About some stuff I read off the Internet

The structure of the advanced industrial society is totalitarian, self-contained and self-perpetuating by the very conditions of its structure.

Clancy Smith

I got bored of reading political Op-Eds and editorials on the web when I'm bored at work so I subscribed to local Filipino university's online philosophy journal. I read a few articles and they aren't bad but really I'm just happy that its free. I can't believe that Cambridge University thinks they can charge me 20 UK pounds just to have conditional access to an article about 8^th century Chinese pottery. Not like I would read that if it was free but I was still insulted by the absurd price.

I came across a lengthy article about the nature and structure of “advanced industrial societies”. The author was discussing the ideas of a guy named Theodore Adorno who back in the 50s and 60's wrote a bunch of sociological essays and critiques on modern society. I was exposed to some of this guys work back in university and he was one of those intellectually decadent, overly analytical sociologists that when he was supposedly talking about American television culture it sounded like astrophysics (and remember this guy wrote back in the 50's and 60's so there were only like 5 channels). It is true that I usually classify someone who writes something I don't understand as “intellectually decadent” but I think in this case it is an accurate description.

Now about that quote; I picked it out of a twenty page article but I think it is representative of what the author was trying to say in the article. In his speculation about the nature of society and our role in it, I think the author fell into the same pitfall that a great deal of sociologists and other scholars have fallen into. He takes observations of which most could agree upon, mainly that modern corporations and politicians are constantly trying and at times succeeding to superimpose needs that we did not think we had onto us. From these observations he makes a vast conclusion about the nature of society as a whole. This principally pertains to consumption and to the inflated role we expect politicians to have in our daily lives and state of being. I can see his point because it is definitely true that modern middle class Americans definitely seem to have more desires that they classify as needs (such as a car, electricity, internet, running water, etc.) as compared to some living in a poor village in Africa who cannot even imagine owning these types of things. One of this guys points is that the “advanced industrial society” inevitably becomes uncritical of itself because of these things that were luxuries which become necessary for day to day life. It's not that I don't agree with him because I am also annoyed at the vulgarity of people who demand new Iphones and whatever other crap happens to be popular nowadays but honestly its not any of my business and people can waste their money as way they want. Instead of seeing the scary apparently unethical corporations or a government that has become too controlling, this guy sees the seeds of the problem sown into the very fabric of a modern industrial nation. I can see where he is coming from and this reminds me of some other literature I've read. I know that a lot of people dislike it when people use works of literature as examples to prove a point because it comes off as elitist, but I am not trying to prove a coherent point so it's OK.

Back in the late 19^th century there was a Swedish playwright by the name of August Strindburg. He wrote a lot of plays but I only really studied Miss Julie in any depth. The play centers around one aristocratic woman known as Miss Julie and her mental collapse. She is bored with the aristocratic lifestyle and tries to relate and have fun with the servants of her father's estate. This turns out impossible mainly because of the fact that she didn't really want to know them but she merely saw them as an amusement and an escape from her own unhappiness. The gap between their two statuses was too great and although she dances and even sleeps with one of them she is not one of them. She ends up just using them to satisfy a desire she has within herself but does not understand and they end up using her vulnerability to their own advantage. In the end the chasm cannot be bridged and they could not see in each other a common humanity. She resolves at the end of the play to run away with one the servant men and start a new life but she quickly realizes she has no independence or wealth outside of her father's estate. She has a complete mental collapse and commits suicide. Different literary critics read different messages from this play but I think the play relates to the quote above. Although the author of the article about Adorno maintains a matter of fact tone as he describes the degradation of humanity by modern society, it is definitely a depressing point of view on the world. August Strindburg was quoted as saying that the world he lived was one of transition. During the 19^th century the world was transformed by industrialization and as the industry expanded so did a sense of nationalism which laid the seeds for what we call Modernity. Perhaps in Strindburg's eyes Miss Julie was a victim of this transition; unable to cope with the changing world while simultaneously unable to relate to those around her. Strindburg himself was a troubled guy and it is well known he went through a lot psychotic episodes and I think it is generally thought today that he was schizophrenic. So was Strindburg also a victim of this unforgiving and unwelcome arrival of what we call “Modernity” or was it something more basic, more natural?

Another writer I think that exemplifies this sort of struggle is Mishima Yukio. He was a very controversial character in Japan back in the 60's and 70's and he wrote a lot of books with characters that have similar identity crises and disturbed personalities like Miss Julie. Mishima's life also matched this dilemma with how to cope with the modern world. Mishima came to age and began his serious writing after the surrender of Japan to the Allies and the entire nation was in an identity crisis. Japan went from being a world superpower to being globally humiliated, symbolically stripped of its claws to assert itself on the world stage, and was forced to rebuild a nation in the wake of massive destruction. Following the war the Japanese was forced to reconstruct their nation on foreign principles imposed upon it and with the United States in the background basically dictating their foreign policy; while at the same time maintaining their cultural pride. Mishima was interesting character because he advocated for Japan to once again rise to the esteem it had before the WW2. This included acquiring nuclear weapons, reinvigorating the military, and reinstate the emperor to his traditional post as the spiritual leader of the nation. Most of the liberal Japanese were uncomfortable with his desire to get nuclear weapons and they didn't like his brand of nationalism which was too similar to the ideology that put Japan on the war path in the 1930s. However unlike a lot of right wing Japanese, Mishima never denied the war crimes the Japanese military committed nor did he sugarcoat the intentions of the Japanese military government at that time. Mishima was disgusted with the commercialization of Japanese society and culture and thought that the Japanese were losing their soul to modernity. Mishima lived in a time past the “transition” experienced by Strindburg but still felt alienated in the modern world. He became so disillusioned with the state of Japan that he attempted to rally the Japanese Defense Force into committing a coup and reinstate the emperor as the head of state. The soldiers laughed at him, called him an idiot, and just as any samurai would do in this situation, he promptly committed Harakiri. Now what can I say about Mishima? I have met very few Japanese who take him seriously and for those who don't, they may respect his literature but think he was just crazy. He became categorized as just another one of those lunatics yelling on the street that we try to ignore. I personally have a lot of respect for him. I cannot relate to what he tried to accomplish but I respect his passion and courage to actually try what millions of people just think about. He tried to shape the destiny of a country he loved and even if he might not have been in touch in reality I sympathize with his internal struggle.

Now the reason why I brought these two very different men into this is that I think they both represent those who some would say were alienated by the rise of “advanced industrial societies”. So what does this say about the world we live in? Haha not that much I don't think. I believe that human beings are fundamentally self-centered and cheesy. This “post-modern” malaise that philosophers and artist say we are going through are really their own romanticized creations. Perhaps Strindburg and Mishima were just crazy and would have been crazy if they were born in any time period. One thing I have noticed from reading texts from philosophers and historians from throughout history is that they usually see one of two things in society: either that they live during the time where civilization has reached its peak or they lament how things were so much better before. The entire Confucian tradition is based around emulating the supposedly idyllic past and I relate that to the people today who lament the “degradation” of world culture by commercialization and globalization. “People today listen to bad music and are amused by stupid things!” they say and that “At least people in the past appreciated literature, poetry, and philosophy.” I think this is funny because if you go back a few hundred years when some the most famous Western literature and poetry originated the vast majority of the population was not even able to read it. And I bet the average entertainment back in 18^th century was not much more sophisticated than Lady Gaga. The idea that almost the entire society is literate is relatively new concept and the fact that world classics now are readily available at any major bookstore would have amazed people a hundred years ago. Now I can't say I am a fan of most of what comes out of popular culture but the only reason why the culture in the past seems so much more rich is that history has selected those works of art of music that could stand the test of time. We don't know about the crap that came from those time periods because it was thrown into the dustbin of history.

So am I afraid of the growing industrialism, commercialization, over-powering nature of the modern state? Not really. People will always complain regardless of the circumstances.

Now I feel like I should relate this to the Philippines since I am here after all. Filipinos are also “plagued” by globalization and commercialization in the form of foreign fast food franchises and department stores overrunning their local economy. I wouldn't say that the government here is over-powering. If anything it's the opposite. I ask Filipinos what they think about their government and if things will or could get better. I asked one guy who was studying political science if he liked Noynoy Aquino because he pledges to be less corrupt and he told me “he's apart of the government and so by principle I don't like him.” He claimed that was the common mantra for his entire university. Apparently the government was and remains so corrupt that no one has much hope that it will get any better. I get the feeling that most Filipinos simply shrug it off and just try to make ends meet. I relate to their cynicism because I feel the same way about world governments in general. So what do we all have in common? We will never be satisfied and I just hope that those idealistic people will just stop being so cheesy. 

A bit Cheesy

The sun is out, the air is warm, and Katipunan Ave. is bustling with cars and people but I feel alone and in the dark. I know that is very cheesy but two of my good friends, Japanese girls who worked in my office, have recently returned to Japan. If I may continue the cheesiness for just a bit longer, this brings a poem of Edgar Alan Poe to my mind.

Beloved! Amid the earnest woes,

That crowd around my earthly path,

(Drear path, Alas where grows

Not even one lonely rose.)

My soul at least a solace hath

In dreams of thee, and therein knows

An Eden of bland repose.

And thus thy memory is to me,

Like some enchanted far off isle,

In some tumultuous sea,

Some ocean throbbing far and free,

With storms,but where meanwhile

Serenest skies continually

Just o'er that one bright island smile.

This poem is a bit strong for just saying goodbye to friends but I am an emotional person. The poem is a bit inaccurate though since I can't really describe my woes as “earnest” but definitely in my path, Katipunan Ave especially, you would be hard-pressed to find any rose. The two girls leaving marks an end to one chapter of my internship at Maligaya House since now I will have probably more responsibilities and I do not want to think about going back to the office on Tuesday with just My boss, coworker, and I. Don't get me wrong, they are very nice but I became close to the other girls. I have known and befriended a lot of Japanese girls, maybe its because of this experience we shared in the Philippines, but these girls stood out. I learned a lot from them personally and also about Japan in particular. At several times throughout the time they spent here I got into discussions, sometimes arguments, over various things about American and Japanese politics and I came to realize that our senses of nationality identity were very different.

I'll give an example. There is group of small island in between Japan and South Korea known as the Liancourt Rocks, or in Korean: Dokdo, or in Japanese :Takeshima. Nobody lives on these islands and there isn't much economic value aside from some nice places to fish. Both countries apparently have claimed they have a long history of controlling these island for the last 1,500 years. Japan was in control of them during their colonization of Korea but after the war the situation became ambiguous. I am not a seasoned historian in this matter but from what I understand,after Japan surrendered and the Republic of Korea was established, the Korean government quickly seized their opportunity and claimed the islands. The Japanese have continuously complained about this ever since but the Korean government made it clear in the 1950's that they would not accept any resolution from an International Court and the American government has stayed neutral in this dispute. Now the situation has not changed so much since the 50's and both countries still officially claim the islands but there are supposedly two Korean guys who live an idle life fishing and making sure the Korean flag is visible to any nearby Japanese ship. If you are like me than you would probably overlook this dispute as one those petty political games that governments play to demonstrate strength but all it took was some relatively obscure prefecture in Japan to declare a “Takeshima Day” in 2005 to cause massive protests across South Korea and even motivated a Korean man to burn himself alive and a mother and son to cut off their own fingers. The reactions do not seem to be in proportion with the problem itself. According to my Japanese friends, Takeshima is important for Japan because it extends their sea boundary and territory. I can understand why the government of Japan wants to extend its territory but I don't understand why that translates to the average population. My theory for why the Koreans are so passionate is that perhaps there is still bitterness towards the Japanese because of their harsh occupation during the Second World War and the islands have become a symbol of their national pride. I am not surprised that the government of Japan and South Korea cannot come to a satisfactory agreement since people usually begin to act like children when they enter politics but I am surprised that two intelligent, sweet Japanese girls also repeat the line of their government. I am convinced that if those islands became part of Japan tomorrow, their daily lives would not change at all except for perhaps the newspaper would be full of stories of anti-Japan protests in Korea. So what does the average Japanese really gain by insisting on acquiring these islands? This is where I think national pride gets in the way of pragmatism.

It is as if a political win which in reality has no real value is not just a victory for the politicians involved but for the nation and the Japanese people as a whole. Countries have fought wars over smaller disputes, and the Japanese government is acting like any government would in the Western world but what interests me is how these girls identify themselves. It seems to me that what is good for Japan is always of course good for them. Now if I look at American history and for example the American acquisition of Hawaii I cannot say that I have the same sense of national pride. While I lived in Hawaii I was struck by how this place really did not physically resemble any part of America I knew and that the indigenous culture did not have any in common with the pioneers and pilgrims that settled America. Well actually my own family and culture also has almost nothing to do with the Puritan pilgrims either. The American government's decision to expand was based on acquiring a strategic naval base while also getting involved in the lucrative fruit business. The fact that the Hawaiians already had a society and government was more of a set-back than a real obstacle. So metaphorically at gun point the last queen of Hawaii (don't ask me to spell her name) signed what some call the “Musket Constitution” and gave away the sovereignty of those islands to the United States government. Now I am not going to argue with the fact that the naval base at Pearl Harbor did make a significant contribution to America winning the war and history could have turned out very differently if Japan instead was in control of those islands. This being considered I try to look at Hawaii objectively. The lives of Hawaiians did improve because of becoming a state of America but there were a lot of problems and injustices done to the them as well. At the end of the day I see the reasons behind it and perhaps the importance but I am not “proud” of America for acquiring Hawaii.

My friend also asked me about American society and because it seems so heterogeneous it seems more like lots of different countries than just one. A lot of libertarians in America would agree with her but I think her point really was that she found it hard to believe that Americans could really work together and cooperate in times of adversity. America does look very fragmented from the outside and in reality is quite diverse in ideology, culture, beliefs, and ways of life. This contrasts with the apparent homogeneity of Japanese society. If I take myself for an example, I am very critical of a lot of aspects of American society and history but if the American government called a draft to invade Canada tomorrow, as stupid as that war sounds, I would be on the first plane home. I believe that America has and does thrive on discord and that what makes America strong is the variety of people and opinions. The struggle for civil rights, woman's rights, gay rights, religious freedom, etc. is what makes America powerful and even the fact that there is room to debate these issues and the capacity to change is a strength in and of itself. I cannot help but sense a rigidity in the Japanese sense of national identity and personal status in the social hierarchy that hinders creativity and causes very lovable girls to appear almost irrational.

I would also add something that the homogeneity of Japanese society does resemble an overbearing hierarchy but it would not be fair to characterize the Japanese as robots. My understanding of the Japanese is that they have an almost ingrained, or just taught very early in their life, sense of maintaining harmony; in the home, politically, and in society in general. Japanese students will accept to take absurdly difficult entrance exams or accept being humiliated by a older person out of a desire not to cause a stir. I have a lot of respect for this because I feel like Americans too often make a fuss for not that good a reason just to get some attention. Also although the Japanese may seem uncreative, I think some of the most creative and interesting literature, movies, poetry, and other cultural items come from Japan. I believe the rigid exterior is meant to uphold this image of harmony but if you dig a little deeper and get to know some Japanese people you will realize that they are just as interesting and intuitive and any other person from a different country.

What I have found most interesting about this trip so far is how much I have learned about Japanese culture but with the Philippines in the background. It adds another dimension to my experience here. Now as I drown my sorrows in cheap rum I feel like I must reach out to more of the local women. I do love Japanese girls but considering I am in the Philippines and trying to learn Tagalog I think it is more appropriate to get to know some Filipinas.  

Idle Reflection

Once Zhuang Zhou dreamed he was a butterfly, a f1uttering butterfly. What fun he had, doing as he pleased! He did not know he was Zhou. Suddenly he woke up and found himself to be Zhou. He did not know whether Zhou had dreamed he was a butterfly or a butterfly had dreamed he was Zhou. Between Zhou and the butterfly there must be some distinction. This is what is meant by the transformation of things. Zhuang Zi

This is from the Chinese, Taoist philosopher Zhuang Zi who was born after Confucius but he is still an important (I would say most interesting) Chinese philosopher from that time. I like this quote because like most of the Taoist aphorisms and stories, it is paradoxical while being simple at the same time. It is definitely interesting to think about alternate realities and to try and understand what he means by the “transformation of things”, but I also have a personal connection to this text.

I was thinking about the significance of culture in the world and its role in a persons understanding of themselves and the world around them. There are a lot of sociologists, philosophers, etc. that have tried to tackle this problem and codify an essence to human culture; a system of values, common behaviors, distinctive sense of morality or higher purpose, etc. I have not read or been exposed to anyone who has offered an remotely adequate answer. I have a phobia to generalizations and cultural “scholars” have a academic diseases which causes them to think that vast overtures about parts of the world are OK as long as they are vague enough to be hard to disprove. It is as if because they read the entire Ramayana they have the answers to why Hindi nationalists burned down a mosque in northern India. I was a student of Asian Studies and so trust me I was exposed to a lot of these people and their work. I was told that if you read this book or that I could understand Japanese or Chinese culture just like that. That's obviously complete bullshit but it doesn't stop Westerns from reading a book about samurai and thinking that they understand what makes the Japanese tick. It's not just the Westerners that are at fault in this category. I have met plenty of Japanese who romanticize their own culture and are part of this misinformation campaign to convince people of the world that people from the “West” and people from the “East” are fundamentally different. This a complicated and loaded topic and I imagine that there have been many Ph.D theses written about this so I will abstain and write about an aspect of this problem that is more subjective and personal.

Throughout my life and education I have had no strong cultural pride. I grew up in America but maybe having European parents left me vaguely detached from the land of my childhood. Don't get me wrong, my closest friends are American and if there was a draft in the American military I would go with out a second thought. I have loyalty to America because it is the place where I grew up but I do not feel a cultural connection to the nation. The passion some people have for a national patriotism does not exist in me to a large extent. When I am in a different country and somebody asks me where I'm from I answer “Pittsburgh”, not America, because first I am from Pittsburgh, but if unfortunately (for them) they have not heard of it then I will grudgingly say “America”. My connection is to the city of my youth, not the country that it happens to be in.

The idea of an “American culture” is foreign to me. At first meeting, I feel like I have just as much in common with a Filipino here as I do with someone from California. The “imagined community” that constitutes a nation and a national identity is exactly what it names implies; “imagined”. Also, even though my family comes from Europe, particularly England, France, and Switzerland, I don't feel any longing to the land of my ancestors. Some people have strong passions for their nation or culture and in a way, I am jealous of them. But perhaps my sense of individualism is a by-product of American culture and although I may not feel like I adhere to American culture, I can't deny that my personality and view of world was molded in America.

So you are probably wondering why I included that quote from Zhunag Zi which seems to have nothing to do with I've talked about. Zhuang Zhou was dreaming that he was a butterfly but when he awoke he did not know if maybe he actually is a butterfly just dreaming of Zhuang Zhou. Zhuang Zi insists that there must be some distinction between Zhuang Zhou and the butterfly and for some reason this short story demonstrates the “transformation of things”. It may just sound like those vague paradoxes that you see a lot of in Chinese philosophy that really just look like a play on words but I can relate metaphorically to Zhuang Zhou inability to distinguish what is dream from reality. I believe dreams serve an important function in our daily lives. Reality is a hard concept to define but our experiences with the non-reality of dreams or the effect of some mind-altering drugs every once in awhile help us fully understand what we believe is reality. In my study of Asian cultures I was confronted with the dilemma that I could not really relate to Japanese or Indian culture while simultaneously maintaining my original identity. It is very hard to restrain your personal judgment when studying another culture. I frequently found myself upset about the rigidity of the Japanese social hierarchy or their eagerness to listen to “authority” figures such as the government or their teachers. But I persisted and found aspects of Japanese and Asian culture in general that not only resonated with me but also were similar to aspects of Western cultures I am familiar with. To be honest it was not my desire to “understand” the Japanese that motivated me to study their language and literature but I just followed my interest. My desire to understand different cultures gave me the motivation to travel and live across the world and try to assimilate to Filipino culture. The Philippines is a great place with a moving history and present reality but it will take more time for me to really appreciate the reality here. This life I chose of moving around different parts of the world can be hard; especially having to say goodbye to too many friends but I like to think of this part of my life as a time of growth. Just as Zhuang Zhou does not know if he is either himself or a butterfly, I have been frequently confronted with identity crises about who I am or what I really want out of life but just as Zhuang Zi recognized the need for a distinction, I too have recognized the distinct phases of my life. As time goes on this constant ballet of recognizing the real, or at least recognizing the existence of different realities even without being able to distinguish which is the “actual” reality is what constitutes change and the transformation of individuals. But just as we usually fall gradually in and out of sleep there are times of transition in the course of a lifetime where nothing is certain. These are by far the most interesting.

Thoughts on Social Work

                                       

Social work is a precarious practice. At Maligaya House, the majority of our work is providing legal support for Filipina women to petition their ex-Japanese lovers for child support and/or official recognition for their child. We are partners with a couple other organizations which offer support and counseling to the women in question. And I have no doubt that a lot of them have very terrible stories to tell but being a NGO centered around legal recourse we have to convey the stories in the driest way possible so that the lawyers can understand. The majority of our work consists of translating and relaying documents between here and our Tokyo office. It can be quite boring and office work makes me miss landscaping, but compared to other social work I enjoy this. I get to translate Japanese all day which can be very tiring but is good practice for me. Another aspect of this job is the occasional house visit which I also enjoy; mainly for the reason that I can get outside and leave this cramped office for a bit. I also like to go to new places and its nice when the office foots the bill. We also go to the Japanese embassy with the Filipina ladies to submit the nationality application because it almost impossible to do if you cannot read or speak Japanese. There are other aspects of this organization but there is one point of which I would like to talk about. Every month we have the Japanese Filipino Children who receive scholarships that Maligaya House organized for them come to office on a Sunday and participate in some activities. There are some other students volunteers that come from the University of the Philippines who study social work come in and do some sort of workshops. This all sounds sort of harmless and fun but my first experience left me almost infuriated.

You should keep in mind that I couldn't understand any Tagalog at that point. So we are all sitting in a decent size room with about 15 or so kids from the ages of 9 to 20 with myself and three student social workers. They were talking for a long time and were doing some sort of role play that I did not really understand but I understood enough to know they were discussing their family situation. I was asked to join as standing in a line with a few other kids who were involved in a role play. I was chosen to represent the kids father and placed me symbolically far away from the other kids who were acting as the other members of the family. Now the sad thing is that all of these kids have one thing in common, they either never met their father or he left and does not want anything to do with them. This is one aspect of their lives that I cannot relate too since my parents were always there for me throughout my life but I try and sympathize with their situation.

As the girl from UP was drilling, at leas that's how it appeared, the kid about his family in front of everyone and gesturing to me, which I think meant she was talking about his father, the kid burst into tears in front of everyone. I was totally dumbfounded because up until that point I was just nodding with a dumb smile trying to give the impression I wasn't bored out of my mind and then as soon I noticed that the situation was far more severe than I had imagined, I tried to react accordingly by changing my expression but its not like I could offer anything else since I didn't even know what was going on. Before this point I thought this whole workshop was one of those waste of time activities that I used to do as kid that the adults involved thought somehow justified its own value but then I saw the sinister side of it. Some of these kids and their mothers traveled an hour or two to get here on a Sunday, probably out of gratitude for what this NGO offered them, but that does not justify humiliating them in front of everyone and especially not in front of me who at that time had arrived maybe the week before. I am not saying that sharing your sorrow or emotions with a group of people in a similar situation is a bad thing and I do give the kid respect for having the courage to cry in front of a group of people he didn't even know. It is definitely not easy to be emotionally honest with the close to you, much less complete strangers.

After that session, I was so angry that I had to leave and smoke a couple cigarettes to maintain my cool. I spoke to the girl social worker involved with that session and she said that she might have pushed too hard but that overall it was very productive. When I started to question the need of these kind of activities at an NGO that really only offers legal support and as far as I knew didn't have pretensions as being a center of psychological therapy, I was given a course in the “science” behind social work. I was told that these sessions were vital for the JFC (Japanese-Filipino Children) to come to terms with their bi-racial status here in the Philippines. I didn't push the subject anymore then that but I still had a bitter taste in my mouth.

Its hard for me to explain why hearing other people's problems or at least hearing somebody pry somebody else's problems out of them made me so angry. I was reflecting on this later on that night and I came to the conclusion that throughout my childhood up to the present it has been extremely rare for me to approach anybody about my problems, and trust me I had a lot of them. I had a tough time through university in a lot of ways but when the stress got overwhelming or my heart was broken, I made a concerted effort to maintain my composure and never let anyone, even my family, know what I was going through. Some would call this mentally unhealthy, and that may be the case, but as a result of this I dealt with the majority of my mental and emotional trials on my own. I would like to believe that I gained some strength from this but probably it just contributed to me drinking and smoking more and problems later in life. I also have a big problem with psychology as a discipline which is related to this but I will not delve into that here. But just because I maintain this “tough” face doesn't mean I don't want to hear other people's problems. I try to help and understand when I can but there was something about watching someone prying into what is obviously a sensitive subject (his dad walking on him and his mom) in front of an audience that struck a cord. The students come here to complete their field work for their courses on social work and they are graded based on their performance so I can't help but feel that these kids are getting used as sort of emotional guinea pigs. Its like the students use the fact that these kids feel obliged to come here as a good enough reason to impose on them a public and painful counseling session. Like I said, I think it is a good thing that the JFC have an opportunity to share their feelings and experiences with other kids like them but they should not be forced to explain their personal anguish in front of me. If I was in that situation I would have been outraged to have to discuss my problems in front of some sauce from the opposite side of the world. I mean that is just absurd. It felt as though I was at a dinner party and someone complained that their steak was too dry and so called over a servant of the house, cut them, and used their own blood to soak the meat. The whole thing felt unnecessary and forced and ruined what seemed like a harmless, marginally fun day. I also have a problem with the idealism that gives people the motivation to get involved in social work in the first place. The attitude that a few pointed questions and emotional release will raise the children in question to a higher level of existence and happiness is too far-fetched for me. I cannot tell whether my animosity for idealism comes from a cynical realism or a petty sort of cynicism but at the end of the day, what's the difference?

I am not going to make a final diagnosis for the failings of social work in general or that I think it is essentially a bad thing. Perhaps the kid grew from that day and maybe I am the only one with the problem. These are all possible and I know what millions of people have benefited from various kinds of social work. But perhaps my boss silently does agree with me since I have been responsibility to organize the future meetings. I've decided to change gears and teach Japanese, Japanese culture, and perhaps some English on the corner for those who need it. I hope to make the whole thing a bit more enjoyable and less trying on the kids.  

Some Thoughts on the Philippine Economy

While I was in the town of Dumanjug near Cebu, I noticed a campaign ad for the current president Noynoy Aquino. It read “Kung walang corruption walang mahirap.” In English it means that “if there is no corruption there will be no poor.”

Corruption in the government is a big issue in the Philippines. I have discussed with all sorts of different people around here and there is definitely a consensus that the government is very corrupt. One guy went as far as to say the reason why the Philippines is a poor country is precisely because of the corruption of the government. I can see that misappropriated resources can hurt the society as a whole but I find it hard to believe that a few bureaucrats taking some kick-backs is the fundamental problem. As usual, I feel that the problem is more complex.

Corruption is a problem at any level of government but I believe corruption at the local level is widespread throughout the world. Filipinos don't believe me when I say that the American government is very corrupt in some corners. In America at the national level, there are the occasional guys who get caught receiving money from unscrupulous characters or organizations but it is still not common. American politicians work very hard to develop new ways to get kick-backs through lobbyists, campaign contributions, “the revolving door”, etc. but I believe at the state and local level there still is petty corruption because of the lack of media attention. The American media does not follow and track their bank accounts because they do not want to waste time airing a story that will only interest a handful of people. The moral of the story I think is that regardless of the culture or country, if there is room for abuse it will happen. There will always be an opportunistic person ready to do something questionable for a bit of money. Every government makes overtures about their plan to fight corruption and sometimes there are guys that actually do make a difference but ultimately you cannot outlaw pettiness. I believe this is inherent in politics and the structure of the modern state.

The Philippines also has its share of problems with small corruption which is frustrating but the real problem resides in the top politicians. I have heard a lot from people throughout my studies complaining that maybe countries with such high rates of corruption, such as the Philippines, Indonesia, or other African countries, just have cultures which tolerate this but I don't believe this for a minute. There is no inherent aspect of Filipino culture that is comfortable with corruption. It is true that politics do take a savage turn here more often than it does in America. Such as politicians in the the provinces that occasionally commission their own private armies to assassinate their opposition. That is definitely extremely rare in America but there are several provinces in the Philippines that the national government lacks effective control so it is no surprising that in the vacuum of power ambitious men take control of the situation themselves. Politics can really be a jungle at times.

So then what is the reason that the Philippines suffers from such high rates of corruption compared to other countries? My theory lies in this post-colonial world, the vestiges of this old world order still remain and have transformed themselves into organizations such as the World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund. It is not politically correct for world leaders to overtly reveal imperialistic ambitions but new euphemisms have emerged such as, “economic restructuring” as a condition for a international aid approval. The restructuring includes opening the countries economy to foreign investors and trying to eliminate any barriers for foreign inflow of investment and commerce such as trade regulations and tariffs. Now there are conflicting opinions on the overall effect of this policy on the individual country's economy and the world economy as a whole. Some economists would argue that increased fluidity of movement and money accelerates global GDP growth and thus increases the prosperity of all those involved and so we should be promoting free trade as much as possible. There are problems with this kind of policy and the Philippines is a prime example of a nation that has got the short end of the stick.

The IMF regularly analyzes and releases reports about different countries economic problems and prospects such as their projected growth rate and possible obstacles to further growth. After their assessment they have the power to offer massive loans to fund infrastructure projects which are definitely essential for developing countries, but these loans are not free money and always have strings attached. These “strings” involve the economic restructuring that is meant to open the economy to multinational firms. It is true that in a lot of cases the domestic firms of a developing nation might not be sufficient and huge multinationals are the only corporations that have the capacity to undertake huge infrastructure projects. There still are adverse effects on the domestic economy and welfare of the people of those countries. Even though the IMF is an international organization it would be foolish to imagine that the it operates without the consent of the United States and other wealthy nations.

Now look at the Philippines. Being an old American colony the Philippine government has always been closely tied and largely cooperative with the American government. The Philippines sent troops to Vietnam and adopted neo-liberal economic policies wholesale. This means the Philippine government, with pressure from the US government, has privatized almost all aspects of their economy and society. The buses, trains, health care, energy, and even water is controlled by private businesses. The interesting thing is that during the early 1960s the Philippine economic prospects actually looked quite good and it wasn't until the mid 1960s when the Philippines relinquished their influence over the peso and lifted most export controls that things have gone down hill. The GDP did grow but as some grew prosperous the majority of Filipino's wages decreased in value while inflation increased. The cost of living increased for Filipinos while their quality of life decreased while less than one percent of the population became very rich. Basically out of all investment in the Philippines over 3/4s of it was owned by foreign corporations. This meant that some money was being made in the Philippines but the vast majority of it was transferred back to the United States and other developed nations. I think it is safe to say that the neo-liberal economic strategy undertaken by the Philippine government has not succeeded in what the IMF proposed and has devastated the domestic Philippine economy. I have heard the term thrown around that the Philippines is a “neo-colony” of the United States and the argument is that the Philippine government does not even seem to have control over their own economy and submits to US pressure on almost everything. There has always been institutional corruption in the Philippine government but the real corruption lies in the ease in which the Filipino politicians literally sell out Filipino people for the financial benefit of themselves and other business elite. The economic restructuring of the 1960s and the acceptance of foreign loans has exacerbated this situation because before they pay back these loans the Philippine government has no bargaining chip to take back control of their own economy. The IMF has essentially stripped the Philippines of any control of their own economy and the foreign debt has sky-rocketed to a point that it seems bleak that they will pay it back anytime soon. In 1965 Ferdinand Marcos took power and he promised to reform the foreign debt issue and return the Philippines back to a position of economic strength and prospect but he also allowed the national debt to increase massively. Before Marcos took power the debt was around a quart of billion dollars but by the end of his rule it had gone up to over 28 billion dollars. Corazon Aquino took power in 1986 and is the one credited with returning democracy to the Philippines. She put at the top of her economic agenda the repaying of all foreign debt and to end the control of Marcos' and his cronies had on the country. These were merely campaign slogans however and the debt continued to rise and not nearly enough was done to root out corruption in the government. By the end of 1997 the debt has risen to over 45 billion dollars.

Noynoy Aquino has made it clear that he intends to fight corruption and this kind of crony capitalism that has plagued the Philippines since its independence but I have not met anyone who shows any optimism about this. He does symbolic things to give the impression that he is cutting down on corrupt policies such as when he went to UN he flew with only a few aides, in the economy seats, and stayed in a modest hotel which compared the former president Gloria Arroyo and her family's lavish foreign trips, all paid for by Filipinos' taxes, does seem to be an improvement. It is hard for me to be very optimistic about the immediate future of the Philippine economy but the Philippine media does not hold back when criticizing the corrupt politicians and the people who actually believe the overtures of the politicians must be quite rare, I haven't met anyone yet. This disillusionment with the government and economy has the unfortunate consequence of motivating a massive amount of Filipinos to go and work abroad and so separating mother's from their children and dividing families. In light of all of this I think it is safe to assume that the government will be slow to change and reform itself but Filipinos with their warmth and upbeat attitude in the face of adversity have always impressed me. Only Filipinos, during the massive typhoon last year that flooded much of Manila, while they were waiting on the roofs of their flooded homes to be rescued could be seen laughing and joking with each other and the rescue workers.  

Colonial Mentality

I am going to write about something I heard from one of Filipino friends that troubled me. I was saying that the Philippines is pretty awesome because there is all the fast food from America; from Taco Bell to McDonald's to even Dairy Queen and Crispy Cream. I've been to Japan, across Europe and Israel but I have only seen T Bell and Dairy Queen in America and the Philippines. My friend's response to this surprised me.

“Yeah well that's because Filipinos have a colonial mentality.” He told me. I couldn't help but get the impression that he was slightly embarrassed that the Philippines had opened its doors to all of these American franchises. It was as if the extreme economic protectionism and reluctance of the Japanese to buy foreign products was a sign a strength. Now it is probably true that the Philippines does suffer from a weak central government that does not try hard enough to keep foreign multinational corporations in check. You could see this as a downside of globalization but it is definitely not inherently bad to open the doors to foreign companies and investment. The economy of Japan has been stagnating now for almost twenty years and I would point to their overly-strict immigration requirements and a lack of flexibility in the government's economic policies.

My landlord was explaining to me his opinion on Philippine history since the war. By the late fifties and sixties, the economy of the Philippines was actually quite strong. He told me it was the third economy of Asia and had far more prospects than Japan at the time. When I was growing up and went to school, I took it for granted that Japan was always a powerful economy and country but back in 1960's and 70s it was not obvious that Japan would rise to almost rival the United States. The problem was that during and after Marcos' time as dictator of the Philippines the government became so corrupt that the economy stagnated and did not grow to its potential. Interestingly, I would say that the rise and fall of the Philippines can be attributed to Ferdinand Marcos but I will write about that another time.

The Philippines was transformed by Western colonialism and imperialism and that could contribute to the notion that Filipinos have a colonial mentality. The Philippines does have a very long colonial past. Before the arrival of the Spanish the Philippines was largely Muslim and ruled by various sultanates. The Spanish arrived in the sixteenth century in waves but eventually came to control the northern and central Philippines. The primarily Islamic southern island of Mindanao was never under control by the Spanish but the name “Philippines” comes from the King Philip II of Spain.

I have been to Intramuros a few times now. Intramuros is the old Spanish walled city right by Manila Bay and was their original seat of power during the colonial period. At this time the Spanish were the first Europeans to really consolidate a position of power in Asia. Manila was the center of European power far before Singapore, Saigon, or Dutch East Indies. But if you go now, the past glory of the place has almost completely faded. I remember walking toward the entrance of one of the famous gates where Spanish aristocrats used to promenade and parade their wealth and influence. But while I was there, there was a homeless woman bathing her daughter in a rain puddle and Filipino guys wearing cowboy outfits sporting shotguns who were supposedly security guards. Needless to say, it has changed a lot. The buildings inside the walls were largely destroyed during the Second World War. Before the Japanese military occupied the Philippines they were under American control and their fight for independence against the Spanish and then eventually the Americans is actually quite interesting. The national heroes of the Philippines, such as Jose Rizal, Aguinaldo, and Andres Bonifacio were fascinating people. They all have different stories and backgrounds but if you have the opportunity to study Philippine history, these guys are the ones you should check out. They are founding fathers of the Republic of the Philippines and resemble Thomas Jefferson and other American founding fahters with their insight and struggle. Now Jose Rizal is the most famous of the national heroes. He was a novelist and a revolutionary who was eve ntually executed by the Spanish colonial government for political dissent. I have read some stuff from him and I have to admit he is inspiring, but what I did not know was that the reason he became the most important hero was largely manufactured by the American colonial government. I only heard this from one guy but supposedly when the American officials determined the public education system for the Filipinos they chose Rizal as the symbol of Filipino patriotism. The reason is that first, he was killed by the Spanish colonial government before the United States ousted the Spanish and then decided not to leave so he never fought against America. The Philippine-American war was quite brutal to Filipinos so the American officials at the time thought it would be best to promote someone inspirational but also benign. Now during the Second World War the Japanese invaded the Philippines so they could “liberate” them from Western colonialism but quickly became just another imperialist occupier. Towards the end of the war the Philippines became a major theater for the Pacific war.

The Japanese officer at the time disobeyed General Yamashita's orders and took defensive positions against the approaching American Army in the city itself. I think that Yamashita had hoped to spare the city but either way the result was a terrible siege where the Japanese committed atrocities against Filipino civilians while the US Army turned the entire city into a parking lot.

So what does all of this say about Filipinos? The country is named after a Spanish king, their national hero was carefully chosen by American bureaucrats to discourage resistance against the new colonial government, and their supposed “liberators” from Western imperialism committed crimes against humanity against them. The corruption of the Philippine government is a major problem as well and Filipino politicians do seem to sell out their fellow citizens for a quick buck often. Filipino culture does seem to be a hybrid; especially the food. It is true that there is fast-food everywhere and sometimes it reminds me too much of the US but I have had a few home-cooked meals with Filipinos. The usual fare is some sort of soup that is either very oily or sour, grilled fish, rice, and fried chicken. I have to say, I like it a lot. You might think the fried chicken is out of place but even the Japanese and Chinese eat fried chicken. What's funny is that here you can order rice and spaghetti from KFC and McDonald's while in Japan you have almost the same menu as the US.

In today's world what cultures are not a hybrid? American culture is pretty much the definition of a hybrid culture and European cultures are transforming as well. The Japanese have a lot of pride in their traditional culture but Japan has demonstrated so much cultural dynamism and a will to adapt that the Japan of today is miles from the past. It is unfair to denigrate Filipino culture as merely a colonial construct. The Philippines has a fascinating history and people here are very proud of their country. Classifying Filipinos as having a cultural inferiority complex stemming from a colonial mentality is just wrong. I want to avoid the politically correct euphemism that “we are different but equal” but I honestly do not hold Filipino culture in any less esteem than the “high culture” of the Europeans. When “academic” anthropologists or sociologists try to analyze and elevate certain cultures over others, I think of the racism of nineteenth century philology. Some people point to works of literature or art as cultural achievements that can be used to evaluate one culture to another but I find this to be a fools errand. I believe that a work of art is essentially an individual accomplishment and the appreciation of that work is inherently culturally biased. The reason why Asian works of literature and art are not respected in the West is not because of a lack of quality but of a difference in taste and interpretation. Just as the pervasiveness of American music and movies across the world is not an inherent proof that they are definitely great quality. Anyway, the Filipinos are trying to get by and enjoy life just as much as anyone else and I am impressed by the grace in which they conduct their lives in tough conditions.
Sweet are the hours in ones native land,
Where all is dear, the sunbeams bless;
Life-giving breezes sweep the strand,
And death is softened by love's caress.
Jose Rizal