REPOST- Bakit Puro Na Lang Rally? (Why not?)
By Karl Castro*
Upon hearing the phrase "the July 10 walkout," your immediate reaction may be a wrinkling of the nose, or a doubtful frown. Perhaps you immediately think, Rali ng rali, wala namang nangyayari. Or even, There are other ways to settle the issue. There are other ways to participate.
But you're wrong. At the very least, you've been misled.
Mass demonstrations remain to be the strongest statement of solidarity among citizens. Yes, it is difficult to gather people, organize a program, and reach a broad unity for a particular stand on today's issues. Yes, it is tiring and seemingly impossible--but that is what makes mass actions all the more effective. Its difficulty is precisely the reason why it is the best means of registering dissent.
It is a fallacy to expect that a mass demonstration will bring about immediate and tangible change. If one holds that opinion, one is either heavily brainwashed (by parents/administrators/backward student political formations) or overly and wrongly utopian (read: ultra-left). As John Berger said in his brilliant essay (a must-read for the newbie rallyist), the value of a mass demonstration is symbolic. It is a demonstration of the power of the people, a "rehearsal of revolutionary awareness." It is for the participants, more than anyone else, for it heightens their sense of solidarity. As members of an oppressed class fighting for their basic rights, the demonstrators also "dramatize the the power they still lack."
Though largely symbolic in value, mass demonstrations are far from futile. Berger explains the state dilemma which a huge mobilization poses:
Either authority must abdicate and allow the crowd to do as it wishes: in which case the symbolic suddenly becomes real, and, even if the crowd’s lack of organisation and preparedness prevents it from consolidating its victory, the event demonstrates the weakness of authority. Or else authority must constrain and disperse the crowd with violence: in which case the undemocratic character of such authority is publicly displayed. The imposed dilemma is between displayed weakness and displayed authoritarianism.
Why all the friction, then? one may ask. Isn't there a safer, more quiet means to achieve social change more concretely?
That depends on the kind of change you want to achieve. For example, hindi ba pwedeng mag-donate na lang sa charity ng pera or relief goods? Or magtayo ng mga bahay through Gawad Kalinga? Yes, that's helpful to some extent, but it in no way changes the unjust social relations which brought about the need for charity organizations in the first place. Though the feeling of "unselfish" hard work (in the form of old-school carpentry and other menial jobs generally alien to the bourgeoisie) must do wonders for one's heart and conscience, well, that's the problem. It's done to placate oneself, to make one feel less guilty of being "privileged" in society.
That is the problem with (oxymorons like) corporate social responsibility. In the 2008 World Economic Forum, obscenely-rich Microsoft person Bill Gates extols corporate responsibility (or what he likes to call "creative capitalism"):
The challenge here is to design a system where market incentives, including profits and recognition, drive those principles to do more for the poor. I like to call this idea creative capitalism, an approach where governments, businesses, and nonprofits work together to stretch the reach of market forces so that more people can make a profit, or gain recognition, doing work that eases the world's inequities.
[Insert collective smirks and giggles here.] Gates' speech is an example of the inherent problem of capitalism, namely, it needs inequality to survive. In spite of all the corporations' pseudo-activist rhetoric, one cannot eradicate poverty in a capitalist society simply because it is its lifeline. The mere concept of private property and drive for profit is enough to illustrate this. In fact, these corporate social responsibility spectacles are merely grand PR stunts which help give companies a more humane and acceptable image, an endeavor ultimately undertaken not to uplift people from poverty, but to increase profit.
Capitalist incursion into education, in particular, also banks on this humane face. Scholarships, donations, buildings and facilities bearing the companies'/donors' names--these are the marks of education in a capitalist society. These "acts of kindness" are a smokescreen for the blunt reality that education has been commercialized and is out of reach for the majority. At the very least, recipients of corporate kindness (both students and educational institutions) are compelled to feel indebted to the companies which support them. More often than not, scholars are drawn to work for them (like, say, SM scholars).
Fine, you say. Charity work may not be the best option. What about lobbying? Or table battles with the administration?
It is a false dilemma, the choice between mass demonstrations and table battles. This is a line pseudo-progressive political formations are wont to toe. In reality, however, one must do both. The outcome of table battles without accompanying mass demonstrations are insufficient. Take for example the 2003-04 fight against Senate Bill 2587 (which is pretty much the new UP Charter). Despite the massive lobbying efforts on the part of the students, the bill's main proponent, Senator Francis Pangilinan, still challenged them to show their numbers. They did, and thanks to simultaneous mobilizing and lobbying, the bill was not passed.
Table battles, even with mass demonstrations, are generally weak. Administration officials, after all, have the densest conscience. The 2006 passage of the 300 percent tuition hike in UP is a prime example, where the repeated assertion of dissent in various fora, consultations and even Board of Regents meetings led the administration to evade table battles altogether, just to pass the damn thing.
This is where we come in. This is where our current interventions, in the form of the July walkouts, are necessary. We were strong in the past, and we have only achieved moderate success. We need not be afraid nor reluctant to participate in mass demonstrations; the current national crisis, especially in education, cannot be any more concrete and compelling. History tells us that we need to be stronger, and mass actions give us that.
*Karl Castro is the former Editor-in-chief of the Philippine Collegian, the official paper of the students of the University of the Philippines, Diliman.
By Karl Castro*
Upon hearing the phrase "the July 10 walkout," your immediate reaction may be a wrinkling of the nose, or a doubtful frown. Perhaps you immediately think, Rali ng rali, wala namang nangyayari. Or even, There are other ways to settle the issue. There are other ways to participate.
But you're wrong. At the very least, you've been misled.
Mass demonstrations remain to be the strongest statement of solidarity among citizens. Yes, it is difficult to gather people, organize a program, and reach a broad unity for a particular stand on today's issues. Yes, it is tiring and seemingly impossible--but that is what makes mass actions all the more effective. Its difficulty is precisely the reason why it is the best means of registering dissent.
It is a fallacy to expect that a mass demonstration will bring about immediate and tangible change. If one holds that opinion, one is either heavily brainwashed (by parents/administrators/backward student political formations) or overly and wrongly utopian (read: ultra-left). As John Berger said in his brilliant essay (a must-read for the newbie rallyist), the value of a mass demonstration is symbolic. It is a demonstration of the power of the people, a "rehearsal of revolutionary awareness." It is for the participants, more than anyone else, for it heightens their sense of solidarity. As members of an oppressed class fighting for their basic rights, the demonstrators also "dramatize the the power they still lack."
Though largely symbolic in value, mass demonstrations are far from futile. Berger explains the state dilemma which a huge mobilization poses:
Either authority must abdicate and allow the crowd to do as it wishes: in which case the symbolic suddenly becomes real, and, even if the crowd’s lack of organisation and preparedness prevents it from consolidating its victory, the event demonstrates the weakness of authority. Or else authority must constrain and disperse the crowd with violence: in which case the undemocratic character of such authority is publicly displayed. The imposed dilemma is between displayed weakness and displayed authoritarianism.
Why all the friction, then? one may ask. Isn't there a safer, more quiet means to achieve social change more concretely?
That depends on the kind of change you want to achieve. For example, hindi ba pwedeng mag-donate na lang sa charity ng pera or relief goods? Or magtayo ng mga bahay through Gawad Kalinga? Yes, that's helpful to some extent, but it in no way changes the unjust social relations which brought about the need for charity organizations in the first place. Though the feeling of "unselfish" hard work (in the form of old-school carpentry and other menial jobs generally alien to the bourgeoisie) must do wonders for one's heart and conscience, well, that's the problem. It's done to placate oneself, to make one feel less guilty of being "privileged" in society.
That is the problem with (oxymorons like) corporate social responsibility. In the 2008 World Economic Forum, obscenely-rich Microsoft person Bill Gates extols corporate responsibility (or what he likes to call "creative capitalism"):
The challenge here is to design a system where market incentives, including profits and recognition, drive those principles to do more for the poor. I like to call this idea creative capitalism, an approach where governments, businesses, and nonprofits work together to stretch the reach of market forces so that more people can make a profit, or gain recognition, doing work that eases the world's inequities.
[Insert collective smirks and giggles here.] Gates' speech is an example of the inherent problem of capitalism, namely, it needs inequality to survive. In spite of all the corporations' pseudo-activist rhetoric, one cannot eradicate poverty in a capitalist society simply because it is its lifeline. The mere concept of private property and drive for profit is enough to illustrate this. In fact, these corporate social responsibility spectacles are merely grand PR stunts which help give companies a more humane and acceptable image, an endeavor ultimately undertaken not to uplift people from poverty, but to increase profit.
Capitalist incursion into education, in particular, also banks on this humane face. Scholarships, donations, buildings and facilities bearing the companies'/donors' names--these are the marks of education in a capitalist society. These "acts of kindness" are a smokescreen for the blunt reality that education has been commercialized and is out of reach for the majority. At the very least, recipients of corporate kindness (both students and educational institutions) are compelled to feel indebted to the companies which support them. More often than not, scholars are drawn to work for them (like, say, SM scholars).
Fine, you say. Charity work may not be the best option. What about lobbying? Or table battles with the administration?
It is a false dilemma, the choice between mass demonstrations and table battles. This is a line pseudo-progressive political formations are wont to toe. In reality, however, one must do both. The outcome of table battles without accompanying mass demonstrations are insufficient. Take for example the 2003-04 fight against Senate Bill 2587 (which is pretty much the new UP Charter). Despite the massive lobbying efforts on the part of the students, the bill's main proponent, Senator Francis Pangilinan, still challenged them to show their numbers. They did, and thanks to simultaneous mobilizing and lobbying, the bill was not passed.
Table battles, even with mass demonstrations, are generally weak. Administration officials, after all, have the densest conscience. The 2006 passage of the 300 percent tuition hike in UP is a prime example, where the repeated assertion of dissent in various fora, consultations and even Board of Regents meetings led the administration to evade table battles altogether, just to pass the damn thing.
This is where we come in. This is where our current interventions, in the form of the July walkouts, are necessary. We were strong in the past, and we have only achieved moderate success. We need not be afraid nor reluctant to participate in mass demonstrations; the current national crisis, especially in education, cannot be any more concrete and compelling. History tells us that we need to be stronger, and mass actions give us that.
*Karl Castro is the former Editor-in-chief of the Philippine Collegian, the official paper of the students of the University of the Philippines, Diliman.
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento