February 16, 2009 | In: Internet and Web, Language, Politics and Society
Bring on the bigotry
My previous post on the Loverage 3 aftermath surely got some mileage. Thanks to the people who linked to it via Plurk and their blogs. Quite interesting reads too from Manolo and Marocharim.
I surely left some blurred and unexplained details in that one which now leads to an inevitable misinterpretation of my intentions. Oh yes, and it’s labeled as classism at its best. (Quite a detailed analysis, I might add, and I honestly appreciate such efforts.)
Now those hazy details, I think, led some readers to misinterpret parts of it. For one, the “versus” in “us versus them” isn’t simply defined by the barricades of the fair grounds. The “us” and “them” applies to many levels of reference which, in my laziness last Saturday, I didn’t bother to clarify. Tricky, actually, since one of the levels I was initially operating on was that mutual jolog-hating consensus of the UP crowd (which included friends, students, and colleagues) that night. Then I went on to jump at more general conclusions and that probably caused the confusion especially with Smoke’s interpretation of my second to the last paragraph as rage. (Consider this blog as a continuous stream of consciousness that doesn’t get clipped at the end of each blog post.)
For the longest time, I have been arguing that the discourse of the blogosphere is the discourse of the burgis. At one point, I considered playing the anti-burgis role in the blogosphere but dropped the thought altogether. The fact remains that I am burgis and all the people I know who blog are burgis too. I’ve resigned to the fact that there will always be struggle between classes and, as a member of the petty-bourgeois, it is inevitable for me to acknowledge the differences between social classes.
Whether the burgis guns for egalitarianism in their discourse or not is based on their own ideologies and now I do agree with Manolo in his answer to a question I personally asked him – that the blogosphere’s voice is heterogeneous.
In the context of the anti-jolog sentiment, even some of the kindest people I know who were in the Fair that night drew the line between themselves and the jologs. I really do understand why people think this current blogging discourse on the UP Fair is quite “classist.” I really do. Maybe I’d be with them in this one if not for that delectable experience of being in the middle of a sea of angry jologs with barbecue sticks and water bottles who were cursing UP, the fair, the organizers, etc…
In referring to UP people as “future leaders,” I actually write with a bit of sarcasm. And by using those descriptions, I also refer to the hosts and the organizers, who, via the microphone, explicitly made delineations between who’s UP and who’s not. Readers of my blog know that I am also quite critical of how UP students and graduates act.
Well, personally, I’m the type of person who’d get pissed off with just about anyone. My beef wasn’t only with the jologs. I also have quite a lot of beef with the concert organizers. I do think that they are hugely responsible for what happened in that concert. If you’ve read through the comments of that post, I even criticized the organizers for attempting to do the most stupid things in order to quell the situation.
I’d even go the length of bringing the bands into this. They should know how much these people (the jologs) worship them. The few words of “Pis, Lab, en RakEnRol!” might have been enough to persuade the unruly mob to settle down.
About closing the University. I remember being berated/insulted by University officials in an interview when I raised our student council’s stand on making sure that the people residing in the communities get the due process amidst the intentions of the University to clear the areas. This was back when I was an undergrad. Now, I think I’ve seen enough to look at things using different perspectives then choose one that suits my current disposition.
All I’m saying is that closing the University is probably what the admin might do. The current no-ID-no-entry policy in several University gateways (with the entrances of Ylanan and Roces streets being gated) is testament to this. I haven’t really made my mind up on this, but as someone who has witnessed campus violence committed by non-UP people (several occasions at that), I think it’s understandable for me to lean towards a more secure campus.
Oh well. I’m sounding too defensive to my distaste. I’d be a bigot for now and if this becomes a prime example of classism then I think I have strengthened one of my points regarding hegemony and the discourse of the Philippine blogosphere. Quite interesting to find myself as part of the dominant bloc in this one.
I wanted to raise a few points regarding campus politics and the upcoming USC elections (Jester has already posted some of his sentiments) especially since I’m interested at how Brian Ong (a former student of mine) who is running for councilor and all the other candidates will conduct themselves.
Perhaps I’ll try to let my rage for what happened last Friday-Saturday die down first Then perhaps I could go back to trying to be impartial and fail miserably again.
Song of the Moment: Avenue Q – Everyone’s a Little Bit Racist
***
Let’s all pray for Ramon Montecito – the UPD police officer who got injured. For those who can donate blood please go to the Surgical ICU of Quirino Memorial Medical Center along Katipunan.
***
Addenda:
- Now, I wonder why I even bothered with this post. I still stand by my conclusions in the previous one. Haha.
- From a former student/USC: The USC be the ones shouldering the medical expenses of Sgt. Ramon Montecito.
- Limits to sale of tickets were responsibilities of Loverage 3’s sponsors (Pan Xenia).
Check out these other posts:
4 Responses to Bring on the bigotry
Claro Margallo
February 16th, 2009 at 11:30 pm
Someone made a suggestion (I hope the suggestion is a joke!!!) that UP should be tolerant, to turn the other cheek and to give a scholarship to whoever threw the stone that cracked the head of Sgt. Montecito.
Alex
February 17th, 2009 at 5:16 am
Hi Claro. I do hope that was a joke too! In the light of what happened that joke’s really tasteless. That boy should get his punishment according to law.
Though perhaps this is a wake up call for those responsible for our educational system. Products of our system should be able to act rationally in a civilized society.
Nino Gonzales
March 19th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Hello. Since this issue has cooled down, now may be a good time for an outsider’s point of view. I don’t know if you remember, but my last comment in this blog was in your last post on jologs prior to this issue. The jologs has sort of been a pedantic interest of mine since I first saw them around six years ago, when I moved to Manila. As I mentioned in that post, I made a “study” on the jologs phenomenon. It’s supposed to be a parody of a scholarly paper (Wikipedian sense of humor?), but it does make some assertions that are supported by this recent incident. For instance:
1) “Jologs” is an “outgroup,” to use a term from social psychology, created by the educated middle-class of Manila (or what you call the burgis). (“Conyo” is also another outgroup created by the middle-class)
I said that I got interested in the jologs since I saw them. I actually did not see them in the first few months after I moved to Manila even though images of the same people entered my retina. I only “saw” them when I sort of acclimatized to my new environment, which happened to be educated middle-class Manila (almost all my friends and acquaintances were college-educated Manilenyos).
I think you mentioned before that jologs is a social construct created by the middle-class. I totally agree. This means the discourse on the jologs tells us more about the middle-class—its creators—than the jologs themselves. A painting tells us more about the painter than the subject of the painting, right? The discourse on the jologs tells us about the aspirations and values of the middle-class: education, security, cleanliness…
And yes, I think you are absolutely right in saying that the Filipino blogosphere (or at least the dominant ones) is burgis, however diverse their views may be. Yet the dominance of the middle-class is not limited to the blogosphere. The middle-class is the narrator of the story of the Philippines—TV, movies, and now blogs (I hesitate to include Filipino literature). I have (or used to have) a non-Manilenyo context, so I would even be more specific and say that the narrator of the Filipino story is the middle-class Manilenyo.
What has brought about the creation of the idea of jologs in the heads of Manilenyos? I think this is the most interesting question about the jologs. I used to think (as I wrote in the study) that this may be unique to Manila because of its position in Filipino society and because Manila or Tagalog culture is inherently hierarchical.
But perhaps my vision may have been clouded by my Cebuano sentiments of “Impertial Manila” and idealization of egalitarianism. If we are to be more objective, it seems that this creation of outgroups and classism (or at least class consciousness) happens in (all?) non-primitive and large societies. The population in Manila got decimated during WWII, leaving just a few families of the old Manila. There has been a constant inflow of immigrants since then (how many people do you know in your generation whose grandparents were born in Manila?) Some did well and got gentrified. Some entered Manila through the bottom and have not made it yet to the middle-class. They used to be called “bakya.” Their sons and daughters, who are still outsiders (that’s literal in many cases), are the jologs.
You are fortunate (and I say this without any sarcasm) to have experienced what it feels like to be in an attack of the outsiders of society (this is really cool if you are interested in the study of class). That must have been how the aristocrats felt as the bourgeoisie of the French Revolution pounded on their palace doors, ready with their guillotines. This must have been the same feeling of the last Spaniards inside intramuros with the Indio Katipuneros outside its walls. I could just imagine the French royalty looking outside with a mix of fear and disdain to those unfashionable commoners.
The comparison with the French and Filipino revolutionaries may not be apt in terms of their motivations (which I suppose are the reordering of society vs. the opportunity to mosh in front of rock bands). But they probably share the same sentiments of being uninvited to the party with no way of being invited. The French bourgeoisie perhaps had enough of always being second rate citizens in spite of their economic gains. The Filipino revolutionaries perhaps had enough of always being second rate citizens because of race. The jologs had enough of walls between them and their favorite bands.
But the comparison with intramuros may be more apt that it may first seem. The conflict was expressed with the attack on the walls, and the solution proposed revolves around adding more walls. The idea that society is divided into those within the walls (intra-muros) and those outside it just seems to be in the DNA of Manilenyo society. I explored this more recently with a more personal essay examining the conyos of Manila.
There is probably no practical point of this comment (which is getting quite long) except that if Erap runs (and it seems he will), his marketing guys to exploit this sentiment of exclusion by the people outside the walls. And he will most likely win.
Thanks in advance for tolerating my long comment!
Alex
March 20th, 2009 at 5:46 am
Thanks for the great insights, Nino.