a practice in Filipino communities. In fact, the question about the ideal Filipino thought is really an important issue because there is a real difficulty in establishing which of the many variations of mentalities in the Philippines is to constitute the real essence of a Filipino mind. In Asia, the Filipinos are among the most receptive people. Our thoughts are always affected by these new developments which we embrace throughout history. In one of our informal conversations among the members of the theology research team of the then John Paul II Research Center of UST, we were talking about the influences of postmodernism in the theological developments in the Philippines. It has been observed that many Filipino theologians are concerned about the postmodern consciousness that is fast building among circles of theologians in the country. Postmodernism seems to have become a great deal of force that need to be reckoned with. However, it was also observed that theologians of other Asian nations are not really as concerned as Filipinos are about postmodernism. One has even recalled his conversation with an Indian scholar who told him not to be too concerned about postmodernism because it does not really contribute anything significant to our Christian theologizing.
This conversation, I realized, is a strong indication of our susceptibility to every little progress that happens globally. Developments, especially in the West, create big impacts on us, and we are easily influenced or affected by them. Hence, when postmodernism emerged as an alternative mentality from the West, many Filipinos have also followed suit. The Indians and the Chinese may show considerable resistance against postmodernism, but Filipinos can effortlessly receive it as an alternative thought.
With postmodernism, the Filipino traditional ethical systems are blurred. What has been previously held as normal are now put into question, and the issue about preferences have become a difficult choice because there are no longer any dominant view about the proper things to be done.
Postmodernism however contributed to the realization that the Filipino community is not monolithic, and the traditional values of the majority are not necessarily the best options for all. The once ignored minority has now gained recognition in the postmodern world, and so, they can now easily compete with any other ethical or philosophical system. With postmodernism, the Philippine situation is made aware of its own pluralism. We are now confronted by the reality that the Filipinos are not just really one people. There are differences among us. We have varied ways of appreciating things. We have different beliefs and even different traditions.
There is a growing recognition of the mentality of the minorities such as the many indigenous people in the country, the Islamic tradition of the people of Mindanao and other areas of the country, and the growing traditions of the many indigenous faiths like the various communities in Mt. Banahaw. These are the many little voices that were once ignored in the traditional Philippine situation. They were previously regarded as outside the normal ways of doing things. They are oftentimes labeled as superstitious, backwards and other pejorative labels. But with postmodernism, they gain recognition and even acceptance. They now become alternatives that possess equal validity as that of the previously held “normal way.”
This is one area where the traditional Philippine situation really has to do serious negotiations. The Philippine situation could no longer claim of a monolithic or at least a majority ethical system. We are now confronted with our differences and variations, and these are new things that we need to recognize and contend with. With postmodernism, the Christian traditions of the urban people could not just simply oppress or annihilate other traditions because such would only result to more conflicts and even bloody oppositions. The only viable solution for now is to seek for mutual respect and decent co-existence. There is a need to realize and value mutual respect despite our differences.
We need to be at home and be creative with our differences. To think that we all need to behave identically is, I believe, among the greatest offenses that a person, a tradition, or an institution may commit in our time.
This then ultimately leads to the realization that even the valuation of our ties and hierarchies in the Philippines is also questioned. In politics, we see most of the manifestations of this attack against the higher offices. The superiors no longer hold a privileged position, but they have now become as vulnerable as any of their subordinates. In our current situation, a person could not even guarantee that he would forever remain at the top for it may even happen that those who were once his subordinate would also later on become his own superiors. The Filipino expression of “bilog ang mundo” (the world is round) attests to our consciousness of the possibility that social situations may change rapidly and one’s superior status does not really secure him/her of a lifetime privilege.
Furthermore, the non-privileged status of the leaders is seen in their hitherto accountability and answerability to the people. The postmodern development in the nation allows the people to question, watch over and even at times oust those who are in civil service. One’s titles no longer secure him/her of any real and lasting advantage over the other. What remains important however is the realization that a person is no longer guarded by his position, rank or office but rather by his sincerity and credibility in service. When the past hierarchies offer rooms for loyalties among the participating parties, in postmodernism loyalties are challenged by these very ideals of credibility and sincerity. This happens not just in politics, but also in many areas of our life as Filipinos. This happens even in the classrooms of Universities whereby professors or instructors would have to prove their worth through their day to day lessons and not through the titles that they attach to their names. This happens in the corporate offices whereby best managers are known not because of their names and degrees but through their implemented decisions. This even happens in the Church where priests and bishops are no longer treated as privileged members of the body of Christ, but rather as co-pilgrims in this universal journey towards the Father.
No one is in a privileged place anymore. All of us are equal, and despite being different from one another, we are all invited to sort our differences out and live harmoniously together, preserving our own identity without necessarily requiring others to behave like us.
Furthermore, the ties among members of the Filipino communities are also challenged through the postmodernist ideal of autonomy and freedom. The postmodern view on freedom is highly individualistic. Freedom rests on the availability of one’s choices. The more the choices are, the more free the postmodernist person is. This extreme individualism has the tendency to disregard the value of communal relations. Although it is true that postmodernism invites people toward dialogue and consensus, such is however primarily premised on differences and autonomy. They continue to challenge the thought of coming together to a community for mutuality of help.
Conclusion
There are indeed several changes that postmodernism brings to our Philippine situation. The traditional Philippines could not just simply ignore the influx of these thoughts. It could not just simply set them aside and claim that they are abnormalities that need to be annihilated or at least ignored. In our postmodern times, we are required to listen, to negotiate, to challenge not just the positions of others but also our own. There is a real value in negotiation and dialogue because only through these can we hope for a harmonious and healthy co-existence. It is in listening, dialoguing and even negotiating that we continue, not just to exist, but also even to grow.
If our value systems are challenged, then postmodernism poses a possibility for us to grow. It allows us to see the variations among us and to value our differences. For one, it allows us to see that the authenticity of our persons is not solely dependent on the approval of our immediate communities. Postmodernism allows us to realize that there is nothing sinful in being different. It allows us to appreciate the thought that our connection with others does not compel us to behave in the way that they do.
With the challenge of postmodernism, we are invited to think more about our being Filipinos. Who are we really as Filipinos? Postmodernism warns us that we are not really a singular people, and that we could learn and grow through the differences and variations that exist among us.
[1] Armando de Jesus, “Cultural Underpinnings of Poverty,” Ad Veritatem, vol.2, no.1 (2002), 60.
[2] Leonardo Mercado, “Filipino Philosophy and Corruption in the Government,” Ad Veritatem, vol.2, no.2 (2003), 354.
[3] cf. Mercado, “Filipino Philosophy and Corruption in the Government,” 347.
[4] Bayanihan means “mutual aid or cooperative endeavor; cooperation; community development.” [Leo English, Tagalog-English Dictionary, 22nd printing (Manila: National Bookstore, 2007) 183].
[5]The bayanihan originates from the custom among rural people whereby the males in the neighborhood assist a neighbor in transferring a house. The common houses in the rural Philippines of the olden times are mostly composed of light materials, and the foundations of the houses’ pillars are not buried in the ground. They are normally simply placed on top of a hard material like stone, and on them the entire house rests. This allows the possibility to carry the entire house whenever one household would like to transfer their residence to another place. So as to avoid the hassle of dismantling the entire structure, and rebuilding it again in another place, the rural communities came up with the practice of the bayanihan (with the word bayani which originally means hero). In the bayanihan, the entire house is carried on the shoulders of the male members of the community who have responded to their sense of responsibility towards their neighbor. In my ancestral community in Anibongan (Maco), Davao, which is largely composed of rice planters, the bayanihan is strongly manifested in the communal planting of rice among the members of the community. Both males and females take part in the planting of rice so as to maximize the work during rainy season.
[6] A Filipino synonym of the word bayanihan is damayan, a noun that means “mutual aid.” (Leo English, Tagalog-English Dictionary, 405.
[7] Alejo argues that the reason why we are involved in the situation of people who are reported to have been victimized by floods, typhoons and other misfortunes is the fact that we are connected to them. He claims that such connection is in our loob or the inner Being.[Albert Alejo, Tao Po! Tuloy! Isang Landas ng Pag-unawa sa Loob ng Tao (Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University, 1990), 82.
[8] Jose de Mesa, In Solidarity with Culture (Quezon City: Maryhill School of Theology, 1991), 45. See also, Jose de Mesa and Lode Wostyn, Doing Christology (Quezon City: Claretian Publications, 1989), 122.
[9] Dionisio Miranda, Loob: The Filipino Within (Manila: Divine Word Publications, 1989), 57.
[10] Manhid is an adjective which means “torpid or numb.” (Leo English, Filipino-English Dictionary, 891).
[11] I remember one particular experience when I was still a young man in my hometown in Davao. An old Boholano wins the election for the office of the governor mostly because of his alleged approachability. He was thought more as a patron because aside from being an old landlord, he rarely closes the gates of his big mansion. The open gates project his welcoming character to the ordinary people.
[12] cf. [12] Nicanor Tiongson, Kasaysayan at Estetika ng Sinakulo at Ibang Dulang Panrelihiyon sa Malolos (Quezon City: Ateneo University Press, 1975), 192
These are among the questions that can be raised when we talk about postmodernism, which proposes the erasure of a unifying principle or essence that would classify several individuals into a single group. To define the Filipino becomes a difficult endeavor simply because we know the diversities of the Philippine population. How are we to determine the Filipino whom we are talking about? Is he a Mindanaoan, a Visayan or a Manileño? Is he a Christian, a Moslem, or an indigenous person? Is he the Filipino of the cities or the Filipino of the hills? Is he from the urban or the rural community? Is he from an exclusive village in Makati or from the squatters’ area in Payatas, Quezon City? The attempt to come up with a unified concept of the Filipino is challenged by the particularities that affect every individual.
Nevertheless, let me start my reflection with some popular impressions about who the Filipinos are. These characterizations may not really exhaustive but they are oftentimes used by literatures that talk about the Filipino people.
The Filipino Familial and Communal Ties
Filipinos are group-oriented people. This is the claim of authors like Armando de Jesus, who argues that Filipinos “like most of the orientals, are said to be group bound.”[1] Filipinos, especially those of the rural areas, have shown perceivable leaning towards their community. This even allows Leonardo Mercado to claim that the Filipinos in general are cognizant of the so-called sakop system[2], which means that the Filipino values are largely determined by the approval of the community.
These authors even cite as proof of the Filipino sakop-system the latter’s tendency to preserve a large scope of familial relations.[3] It is often claimed that Filipino families include those relatives who are even beyond the range of the immediate household like the aunts, the uncles, the cousins, and the grandparents. It is not uncommon that in some Filipino families, the aunts and uncles who are more financially blessed than their siblings do feel responsible in helping the latter even to the point of owning the responsibility of sending their nieces and nephews to school. There seems to be an implicit rule that morally obliges those who can financially afford to become responsible for securing the well-being of the families of those siblings who are financially hard up. This sense of responsibility can be said to have stemmed from a consciousness which says that the family does not have its boundaries in the immediate household. The proximate relatives are still part of that household, and so even the nieces and nephews are not just the responsibility of their respective parents but also of the latter’s brother or sister. This shows that Filipino families are large not just because of the big number of children, but also because of the consciousness that dictates them to treat the members of the extended family as constitutively part of their own.
Futhermore, there are practices, especially among traditional rural Filipino communities, that portray strong manifestations of the Filipino sakop system. The bayanihan[4] is an example of a much taken for granted fact about being a Filipino. It is often taken for granted that Filipinos are willing to sacrifice some of what they have in order to help others. The bayanihan is a description of this Filipino sense of responsibility of making oneself available to serve the other, especially a neighbor or any person to whom one is related.[5]
This bayanihan practice is extended to many practices in Filipino communities. Any form of help for another person has already become an instance of bayanihan. When a group of young people starts a project, for example, in order to help a destitute family, the group is said to have done one concrete act of a bayanihan.[6] Hence, the presence of the word bayanihan in the Filipino vocabulary can be taken to imply the strong ties among Filipino families and communities. We are connected to other people and that connection makes us feel responsible for their welfare.
Albert Alejo even claimed that our interpersonal ties happen in our innermost being which he calls as the loob ng tao.[7] Other authors even claimed that this loob is the innermost core of the person. The loob defines the person.[8] Hence, when a Filipino say: ito ang aking saloobin (this is what my loob wants), this can also mean that I bring my entire being into this thing.
The loob of persons allows them to connect with others in the community. When Alejo claims that the connection of a person with those whom he heard or read in the news is internal, he insinuated that the basis of our communal relationship has also to be internal, that is through our loob. There is an inner feeling of sympathy or commiseration, an inner connection that drags our being to somehow be one with the other, no matter how imperfect our attempt for communion would be.
Furthermore, the loob constitutes our similarities, our oneness as a people. We share the same loob and so we have the capacity to feel as one. Dionisio Miranda describes each person’s loob as: “It is the same in essential nature (structurally, in having the same essential elements) and basic processes. This would mean that the processes within each element and level are basically the same in any loob.”[9]
Such connection with others is a cherished value in most Filipino communities. In fact, to lose this inner connection may even cause a social stigma upon the person. A person who does not feel any connection with any other is, in the Filipino language, a manhid (indifferent or emotionless) na tao.[10] A manhid is one who can remain emotionally undisturbed even after learning about the difficulties and sufferings of others. He loses the capacity to help primarily because s/he has lost his/her connection with others. Furthermore, to be branded as a manhid na tao is a kind of a social stigma in Filipino communities. When one is called as a manhid na tao that also means that the person is treated more as a nuisance rather than a help in the community.
This bond in the community, this sense of connection especially with those people who are physically proximate to one another, allows the Filipinos to rely more on social approval as gauge in the moral quality of their actions. It is not uncommon among Filipinos that they prefer not to be straightforward about their bad impressions on others because of the fear that to bluntly express these thoughts would disturb their cherished communal relations. Some Filipinos find the act of bluntly offending another person socially unacceptable. Social approval plays a big part in Filipinos’ lifestyle, and hence any disturbance of social relations should be avoided as much as possible.
This results to the kind of morality that is largely based on social pressure. In my years of stay in the community of Agno, Tatalon, Quezon City, whose population is mostly composed of people from the Visayas and Mindanao, kapitbahayan or “neighborhood ties” is a prized commodity. They measure the moral quality of a person largely on the network of influence that the person exercises among his/her neighbors. A good person is one who is befriended and is respected by most number of neighbors, while a person becomes morally suspect if he/she gains no friends in the community. The gauge of respect is on the person’s ability to please the expectations of the neighbors. Hence, among the most hurting insults that one can get in that community is the reputation of somebody “na walang kapitbahay” (one who has no neighbor), which refers to a person who fails to gain the approval and affection of the people in the immediate community.
This then illustrates the strong ties within Filipino communities. Each member wishes to be connected to others, and so, everyone would also want their actions to be in consonance with others’ judgments. Sadly however, most of their dealings with others remain superficial because they are mostly external. The demand for social acceptance is so strong, and some of them would rather sacrifice sincerity and integrity just to appear good to others.
The Hierarchic Nature of Filipino Families and Communities
In addition to our awareness about our connectedness, of our sense of belonging to a family or a larger community, it is also observed that Filipinos are normally aware and respectful of hierarchies in their midst. We are aware of the fact that there are superiors and subordinates in our communities. We are accustomed, for example, to accept the hierarchies in our households. It is quite common among Filipino families, especially of the olden times, that the parents’ opinions are held respectable not because of any other reason than the fact that they come from the parents. Regardless of whether the parents actually know more about the case or not, the parents’ opinions in the Filipino households have greater weight because of our wide acceptance of the hierarchic nature of the family.
Even in the larger community, we are mindful of this hierarchy. In our political structure, we consider public officials as our patrons. They are there to help us in times of our need. This is even the reason why one of the most sought-after qualities of a public official, especially in the rural areas, is the latter’s capacity to feel for or sympathize with the people. The more approachable official normally wins the respect of the community. This is because the people think that the public officials are to be there especially to assist them in their needs, no matter how petty or personal these needs are.[11]
Hence, public officials are patrons. They are providers of the community, and as such they merit the people’s respect and loyalty. Traditional Filipino communities understood this mutuality among the people and the leaders.[12] This mutuality also somehow preserves the leaders in their office.
The hierarchic structure in the community defines the role of each of the members. This preserves the smooth mutuality of the citizens and the patrons in the community. The acknowledgment of the “proper places or positions” of each allows an ordered social life.
The challenge of postmodernism
The influx of recently developed thoughts such as postmodernism is now also affecting the consciousness of the people in the Philippines. The new ways of thinking clash against the traditional Filipino situations that value connectedness and hierarchies. The things valued by traditional Filipino ethical systems are the very same items that the postmodern thoughts are trying to do away with.
With the postmodern agenda of erasing the existing value systems, the Filipinos are faced with a particular crisis: to either preserve the traditional views but reject the emerging postmodern philosophies, or to do otherwise, that is, to embrace the emerging thoughts and discard the traditional views. It seems that the traditional views and the postmodern ideals can hardly go together. That is why, when the latter are gaining prominence especially among the youth, the traditional institutions are faced with the challenge of reanimating themselves. For what have been traditionally held as important are now becoming more and more insignificant. The Filipinos then are faced with the challenge of facilitating this dialogue between their traditions and that of the emerging postmodern alternatives.
Moreover, to dialogue with an emerging mentality, even if it’s a foreign mentality, is already a practice in Filipino communities. In fact, the question about the ideal Filipino thought is really an important issue because there is a real difficulty in establishing which of the many variations of mentalities in the Philippines is to constitute the real essence of a Filipino mind. In Asia, the Filipinos are among the most receptive people. Our thoughts are always affected by these new developments which we embrace throughout history. In one of our informal conversations among the members of the theology research team of the then John Paul II Research Center of UST, we were talking about the influences of postmodernism in the theological developments in the Philippines. It has been observed that many Filipino theologians are concerned about the postmodern consciousness that is fast building among circles of theologians in the country. Postmodernism seems to have become a great deal of force that need to be reckoned with. However, it was also observed that theologians of other Asian nations are not really as concerned as Filipinos are about postmodernism. One has even recalled his conversation with an Indian scholar who told him not to be too concerned about postmodernism because it does not really contribute anything significant to our Christian theologizing.
This conversation, I realized, is a strong indication of our susceptibility to every little progress that happens globally. Developments, especially in the West, create big impacts on us, and we are easily influenced or affected by them. Hence, when postmodernism emerged as an alternative mentality from the West, many Filipinos have also followed suit. The Indians and the Chinese may show considerable resistance against postmodernism, but Filipinos can effortlessly receive it as an alternative thought.
With postmodernism, the Filipino traditional ethical systems are blurred. What has been previously held as normal are now put into question, and the issue about preferences have become a difficult choice because there are no longer any dominant view about the proper things to be done.
Postmodernism however contributed to the realization that the Filipino community is not monolithic, and the traditional values of the majority are not necessarily the best options for all. The once ignored minority has now gained recognition in the postmodern world, and so, they can now easily compete with any other ethical or philosophical system. With postmodernism, the Philippine situation is made aware of its own pluralism. We are now confronted by the reality that the Filipinos are not just really one people. There are differences among us. We have varied ways of appreciating things. We have different beliefs and even different traditions.
There is a growing recognition of the mentality of the minorities such as the many indigenous people in the country, the Islamic tradition of the people of Mindanao and other areas of the country, and the growing traditions of the many indigenous faiths like the various communities in Mt. Banahaw. These are the many little voices that were once ignored in the traditional Philippine situation. They were previously regarded as outside the normal ways of doing things. They are oftentimes labeled as superstitious, backwards and other pejorative labels. But with postmodernism, they gain recognition and even acceptance. They now become alternatives that possess equal validity as that of the previously held “normal way.”
This is one area where the traditional Philippine situation really has to do serious negotiations. The Philippine situation could no longer claim of a monolithic or at least a majority ethical system. We are now confronted with our differences and variations, and these are new things that we need to recognize and contend with. With postmodernism, the Christian traditions of the urban people could not just simply oppress or annihilate other traditions because such would only result to more conflicts and even bloody oppositions. The only viable solution for now is to seek for mutual respect and decent co-existence. There is a need to realize and value mutual respect despite our differences.
We need to be at home and be creative with our differences. To think that we all need to behave identically is, I believe, among the greatest offenses that a person, a tradition, or an institution may commit in our time.
This then ultimately leads to the realization that even the valuation of our ties and hierarchies in the Philippines is also questioned. In politics, we see most of the manifestations of this attack against the higher offices. The superiors no longer hold a privileged position, but they have now become as vulnerable as any of their subordinates. In our current situation, a person could not even guarantee that he would forever remain at the top for it may even happen that those who were once his subordinate would also later on become his own superiors. The Filipino expression of “bilog ang mundo” (the world is round) attests to our consciousness of the possibility that social situations may change rapidly and one’s superior status does not really secure him/her of a lifetime privilege.
Furthermore, the non-privileged status of the leaders is seen in their hitherto accountability and answerability to the people. The postmodern development in the nation allows the people to question, watch over and even at times oust those who are in civil service. One’s titles no longer secure him/her of any real and lasting advantage over the other. What remains important however is the realization that a person is no longer guarded by his position, rank or office but rather by his sincerity and credibility in service. When the past hierarchies offer rooms for loyalties among the participating parties, in postmodernism loyalties are challenged by these very ideals of credibility and sincerity. This happens not just in politics, but also in many areas of our life as Filipinos. This happens even in the classrooms of Universities whereby professors or instructors would have to prove their worth through their day to day lessons and not through the titles that they attach to their names. This happens in the corporate offices whereby best managers are known not because of their names and degrees but through their implemented decisions. This even happens in the Church where priests and bishops are no longer treated as privileged members of the body of Christ, but rather as co-pilgrims in this universal journey towards the Father.
No one is in a privileged place anymore. All of us are equal, and despite being different from one another, we are all invited to sort our differences out and live harmoniously together, preserving our own identity without necessarily requiring others to behave like us.
Furthermore, the ties among members of the Filipino communities are also challenged through the postmodernist ideal of autonomy and freedom. The postmodern view on freedom is highly individualistic. Freedom rests on the availability of one’s choices. The more the choices are, the more free the postmodernist person is. This extreme individualism has the tendency to disregard the value of communal relations. Although it is true that postmodernism invites people toward dialogue and consensus, such is however primarily premised on differences and autonomy. They continue to challenge the thought of coming together to a community for mutuality of help.
Conclusion
There are indeed several changes that postmodernism brings to our Philippine situation. The traditional Philippines could not just simply ignore the influx of these thoughts. It could not just simply set them aside and claim that they are abnormalities that need to be annihilated or at least ignored. In our postmodern times, we are required to listen, to negotiate, to challenge not just the positions of others but also our own. There is a real value in negotiation and dialogue because only through these can we hope for a harmonious and healthy co-existence. It is in listening, dialoguing and even negotiating that we continue, not just to exist, but also even to grow.
If our value systems are challenged, then postmodernism poses a possibility for us to grow. It allows us to see the variations among us and to value our differences. For one, it allows us to see that the authenticity of our persons is not solely dependent on the approval of our immediate communities. Postmodernism allows us to realize that there is nothing sinful in being different. It allows us to appreciate the thought that our connection with others does not compel us to behave in the way that they do.
With the challenge of postmodernism, we are invited to think more about our being Filipinos. Who are we really as Filipinos? Postmodernism warns us that we are not really a singular people, and that we could learn and grow through the differences and variations that exist among us.
[1] Armando de Jesus, “Cultural Underpinnings of Poverty,” Ad Veritatem, vol.2, no.1 (2002), 60.
[2] Leonardo Mercado, “Filipino Philosophy and Corruption in the Government,” Ad Veritatem, vol.2, no.2 (2003), 354.
[3] cf. Mercado, “Filipino Philosophy and Corruption in the Government,” 347.
[4] Bayanihan means “mutual aid or cooperative endeavor; cooperation; community development.” [Leo English, Tagalog-English Dictionary, 22nd printing (Manila: National Bookstore, 2007) 183].
[5]The bayanihan originates from the custom among rural people whereby the males in the neighborhood assist a neighbor in transferring a house. The common houses in the rural Philippines of the olden times are mostly composed of light materials, and the foundations of the houses’ pillars are not buried in the ground. They are normally simply placed on top of a hard material like stone, and on them the entire house rests. This allows the possibility to carry the entire house whenever one household would like to transfer their residence to another place. So as to avoid the hassle of dismantling the entire structure, and rebuilding it again in another place, the rural communities came up with the practice of the bayanihan (with the word bayani which originally means hero). In the bayanihan, the entire house is carried on the shoulders of the male members of the community who have responded to their sense of responsibility towards their neighbor. In my ancestral community in Anibongan (Maco), Davao, which is largely composed of rice planters, the bayanihan is strongly manifested in the communal planting of rice among the members of the community. Both males and females take part in the planting of rice so as to maximize the work during rainy season.
[6] A Filipino synonym of the word bayanihan is damayan, a noun that means “mutual aid.” (Leo English, Tagalog-English Dictionary, 405.
[7] Alejo argues that the reason why we are involved in the situation of people who are reported to have been victimized by floods, typhoons and other misfortunes is the fact that we are connected to them. He claims that such connection is in our loob or the inner Being.[Albert Alejo, Tao Po! Tuloy! Isang Landas ng Pag-unawa sa Loob ng Tao (Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University, 1990), 82.
[8] Jose de Mesa, In Solidarity with Culture (Quezon City: Maryhill School of Theology, 1991), 45. See also, Jose de Mesa and Lode Wostyn, Doing Christology (Quezon City: Claretian Publications, 1989), 122.
[9] Dionisio Miranda, Loob: The Filipino Within (Manila: Divine Word Publications, 1989), 57.
[10] Manhid is an adjective which means “torpid or numb.” (Leo English, Filipino-English Dictionary, 891).
[11] I remember one particular experience when I was still a young man in my hometown in Davao. An old Boholano wins the election for the office of the governor mostly because of his alleged approachability. He was thought more as a patron because aside from being an old landlord, he rarely closes the gates of his big mansion. The open gates project his welcoming character to the ordinary people.
[12] cf. [12] Nicanor Tiongson, Kasaysayan at Estetika ng Sinakulo at Ibang Dulang Panrelihiyon sa Malolos (Quezon City: Ateneo University Press, 1975), 192
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
