CRITICAL COMMENTARY (1)

Western ideology has dominated Asia for quite some time that even the mere acceptance of this notion could be considered as being submissive to this claim. Ideologies are hard to battle especially ones that have been instilled in the minds of more than a few generations ago. But accept it we shall or not, ideals from the West have come to take their place in the formation of what we see as the "Modern of Contemporary Asia". Before we go on to see how Asia today has come to be, let us see first the origin of having such conditions.


First let us identify what is the West and what is Asia. The immediate answer to this would be the west is comprised of the Americas and the European continent and the East would be of Africa and Asia. But what is Asia? Have you ever wondered why this continent has been called as such? To put it bluntly, the name Asia is already a manifestation of the West imposing their "mandated power over the world because the term Asia was a European word for everything across the Eastern borders. We then see here that the identity of the Asian continent has become a minor entity to that of the West. It is here in this global manifestation that we see the societal impact of subordination of having the "other being" as it is called. The other being is one that is identified as being unable to exist without the presence of the subject. This is then called objectification. What such a name then tells us is that Asia would not exist without the presence of the West. But is this an absolute truth? It would be a truth in partial ways such as the names, but it is not true that the existence of the West is what makes Asia as it is for this part of the world has been able to bring about rich cultures and civilizations even before being given such a collective term, even before the rise of the West.
But as strong as the cultures it has brought out may be, there are some that sprung from it as products of the Western effort of "civilizing" the world. This then produced nations caught in an identity crisis as part of their history. A very strong manifestation of such a case could be seen in the Philippines where there is not much a sense of identification within the peoples of the nation. But given the strength that the other nations in the region have exuded, it might be a mistake to generalize on the Western term of "oriental" as the main identity of Asia.
Today, Asia-- the term continually being used out of lack of other appropriate terms-- is slowly catching up with the Western motif of development with its integration of ideas: liberal front and culture mixed into one. In many contemporary Asian nations, this proves to be an effective method for fostering development such as the case of Singapore, Japan, and South Korea. But for many as well, it is hard to find the balance between the cultural and the developmental constructs that they need. Such, I think is the case of the Philippines where its historical essence tries to meet with its cultural and developmental identity.
From how I see it, such a balance is not a impossible task. The only thing that makes it impossible is the idea of not knowing how to find the delicate mixture of which liberal ideas from the west to accept and which to reject. In short, there needs to be a critical analysis of what the nation's socio-political and economic culture and environments are in order to be able to correctly identify what Western ideas might be helpful in improving the country's state. But as such, if this step is not achieved, then the balance might prove to be difficult for a nation to achieve. It is not to say that the Western ideology is the answer to the developmental problems of the Asian nations. This is only to say that because the ideas of the old Asia are not applicable to the current times of the West's domination, that an integration or adaption of their ideas is needed in order for the nations to survive.


As such acceptance integration occurs, the liberation of ideas from the enlightenment brings us the age of Modernity. we mainly think of modernity as having something new or something updated. This is quite correct because the term does imply new ideas. Modernity has brought to us, as a product of the age of enlightenment, breakthroughs in the realms of science, social ideas,  and economic thrusts. On these three levels, modernity has proved to be of useful existence. One characteristic of this age is that there has come to be a fancy on the ideas presented by science and capitalism as modes of development. These two combined together have brought a new mode of production to societies that have helped increase their capacities for development.
A personal comment I have on this ideology would be the fact that its basic tenets or bases are mainly or purely that of Western thinkers. simply put, it focuses more on the developmental ideas of the west and little or none at all on what was occurring in the "Eastern" nations at that time. What does this then say about the ideology? It brings to the table the argument that the theories or ideas arising from this school of thought are not of universal application. Perhaps this is one reason why it is hard for many Asian nations to find the balance with the integration given their histories and all.
A good example of this would be the implementation of democracy and capitalist and Marxist ideologies in Asian nations. I think that we will find in current settings that democracy has not always proven to be the best for there exists much diversity in the realm of political and cultural history. Likewise, the ideals of capitalism and Marxism would work or not work for certain nations. For example, the socialist/Marxist ideal would work for countries such as China or Russia given their culture, but not for the experience of Singapore of Japan. It is then here that we see that the patterns of development presented by the Western image of society are predictive of their own development, but it does not say much on that of the East.


One ideology though, that has managed to make a breakthrough on all levels I think is that of Feminism as it tries to take on the societal and historical significance of women. But the problem that persists in this edition of the ideology is that it has not yet made relevance to women of other races other than the "White women". In the latter movement of the ideology though, we see how Feminism has tried to expand itself on the appropriations of the scope of its perspective. It later included in its advocacies fighting for equal rights of men and women across all nations, radical thinking among women, fighting against oppression of women of color, and many others.
From how I see it then, this particular Western ideology could be one that could be easily embraced by Asian nations into their culture as a common identification they share is the oppression of women on differing grounds. this proves to me to be one avenue wherein a universal ideal has been shared, thus a portal wherein globalization may have taken place as well. 


Globalization, the product of modernity otherwise known as the borderless state of the world, takes place in the socio-political and economic sphere. In perspective, this situation is one that has for the most part brought the integration of ideas into a productive one especially in the conditions of globality and locality. This interconnectedness effect on nations has been made easier by the modes of communication. But what seems to be the problem with this is that as the globality of ideas increases the implication they have on localities increases as well in that the global ideals replace that of the local ones-- even the traditional ones that give these said locals their identities. Such is then that we see another side-effect that is endo-colonialism.
As it is, colonial mentality is thriving enough that it has succumbed many nations into the mentality of the "object". This is much evident in the case of the Philippines where the fascination for foreign identity still thrives as a product of the colonial world it has lived in. With such a supplementary mentality then, how else could the  identity of the indigenous be preserved? I think that in this case, it would take the part of the media manipulation to be done given the power it has over the masses in this country.


In effect, the challenges of modernity and globalization have given birth to a new ideology called post-modernity. It is here then that we see a more complex figure of what is the identity of a nation or a person as defined by his society . In this ideology, there has come to be the rise of pop culture and media power as communication has replaced production as the mode of development. It is also here where the aforementioned "new feminism" has taken place. 
On pop-culture or formally known as "Popular Culture", it seems that there has come to be a discriminating outcome of society internally where this form of culture has come to be considered as a "low" form of culture given that it is the masses who has defined what it is. It is also being termed as inappropriate culture for identifying a nation in that it does not embody the essence of the past. In the defense of this arising culture, such criticism could only be taken with rebuttals that it can be considered as one that could be used to identify a nation for the simple reason that it is the masses that has given birth to it thus making it their identity and the majority of the nation's. A positive side to this arising culture would be that it could be a new mode for communication or transmitting ideas of the old or ideas of new generations so that more would be able to understand what situations are ongoing.
One method of communication for this new cultural brow today is the media. As mentioned before, the media can either be a tool for disaster or development depending on what kind of political culture or value they have. In the case of the Philippines I think it has the potential to do both. But with its current state, I am hoping that it lean toward the side of communal development and slowly shed its stronghold on its destructive path in political play. Another main tenet of post-modernism is the decline of old public ideologies where these are replaced by the rise of the said pop culture.


With all the new ideas it has presented, still I wonder how would these be applicable to the state of the Philippines in this country's venture to development? Is it in a complete state of post-modernity or are parcels of it left behind in the state of colonial mentality? Or perhaps, it is in a complete state of post-colonialism.

"The Evil Demon of Images"

"What else does the media dream of if not raising up events by its very presence?"

-Jean Baudrillard

A simple question I ask, what is the role of media, truly? In its birth it was meant to foster more efficient communication, but what has become of it today? Media has evolved itself from trying to bring the reality of one place to another into creating its own reality that it has distorted the consumers' sense of which is reality and imagery. It has practically become the walking definition of what reality should be.

Let us take for example the evening news in the Philippines. The news that appears on the television seems to be an exaggerated form of what the real news is. In the television, we often see a dramatic introduction by the anchor with his voice modulation and everything followed by some sound effects that open up to a video clip of the scene of action mostly about death or an accident in a familiar setting to the viewer. Such a climactic set-up of presentation then brings to the viewer emotions that would formulate in the mind the idea of threat in similar places even though the imagery brought by the news is not really embodying the reality of it-- at least not fully. 

But how come, in other countries the news is not brought this way to the people? To this, I then dare say that the form of media presentation in a country is able to affect the impression that a people has on themselves and that others have of them because it is through this form of technology that information regarding the social construct of a nation is spread. It is then with this medium that media is able to conjure up a reality of its own that is transmitted to the masses. And because such seeming "transparency" is appreciated by the people, this mentality of a "truthful media" is what they see. The media then feed off of this image they are able to build and in more than one way control the mindset of the people towards ideologies of controversy.

In the case of the television in the Philippines, the programs ran in the country especially the news are able to create a new world wherein the imagery they present becomes the accepted reality, even though it is only a projection/ representation of it. This "imagery" is then so widely accepted that it becomes the accepted reality among the people. It is then here where the switch between the imagery and reality is made in the minds of the people.

To answer Baudrillard's question then, the evil demon of images is what media brings up in its presence. What it is able to give and gain simply is a show of control and power towards the people and the legal authorities. It is a frightening sight because to have the media control legitimate power of the masses would mean that they are given authority to manipulate the ideas that flow into the minds of the people. And with such authority, they could bring about negative connotations to others most especially the government. In the case of the Philippines, the media is the one who controls the peoples' perceptions of the image of politicians and other public figures. It is then we see how such a power, when abused or used to the extreme, can completely blind people of reality and forever produce a new reality of images based on what projection is given to them.

Unless, I believe, there is then a strong mindset on the part of the people in determining if what is presented to them is reality or just a projection of it, the media will continue to become the hoarding ideological monster that it is. But on a lighter note, I see on the part of Filipinos that the manner programs are presented are starting to change in the way that there is more complexity in the plot of television drama. The news however, I think has taken a step backward as it still has not taken a change for the growing minds of the newly enlightened.

In the article, Baurillard presents the following questions to an unsuspecting media consumer:

"But where did you get this image from? Can you separate it from the various identities you are sold daily in advertising, fashion/ lifestyle/ interior decoration magazines, sex technique videos, shop window displays, fitness programmes, pop records? Do you have any reason to suppose that the kind of person you are, or could become, is not a fulfillment of preexisting models of thought and behaviour? Are you really anything more than a type?"

In sum, he asks if you think you are your own identity and not a product of what you have been presented to have as parts of who you should be from what entities such as the media have given you. Well?
From what I see, I think that these questions are what contemporary Filipinos should ask their selves or need to look at as they watch shows, see advertisements, and scan shops or listen to the radio because it is when we are able to find the answer here that we can say we are able to go beyond what media presents us and see the true reality, the absolute reality.

Who is your favorite Princess? :)

Beauty and the Beast! :)

It is strange how even such a choice of favorite could tell much about how a person was taught or was reared to think like. The discussion we had on subordination and post-colonial mentalities has been a few weeks back, but I would like to state in this entry how much I have thought about that particular example on fairy tales. It struck me so much because I did not think back then that a child could easily be subordinated through such stories.


I then remembered my favorite Disney Princess in the discussion. I was actually surprised to hear my professor praise the movie. What I was not surprised about was his criticism on the Little Mermaid, which so happened to be my third favorite of the classics since it did somehow lead to a thinking of "If you want something go get it even if it means undermining yourself". i appreciated that lecture very much because it actually lead me to understand more of myself.


Unknowingly so, it also lead me to think of why Filipinos act in certain ways in the contemporary setting and in the past. From what I see, it is through the values that we are taught to put forth that we create a mentality for ourselves of what should be or what should not be. Such coloring of perception then blocks us from further allowing other ideas to enter.


I guess I never knew this as a child, but I was attracted to the film Beauty and the Beats more than the others because I liked that it had complexity in its plot. I liked that it taught me to see beyond what could be given by the eye. But after that lecture, I realized why i liked it then and why i liked it even more as I grew up. I appreciated the film because it was not like the other princesses who acted out as damsels in distress or who were trying to make a breakthrough in the realm of feminism. I liked it because the protagonist, cleverly named Belle--meaning beauty-- had a strong sense of what she wanted, what she desired, and what she knew she had to do.




Tell me then, who was your favorite princess/ prince growing up?

Democracy and Football

After watching the Philippine Football Team beat it out with the Mongolian Blue Wolves a couple of weeks ago I would have to admit that my desire to cheer for a football team has begun. but in the course of this, I could not help but wonder why it was only now that this sport has come to take its popularity among Filipinos in the motherland. Being the fan that I have become of the Azkals, I came across this interesting video on the internet which tried to explain the rising phenomenon that is the Philippine Azkals. Much to my surprise that the video actually contained much more insight than I thought it would.

Seeing this video actually reminded me of what one of our school's varsity football players said just a year ago: "The Philippines is a football giant waiting to be awakened..." I could not agree more to his statement. It seemed that this sport was the perfect fit for what the Filipino is-- rather than basketball, which is a giant person's sport. And in a very interesting analogy, this choice of sport of the Filipino was compared to its people's political structure. In the video, it criticized the Filipino politics as it is without any pretenses. It compared the Filipino's impression of basketball with politics in that it forces what it knows to be democracy into a system that clearly needs another structure to develop itself.

Football and Democracy in the Philippines