Wednesday, February 18, 2015

PAGHAHANAP KAY CIRIO PANGANIBAN/IN QUEST OF CIRIO PANGANIBAN, FILIPINO POET





PAGHAHANAP  KAY CIRIO PANGANIBAN 

ni E. San Juan, Jr.




          Bakit mag-aabala pa tayo sa kung sino ang may-katha ng ating araling tula kung naibalita na, kahapon o malaon na, na patay na ang awtor? Paano, saan matatagpuan siya, ang mga buto o labi man lamang?

          Binabasa natin ang "Three O Clock in the Morning." Ano ang saysay nito, ano ang kinalaman sa atin? Bakit makahulugan ito? Anong kabutihan, kung mayroon man, ang dulot nito?

          Ipagpalagay nating di pa tuluyang utas, kundi naghihingalo pa, ang tinaguriang "awtor," ibig sabihin, ang responsableng taong lumikha ng kulupong na mga salitang ito. Mag-asta tayong usyoso, curiosity-seekers, wika nga. Baka maging Lazaro pa ang ating awtor.  Paulit-ulit sa mga teksbuk ang kauting datos tungkol kay Cirio Panganiban, awtor ng "Three O'Clock in the Morning." Matatagpuan ang tula sa antolohiya, Ang Ating Panitikan (1984), nina Isagani Cruz at Soledad Reyes, at sa inedit ni Efren Abueg na ikatlong edisyon ng Parnasong Tagalog ni A G Abadilla.

            Inulit sa Internet ang naitala na nina J Villa Panganiban at Consuelo-Torres Panganiban sa kanilang Panitikan ng Pilipinas (1954).   Sinilang noong Agosto 21,1895 sa Bocaue, Bulacan, ang awtor ay naging patnugot ng Surian ng Wikang Pambansa (circa 1950s). Bukod sa pagkamanananggol, siya ay makata kwentista, mandudula, mambabalarila, at guro ng wika. Laging binabanggit ang kuwento niyang "Bunga ng Kasalanan" na nalathala sa Taliba na pinagkamit niya ng titulong kwentista ng taong 1920 dahil sa boto ng mga mambabasa ng magasing Liwayway. Napuna ng kritikong Teodoro Agoncillo na sa katibayan ng kuwento ni Panganiban, ang mga manunulat sa atin ay marunong nang "magtagni-tagni ng mga tagpo" sa isang banghay (1949, 17).

          Kilala rin si Cirio Panganiban sa dulang "Veronidia" (1927) na "lumikha ng pagbabago sa kasaysayan ng mga dulang Tagalog" (Panganiban & Panganiban 1954, 203).  Laging tampok siya bilang makata ng mga tulang  "Sa Likod ng Altar," "Karnabal ng mga Puso," "Manika," "Sa Habang Buhay," atbp. Kabilang si Panganiban sa grupo ng mga manunulat ng "Ilaw at Panitik," at nasabi ko nga, sa isang antolohiya ng mga salin sa Ingles, na si Panbaninban ay "link between the bardic style of Huseng Batute and the retrospective self-dramatization of A.G. Abadilla" (San Juan 1974). Kung paano ito nag-ugnay kina Batute at Abadilla, ay isang problemang baka maitalakay sa daloy ng diskursong ito.

Lapit sa Likhang-Sining

          Sa paniniliksik ko, isang sanaysay lamang ang nauukol sa panitik ni Panganiban, ang kay Ben Medina na lumabas sa Philippine Studies (1971), at tungkol naman sa "Three O'Clock in the Morning," ang kay Virgilio Almario (2006). Ang komentaryo ni Medina ay pagpapatunay sa naisaad ng tala sa Wikipedia: "Naging alagad siya ni Balagtas sa pagsulat ng tula. Tradisyunal ang istilo niya sa pagbuo ng tula subalit ng malaunan ay nagbago na rin ng istilo, tulad ng masisinag sa "Manika" at sa "Three O'Clock" (2014). Tungkol sa "Manika," hatol ni Medina: "Napalayo siya sa pinagkaugaliang sukat, subalit pinatibayan niya ang likas na aliw-iw, indayog, ng mga salitang Tagalog..."
(1971, 302). Nakatutok pa rin si Medina sa pagkilates sa sining ayon sa pagsunod nito sa tradisyonal na pamantayan.

        Dalawang beses nang nadalaw ni Almario itong tulang ito, una sa kanyang 1972 libro, Ang Makata sa Panahon ng Makina, at sa pangalawa, sa formalista't Marxistang punto-de-bista sa kanyang  2006 libro, Pag-unawa sa Ating Pagtula.
Makitid ang pagtutumbas ni Almario ng "makauring pananaw" at realistang pamantayan ng Marxismo. Kaya itinuon niya ang "tipo ng buhay na isinasadula sa tula," alalaong baga, "ang dekadenteng buhay na dulot ng modernisasyon" (2006, 283).  Mistipikasyon lamang ito, ayon sa Marxistang kritiko ni Almario, samakatwid: "..ang tula ay isang romantisasyon ng aliw sa ganitong pugad ng mariwasa at hindi nakatutulong sa paglalantad ng bulok na relasyong panlipunan sa loob ng salon" (2006, 284). Batid nating mayaman ang pamilya ng makata, kaya "mambabaw kundi ma'y romantisadong paggamit" ng paksa ang nangyari.
Konklusyon ni Allmario: delikado itong ipabasa sa progresibo (o inaaping) sektor ng lipunan.

        Bagamat maraming partikular na detalye ang nabalik-tanaw ni Almario sa kanyang pormalistang paghimay, lubhang dahop kundi man karikatura ang demonstrasyon niya ng Marxistang pagbasa. Moralista ang tula, ayon kay Almario, ngunit taglay ang angking gayuma o "iwing kamandag."  Hindi naipagkabit-kabit ang masalimuot na aspektong bumubuo sa tula. Bagamat nailugar ni Almario ang panahon ng tula sa kolonyang milyu ng Amerikanisadong lipunan bago sumapit ang WWII, istatiko't walang makatuturang relasyon ang panahong iyon sa nakalipas at sa darating na epoka ng kasaysayan ng bansa. Mas malawak ang tanawing panlipunang nailarawan ni Almario sa pagsakonteksto niya ng tula sa 1984 libro niyang Balagtasismo versus Modernismo, ngunit walang bisa iyon sa pagpapakahulugan sa mapagpasiyang paghahati ng panahon sa dulang itinanghal ng tula.

          Iba naman ang hagod ni Rolando Tolentino sa degenerasyong naturol na ni Almario. Hindi sermon ang tula  kundi pagpapatibay sa indibidwalistikong liberalismong ikinalat ng Amerika sa ilalim ng ideolohiyang demokrasyang liberal. Ipinakita ng tula ang tagumpay ng liberalismo, pakiwari ni Tolentino. Dagdag niya: "Ang pagtula ni Panganiban sa ganitong paksa ay pagbibigay ng lehitimasyon sa degenerasyon bilang kabahagi ng liberal na gawi--na sa hulling usapan, ang indibidwal ang may ahensya ng paglahok, pagpigil at pagwaksi sa kalakarang panlipunan, kahit pa nga nagpapahiwatig ito ng degenerasyon" (2007, 179).  Sa palagay ko, tila kalabisan ang pagbibigay ng ahensiya sa nag-iisang indibidwal, sadyang salungat sa tipikal na representasyon ng dula at tauhan sa tula.

Musika ng mga Aliping Nagbalikwas

          Sa halip na ulilang indibidwal, ang diwa ng solidaridad at dinamikong alingawngaw nito ang kinakatawan ng tula. Ang laman at anyo ng "jazz," genre ng tugtuging "Three O'Clock in the Morning," ay hango sa "call-and-response" ritmo ng mga Aprikanong nagtatrabaho sa mga plantasyon ng bulak sa Katimugang Estado ng Amerikano noong panahong ante-bellum, bago sumiklab ang Giyera Sibil. Kahalintulad ito ng sitwasyon ng kolonya't malakolonyang bansa na sinakop at nilupig ng puting Establisimyentong umangkin sa jazz at kinomodify ito bilang kagamitan sa pagkamal ng kita at tubo sa Amerikanisadong cabaret noong dekada 1920-1942 sa buong kapuluan.

          Mula sa kasaysayan ng mga itim na alipin sumibol ang jazz, katibayan ng kolektibong pananagisag ng pagkakaisa ng mga alipin/esklabo sa kanilang kasawian at pakikibaka. Bagamat may namamayaning temang sinusunod ng lahat ng gumaganap sa orkestra sa paglalaro sa jazz, may kalayaan ang bawat isa na humabi ng kanyang baryasyon o bigyan-kahulugan ang dominanteng tema sa isang partikular na tono't bilis na ekspresyon ng pansariling nais sa loob ng napagkasunduang porma ng musika. Ibig sabihin, ang ahensiya ng indibidwal (musikero, alipin) ay nakakapa sa kolektibong pagsisikap isakatuparan ang layuning bumubuklod sa lahat, ang bukal ng kahalagahan ng partikular na identidad ng kasapi sa orkestra.

          Kawangki ang istruktura ng jazz ang pagsulong ng tatlong eksena sa tula. Ang praktika ng pagsasalit-salit ng indibidwal at lipunan ay naipahiwatig sa transisyon mula sa "lilipad-lipad" na mananayaw hanggang sa pigura ng babaeng humibik, "hinahanap-hanap ang puring nawaglit." Ang mismong senyas/representamen ng jazz ang siyang nagdadala sa pagsulong ng tula mula sa masiglang aliw sa unang saknong, kasunod ng dalumat sa pansamantala't mapaglinlang na uri ng ganda't saya, hanggang sa huling saknong na saksi sa pagtuklas ng kabiguan kaalinsabay ng paglukob ng dilim sa dati'y maaliwalas na kapaligiran.

                    Sa guwang ng kontradiksiyong ito sumingit ang rason/batayan ng pagkakawing ng ikoniko't indeksikal na senyas ng tula at tagpo't aksiyon, ang dahilan na ang hugis ng nadaramang kapaligiran ay di dapat ituring na katotohanan kundi pambungad na hagdan o panimulang palantandaan ng katunayang matutuklasan sa dulo ng takbo ng karanasan. Ito ang lohikang interpretant, ang masaklaw ng kahulugan ng tula. May himatong ng pagsasanib ng realidad at pantasya, ng dalamhati sa katalagahan at ligaya sa fantasya, sa metapora ng pusong naglalaro sa isang sandali, kapagdaka'y nagsisinungaling. Sa natatanging lugar ng cabaret at panahon ng alanganin o biting yugto ng kinaumagahan nasapul ang ethos o chronotope ng kabuhayan sa kolonisadong Pilipinas.. Sa ganitong paraan matagumpay na napagsanib ng makata ang anyo (porma) at laman (tema) ng tula.

Semiotika ni Peirce

          Sandaling ibaling ko ang diskurso se semiotika ni Charles Sanders Peirce.
Naipaliwanag ko na sa isang sanaysay na lumabas sa Daluyan 2014 (pamagat: "Kahulugan, Katotohanan, Katwiran: Pagpapakilala sa Semiotika."  Naipaliwanag ko na rin ang ilang batayang prinsipyo ng teorya ng senyas ni Peirce. Pwedeng idiin muli ang triyadikong paradigma nito: obheto--senyas o representamen--interpretant. Sa lingguwistika ni Saussure, ito ang signifier-signified na binaryong relasyon, tiwalag sa "obheto" o yaong okasyon o dahilan ng signipikasyon. Ang interpretant ang siyang nag-uugnay sa obheto (referent, sa ibang diskurso) at sign/senyas.

          Iniuugnay ng interpretant ang marka o representamen sa bagay na tinutukoy, ang obheto. Sa gayon nagkakaroon ng kahulugan ang senyas para sa isang nagpapakahulugan (hindi laging tao ito).  Pansinin na hindi dekonstruksyonista si Peirce sapagkat ang obheto ng semiotika ang nagtitiyak o nagtatakda sa senyas/salita/marka, kaya hindi arbitraryo ang lahat ng pagpapakahulugan o signipikasyon.  Gayunpaman, hindi lubos na natitiyak o naitatakda ng senyas ang interpretant (Peirce 1991, 253-259). Kaakibat ng interpretant ang obheto na siyang nagbibigay ng kahulugan sa senyas/sign, kaya maraming posibilidad ito--at hindi talagang maiiwasan ang kalabuan, kamalian, ambigwidad, at walang patid na sikap sa trabaho ng unawaan at pagpapaliwanagan.

          Humigit-kumulang, maitutukoy ang tatlong uri ng interpretant: ang kagyat o immediate interpretant, na hindi pa lubos na nakamamalay at nakakikilala kung ano ang ibig isiwalat na senyas. Ito ang reaksyon sa unang basa ng tula: kakaunti lamang ang nasakyan.  Pangalawa, ang dinamikong interpretant. Tinutukoy nito ang lahat ng pormalistiko't moralistikong pagbasa. Ito ang epektong aktuwal ng mapagkawing na punksiyon ng senyas sa ulirat. Nasa ilalim ng kategoryang ito ang nabanggit na kritisismo.  Pangatlo, ang pinal o pinakahuling interpretant. Ayon kay Floyd Merrell, "the final interpretant is that which is accessible only in the theoretical long run and hence outside the reach of the finite interpreter or interpreters" (2000, 128).

          Pinalalim ni Peirce ang pagtalakay sa pag-imbento ng "intentional interpretant" na isang senyas na ginawa ng nangungusap upang magkaroon ng komunikasyon. Maari ring magbuo ang nangungusap o sumusulat ng"effectual interpretant" kung saan nagkabisa o tumalab ang senyas ng inilahad ng nangungusap (Liszka 1996, 90).  Sa palagay ko, ang dalawang ito ay kalakip sa dinamikong interpretant. Kung lalagumin, ang iba't ibang antas ng dinamikong interpretant ay maaaring mapatingkad at mapayaman sa masinsinang pagpapaloob ng porma at nilalaman ng tula sa kuwadro ng mahabang kasaysayan ng bansa na nagkakabit sa rebolusyon laban sa Espanya at sa Amerika hanggang sa pagsakop ng Hapon.

          Sa aking pagbasa, itinuring kong sa likod ng partikular na detalyeng mailalahad sa isang sosyolohistikang ulat, naroon ang intensiyong gamitin ang penomena upang ipaabot ang isang mapanuri't mapaglagom na pangitain: ang karanasan ng kolektibo, ng buong lipunan, Pagpapalawig ito sa literal o denotatibang katuturan. Pagbibigkis iyon sa punto-de-bista hindi ng isang grupo o pangkat kundi ng buong sambayanan. Sisipiin ko ang nailahad ko na sa nabanggit na artikulo:

Sa pakiwari ko, ito ang alegoryang nakalakip sa kategoryang Pangalawahin, binubuo ng indeks ng limitasyon sa kagustuhan o pagnanais ng tao. Malinaw na ang temang nakasentro ay
pagkabigo, kabalintunaan, sakit, at sakuna dulot ng mapanggayumang hibo ng magara’t nakasisilaw na pamilihan/komersyo ng lungsod dala ng Kanluraning kapital. Naranasan ito sa pangyayaring naganap. Ang bayang Pilipino ang natukso ng Amerika, ngunit sa pagitan ng gabi
ng kahirapan at umaga ng katubusan, hindi pa rin makaigpaw sa romansang walang kasasapitan. Ang kaligtasan ay nasa pagmumuni sa takbo ng ating kasaysayan noong bago "liberasyon" sa pananakop ng Hapon (San Juan 2014, 12)..


Pakay at Motibasyon ng Pagtatanong

          Bakit ko naungkat ang rason ng ating pag-aaral at imbestigasyon tungkol sa kahulugan? Ano ang silbi nito sa ating buhay?

          Ipagunita natin sa kalipunan ng mga nag-sisisyasat--tayo ito, ang komunidad ng mga mananaliksik at nagsusuri--ang dahilan ng pag-uusisa sa senyas, wika, sining. Ang kahulugan ay isang proseso ng komunikasyon sa iba't ibang mga ahensiya. Ang produkto nito ay impormasyon, at ang bisa o resulta ng komunikasyon ay pag-uunawan, yaong ibinabahaging pagkakaiintindi na pag-aari ng lahat, kaalamang gamit ng lahat. 

          Samakatwid, ang layon o pakay ng pag-aaral (inquiry, sa kataga ni Peirce) ay pagkakasundo sa isang totoong paniniwala o kaalaman (Liszka 1996, 81). Sa pangkalahatan, pagkakaisa sa opinyong naitatag na.  Ang bunga naman ng tunay na paniniwala, na mataimtim na pinaninindigan, ay pagkontrol sa sarili, disiplina sa sarili; at para sa madla, kilos o ugali o gawi ng nagpapakita ng konkretong pagkamakatwiran (concrete reasonableness). Sa dagling pagsusuma, ang layon ng interpretasyon ay isang makatwirang pagkilos o aksyong taglay ang pagkamakatwiran.

          Sa ganitong perspektib, sikapin nating patalasin at palawakin ang sakop ng interpretant. Bakit? Upang magamit ang pagbasa sa tula sa pagkakamit ng mas mapagpasiyang kabatiran tungkol sa kontribusyon ng tula sa ating dunong, talino, damdamin, kakayahan, sensibilidad. Hindi ito pagkakataong ilahad ang teorya ng interpretasyong iminungkahi ni Fredric Jameson sa kanyang "On Interpretation: Narrative as a Socialiy Symbolic Act," kasama sa The Political Unconscious (1981). Sa halip, tunghayan ang kanyang proposition sa kanyang "Third World Literature in the Era of Multinational Capitalism."

          Naimungkahi ni Jameson pagkatapos sipatin ang halimbawa ni Lu Hsun, ang rebolusyonaryong manunulat ng Tsina, na ang manunulat sa Pangatlong Mundo ay kaiba sa katukayo niya sa industriyallisadong metropolitanong sentro. Kaiba dahil ang relasyon ng pribado at publikong larangan, ang koneksiyon ng pulitika at pansariling kapakanan, ang papel na ginagampanan ng intelektwal sa pulitikong digmaan ng kolonyalismo at sinakop. Ilapat ang obserbasyong ito sa panitik ng mga kapanahon ni Panganiban:  "Third-world texts, even those which are seemingly private and invested with a properly libidinal dynamic--necessarily project a political dimension in the form of  national allegory:  the story of the private individual destiny is always an allegory of the embattled situation of the public third-world culture and society (2000, 320)."

          Maidadag na sa klima ng kulturang kinasangkutan ng mga pagpupunyagi ng kapisanang Ilaw at Panitik, kabilang na si Panganiban, ang usapin ng kalayaan at kasarinlan ng bansa laban sa Estados Unidos ay maigting na adhikain. Laganap ito buhat nang sumuko si Aguinaldo sa Estados Unidos at nagapi ang mga gerilya ni Macario Sakay. Sa isang pulong ng grupo noong Agosto 1915 nasambit ni Panganiban ang pahayag ng dakilang simulain ng manunulat sa panahon ng pananakop na manalig sa sariling pag-iisip, itaguyod ang liwanag ng patnubay na paninindigan "Na ang Laya't Katubusa'y panitik ang nagguguhit, / Ang tao at ang baya'y tinutubos ng panitik" (sinipi ni Almario 2014, 257).

          Samakatwid, ang dula ng "Three O'Clock in the Morning" ay isang alegorya ng bansa. Iyon ay dramatikong pagsisiwalat ng sitwasyon ng bansa sa pagitan ng ilusyon ng hegemonya ng Amerika at malupit na okupasyon ng pasistang lakas-pandigma ng imperyong Hapon. Batay sa bagong kaalamang ito, ano ang nararapat ipagpasiya sa pag-ugit sa pagpapalaya't pagsulong ng buong bansa?

          Kung sisipatin sa ganitong kuwadro ng pagpapahalaga, lilitaw na ang tula ay isang masaklaw ng talinghaga, isang alegorya ng sambayanan, hindi lamang ng ilang indibidwal o pangkat (San Juan 2015). At ang interpretant nito, kung makalilipat mula sa dinamiko hanggang final o effectual na antas, ay mahihikayat magpasiya na, una, ibahin ang sitwasyon ng panitikan at mambabasa; pangalawa, gamitin ang impormasyong nahugot sa tula at ilapat sa hinihingi ng bagong kapaligiran; at pangatlo, sa pagbabago ng ating kamalayang panlipunan at pangkasaysayan, kailangang baguhin ang ayos ng lipunang giinagalawan natin.

          Dapat salungguhitan ang tesis nina Peirce at iba pang pantas (Bakhtin, Althusser) sa Marxistang tradisyon na ang wika, sa panitikan o pasalitang diskurso, ay isang praktikang panlipunan na mahigpit kalakip ng kasaysayan at pulitika. Ang panitikan ay isang tahasang interbensiyon sa tunggalian ng iba't ibang uri, sektor, lakas, isang sandatang pampulitika na bumubuo ng suheto/identidad sa pamamagitan ng interpelasyon o pagtawag sa tao upang maging suheto o aktor sa isang dulang pangkasaysayan(Lecercle 2005, 198).

          Nasa sa inyo, mga mambabasa, ang tungkuling pigilin ang takbo ng panahon, o lumikha ng bagong daigdig na makatutubos sa panahong lumipas. Isang asignatura itong tumitimbang sa katuturan ng panitikan o sining bilang mga pangangailangan sa larangan ng kritika ng ideolohiyang mapaniil at utopyang bumabanaag sa harapan, isang mabisang patnubay tungo sa pagpupunyaging makamit ang isang makatao't makatarungang lipunan (San Juan 2015).

SANGGUNIAN


Abueg, Efren. 1973.  Parnasong Tagalog ni A. G. Abadilla, Ikatlong Edisyon.            Maynila: MCS Enterprises Inc.
Agoncillo, Teodoro,  1972.  Ang Maiklng Kuwentong Tagalog (1886-1948).  Maynila:  Inang Wika Publishing Co.
Almario, Virgilio.  1984.  Balagtasismo Versus Modernismo.  Quezon City: Ateneo University Press.
----.  2006.  Pag-unawa sa Ating Pagtula.  Maynila: Anvil.
---.  2014.  Ang Tungkulin ng Kritisismo sa Filipinas.  Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.
Jameson, Fredric  1981. The Political Unconscious.  Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
-----.  2000.  The Jameson Reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Lecercle, Jean-Jacques.  2005.  A Marxist Philosophy of Language.  Chicago IL: Haymarket Books.
Liszka, James Jakob. 1990. A General Introduction to the Semeiotic of Charles Sanders Peirce.  Bloomington, IND: Indiana University Press.
Medina, Ben S.  1971.  "Panganiban: Tradisyon at Modernismo."  Philippine Studies 192 (1921): 287-306.
Panganiban, J. Villa & Consuelo Torres Panganiban.  1954.  Panitikan ng           Pilipinas.           Quezon City: Bede's Publishing House. 
Peirce, Charles Sanders.  1991.  Peirce on Signs. Ed. James Hoopes. Chapel           HIll:           University of North Carolina Press.
San Juan, E., ed. 1974.   Introduction to Modern Pilipino Literature.  Boston:           Twayne.
-----.  2015.  Lupang Hinirang, Lupang Tinubuan: Mga Sanaysay sa Politikang           Pangkultura at Teorya ng Panunuri.  Manila: De La Salle University Press.
Tolentino, Rolando B. 2007.  Sipat Kultura.  Quezon City: Ateneo U Press.
Wikipedia.  2014  "Cirio Panganiban."  <http://tl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title+Cirio_Panganiban&oldid=1436428>

___________________
 <philcsc@gmail.com>

Monday, January 12, 2015

TWO TRANSLATIONS OF POEMS IN ORIGINAL FILIPINO



TWO POEMS BY E. SAN JUAN, JR.
 (TRANSLATED FROM THE ORIGINAL FILIPINO BY THE AUTHOR)


WANDERLUST IN MAKATI, PHILIPPINES 

Whirling in the maniacal traffic, you're still jobless and traipsing here and there.

Counting posts and stars, you arrive at "nirvana."

Unable to catch time, you are assailed by Madonna's "Like a Virgin."

Worms in the guts or in dirt?    You know the twisting innards of the bourgeoisie but their advice for you is to bear the pangs, convulsing....

Eluding caresses when you're up the wall.

"New World Order" is here, they say, so to hell with your rage.   Drag your cloak while fuming--

Meteors and mud shroud your whitening eyeballs.

Pushed up your wazu are the machinations of capitalist society, but what can you do?

"Sir, alms...." (Pluck it out, bad luck.)

Dispossessed, disinherited, while the ghouls of democracy feast on....

Though your tongue's hanging out, your navel and anus are still stuck....

On your footsole is inscribed the hieroglyphic of those fried in their own fat while tempted by Saudi juice.

"How much are you, Miss?" (Sell yourself so as not to lick the salt of contempt.)

Tripped by leaves of grass, your sharpness will sensitize the rock. Beware....

You don't want to scratch your belly.  Can the turtle overtake the monkey?

Skeletons of tanks and bones of the killers and their victims criss-cross the deserts of Kuwait and Iraq.

Autonomy? Or each one grabbing for one's self?

You wandered up to Ayala Avenue.  With eyes shut swallowing your balls down your throat.

Prawns dreaming, carried by the waves....

You rush on the train in Dr. Zhivago (the movie) but we only reach Tutuban station.
In the dungeon of your fantasies penetrates and seeps in the scent of gunpowder.

Because forbearance cannot yield nor garner, hold tight the sharpest blade you can grab.
                                          [Translation of "Lagalag Sa Makati" by the author]
---------------


MEGAMALL IN METRO MANILA


A shrimp's life, one scratch and three pecks....

Your vision is shrouded by Stateside goods galore even though you don't know the signification of commodity fetishism.

Condolence to the down and out.

The country's progressing, they say. We owe this to the "new heroes," the domestics (Overseas Contract Workers) in Hong Kong, Singapore, Saudi, and in Subic, Alabang, and elsewhere.

No more barricades even though crocodiles continue to scavenge the shores.

The odor of Pasig River snakes its way up to the boudoir of Malacanang Palace.

"Utang na loob" [inner debt] and "hiya" [shame] are alleged to be the two keys to the character of the Filipino.

We watch on the movie screen the fantastic rumbles of Schwarzenegger, James Bond, Bruce Lee and Sigourney Weaver.

Your thick skull might be contaminated by the fate that's written on the wall.

For the nation to develop, FREE TRADE ZONES and credit cards are needed.
Kaput... Tailing behind, you leap and die.

In order to test the purity of gold, commit juramentado running amok in Jollibee.

Wherever the wilderness, snakes abound, approved by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

In the crowds flowing down the escalator, cow-grunts and horse-sighs encounter the antennae of your conscience.

"Look at yourself, like a shitty rogue."

Because the GNP rose, we don't need the New People's Army. The victims of military zoning are piling up, while in Muntinlupa rot hundreds of political prisoners.

Debts outside up to the hilt, what about debts within?

Up to now, no deal, brother. Your strategy's a dud.

Your dreams are now on motorcycles.

Still take care?  The pain is in between the toes, but....

"Shit, you even named me as an accomplice."

When the pile is way up, it's time to level it with the strickle.
                                
                                                                           [Translation of "Megamall in Metro Manila"]
__________________________________________
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
_____________________________________
E. SAN JUAN is co-director of Philippine Forum, New York City, and heads the Philippine Cultural Studies Center in Connecticut, USA He is at present visiting professor of literature and cultural studies at the National Tsing Hua University and Academia Sinica fellow in Taiwan. He was 2003 professor of American Studies at Katholieke Universiteit Leuven in Belgium. Among his recent books are RACISM AND CULTURAL STUDIES (Duke University Press) and WORKING THROUGH THE CONTRADICTIONS (Bucknell University Press). Five books in Filipino were launched recently: HIMAGSIK (De La Salle University Press), TINIK SA KALULUWA (Anvil). ULIKBA (UST Publishing House), and SAPAGKAT INIIBIG KITA and KUNDIMAN SA GITNA NG KARIMLAN (U.P. Press) His collection of poems in Filipino written in the last four decades was published by Ateneo de Manila University Press in the volume ALAY SA PAGLIKHA NG BUKANGLIWAYWAY. His new collection of essays in Filipino, LUPANG HINIRANG, LUPANG TINUBUAN will be launched by De La Salle U Press, and essays in English, BETWEEN EMPIRE AND INSURGENCY, will be released by UP Press this year.




Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Avant-Garde Poetry in the Time of Crisis
and Resistance:
Ambil
by E. San Juan Jr.


By Karlo Mikhail I. Mongaya


If E. San Juan, Jr. has continued to write poetry on subjects that many would deem radical or
even subversive, it is because the essential
conditions of exploitation and oppression that he has
written about in his younger years have remained basically unchanged up to the present. The
world capitalist system continues to wreak havoc on the workers, peasants, and oppressed people
around the wor
ld who suffer from rising levels of inequality, unemployment, and hunger.
Global capitalism condemns ever widening sections of humanity to poverty and misery even as
the ruling classes who own the means of producing the material wealth of society become ri
cher
than ever. The unabated crisis of this system has meant the intensifying exploitation and plunder
of Philippine cheap labor and natural resources by the monopoly capitalists and financial
oligarchs living the life in the United States, European Union,
and Japan, among others.
The dominant culture legitimizes and prettifies this unjust and ugly dispensation. Most art and
literature, including poetry, consequently draw the people’s attention away from the fundamental
problems confronting them through the
proliferation of banal and sensational consumer
spectacles. Anything else is deemed unmarketable.
But this has not kept E. San Juan, Jr. from continuing to challenge the dominant order and
offering an alternative vision of the world through his writings.
It is precisely this stamp that
cemented San Juan’s standing as a writer of world
-
renown in the fields of literary criticism,
cultural studies, and poetry. And it is precisely in this way that San Juan inscribes the new into
the shell of the old rotting or
der.
Ambil: Mga Pagsubok, Pahiwatig & Interbensyon
is only San Juan’s latest book of poetry in
Filipino that serves as a means of social critique and the dreaming of a better world. It is a
continuation of a long trajectory from
Kung Ikaw ay Inaapi Bakit H
indi ka Magbalikwas
(1984),
which was published amidst the dark years of the Ferdinand Marcos dictatorship, up to his newer
volumes of poetry such as
Sapagkat Iniibig Kita
(2004) and
Kundiman sa Gita ng Karimlan
(2014).
The poems in
Ambil,
however
,
do not
only represent the contemporary realities of exploitation
and resistance as content. San Juan’s method of representation

the poetic form itself

helps
in illuminating these realities. Inspired by avant
-
garde movements from Dadaism, Surrealism, up
to Con
ceptual Art, San Juan seeks, in his own words, “to provoke critical resistance to consumer
culture and the narcotic spectacles saturating the corporate mass media and the public sphere.”
San Juan’s poems in the collection take on the form of distinctive va
riations of
Ambil
, a Filipino
word which is defined as an “interpretation of a word, phrase or statement different from that
originally intended; pet name; constant repetition of a word or expression for the pleasure of the
sound or for its being a favorit
e expression.”
Avant
-
garde inspired
Taking its cue from its avant
-
garde conceptual art inspirations,
Ambil
goes beyond the traditional
concern with traditional formal devices (like sound, rhyme, metaphor, irony, etc.) and instead
trains its attention to
making the circumstances of the poem’s conceptual construction more
discernable to the reader.
The poem “Pagpapasubaling Di Mabali
-
Bali? Makabagong Litanya,” for example, repeats the
term
subalit
(trans. however) to begin line after line in order to piece
together a litany of facts
that give witness to the seemingly never
-
ending list of human rights violations by the Philippine
government:
Subalit kamakailan pinatay si Dionisio Garite kasunod ni
Romeo
Capalla sa Panay
Subalit
walang imik ang military at rehimen sa karumal
-
dumal
na
krimeng nangyari
Subalit patuloy pa ang dasal at misa sa memorya ni Cory
Aquino’t
kamag
-
anak
Subalit wala pang hustisya ang 13 pinuksa nila sa Mendiola
noong Enero 22, 1987
San
Juan adroitly places ironic details side by side in order to highlight the absurdity of a social
order wherein fair trade advocates helping the poor are killed by state forces with impunity while
the scions of the Aquino
-
Cojuangcos, a landlord clan respon
sible for the massacre of poor
peasants calling for land reform are praised to high heaven.
Much of contemporary writing aims this interrogation of the text within the field of language,
discourse, and the play of meanings divorced from any reference outsi
de of the writing itself.
San Juan, however, goes beyond textual surfaces and is much more interested in pointing the
readers to the material realities referred to in the poems

that is, in situating them back to the
real world.
The simple recombination o
f previously created texts instead of creating fresh material is another
method culled by San Juan from the arsenal of avant
-
garde conceptual art. The ruling order,
crumbling under the weight of its manifold contradictions, is a walking corpse that is mine
d for
texts and other materials that can be used for the recreation of the new.
“Asignatura sa Mga Anarkista (Hinangong ambil mula kay Yoko Ono)” comes in the form of an
instruction manual for the treatment of formalist literary texts and grammatical books
. This text
represents an interesting counterpoint to Jean Luc Godard’s film
La Chinoise
where student
radicals proposed criticizing conservative books as opposed to burning them:
C. Tipunin lahat ng librong nagkukunwaring siyang
pinakamabuting balarila o
gramatika ng wika, pati
lahat ng mga
arte poetika
mula sa
Vocabulario
nina
Noceda at Sanlucar hanggang mga turo nina Lope K
Santos at Julian Cruz Balsameda, pati na lahat ng
tulang may tugma’t sukat ayon sa regla ng mga
awtoridad at premyadong pantas.
C1.
Ilagay sa isang trak, dalhin sa Payatas, buhusan ng ilang
balde ng gasoline, at sunugin.
“Diskarteng Pag
-
urirat sa Cogito
-
Ergo
-
Sum ni Descartes” meanwhile plays on the famous
dictum “I think, therefore I am” to playfully tease out how consciousness, in the
last instance,
cannot be the ultimate guarantee of being. Discourse as expressed in the poetic lines abruptly end
when the persona runs out of breath. The material is primary over consciousness:
Tumutol ako’t nakibaka, samakatwid ako ay
Nakulam ako,
samaktwid ako ay
Naghihingalo, samakatwid ako
Humingi ng saklolo, samaktwid
Wala nang hininga, sama ka
Production of the new
San Juan’s utilization of devices inspired by conceptual art is not mere artistic whim. This is not
simply borne out of a desire to
be fashionably novel but a serious attempt to represent
contemporary realities of economic crisis and global disorder in new ways. The new here,
following Fredric Jameson, “is not some unusual object, as in so many avant
-
garde conceptions
of modernist inn
ovation, but a whole new world of relationships . . . into which writer and reader
alike must penetrate by means of daring exploration, and appropriation.”
This brings us to avant
-
garde conceptual art’s interrogation of the notion of authorship. While
much
of contemporary literary theory considers the author as a mere function of the structure of
the text, San Juan hints as to how the text are not only the poet’s or the reader’s but are also
shaped by the social and historical world in which he is situated.
In “Pinakahuling Paalam ng Koro ng mga Taga
-
Salin ng ‘El Ultimo Pensamiento’ ni Rizal,” for
example, San Juan plays with varying Filipino translations of a line from Jose Rizal’s last poem
before his execution by Spanish colonial authorities in 1896.
Adio
s, queridos eres, morir es
descansar
is translated differently according to the standpoint, language, formal style of the
purported translator from Andres Bonifacio, Jose Corazon de Jesus, Idelfonso Santos, Felix
Razon, among others:
Mamatay ay siyang pagk
agupiling!
Mamatay ay ganap na katahimikan.
Paalam na, giliw, at pamamahinga tadhana ng mamatay.
Adios, mga iniibig na nilalang, kamatayan ay pagpapahinga lamang.
Conceptual art construes the idea as the machine that generates art. San Juan takes off from
this
tenet but never fails to refer to the social basis of all consciousness. He engages in playful games
of making the reader participate in the creation of meaning, but not as the end goal but rather as a
step towards making more visible the social reali
ties surrounding the reader.
“Transkripsyon ng Ilang Bytes ng Kompyuter ng NSA, Washington DC, USA” concretely
illustrates the overwhelming scale of the online spying on the global population and the
consequent massive violation of people’s rights to priva
cy perpetrated by the United States
government through its National Security Agency’s Prism Program:
Makibaka ba, huwag matakot? Nilabasan ka ba? Kailan tayo
tutugpa? Sino iyang nakamaskara? Peks man? Sino ang
nagsuplong? Swak na swak ba? Dapat ba nating d
alhin ang
kargada? Mabigat ba o magaan? Sino si Yolanda? Liku
-
liko...
San Juan’s poetry is often labeled as difficult, even incomprehensible to the common reader. His
poetic writing’s affinity with the artistic avant
-
garde and references to other literary te
xts,
philosophical ideas, events, and socio
-
historical conditions is often cited to prove this branding
on his works. It is hence surprising how at the immediate level surprisingly lucid San Juan’s
poems are. They are often mistaken as daunting only becaus
e they require the reader to think.
In the end, this is poetry that seeks to push the reader away from just submitting to the text
uncritically and be disabused of the illusion of simply being a passive consumer of the poetic
line. San Juan’s poetry shows
us the way in how progressive writing must not only descend to
what is already popular but also to endeavor in the popularization of the new. As the Guatemalan
poet Otto Rene Castillo eloquently st

Tuesday, December 02, 2014

NATIONALISM, THE POSTCOLONIAL STATE, AND VIOLENCE


NATIONALISM, THE POSTCOLONIAL STATE, AND VIOLENCE
by E. SAN JUAN, Jr.
Fellow, Center for the Humanities, Wesleyan University
It has become axiomatic for postmodernist thinkers to condemn the nation and its corollary terms, "nationalism" and "nation-state," as the classic evils of modern industrial society. The nation-state, its reality if not its concept, has become a kind of malignant paradox if not a sinister conundrum. It is often linked to violence and the terror of "ethnic cleansing." Despite this the United Nations and the interstate system still function as seemingly viable institutions of everyday life. How do we explain this development?
Let us review the inventory of charges made against the nation-state. Typically described in normative terms as a vital necessity of modern life, the nation-state has employed violence to accomplish questionable ends. Its disciplinary apparatus is indicted for committing unprecedented barbarism. Examples of disasters brought about by the nation-state are the extermination of indigenous peoples in colonized territories by "civilizing" nations, the Nazi genocidal "holocaust" of Jews, and most recently the "ethnic cleansing" in the former Yugoslavia, Ruwanda, East Timor, and so on. Echoing Elie Kedourie, Partha Chatterjee, and others, Alfred Cobban (1994) believes that the theory of nationalism has proved one of the most potent agencies of destruction in the modern world. In certain cases, nationalism mobilized by states competing against other states has become synonymous with totalitarianism and fascism. Charles Tilly (1975), Michael Howard (1991), and other historians concur in the the opinion that war and the military machine are principal determinants in the shaping of nation states. . In The Nation-State and Violence, Anthony Giddens defines nationalism as "the cultural sensibility of sovereignty" (note the fusion of culture and politics) that unleashes administrative power within a clearly demarcated territory, "the bounded nation-state" (1985, 219). Although it is allegedly becoming obsolete under the pressure of globalization (for qualifications, see Sassen (1998), the nation-state is considered by "legal modernists" (Berman 1995) as the prime source of violence against citizens and entire peoples.
Postmodernist critiques of the nation (often sutured with the colonialist/imperialist state) locate the evil in its ideological nature. This primarily concerns the nation as the source of identity for modern individuals via citizenship or national belonging, converting natal filiation (kinship) into political affiliation. Identity implies definition by negation, inclusion based on exclusion underwritten by a positivist logic of representation (Balibar and Wallerstein 1991). But these critiques seem to forget that the nation is a creation of the modern capitalist state, that is, a historical artifice or invention.
It is a truism that nation and its corollary problematic, nationalism, presupposes the imperative of hierarchization and asymmetry of power in a political economy of commodity-exchange. Founded on socially constructed myths or traditions, the nation is posited by its proponents as a normal state of affairs used to legitimize the control and domination of one group over others. Such ideology has to be deconstructed and exposed as contingent on the changing grid of social relations. Postcolonial theory claims to expose the artificial and arbitrary nature of the nation: "This myth of nationhood, masked by ideology, perpetuates nationalism, in which specific identifiers are employed to create exclusive and homogeneous conceptions of national traditions" (Ashcroft et al 1998, 150). Such signifiers of homogeneity not only fail to represent the diversity of the actual "nation" but also serves to impose the interests of a section of the community as the general interest. But this is not all. In the effort to make this universalizing intent prevail, the instrumentalities of state power--the military and police, religious and educational institutions, judiciary and legal apparatuses)--are deployed. Hence, from this orthodox postcolonial perspective, the nation-state and its ideology of nationalism are alleged to have become the chief source of violence and conflict since the French Revolution.
Mainstream social science regards violence as a species of force which violates, breaks, or destroys a normative state of affairs. It is coercion tout court. Violence is often used to designate power devoid of legitimacy or legally sanctioned authority. Should violence as an expression of physical force always be justified by political reason in order to be meaningful and therefore acceptable? If such a force is used by a state, an inherited political organ legitimized by "the people" or "the nation," should we not distinguish between state-defined purposes and in what specific way nationalism or nation-making identity is involved in those state actions? State violence and assertion of national identity need not be automatically conflated so as to implicate nationalism--whose nationalism?-- in all class/state actions in every historical period, for such a move would be an absolutist censure of violence bereft of intentionality--in order words, violence construed as merely physical force akin to tidal waves, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and so on.
Violence, in my view, signifies a political force that demands dialectical triangulation in order to grasp how nation and state are implicated in it. A historical-materialist historicization of this phenomenon is needed to determine the complicity of individual states and nations in specific outbreaks of violence. But postcolonialists like Homi Bhabha (1990) resort to a questionable use of the discursive performativity of language to ascribe a semiotic indeterminacy to the nation, reducing to a formula of hybridity and liminality the multifarious narratives of nations/peoples. History is reduced to the ambiguities of culture and the play of textualities, ruling out critique and political intervention.
In this light, what makes the postcolonialist argument flawed becomes clear in the fallacies of its non-sequitur reasoning. It is perhaps easy to expose the contingent nature of the nation once its historical condition of possibility is pointed out. But it is more difficult to contend that once its socially contrived scaffolding is revealed, then the nation-state and its capacity to mobilize and apply the means of violence can be restricted if not curtailed.
We can pose this question at this point: Can one seriously claim that once the British state is shown to rest on the myth of the Magna Carta or the United States government on the covenant of the Founding Fathers to uphold the interests of every citizen--except of course African slaves and other non-white peoples, then one has undermined the power of the British or American nation-state? Not that this is an otiose and naive task. Debunking has been the classic move of those protesting against an unjust status quo purporting to be the permanent and transcendental condition for everyone.
But the weapon of criticism, as Marx once said, needs to be reinforced by the principled criticism of weapons. If we want to guard against committing the same absolutism or essentialism of the imperial nationalists, we need a historicizing strategy of ascertaining how force--the energy of social collectivities--turns into violence for the creation or destruction of social orders and singular life-forms. Understood as embodying "the pathos of an elemental force," the insurrectionary movements of nationalities has been deemed the source of a vital and primordial energy that feeds "the legal Modernist composite of primitivism and experimentalism," a fusion of "radical discontinuity and reciprocal facilitation" (Berman 1995, 238).
The question of the violence of the nation-state thus hinges on the linkage between the two categories, "nation" and "state." A prior distinction perhaps needs to be made between "nation" and "society"; while the former "may be ordered, the [latter] orders itself" (Brown 1986). Most historical accounts remind us that the modern nation-state has a beginning--and consequently, it is often forgotten--and an ending. But the analytic and structural distinction between the referents of nation (local groups, community, domicile or belonging) and state (governance, machinery of sanctioning laws, disciplinary codes, military) is often elided because the force of nationalism is often conflated with the violence of the state apparatuses, an error compounded by ignoring the social classes involved in each sphere. This is the lesson of Marx and Lenin’s necessary discrimination between oppressor and oppressed nations--a nation that oppresses another cannot really claim to be free. Often the symptom of this fundamental error is indexed by the formula of counterpointing the state to civil society, obfuscating the symbiosis and synergy between them. This error may be traced partly to the Hobbesian conflation of state and society in order to regulate the anarchy of the market and of brutish individualism violating civil contracts (Ollman 1993).
It may be useful to recall the metaphysics of the origin of the nation elaborated in Ernest Renan's 1882 lecture, "What is a nation?" This may be considered one of the originary locus of nationalism conceived as a primitivist revolt against the centralized authority of modernizing industrial states. While Renan emphasized a community founded on acts of sacrifice and their memorialization, this focus does not abolish the fact that the rise of the merchant bourgeoisie marked the start of the entrenchment of national boundaries first drawn in the age of monarchical absolutism. The establishment of the market coincided with the introduction of taxation, customs, tariffs, etc. underlined by the assertion of linguistic distinctions among the inhabitants of Europe. M. Polanyi's thesis of The Great Transformation (1957) urges us to attend to the complexities in the evolution of the nation-state in the world system of commodity exchange. We also need to attend to Ernest Gellner’s (1983) argument that cultural and linguistic homogeneity has served from the outset as a functional imperative for states administering a commodity-centered economy and its class-determining division of social labor.
Postcolonialists subscribe to a post-structuralist hermeneutic of nationalism as a primordial destabilizing force devoid of rationality. And so while the formation of the nation-state in the centuries of profound social upheavals did not follow an undisturbed linear trajectory--we have only to remember the untypical origins of the German and Italian nation-states, not to speak of the national formations of Greece, Turkey, and the colonized peoples–that is not enough reason to ascribe an intrinsic instability and belligerency to the nation as such. States may rise and fall, as the absolute monarchs and dynasties did, but sentiments and practices constituting the nation follow another rhythm or temporality not easily dissolved into the vicissitudes of the modern expansive state. Nor does this mean that nations, whether in the North or the South, exert a stabilizing and conservative influence on social movements working for radical changes in the distribution of power and resources.
In pursuing a historical analysis of violence, we need to avoid collapsing the distinction between the concept of the "nation-state" and "nationalism." Whence originates the will to exclude, to dominate? According to Anthony Giddens, "what makes the ‘nation’ integral to the nation-state…is not the existence of sentiments of nationalism but the unification of an administrative apparatus over precisely defined territorial boundaries in a complex of other nation-states" (1987, 172). That is why the rise of nation-states coincided with wars and the establishment of the military bureaucratic machine. In this construal, the state refers to the political institution with centralized authority and monopoly of coercive agencies coeval with the rise of global capitalism, while nationalism denotes the diverse configuration of peoples based on the commonality of symbols, beliefs, traditions, and so on.
In addition, we need to guard against confusing historical periods and categories. Imagining the nation unified on the basis of secular citizenship and self-representation, as Benedict Anderson (1991) has shown, was only possible when print capitalism arose in conjunction with the expansive state. But that in turn was possible when the trading bourgeoisie developed the means of communication under pressure of competition and hegemonic exigencies. Moreover, the dissemination of the Bible in different vernaculars did not translate into a monopoly of violence by the national churches. It is obvious that the sense of national belonging, whether based on clan or tribal customs, language, religion, etc., certainly has a historical origin and localizing motivation different from the emergence of the capitalist state as an agency to rally the populace to serve the needs of the commercial class and the goal of accumulation.
Given the rejection of a materialist analysis of the contradictions in any social formation, postcolonial critics in particular find themselves utterly at a loss in making coherent sense when dealing with nationalism. Representations of the historicity of the nation in the modern period give way to a Nietzschean will to invent reality as polysemic discourse, a product of enunciatory and performative acts. Postcolonialism resorts to a pluralist if not equivocating stance. It sees nationalism as "an extremely contentious site" in which notions of self-determination and identity collide with notions of domination and exclusion. Such oppositions, however, prove unmanageable indeed if a mechanical idealist perspective is employed. Such a view in fact leads to an irresolvable muddle in which nation-states as instruments for the extraction of surplus value (profit) and "free" exchange of commodities also become violent agencies preventing "free" action in a global marketplace that crosses national boundaries. Averse to empirical grounding, postcolonialism regards nationalist ideology as the cause of individual and state competition for goods and resources in the "free market," with this market conceived as a creation of ideology. I cite one postcolonial authority that attributes violence to the nation-state on one hand and liberal disposition to the nation on the other:

The complex and powerful operation of the idea of a nation can be seen also in the great twentieth-century phenomenon of global capitalism, where the "free market" between nations, epitomized in the emergence of multinational companies, maintains a complex, problematic relationship with the idea of nations as natural and immutable formations based on shared collective values. Modern nations such as the United States, with their multi-ethnic composition, require the acceptance of an overarching national ideology (in pluribus unum). But global capitalism also requires that the individual be free to act in an economic realm that crosses and nullifies these boundaries and identities (Ashcroft et al, 1998, 151).
It is misleading and foolish then to label the slogan "one in many" as the U.S. national ideology. Officially the consensual ideology of the U.S. is neoliberal pluralism, or possessive individualism with a pragmatic orientation. Utilitarian doctrine underwrites an acquisitive, entrepreneurial individualism that fits perfectly with mass consumerism and the gospel of the unregulated market. It is within this framework that we can comprehend how the ruling bourgeoisie of each sovereign state utilizes nationalist sentiment and the violence of the state apparatuses to impose their will. Consequently, the belief that the nation-state simultaneously prohibits economic freedom and promotes multinational companies actually occludes the source of political and juridical violence--for example, the war against Serbia by the NATO (an expedient coalition of nation-states led by the United States), or the stigmatization of rogue and "terrorist" states (North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan) by the normative standards of hegemonic capitalism. The source of political violence--and I am speaking of that kind where collective energy and intentionality are involved--is the competitive drive for accumulation in the world market system where the propertied class is the key actor mobilizing its symbolic capital made up of ethnic loyalties and nationalist imaginaries.
We have now moved from the formalistic definition of the nation as a historic construct to the nation as a character in the narrative of capitalist development and colonialism. What role this protagonist has played and will play is now the topic of controversy. It is not enough to simply ascribe to the trading or commercial class the shaping of a new political form, the nation, to replace city states, leagues, municipal kingdoms, and oligarchic republics. Why such "imagined communities" should serve as a more efficacious political instrument for the hegemonic bloc of property-owners, is the question.
One approach to this question is to apply dialectical analysis to the materialist anatomy of the nation sketched thus far. Historians have described the crafting of state power for the new bourgeoisie nations in Enlightenment philosophy. Earlier Jean Bodin and Hugo Grotius theorized the sovereignty of the nation as the pivot of centralized authority and coercive power (Bowle 1947). The French Revolution posited the "people," the universal rights of man, as the foundation of legitimacy for the state; the people as nation, a historical act of constituting the polity, gradually acquires libidinal investment enough to inspire movements of anticolonial liberation across national boundaries. Its influence on the U.S. Constitution as well as on personalities like Sun Yat-Sen, Jose Rizal, and other "third world" radical democrats has given the principle of popular sovereignty a "transnational" if not universal status (on Filipino nationalism, see San Juan 2000a). Within the system of nation-states, for Marxists, "recognition of national rights is an essential condition for international solidarity" (Lowy 1998, 59) in the worldwide fight for socialism and communism.
Now this universal principle of people's rights is generally considered to be the basis of state power for the modern nation, "the empowerment, through this bureaucracy, of the interests of the state conceived as an abstraction rather than as a personal fiefdom" (Ashcroft et al 1998, 153). A serious mistake occurs when the nation and its legitimating principle of popular sovereignty becomes confused with the state bureaucracy construed either as an organ transcending the interest of any single class, or as the "executive committee" of the bourgeoisie. A mechanical, not dialectical, method underlies this failure to connect the ideology, politics, and economics of the bourgeois revolution. This quasi-Hegelian interpretation posits the popular will of the post-Renaissance nation-states as the motor of world expansion, of 19th-century colonialism. Instead of the substance of the "civilizing mission" being informed by the gospel of universal human rights, according to postcolonial orthodoxy, it is the ideology of national glory tied to "the unifying signifiers of language and race" that now impels the colonial enterprise.
So nationalism, the need to superimpose the unifying myths of the imperial nation-state, is not only generated by the bourgeois agenda of controlling and regulating the space of its market, but also by the imperative of seizing markets and resources outside territories and peoples. Nationalism is then interpreted by postcolonial theorists as equivalent to colonialism; the nation is an instrument of imperialist aggrandizement, so that if newly liberated ex-colonies employ nationalist discourse and principles, they will only be replicating the European model whose myths, sentiments, and traditions justified the violent suppression of "internal heterogeneities and differences." The decolonizing nation is thus an oxymoron, a rhetorical if not actual impossibility.
Lacking any historical anchorage, the argument of postcolonial theory generates inconsistencies due to an exorbitant culturalism. Because they disregard the historical genealogy of the nation-state discussed by Gellner, Anderson, Smith (1971), among others, postcolonial critics uphold the sphere of culture as the decisive force in configuring social formations. Not that culture is irrelevant in explaining political antagonisms. Rather, it is erroneous when such antagonisms are translated into nothing but the tensions of cultural differences. The dogma of cultural difference (for Charles Taylor, the need and demand for recognition in a modern politics of identity; more later) becomes then the key to explaining colonialism, racism, and postcolonial society. Ambivalence, hybridity, and interstitial or liminal space become privileged signifiers over against homogenizing symbols and icons whose "authority of cultural synthesis" is the target of attack. Ideology and discursive performances serve as the primary field of analysis over against "localized materialism" and vulgar Marxism.
Violence in postcolonial discourse is thus located in ideas and cultural forces that unify, synthesize or generalize a range of experiences; such forces suppress difference or negate multiple "others" not subsumed within totalities such as nation, class, gender, etc. While some culturalist critics allow for different versions of the historic form of the nation, the reductive dualism of their thinking manifests a distinct bias for a liberal framework of analysis: the choice is either a nation based on an exclusionary myth of national unity centered on abstractions such as race, religion or ethnic singularity; or a nation upholding plurality and multiculturalism (for example, Canada or the United States). This fashionable vogue of pluralism and culturalism has already been proved inutile in confronting inequalities of class, gender, and "race." Moreover, it cannot explain the appeal of nationalism as a means of reconciling the antagonistic needs for order and for autonomy (Smith 1979) in the face of mechanistic bureaucratism and the anarchic market of atomized consumers.
The most flagrant evidence of the constrained parameters of this culturalist diagnosis of nation/nationalism may be found in its construal of racist ideology as "the construction and naturalization of an unequal form of intercultural relations" (Ashcroft et al 1998, 46). If racism occurs only or chiefly on the level of "intercultural relations," from this constricted optic, the other parts of a given social formation (political, economic) become superfluous and marginal. Politics is then reduced to an epiphenomenal manifestation of discourse and language-games.
A virtuoso application of a culturalist contextualism may be illustrated by the legal scholar Rosemary Coombe who defends the right of the Canadian First Nations to claim "ownership" rights to certain cultural property. Coombe correctly rejects the standard procedure of universalizing the Lockean concept of property and its rationale, possessive individualism, which underlies the Western idea of authorship and authentic artefacts. She writes: "By representing cultures in the image of the undivided possessive individual, we obscure people’s historical agency and transformations, their internal differences, the productivity of intercultural contact, and the ability of peoples to culturally express their position in a wider world" (1995, 264). Although Coombe calls attention to structures of power and the systemic legacies of exclusion, the call remains abstract and consequently trivializing. Above all, it obscures the reality and effect of material inequities. The postmodernist leitmotif of domination and exclusion mystifies the operations of corporate capitalism and its current political suppression of the indigenous struggles for self-determination. Coombe ignores precisely those "internal differences" and their contradictory motion that give concrete specificity to the experiences of embattled groups such as the First Nations. Here ironically the postmodernist inflection of the nation evokes the strategy of bourgeois nationalism to erase class, gender, and other differences ostensibly in the name of contextual nuances and refined distinctions.
Notwithstanding her partisanship for the oppressed, Coombe condemns "cultural nationalism" as an expression of possessive individualism and its idealist metaphysics. But her method of empiricist contextualism contradicts any emancipatory move by the First Nations at self-determination. It hides the global asymmetry of power, the dynamics of exploitative production relations, and the hierarchy of states in the geopolitical struggle for world hegemony. We have not transcended identity politics and the injustice of cultural appropriation because the strategy of contextualism reproduces the condition for refusing to attack the causes of class exploitation and racial violence. Despite gestures of repudiating domination and exclusion, postmodernist contextualism mimics the moralizing rhetoric of United Nations humanitarianism that cannot, for the present, move beyond reformism since it continues to operate within the framework of the transnational corporate globalized market. Such a framework is never subjected to critical interrogation.
In the fashionable discourse of postmodernists, nation and nationalism are made complicit with the conduct of Western colonialism and imperialism. They become anathema to deconstructionists hostile to any revolutionary project in the "third world" inspired by emancipatory goals. This is the reason why postcolonial critics have a difficult time dealing with Fanon and his engagement with decolonizing violence as a strategic response of subjugated peoples to the inhumane violence of colonial racism and imperial subjugation. Fanon's conceptualization of a national culture is the direct antithesis to any culturalist syndrome, in fact an antidote to it, because he emphasizes the organic integration of cultural action with a systematic program of subverting colonialism: "A national culture is the whole body of efforts made by a people in the sphere of thought to describe, justify and praise the action through which that people has created itself and keeps itself in existence" (1961, 155). Discourse and power are articulated by Fanon in the dialectics of practice inscribed in the specific historical conditions of their effectivity. Fanon’s universalist-critical theory of national liberation proves itself a true "concrete universal" in that it incorporates via a dialectical sublation the richness of the particulars embodied in the Algerian revolution.
Given his historicizing method, Fanon refuses any demarcation of culture from politics and economics. Liberation is always tied to the question of property relations, the social division of labor, and the process of social reproduction–all these transvalued by the imperative of the revolutionary transformation of colonial relations. Opposed to Fanon's denunciation of "abstract populism," Said and Bhabha fetishize an abstract "people" on liminal, borderline spaces. Such recuperation of colonial hegemony via a "third space" or contrapuntal passage of negotiation reveals the comprador character of postcolonial theories of translation and cultural exchange. Transcultural syncretism devised to abolish the nation substitutes for anti-imperialist revolution a pragmatic modus vivendi of opportunist compromises.
An analogous charge can be levelled at Edward Said's reading of Fanon’s "liberationist" critique. Said locates violence in nationalist movements (unless it is "critical") since they deny the heterogeneity of pre-colonial societies by romanticizing the past. For Said, a liberationist populism is preferable to nativism and the fanatical cult of "minor differences." Said presents us a hypothetical dilemma: "Fanon's] notion was that unless national consciousness at its moment of success was somehow changed into social consciousness, the future would not hold liberation but an extension of imperialism" (1993, 323). Said thus posits a spurious antithesis between the project of national self-determination and a vague notion of social liberation. For Said, nationalism is always a tool of the hegemonic oppressor and holds no socially emancipatory potential. Said's answer evacuates Fanon's popular-democratic nationalism of all social content, postulating an entirely abstract divide between a nationalist program and a socially radical one. For Said, the violence of anticolonial movements becomes symptomatic of a profound colonial malaise.
National liberation and social justice via class struggle are interdependent. As Leopoldo Marmora observes, "While classes, in order to become predominant, have to constitute themselves as national classes, the nation arises from class struggle" (1984, 113). The popular-democratic aspiration for self-determination contains both national and social dimensions. In "On Violence," Fanon invoked the ideal of decolonizing freedom as the legitimizing rationale of mass popular revolution. It is force deployed to accomplish the political agenda of overthrowing colonial domination and bourgeois property relations. Violence here becomes intelligible as an expression of subaltern agency and its creative potential. Its meaning is crystallized in the will of the collective agent, in the movement of seizing the historical moment to realize the human potential (Lukacs 2000). If rights are violated and the violence of the violator (for example, the state) held responsible, can the concept of rights be associated with peoples and their national identities? Or is the authority of the state to exercise violence derived from the nation/people? Here we need to ascertain the distinction between the state as an instrument of class interest and the nation/people as the matrix of sovereignty. The authority of the state as regulative juridical organ and administrative apparatus with a monopoly of coercive force derives from its historical origin in enforcing bourgeois rights of freedom and equality against the absolutist monarchy. National identity is used by the state to legitimize its actions within a delimited territory, to insure mobilization and coordination of policy (Held 1992). Formally structured as a Rechststaat, the bourgeois nation-state functions to insure the self-reproduction of capital through market forces and the continuous commodification of labor power (Jessop 1982). Fanon understands that national liberation challenges the global conditions guaranteeing valorization and realization of capital, conditions in which the internationalization and nationalization of the circuits of capital are enforced by hegemonic nation-states.
We are thus faced with the notion of structural violence attached to the bourgeois state as opposed to the intentionalist mode of violence as an expression of subject/agency such as the collectivity of the people. Violence is thus inscribed in the dialectic of identity and Otherness, with the bourgeois state’s coherence depending on the subordination (if not consent) of workers and other subalterns.
We can resolve the initial paradox of the nation, a Janus-faced phenomenon (Nairn 1977), by considering the following historical background. The idea of state-initiated violence (as opposed to communal ethnic-motivated violence) performs a heuristic role in the task of historicizing any existing state authority and questioning the peaceful normalcy of the status quo. The prevailing social order is then exposed as artificial and contingent; what is deemed normal or natural reveals itself as an instrument of partial interests. But the relative permanence of certain institutional bodies and their effects need to be acknowledged in calculating political strategies. The long duration of collective and individual memories exerts its influence through the mediation of what Pierre Bourdieu calls "habitus" (1993). We begin to understand that the state's hierarchical structure is made possible because of the institutionalized violence that privileges the hegemony (moral and intellectual leadership crafted via negotiating compromises) of a bloc of classes over competing blocs and their alternative programs. Hegemony is always underwritten by coercion (open or covert, subtle or crude) in varying proportions and contingencies. The demarcated territory claimed by a state in rivalry with other states becomes for Max Weber one major pretext for the state monopoly of legitimate violence in order to defend private property and promote the overseas interests of the domestic business class (Krader 1968).
Georges Sorel argued for the demystificatory use of violence in his Reflections on Violence (1908; 1972). Sorel believed that the only way to expose the illusion of a peaceful and just bourgeois order is to propagate the myth of the general strike. Through strategic, organized violence, the proletariat is bound to succeed in releasing vast social energies hitherto repressed and directing them to the project of radical social transformation. This is still confined within the boundaries of the national entity. Open violence or war purges the body politic of hatred, prejudice, deceptions, and so on. Proletarian violence destroys bourgeois mystification and the nationalist ethos affiliated with it. Sorel's syndicalist politics of violence tries to convert force as a means to a political and social end, the process of the general strike. This politics of organized mass violence appeals to a utopian vision that displaces the means-ends rationality of bourgeois society in the fusion of force with pleasure realizable in a just, egalitarian order.
The classical Marxist view of violence rejects the mechanical calculation of means-ends that undermines the logic of Blanquist and Sorelian conceptions of social change. Marx disavowed utopian socialism in favor of the overthrow of the bourgeoisie through a combination of violent and peaceful means. Instrumentalism is subordinated to a narrative of emancipation from class bondage. The objective of emancipating labor associated with the laboring nation/people requires the exposure of commodity-fetishism and the ideology of equal exchange of values in the market. Reification and alienation in social relations account for the bourgeois state’s ascendancy. Where the state bureaucracy supporting the bourgeoisie and the standing army do not dominate the state apparatus completely (a rare case) or has been weakened, as in the case of the monarchy and the Russian bourgeoisie at the time of the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, the working class might attain their goal of class liberation by peaceful means; but in most cases,"the lever of the revolution will have to be force" harnessed by the masses unified by class consciousness and popular solidarity.
Based on their historical investigations, Marx and Engels understood the role of violence as the midwife in the birth of a new social order within the old framework of the nation-state. In his later years Engels speculated that with the changes in the ideological situation of the classes in any national territory, "a real victory of an insurrection over the military in street fighting is one of the rarest exceptions." In an unusual historic conjuncture, however, the Bolshevik revolution mobilized mass strikes and thus disproved Engels. Nevertheless, Marx’s "analytical universality," to use John Dunn’s (1979, 78) phrase, remains valid in deploying the concept of totality to comprehend the nexus of state, class and nation. We can rehearse here the issues that need to be examined from the viewpoint of totality: Was Lenin's "dictatorship of the proletariat" an imposition of state violence, or the coercive rule of the people against the class enemy? If it is an instrumental means of the new proletarian state, did it implicate the nation? Is violence here both structured into the state system of apparatuses and inscribed in the collective agency of the working masses cognized as the nation? Is the political authority invoked by the proletarian state embodied in the class interest of all those exploited by capital (in both periphery and center) ascendant over all? Marxists critical of the Leninist interpretation denounce the use of state violence as an anarchist deviation, an arbitrary application of force. They affirm instead the law-governed historical process that will inevitably transform capitalism into socialism, whatever the subjective intentions of the political protagonists involved. Such fatalism, however, rules out the intervention of a class-for-itself freed from ideological blinders and uniting all the oppressed with its moral-intellectual leadership, the cardinal axiom of socialist revolution.
Rationalist thinkers for their part reject violence as an end in itself while accepting the force of the market as normal and natural. This is epitomized by legal thinkers who contend that primordial nationalist claims should be regulated by autonomous international law, "the domain of the metajuridique" (Berman 1995). By identifying nationalism as a primitive elemental force outside the jurisdiction of positive law, the modernist legal scholar is alleged to be receptive to its experimental creativity so that new legal techniques are devised to regulate the destabilization of Europe--and, for that matter, its colonial empires--by "separatist nationalisms." The aim is to pacify the subalterns and oppressed classes by juridical and culturalist prophylactic.
As I have noted above in dealing with Fanon’s work, the nature of violence in the process of decolonization cannot be grasped by such dualistic metaphysics epitomized in the binarism of passion-versus-law. What is needed is the application of a historical materialist critique to the complex problem of national self-determination. Marxists like Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg, despite their differences, stress the combination of knowledge and practice in analyzing the balance of political forces. They contend that class struggle is a form of knowledge/action, the civil war of political groups, which can synthesize wars of position (legal, peaceful reforms) and the war of maneuver (organized frontal assault by armed masses, to use Gramsci's terminology) in the transformation of social relations in any particular nation. Violence itself can become a creative force insofar as it reveals the class bias of the bourgeois/colonial state and serves to accelerate the emergence of class consciousness and organized popular solidarity. Insofar as the force of nation/national identity distracts and prohibits the development of class consciousness, then it becomes useless for socialist transformation. In colonized societies, however, nationalism coincides with the converging class consciousness of workers, peasants, and the masses of subjugated natives that constitute the political force par excellence in harnessing violence for emancipatory goals.
From the historical-materialist perspective then, violence cannot be identified with the nation or nation-state per se under all circumstances. We need to distinguish between the two positions--the postmodern one of indiscriminate attack on all totalities (such as class, nation, etc.) premised on a syllogistic Kantian means-ends rationality, and the historical-materialist one where means/ends are dialectically calibrated in historically inventive modalities--so as to illuminate the problem of violence in this new millennium. The impasse between these two positions reflects the relation of unceasing antagonism between the bourgeoisie and the nationalities they exploit in the world system of commodity-exchange and accumulation.
On another level, the impasse may be viewed as a theoretical crux. It signifies the antinomy between agency and structure, the intentionalist-nominalist pragmatism of liberals and the structuralist views of historical materialists. The former looks at the nation as always implicated in the state while the latter considers the nation as historically separate and contingent on the vicissitudes of the class warfare. One way of trying to elucidate this contradiction is by examining Walter Benjamin's argument in "Critique of Violence" (1978).
Taking Sorel as one point of departure, Benjamin considers the use of violence as a means for establishing governance. Law is opposed to divine violence grasped as fate and the providential reign of justice. Bound up with violence, law is cognized as power, a power considered as a means of establishing order within a national boundary. The abolition of state power is the aim of revolutionary violence which operates beyond the reach of law-making force, an aspiration for justice that would spell the end of class society. Proletarian revolution resolves the means-ends instrumentalism of bourgeois politics. Violence becomes problematic when fate/justice, once deemed providential, eludes our grasp with the Babel of differences blocking communication and also aggrandizing particularisms found below the level of the nation-form and its international, not to say cosmopolitan, possibilities.
Violence is only physical force divorced from its juridical potency. Benjamin's thesis may be more unequivocal than the academically fashionable Foucauldian view of subsuming violence in power relations. It takes a more scrupulous appraisal of the sectarian limitations as well as empowering possibilities of violence in the context of class antagonisms. While the issue of nationalist violence is not explicitly addressed in his essay, Benjamin seeks to explore the function of violence as a creator and preserver of law, a factor intricately involved in the substance of normative processes. Benjamin writes: "Lawmaking is powermaking, and, to that extent, an immediate manifestation of violence. Justice is the principle of all divine end making, power the principle of all mythical lawmaking" (1978, 295). Lawmaking mythical violence can be contested only by divine power, which today, according to Benjamin, is manifested in "educative power, which in its perfected form stands outside the law." Benjamin is not entirely clear about this "educative power," but I think it can only designate the influence of the family and other agencies in civil society not regulated by the traditional state apparatuses. In another sense, Benjamin alludes to "the proper sphere of understanding, language," which makes possible the peaceful resolution of conflicts. Since language is intimately linked with the national community, national consciousness contradicts the disruptive effects of violence in its capacity to resolve antagonisms.
Benjamin goes on to investigate violence embodied in the state (as contradistinguished from the national community) through a process of demystification. Critique begins by disclosing the idea of its development, its trajectory of ruptures and mutations, which in turn exposes the fact that all social contract depends on a lie, on fiction. "Justice, the criterion of ends," supersedes legality, "the criterion of means." Justice is the reign of communication which, because it excludes lying, excludes violence. In effect, violence is the mediation that enables state power to prevail. It cannot be eliminated by counter-violence that simply inverts it. Only the educative power of language, communication associated with the national collectivity, can do away with the need to lie. But since the social contract displaces justice as the end of life with legality connected with the state, and law is required as an instrument to enforce the contract, violence continues to be a recurrent phenomenon in a commodity-centered society.
Benjamin is silent about the nation and the efficacy of popular sovereignty in this text. His realism seeks to clarify the historic collusion between law, violence, and the state. He wants to resolve the philosophical dualism of means and ends that has bedevilled liberal rationalism and its inheritors, pragmatism and assorted postmodernist nominalisms. His realism strives to subordinate the instrumentality of violence to law, but eventually he dismisses law as incapable of realizing justice. But we may ask: how can justice--the quest for identity without exclusion/inclusion, without alterity--be achieved in history if it becomes some kind of intervention by a transcendent power into the secular domain of class struggle? How can justice be attained as an ideal effect of communication? Perhaps through language as mediated in the nation-form, in the web of discourse configuring the nation as a community of speakers (San Juan 2000b), the nation as the performance of groups unified under the aegis of struggle against oppression and exploitation?
Benjamin’s speculation on the reconciling charisma of language seems utopian in the pejorative sense. Peoples speaking the same language (e.g., Northern Ireland, Colombia, North and South Korea) continue to be locked in internecine conflict. If violence is inescapable in the present milieu of reification and commodity-fetishism, how can we use it to promote dialogue and enhance the resources of the oppressed for liberation? In a seminal essay on "Nationalism and Modernity," Charles Taylor underscores the modernity of nationalism in opposition to those who condemn it as atavistic tribalism or a regression to primordial barbarism. In the context of modernization, Taylor resituates violence in the framework of the struggle for recognition–nationalism "as a call to difference,…lived in the register of threatened dignity, and constructing a new, categorical identity as the bearer of that dignity" (1999, 240).
What needs to be stressed here is the philosophical underpinning of the struggle for recognition and recovery of dignity. It invokes clearly the Hegelian paradigm of the relation between lord and bondsman in The Phenomenology of Mind. In this struggle, the possibility of violence mediates the individual’s discovery of his finite and limited existence, his vulnerability, and his need for community. Piotr Hoffman’s gloss underlines the Hegelian motif of freedom as risk: "Violence …is the necessary condition of my emergence as a universal, communal being…for I can find common ground with the other only insofar as both of us can endure the mortal danger of the struggle and can thus think independently of a blind attachment to our particular selves" (1989, 145). Since the nation evokes sacrifice, the warrior’s death on the battlefield, honor, self-transcendence, destiny, the state seeks to mobilize such nation-centered feelings and emotions to legitimize itself as a wider, more inclusive, and less artificial reality to attain its own accumulative goals. Weber reminds us: "For the state is the highest power organization on earth, it has power over life and death…. A mistake comes in, however, when one speaks of the state alone and not of the nation" (quoted in Poggi 1978, 101).
The nationalist struggle for recognition and the violence of anticolonial revolutions thus acquire a substantial complexity in the context of modernity, the fact of uneven development, and the vicissitudes of capitalist crisis. In any case, whatever the moral puzzles entailed by the plural genealogies of the nation-state, it is clear that a dogmatic pacifism is no answer to an effective comprehension of the real world and purposeful intervention in it. Given the continued existence of nation-states amidst the increasing power of transnational corporations in a geopolitical arena of sharpening rivalry, can we choose between a "just" and an "unjust" war when nuclear weapons that can destroy the whole planet are involved? Violence on such a scale obviously requires the dialectical transcendence of the system of nation-states in the interest of planetary justice and survival.
Overall, the question of violence cannot be answered within the framework of the Realpolitik of the past but only within the framework of nation-states living in mutual reciprocity. Causality, however, has to be ascertained and responsibility assigned even if the nation is construed as "an interpretive construct" (Arnason 1990, 230). My view is that the hegemonic bloc of classes using the capitalist state machinery is the crux of the problem. If nations have been manipulated by states dominated by possessive/acquisitive classes that have undertaken and continue to undertake colonial and imperial conquests, then the future of humanity and all living organisms on earth can be insured only by eliminating those classes that are the origin of state violence. The nation-form can then be reconstituted and transcended to insure that it will not generate reasons or opportunities for state-violence to recur. That will be the challenge for future revolutionaries.
REFERENCES
Anderson, Benedict. 1991. Imagined Communities. Verso: London.
Arnason, Johann. 1990. "Nationalism, Globalization and Modernity." In Global Culture. Ed. Mike Featherstone. London: Sage Publications.
Ashcroft, Bill, Gareth Griffiths, and Helen Tiffin. 1998. Key Concepts in Post-Colonial Studies. New York: Routledge.
Balibar, Etienne and Immanuel Wallerstein. 1991. Race, Nation, Class. London Verso.
Benjamin, Walter. 1978. Reflections. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Berman, Nathaniel. 1995. "Modernism, Nationalism and the Rhetoric of Reconstruction." In After Identity. New York: Routledge.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1993. The Field of Cultural Production. New York: Columbia University Press.
Bowle, John. 1947. Western Political Thought. London: Methuen.
Brown, Michael. 1986. The Production of Society. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.
Coombe, Rosemary. 1995. "The Properties of Culture and the Politics of Possessing Identity: Native Claims in the Cultural Appropriation Controversy." In After Identity. Ed. Dan Danielsen and Karen Engle. New York: Routledge.
Dunn, John. 1979. Western Political Theory in the Face of the Future. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Fanon, Frantz. 1961. The Wretched of the Earth. New York: Grove Press.
Gellner, Ernest. 1983. Nations and Nationalism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Giddens, Anthony. 1985. The Nation-State and Violence. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
---. 1987. Social Theory and Modern Society. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Held, David. 1992. "The Development of the Modern State." In Formations of Modernity. Ed. Stuart Hall and Bram Gieben. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Hoffman, Piotr. 1989. Violence in Modern Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Howard, Michael. 1991. The Lessons of History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jessop, Bob. 1982. The Capitalist State.
Krader, Lawrence. 1968. Formation of the State. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Lukacs, Georg. 2000. In Defense of History and Class Consciousness. London: Verso.
Marmora, Leopoldo. 1984. "Is There a Marxist Theory of Nation?" In Rethinking Marx. Ed. Sakari Hanninen and Leena Paldan. New York: International General.
Ollman, Bertell. 1993. Dialectical Investigations. New York: Routledge.
Poggi, Gianfranco. 1978. The Development of the Modern State. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
Polanyi, Karl. 1957. The Great Transformation. Boston: Beacon Press.
Said, Edward. 1993. Culture and Imperialism. London: Chatto & Windus.
San Juan, E. 2000a. After Postcolonialism. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
-----. 2000b. "Bakhtin: Uttering the ‘(Into)nation of the Nation/People." In Bakhtin and the Nation. Ed. San Diego Bakhtin Circle. Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press.
Sassen, Saskia. 1998. Globalization and Its Discontents. New York: The New Press.
Smith, Anthony. 1971. Theories of Nationalism. New York: Harper.
-----. 1979. Nationalism in the Twentieth Century. New York: New York University Press.
Sorel, Georges. 1906 (1972). Reflections on Violence. New York: Macmillan.
Taylor, Charles. 1999. "Nationalism and Modernity." In Theorizing Nationalism. Ed. Ronald Beiner. New York: SUNY Press.
Tilly, Charles. 1975. "Western State-Making and Theories of Political Transformation." In The Formation of National States in Western Europe. Ed. Charles Tilly. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.