TUNGKOL SA PANULAT NI EFREN ABUEG

 

ULIRANG HALIMBAWA NI EFREN ABUEG: Tungo sa Mapagpalayang Sining

ni E. San Juan, Jr.


Kamakailan, bago ipinawalan ang “Morong 43” na biktima ng AFP/PNP terorismo, tinangkang bumisita sa kanila habang nakapiit sa Camp Bagong Diwa, Taguig, ang isang grupo ng makata at pintor. Nais ng Defend-ST, Artists Arresst, at Kilometer 64 na magdaos ng workshop para sa mga bilanggo. Bagamat may pahintulot sa BJMP-Capitol Region, hindi sila pinahintulutan ng jail warden. Ipinagbawalan. Mapanganib ang sining. Di lamang nakapupukaw, nakagagambala pa.

Walang lusot ang mga dumaramay. Bukod sa marahas na strip search na bati ng mga guwardiya, kinumpiska ng mga awtoridad ang lahat ng babasahin. Kinunan ng litrato ang mga alagad ng sining, inimbestiga at pinagtatatanong. Itinuring ang mga dalaw na mga kriminal (ulat ni Ronalyn Olea, Bulatlat, 5 Oktubre 2010). Sinamsam ang ilang babasahin kritikal sa rehimeng Arroyo. Sindak at takot ang naghari.

Sa malas, hindi ito nakagugulat. Noong bungad ng dekada 80, nakabisita ako sa ilang bilanggong pulitikal sa Bicutan; ganoon din ang trato sa mga kamag-anak ng mga detenido. Ngunit ngayon, ang mga manunulat at pintor ay pinaghihinalaang peligroso. Kung nagkataong may sipi sila ng nobela ni Efren Abueg, Mga Kaluluwa sa Kumunoy (UP Press, 2004), tiyak na kumpiskado iyon. Walang lusot ang anumang lathalang may pulitikal o panlipunang bira. Tulad ng akda ni Abueg. Iyon ay matapang at matalas na protesta sa inhustisya at pagsasamantala ng mga uring parasitiko sa mga militanteng manggagawa’t makabayang mamamayan, tulad ng 43 mediko’t narses na ikinulong sa bintang na sila’y kasapi ng New People’s Army ng walang batayan.
Si Abueg ay matapat na kapanalig ng mga tagapagtanggol ng kalayaan at karapatang pantao.

Sa kasalukuyang salinlahi, marahil hindi kilala si Abueg. Nais kong sipiin ang ilang datos mula sa librong Sampaksaan ng Mga Nobelistang Tagalog(1974):  
Ipinanganak sa Cavite noong Marso 1937, si Abueg ay nagtapos ng komersiyo at M.A. sa MLQ University. Tumanyag siya mula noong 1954, nang magkamit ng maraming gantimpala ang mga kuwentong “Mapanglaw ang Mukha ng Buwan” (1959), “Mabangis na Lunsod” (1961), “Sa Bagong Paraiso” (1963), at “Dugo sa Ulo ni Cerbo” (1965). Itinanghal ang kanyang “Ang Kamatayan ni Tiyo Samuel” na pinakamahusay na kuwento ng taong 1967, pati ang kanyang masining na nobela, Dilim sa Umaga,” sa pagtataguyod ng lingguhang Liwayway. Pwedeng banggitin dito ang pamagat ng iba pang premyadong nobela ni Abueg: Sa Muling Pagsilang ng Isang Pangarap, Dugo sa Kayumangging Lupa, at Habagat sa Lupa.

Bukod sa mga gawaing pamamatnugot ng magasing Moden Bulaklak at iba pang aklat, kilala na si Abueg bilang lider ng mga kabataang umaklas sa tradisyon makaluma noong dekada 50/60. Nangulo siya sa mga samahang KADIPAN at KAMPI. Naging editor at ko-awtor siya ng makabagong panitik na itinipon sa koleksiyong Mga Agos sa Disyerto (1964), at iba pang kalipunan. Sa aking palagay, batay sa tala ng kanyang mga handog sa sining at kalinangang Pilipino, karapat-dapat gawing “National Artist” si Abueg. Kung ihahambing sa ibang may hawak ng karatulang iyon, si Abueg ay nakahihigit. Sa kabilang dako, hindi katungkulan ng pambansang manunulat lamang ang naganap ni Abueg kundi ang pagiging tagapamansag at konsiyensiya ng sangkatauhan—isang karangalang maigagawad lamang ng masa sa bawat lupalop ng daigdig.

Sa paningin ko, ang mga akda ni Abueg ay mapanuri’t prismatikong salamin ng tunggalian ng mga uri sa isang neokolonyang sakop ng U.S. Sa “Kamatayan ni Tiyo Samuel,” (kalakip sa antolohiyang Hiyas ng Panitikang Pilipino, Bookmark, 1991), sinikap ni Abueg na ilarawan ang maigting na sagupaan ng mga uri sa lipunan noong bago ipataw ng diktaduryang Marcos ang “martial law” noong 1972. Hinarap ni Abueg ang pinakatampok na suliranin ng manunulat sa panahon ng krisis ng imperyalismong U.S.: paano mahuhulli ng imahinasyon ang prosesong istorikal, paano mailalangkap ang katotohanan ng realidad, ang diwa o konsepto ng katotohanan, sa mimetikong paraang gamit sa literature?


Sukat at Timbang

Ang metodo ni Abueg ay hindi mekanikal na imitasyon o direktong repleksyon ng kapaligiran. Iyon ang bintang ng mga reaksyonaryo sa mga akdang may kamalayang panlipunan. Hindi iyon simpleng gagad sa lantad ng mga pangyayaring nakapalibot, kundi analisis ng mga particular na detalye upang maipagkabit-kabit sa isang mapagbuong iskema ng dinamikong proseso sa lipunan. Sa huling pagtataya, ang metodo ni Abueg ay magkalangkap na realistikong larawan ng mga tauhan at pangyayari, at alegorikong pahiwatig ng batas ng galaw ng mga puwersa sa lipunan.  

Sandaling ituon ang pansin sa kuwentong “Kamatayan.” Ikinintal ng awtor ang tunggalian nina Tiyo Samuel (pinagtambal na sagisag sa kolonyalismong U.S. at Espanya), Felipe at Ligaya sa gitna ng mga demonstrasyong at kilusang makabayan. Tila pantasiya ang daluyong ng madlang nakikipagtagisan, pahatid sa bungad ng kwento: “Sa kanyang balisang magdamag ay isa-isang sumulpot sa silid na iyon ang daan-daang lalaki at babae…” Tila baga ang lakas ng masa, na nararamdaman sa ingay, dagsa, at pakikisalamuha, ay tanda ng sikolohikong danas ng protagonista. Sa kasukdulan ng daloy ng naghalong idea at damdamin sa kamalayan, gumising si Felipe sa katunayan ng kanyang pagrebelde at pagpatay sa patriyarkong Tiyo na tumutol sa pag-uugnay nina Felipe at Ligaya dahil sa posisyong panlipunan ayon sa kulay ng balat. Ang aktuwal na pagpaslang sa lumang orden ay inilarawan bilang isang drama sa kamalayan.

Sa gayon, naisiwalat ni Abueg ang saligan ng ideolohiya (kamalayan) sa kongkretong relasyon ng mga uri sa paghahanap-buhay. Bagamat sikolohikal ang antas na sinubaybayan, estilo ng modernistang nobela nina Proust, Faulkner, at Joyce, masinop na inilahad ng awtor kung paano ginamit ni Tiyo Samuel ang minanang lupa, ang piyudal na pag-aari, upang mapalaki ang kapitalistang negosyong kaakibat ng banyagang interes. Ngunit ang puwersang kumakatawan sa abstraktong oposisyon ng kapital at lakas-paggawa ay masisinag sa pagbabawal ni Tiyo Samuel na magpatuloy ang pagdadalang-tao ni Ligaya, at ang pagpipilit na tumiwalag si Felipe dahil sa ang balat ni Felipe ay mestiso, at si Ligaya at kaymanggi. Ang rasistang dahilang ito, na sumalungat sa pagtanggap ng pananagutan ni Felipe, ay pinagdumiin sa banta ng aborsiyon. “Aalisin natin ang sanggol na ‘yan,” sigaw ni Tiyo Samuel. Iyan ay katibayan na ang hidwaan ng uri sa lipunan ay siyang nagbibigay-determinasyon o katuturan sa personal na pakikibaka ng bawat tao. 

Sa panitik ni Abueg, ang kamalayan ni Felipe (simbolo ng uring nagmamana ng lupa’t kapital) ay hindi maibubukod sa kinabibilangang henerasyon. Kaya di kataka-taka na sa sandaling pumagitan si Tiyo Samuel sa ugnayan nina Feipe at Ligaya, sumingit ang imahen ng mga pulutong, imahen ng tunggalian at tagisan, komprontasyon ng mamamayan at kapangyarihan ng Estado: “Nakarinig siya [Felipe] ng kaingayan, ng sigawan, ng takbuhan. Nakarinig siya ng sipol ng mga sirena, nakarinig siya ng putok ng mga rebolber….” Hindi na nag-iisa si Felipe, kakawing o kasanib na siya ng madlang may pulitikal na kamalayan at direksiyon, kaya nakuha niyang igupo ang istruktura ng patriyarkong kapitalismo’t piyudalismo, si Tiyo Samuel. Mahuhugot ang mungkahing kongklusyon: kolektibismong aksiyon, hindi indibiwalismo, ang sagot sa terorismo ng Estado at imperyalismo.

Batid na ng mambabasa na ang perspektiba ko ay nag-uugat sa isang historikal na pagsulong ng bayan. Ang paraang ito ng pagpapakahulugan ay naiiba sa karaniwang hirit sa mass medya. Ito ay taliwas sa pormalistikong panunuri na laganap noong dekada 50 at 60. Itinuro ng mga Amerikanistang akademiko sa U.P. at Ateneo ang “New Criticism” ng Kanluran, na laban sa progresibo’t istorikal na pananaw. Namayani ito sa turo at gawi ng mga manunulat sa Ingles—sina Nick Joaquin, NVM Gonzalez, Manuel Viray, Edilberto Tiempo, Franz Arcellana, atbp.—mga kinilalang arbiter ng lasa sa sining at panitikan. Base sa kontrakdisiyong naglalaban, hinamon ito ng nasyonalistiko’t demokratikong pangangatwiran nina Salvador P. Lopez, Amado Hernandez,Teodoro Agoncillo, Renato Constantino, at mga kasapi sa KADIPAN, KAPPIL, PLUMA, PAKSA, at iba pang organisasyon.  

Lumabas ang mga sanaysay kong laban sa formalismo at idealistang estetika noong 1970, The Radical Tradition in Philippine Liberature. Bago ideklara ni Marcos ang martial law, sumunod naman ang Carlos Bulosan and the Imagination of the Class Struggle (1972). Bunga ito ng pagbabanyuhay ng kilusang nasyonalismong pinamunuan nina Claro Recto, Lorenzo Tanada, Jose Diokno, at Jose Maria Sison. Nang sulatin ni Abueg at “Tiyo Samuel,” sampu ng nobelang Mga Kaluluwa sa Kumunoy (inilathala sa Philippines Free Press noong 1970), nakaungos na ang diyalektikong sintesis ng realismo at mala-alegorikong pagsasalaysay. Ang rebolusyonaryong simbolismo ni Abueg ay hindi na idiyosinkratiko. Bukod kay Abueg, mababanggit ang mga akda nina Bienvenido Lumbera, Jose Lacaba, Ricky Lee, Ave Perez Jacob, Rogelio Mangahas, at Lualhati Bautista na kumakasangkapan sa mga estetikong pamamaraang masasaksihan sa mga panitik nina Bertolt Brecht, Aime Cesaire, Maxim Gorky, Pablo Neruda, Sean O’Casey, John Dos Passos, Lu Hsun, at Nazim Hikmet. Bago 1972, naikalat na ang pedagohikal na aral ng materyalismong pangkasaysayan sa larangan ng ideolohiyang nagtatagisan sa lipunan.

Dilim sa Umaga: Isang Pagsasanay

Ang aral na iyon ay unang naisakatuparan sa matagumpay na analisis at sintesis sa nobela ni Abueg, Dilim sa Umaga, unang gantimpala ng Liwayway, 1967. Sa isang balik-pananaw, ito ay pagsasanay sa Mga Kaluluwa—may mga karakter na tila dress rehearsal nina Ligaya, Bayani, Antero at iba pa sa huling akda. Sa ibang pagkakataon, dudulutan ko ng masusing pagsusuri ang Dilim. Sa ngayon, sapat na ang sipiin ko ang temang ipinahayag sa “blurb” ng lathala: 

Hinabi sa kontrobersiyal na Philippine-Japanese Treaty on Amity, Navigation and Commerce, ang Dilim ay naghahantad ng iba’t ibang tauhang ang mga personalidad at paninindigan ay nagtutunggali….
Sa tunggallian ng mga tauhang ng nobela nilinaw ang relasyon ng Pilipinas at Amerika, ang sanhi ng kawalan ng dayalogo ng magulang at anak, ang hipokrisya ng ipinagkakamaling moralidad, ang “brain-washed” na kaisipan ng mga Pilipino, at ang dahilan ng kawalan ng pananalig ng karaniwang mamamayan sa gobyerno. Bukod sa rito, ang nobela ay nagbabala ng kahahantugan ng industriya ng Pilipinas kapag “bumaha” sa buong kapuluan ang produktong Hapones (Abueg 1968)

Sa Dilim, ang metamorposis ni Antero Magdalo, isang petiburgis na intelektuwal kababalik mula sa U.S., ang temang naitampok. Ito ay problemang pang-indibidwal na sinala’t hinimay kaakitbat ng iba pang masalimuot na problemang sosyal. Sa Mga Kaluluwa, ang sentro ng mga kontradiksiyong tinitistis ay nakapaloob sa usaping pangkakababaihan at kasarian. Nilagom sa triyanggulong sitwasyon ni Ligaya, ang kasintahang si Bayani, at si Atty Manuel Bontoc ang masidhing kontrakdisyon ng neokolonyalismo, korupsiyon, dahas ng Estado, at hidwaan sa hanay ng mga aktibista at saray ng mga panggitnang elemento sa lipunan. Nagtapos ito sa pagtatagumpay ni Bayani at pagkabulusok ni Manuel sa kahayupan—kapwa naisakatuparan sa ibabaw ng bangkay ni Ligaya. Samakatwid, ang sakripisyo ng kababaihan ang kabayaran o katumbasan ng pagpapatuloy ng sistemang bulok, katotohanang hanggang ngayon ay di matanggap ng nakararami.

Ngunit ang pangyayaring iyon ay isang “multiplicity” --ayon sa pilosopiya ni Alain Badiou ( 1992, 2003)-- na maraming bunga o patutunguhan, batay sa kung matapat ang lakas ng taong magpahalaga sa potensiyal ng pangyayari. Alalaong baga, bukas ang hinaharap, maraming posibilidad, katugma ng dunong at galing ng masa sa paglikha ng makatao’t malayang kinabukasan. Sa isang pangyayari, maraming landas ang nabubuksan, depende sa praktika ng taong lumalahok at nakikipaglaban.

Sa aking palagay, natatangi ang Mga Kaluluwa ni Abueg sanhi sa tatlong sangkap na bumubuo sa integridad ng akda. Una, ang pagtatanghal sa lakas ng kababaihan sa ironikong hugis. Pangalawa, ang komplikadong sitwasyon ng intelektwal sa kilusang saklaw ang manggagawa’t panggitnang saray. Pangatlo, ang bagong artikulasyon ng alegorikal na naratibo na hindi na matagumpay na nagdudugtong sa sagisag at katalagahan, tulad ng ipinamarali ng Ingles na kritikong si Coleridge na ang simbolismo ay organikong bahagi ng kabuuan na isinisiwalat nito. Kaiba na ang alegorikong istratehiya sa nobelang ito: iantad ang agwat ng nais at danas. Kailangan palagi ang praxis ng kritikang pagsubok at gawa.

Bago ko talakayin ang natukoy na mga katangian, nais ko munang punahin ang matiyaga’t mahusay na sanaysay ni Loline M. Antillon. Sa kanyang “Kabalintunaan: Pangunahing Paksa ng Buhay at Sining sa mga Piling Kuwento ni Efren R. Abueg” (kasama sa kalipunang Panunuring Pampanitikan: Mga Nagwagi sa Gawad Surian sa Sanaysay (1984), pinamatnugutuan ni Aurora Batnag, ipinakita ni Antillon ang tema ng kabalintunaan sa ilang kuwento ni Abueg, kasama na ang “Tiyo Samuel.” Ang temang ito ay hangaw sa Kanluraning vogue na inspirado nina Kierkegaard at Heidegger noong dekada 50 at 60 ng Cold War. Limitado at mapanlinlang ang kategoryang ito.

Suriin muna ang istorikal na konteksto ng ideoloyohiyang ito. Namayani ang eksistensyalismo bilang paradigmatikong trend sa Europa, at naging tanyag ang mga panitik nina Albert Camus, Jean Paul Sartre, at ang “theater of the absurd” nina Ionesco, Artaud, atbp. Ang mga sinanguning aklat ni Antillon, tulad ng mga aklat nina Fraser at Esslin, ay pawang tumutukoy as alyenasyon sa lipunang kapitalista sa Europa. Iniangat iyon sa antas na yunibersal na katayuan ng lahat. Ngunit sa halip na sikaping matarok ang puno’t dulo ng alyenasyong ito sa kawalan ng makataong direksyon sa produksyon at pamamahagi ng kayamanang panlipunan, iginiit na ang sanhi ng problema sa buhay ay isprituwal at panloob na pagbabago. Walang kinalaman ang paghahati ng tao sa mayaman o mahirap. Walang kinalaman ang pag-aari, salapi, kontrol ng gobyerno, atbp. Ibig sabihin, nakaugat ang alyenasyon sa kalikasan ng tao, hindi sa kanyang relasyong sosyal o istorikal. Samakatwid, walang kalutasan kundi metapisikal o transcendental na solusyon—halimbawa na ang ortodoksiya nina T.S. Eliot, Northrop Frye, o nina Heidegger, Nietzsche, at Deleuze. 

Walang pasubali, kontra-rebolusyonaryo ang kilusang eksistensiyalismong iyon. Kaakibat ng propaganda ng Cold War laban sa Marxismo at sekular na pananaw, ang eksistensiyalismo ay tutol sa anumang pagbabagong materyal sa lipunan upang malunasan ang alyenasyon. Anti-masa iyon, sapagkat indibidwalistiko ang pagtingin sa sitwasyong panlipunan. Maaaring may bahid o tendensiyang eksistensiyal sa sitwasyong pangkabuhayan sa ilang kwento ni Abueg tulad ng “Dugo sa Estero.” Ngunit sa maingat na pagsasaliksik, ang mga tauhan at kalagayan nila ay hindi maihihiwalay sa kongkretong sitwasyon ng mga pinagsamantalahan at binusabos, mga taong nabubuhay sa isang takdang lugar at panahon. Ang masasalat, nararamdaman at tiyak na katangiang iyon ang nagbibigay-laman sa abstrakto at metapisikal na tema ng kabalintunaan.

Pansamantalang Pagbulatlat

Ang eksistensiyal na situwasyon sa mga akda ni Abueg ay tahasang sosyal at historikal. Ang pangatlong katangiang nabanggit ko sa una ay masisilip sa bagong ambil ng alegorya sa nobela. Ayon kay Walter Benjamin, ang alegorya ang siyang nagtuturo sa atin na anumang bagay sa kapitalistang lipunan ay laging hiwalay sa totalidad na kinalalagyan, at hindi madaling mailalapat ang pangyayari sa ipinahihiwatig nito. Sa ibang salita, walang transedental o mahimalang tugon sa naghaharing di-pagkatugma o pagkaalanganin ng mga bagay at katuturan/halaga nito. Sa nobela, ang magandang halimbawa ng kabalighuan ay nasa wakas nito.

Binigti ni Manuel si Marilou—sa galit o pag-ibig? Totoong ang pasistang dahas ay may erotikong sangkap na nakalilito. Ngunit ang pagpaslang kay Marilou ay katuparan ng higanti ni Manuel sa kataksilan ng babae, samantalang sa isip ni Marilou, ang kamatayan niya ang kaligtasan ng kasintahan: “Kung gayon ay tapos na ang lahat. May hangganan ang pisikal na paghihirap; may wakas ang katatagan at kagitingan. Hindi bale, Bayani. Nakaganti ka na. Babalikan ka na nga mga dati mong kasama!” Tinutukoy ang pagbibilad ng mga dokumentong pinuslit ni Ligayat at siyang magpapatunay sa kabulukan ng sistema. Alegoriko ang bisyon ng materyalismong istorikal sa nobela sapagkat sa halip na kalmadong resolusyon ng digmaan ng samut-saring uri, damdamin at adhika, ibinabato sa atin ang malaking agwat sa pagitan ng intensiyon at katuparan. Tiyak na hindi mapapalagay ang loob ng mambabasa na makatuwiran at maayos na ang lahat.

Pangalawang katangian: ang sitwasyon ni Bayani Maglalang ay may bisa’t katuturan lamang dahil sa katalinuhan at sakripisyo ng petiburgis na katulong, si Ligaya. Kung nag-iisa, sakmal ito ng mga balisa, pagdududa, tulad ng iba pang petiburgesyang nahumaling sa paniwalang may sabwatang dapat niyang ibunyag at igupo. (Walang puwang dito upang himayin ang syndrome ng “conspiracy theory” na nakasentro sa naratibo ni Abueg.) Ang intelektwal-aktibista ay naliliman din ni Antero Magdalo, Max at Armando at iba pang kasapi sa unyon na saksi sa karupukan ni Bayani. Tila suwerte ang pagkaligtas ni Bayani, sa tulong pa ng puwersa ng Estadong binabatikos niya. Mahusay at malalim ang paglalarawang ito ng isang kalagayang matatagpuan pa rin sa kilusan ngayon.

Hinggil naman sa pangunang katangian: Ang usapin ng kababaihan. Walang pasubaling si Ligaya ay martir o nasawi sa bigat ng martyr-complex nito. Ngunit hindi ba siya ang tunay na bayani na isinaisantabi ang sariling kapakanan upang masagip ang kasintahan at maisulong ang progresibong layunin? Bagamat ang birtud ni Ligaya ay matalinong pagkuha’t pagsalin ng mga dokumentong ibinulgar ni Bayani, namayani pa rin ang nakagawiang asal. Marahil, magagalit ang mga peminista sa paglalarawan ng kaisipan ni Ligaya sa bahaging ito sa huling dako ng nobela:

Kunwa’ napahikbi siya, ngunit pinigil niya kaagad. Alam niyang isang mabisang kasangkapan iyon ng isang babae para palambutin ang kalooban ng isang lalaki….Naisip niyang iyon nga lamang ang kapangyarihan ng isang babae. At babae nga lamang siya. At hindi isang tao na may mga karapatangh iginagalang (2004, 63).  

Maimumungkahi ko dito na ang bangkay ni Ligaya ang siyang matimtimang sagot sa sumbat na kulang ang panunuri ni Abueg sa seksismo at machismo. Ang walang buhay na katawan ni Ligaya ang testigo din na hanggang hindi nagtatamasa ng kapantayan ang kababaihan, hindi matatamo ang tunay na kasarinlan at demokrasyang pambansa. Wika nga, sila ang sumusuhay sa kalahating bahagi ng langit. Si Ligaya, ang babae, ang may hawak at may ugit sa panaginip na siyang luklukan ng utopyang dalumat: “….Umaawi’t sila, sumisigaw, ipinangangakong magtatatag sila ng panibagong sambayanang miltante, masisipag, makatwiran, makabayan at maka-Lumikha” (2004, 63). Laging sumusungaw ang imahen ng madlang nakikibaka sa puwang ng sikolohikal na agam-agam at pagkakawatak-watak ng diwa.

Alegorikong teknik katalik ng temang rebolusyon at radikal na pagbabago: ito ang malamang paksang walang espasyo rito upang matalakay nang masinsinan. Kahawig nito ang madarama sa mga pelikula, TV telenobela, komiks, at iba pang popular na aliwan, na nagpapangko ng kasiyahan sa dulo ng mapanganib na pakikipagsapalaran. Walang duda na ang sining, at lahat ng gawaing pang-aliw, ay dominante ng profit-motive o komersiyal na layunin sa panahon ng kapitalismong global. Patunay nito ang paggawad kay Carlo Caparas ng bansag na“National Artist” ng rehimeng Arroyo. Ito ay tinutulan ni Virgilio Almario na isang pang-uuyam sa gantimpalang dangal. Ngunit kakatwa ito sapagkat ang tagapagtanggol na pormalistikong islogan ng sining-para-sa-sining ay siya mismong nakalubog sa pagtitinda ng estetikong komoditi, laluna mga ipagbibiling teksbuk ng tula sa paaralang publiko at mga iba’t ibat babasahin at bilihan para sa mga kabataan. Pwedeng maging popular o pangmasa ang makaelitistang produkto, bakit hindi? Walang National Artist na hindi nabahiran ng alyenasyon, petisismong pang-komoditi, at komersiyalisasyon sa neokolonya.

Wala akong hangad na siraan ang dangal ng mga National Artist ngayon, o pumanig sa anumang birtud ni Caparas. Ang nais ko’y linawin ang kamaliang nakapaloob sa puna ni Almario laban kay Caparas na inilahad sa “Bakit Panitikan ang Panikikan,” isang polemikong banat laban sa kaliwa, laban sa nasyonalistiko’t progresibong hanay. Baka makatulong ito sa debate at talakayan tungkol sa pagkakaiba ng dalawang magkaaway na pananaw: panitikan-para-sa-panitikan at pantikan-para sa masa. Walang saysay ang mga katagang iyon kundi inilalagay sa konteksto ng panahon, lugar, diskurso, mga kalahok na nag-uusap o nagpapalitang-kuro.

Estetikang Radikal

Pangunahing aksiyoma sa isip ni Marx ang taguring “species-being” ng bawat nilalang. Sa gawa at paghubog sa kalikasan, nalilikha ng tao ang kanyang sarili sa bawat antas ng panahon. Sa gawa o praxis, walang nasasayang na dunong o kakayahan, kahit na hindi palaging tuwid ang takbo ng kasaysayan. Nang sabihin ni Marx na may halaga pa ang sining ng sibilisasyong Griyego bagamat industriyalisado na tayo, hindi ito nangangahulugan na walang kinalaman ang ugnayan sa produksiyon. Sa dalawang panig, ang ugnayan ng produksiyong nakasalalay sa trabaho ng mga alipin noong panahon nina Plato at Sophocles, at ang ugnayang piyudal/merkantil na negosyo noong panahon ng mga nagpuri sa Griyegong sibilisasyon, ang mga iskolar sa Italya, Alemanya at Pransiya ng Renaissance.

Ang ideolohiya ng Kanluran sa yugto ng merkantil-kapital ng Siglo XV-XVI—noong Renaisssance-- ang nagbigay-halaga at bighani sa sining ng mga Griyego bilang identidad ng kolonyalistang puti sa harap ng mga sinupil na lahing may kulay sa Aprika, Latin Amerika, at Asya. Bukod dito, inangkin din ng burgesyang uri ang natuklasang “species-being” na inihayag sa sinaunang sining at panitik—na pwedeng magamit din ng proletaryado kapag nagwagi ang lipunang walang uri. Gayundin ang Angkor Wat at Darangan—kailangang purihin ang bighani ng mga ito upang pangalagaan ang bisa ng herarkiya sa lipunan. kahit na may sariling katangiang pansining ang mga ito. Samakatwid, ang estetika ng Angkor Wat, Homer at trahedyang Griyego, o Darangan ay bunga ng relasyong sosyal—ng kanilang pinagmulan at ng nanunuri at nagbibigay-dangal dito. Ang ugat ng halaga ng kultura (sining, panitikan) ay panlipunang pangangailangan at pag-unlad ng lakas ng tao sa kasaysayan. 
Dapat ding tandaan na mahigpit na turo nina Marx at Engels na walang tuwirang mekanikal na paralelismo ang ideolohiya (sining, panitik) at relasyon sa produksiyon. Kaya mali ang sabihing diretsong nadidiktahan ng ugnayan sa produksyong ekonomiko ang sining. Laging may agwat o distansiya ang dalawa, pagsulong na baluktot o baku-bako (“uneven development”). Kung hindi, paano maituturing na progresibo ang sining ng aristokratang si Balzac o si Tolstoy, ayon kay Lenin? Sa kabilang dako, ang pulitikang larang—ang tunggalian ng mga uri—ay mas nakaniniig sa diwa at kamalayan ng manunulat, kaya hindi ito may absolutong kasarinlan. 
Dapat idiin na talagang kumplikado ang diyalektikang ugnayan ng ideolohiya, pulitika, at ekonomika. Kaya bagamat tubo o yaman ang pangunahing hangad ng mga negosyanteng tulad ni Caparas at mga nagyayari ng telenobela, at iba pang kulturang popular, dapat suriin ang partikular na dating at impak ng kanilang akda—kung tatanggapin ngang bawat porma, hugis o anyo ng gawaing kultural ay may kanya-kanyang katangian, bighani, lakas, ayon sa awdiyens at kondisyon ng pagtanggap sa kanila. Sino ba ang karapat-dapat maghusga’t magpahalaga, ang may simbolikong kapital o yaong dahop sa kaalamang pupuhunanin sa palengke at mega-mall?

Gayundin ang isip ni Walter Benjamin sa tanyag na sanaysay, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.” Totoo, bagay magkaroon ng kantangiang pansining ang likhang-sining. Ngunit sino ang nagpanukala ng” literary standards”at anong silbi o punksiyon noon? Kasiningan ng sining at “pampanitikan ng panitikan”? Tautolohiya iyon. Walang saysay na mga kataga. Sa katunayan, susog ni Benjamin, sa modernistang aplikasyon ng teknolohiya, at mabilisang pagpaparami ng imahen, nawawala ang “aura” o bighani ng mga likhang-sining nina Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Rembrandt, Cezanne, at iba pa. Hindi makamandag o matalinghaga ang idea ni Benjamin tungkol sa rebolusyonaryong tagubilin niya sa akdang “The Author as Producer”: Upang maibagsak ang sistema ng kapitalistang reipikasyon, dapat sunggaban ng awtor ang mga kagamitan sa produksiyong pangkultura’t ideolohikal. “Walang kalayaan o kasarinlan ang sining, panitikan, awtor, pintor, dibuhista ng komiks, manunuri, propesor, at iba pang trabahador sa larangang ito kung
wala silang kontrol at gabay sa kondisyon ng kanilang gawaing mapanlikha.

Abot-Tanaw na Pagtutuos

Sa huling pagtaya, ang tunay na awtoridad ni Almario ay hindi sina Marx o Benjamin kundi ang ministrong si Northrop Frye. Humalili ang kritisismong arketipikal ni Frye sa “New Criticism” noong dekada 50 at 60, bago napallitan ng dekonstruksiyon nina Derrida, De Man, at Foucault. Hango sa romantikong tradisyon nina Coleridge at Blake, ang dogmatikong perspektiba ni Frye ay isang metapisikal na reduksiyon ng sining sa lunggating yunibersal o pang-utopia. May hawig sa eksistensiyalismo, lamang ang padron ni Frye ay ang propetikong himatong sa Bibliya. Isang baluktot at malisyang pagsasakdal ang ginawa ni Almario nang paratangan niya ang mga maka-Marxistang “tibak sa U.P.” at kritikong aktibista na sila’y nagpipilit sa idea na ang panitikan ay salamin mg kalikasan sa positibo’t istatikong lagay nito. Hindi niya inisip na idiniin nina Marx at Engels sa “The German Ideology” at “Theses on Feuerbach” ang humanisasyon ng kalikasan—hindi lang ang natural na kalikasan (sa makitid na tingin ni Frye) kundi ang kalikasang sosyal at historikal.

Di nakamamangha na, sa kabila ng sophistikong hilig ni Almario kina Frye at Pangkating Frankfurt, nabalaho siya sa isang mababaw na empirisismong palpak.
Lumalabas na propagandista siya ng namamaraling mekanikal na sosyolohiyang nagtuturo na ang ekonomiko’t sosyal na lagay ng tao ang nagdidikta ng kanilang saloobin at kamalayan. Nasaan ang lunggati at praxis ng pagnanais? Lantad ito sa deklarasyon ni Almario: “Dahil sa lubhang dukha ang buhay, diukha rin ang isip at damdamin ng madla.” Diretsong korespondensiya ng malay at kapaligirang pisikal—hindi ba ito ang minumura niya? Dagdag pa ni Almario: “Sa halip na progresibo’t rebolusyanaryo, taglay nito ang lahat ng katangian na tila eternal na kamangmagan—lumpo ang pangarap, kubikong ang halagahan at pananaw sa daigdig, at napakababaw ng kaligayahan.” Patalistikong pagsumpa sa masang niyuyurakan at dinudusta ng mga imperyalistang bansa, sampu ng mga Pilipinong kriminal na nagpapasasa sa kahirapan ng nakararami. Walang pag-asang tadhana ang ipinataw ni Almario sa nakararaming Pilipino, habang patuloy na umaaklas at naghihimagsik.

Sa bawat proposisyong nabanggit, ipiinakita ng nobela at mga kwento ni Abueg ang kabaligtaran: ang lipunan ay prosesong hitik sa kontradiksiyon. Sa kumplikadong daloy ng pangyayari, sa bawat kamalayan ng mga tauhan niya (mayaman, mahirap, o panggitnang uri), nagpapaligsahan ang sari-saring idea, damdamin, haka-haka, panaginip, mithiin, lunggati: reaksyonaryo, progresibo, tradisyonal, radical, at iba pa. Naghalo ang elitista’t popular na atitudo sa kalooban ng mga tauhan na inilarawan ni Abueg sa isang takdang panahon ng pakikibaka. Sa panayam niyang “Ang Sosyalismo sa Nobelang Tagalog,” pinuna ni Abueg na sa halos lahat ng mga nobelang may kamalayang panlipunan, sa kabila ng intensiyon ng awtor lumilitaw pa rin ang kontradiksiyon ng indibidwalistikong damdamin at kolektibistang hangarin. Hindi ito kakulangan o kalabisan, manapa’y sagisag ng diyalektikong prosesong sumasaklaw sa sitwasyon ng awtor, ng institusyon ng publikasyon, ng pagtuturo ng nobela, at klima ng buong lipunan. Maraming lakas na humuhubog sa sining. Patunay ito na ang mga kantangiang pansining ay hindi maaaring ihiwalay sa tema, punto-de-vista, estilo, retorika, at paghabi ng balangkas ng likha. Hindi rin maaaring ihiwalay ito sa paraan ng interpretasyon at pagpapahalaga ng mga mambasabasa, kritiko, estudyante, atbp.

Ang pinakakritikal na proyekto sa sining at kritika ay ang pagbubuo ng hegemonya o gahum, kung saan nagtatagumpay ang moral at intelektuwal na pamumuno ng masang lumilikha ng kayamanan ng lipunan. Sa pagsasakatuparan ng proyektong ito malulutas din ang isyu ng hustisya, kalayaan, kapantayan ng kasarian, at kasarinlan ng bayan. Kung tutuusin, ang usapin ng sining at kultura ay usapin ng bawat mamamayan, ng bawat tao sa daigdig, sa harap ng alyenasyon, reipikasyon, at kabuktutan ng ordeng kapitalista/imperyalista. Para kanino ang sining? Anong tulong ng panitikan at sining sa lunggating mapagpalaya’t mapag-ugnay ng masang Pilipino? Maliliwanagan natin ito sa matiyaga’t maselang pagsubaybay sa masalimuot na paghabi ng tema, tauhan, balangkas, at retorika sa mapanghimagsik na panitik ni Efren Abueg. Isang panimulang hakbang ito tungo sa pagbabagong-buhay ng bansa.

SANGGUNIAN

Abueg, Efren. 1968. Dilim sa Umaga. Manila: Liwayway Publishing Inc.

-----. 1974.. “Ang Sosyalismo sa Nobelang Tagalog.” Sampaksaan ng mga Nobelistang Tagalog: Mga Panayam Tungkol sa Nbelang Tagalog. Quezon City: Ang Aklaan ng Unibersidad ng Pilipinas.

----. 2004. Mga Kaluluwa sa Kumunoy. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press.

Antillon, Loline. 1984. “Kabalintunaan: Pangunahing Paksa ng Buhay at Sining sa Mga Piling Kuwento ni Efren R. Abueg.” Panunuring Pampanitikan: Mga Nagwagi sa Gawad Surian sa Sanaysay. Ed. Aurora Batnag. Manila: Surian ng Wikang Pambansa.

Almario, Virgilio. 2009. “Bakit Panitikan ang Panitikan, O Bakit Hindi Ito Maabot ng Kamangmangan ni Carlo J. Caparas.” Talumpati para sa kongreso ng UMPIL sa GSIS Museum, 29 Agosto 2009.  
Badiou, Alain. 1992. Manifesto for Philosophy. Albany: State University of New York Press.
----. 2003. Infinite Thought. London and New York: Continuum.
Benjamin, Walter. 1968. Illuminations. New York: Harcourt Brace.

-----. 1973. “The Author as Producer.” In Understanding Brecht. London: New Left Books.

Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. 1968 (1845-46). The German Ideology. Moscow: Progress Publishers.

Marx, Karl. 1978. “Theses on Feuerbach.” In The Marx-Engels Reader. Ed. Robert C. Tucker. New York: W.W. Norton.

San Juan, E. 1970. The Radical Tradition in Philippine Literature. Quezon City: Manlapaz Publishing Co.

-----. 1972. Carlos Bulosan and the Imagination of the Class Struggle. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press. 

PROBLEMATIZING. 'FILIPINX"

  PROBLEMATIZING THE NAME “FILIPINX”: A Colloquy

With Freedom Siyam, May Penuela, Charlie Samuya Veric, Jeffrey Cabusao, Michael Viola, and Delia Aguilar, initiated by Delia D. Aguilar with the collaboration of E. San Juan, Jr. 

Controversies over the use of names or classifying rubrics for groups of people are rarely amusing, some even dull and soporific.  However, if it is a matter of life and death for some cases, as in the conflict between the Tutsis and Hutus in Rwanda, or the fate of Jews and Armenians in times of intense racial conflict. In those instances, the name one chooses for one’s group may signal either danger or safety. 

What’s in a name? Shakespeare’s character seems to ignore circumstances and occasions where a name spells doom or salvation. He may be an essentialist, one who shrugs off the surface particularities of humans—skin color, facial features, hair, etc.—for the core substance that constitutes the unique physiognomy of the person or group. 

The problem is not puzzling or enigmatic. This has been argued in ongoing conversations about race, ethnicity, nationality, and so on. But what really is the core substance of African Americans, Native Americans, Latinos or Asians (including Filipinos, now branded by some as Filipinx?) Among Native Americans, arguments will be made for the singularities of each tribe, whether Navajo, Sioux, Kiowa, etc. The same goes for Asians—“Asianx,” anyone? 

Each taxonomic label betrays a plurality or heterogeneity within it.  Will a new label capture the denied or negated essence of the group, whatever that may be? From American Negroes to Afro-Americans to African Americans to Black Lives—the changes seem to reflect not an unchanging essence. They in fact capture the distinctive impact of historical changes, both the socioeconomic and political events involving those groups and the responses of the communities. The same goes with the invention of “Pinoys” and “Pinays” to designate Filipinos abroad, in the United States and elsewhere. These changes register the groups’ need to identify themselves as a distinctive community for economic, political and cultural adaptation and survival.

What’s the historical specificity of Filipinos here and in the Philippines? When President McKinley decided to annex the Philippines at the end of the Spanish-American War (1898-99), he had no clue where those islands were. The Filipino revolutionary government established a republic, but U.S. superior arms won and colonized the country. Due to the need for labor, the colonized Filipinos were recruited for the Hawaiian sugar plantations as “nationals,” in short, colonial subalterns, not immigrants. The “Manilla men” who fled the Spanish galleons in the 18th century were not “Filipinos,” strictly speaking, but “Indios,” so these Mayflower “wannabes” cannot yet be accepted into ‘the melting pot”—“e pluribus unum” is just an aspirational come-on.

In 1908, the Grove Farm Plantation in Kauai, Hawaii listed “Filipinos” after “fertilizer” as one of the commodities ordered (Ronald Takaki, Strangers from a Different Shore, 1989, p. 25). The “Manongs”—Filipino farmworkers—spread from Hawaii to Alaska until the “little brown brother” bore the violence of the white vigilantes in Watsonville, California, in 1929 for mixing with white women.  Filipinos were called 

“Flips.” They were classified as “Mongolians,” not Malays, until Salvador Roldan challenged the court so he could marry his white fiancee. When the U.S. troops slaughtered Filipino soldiers of the Republic during the Filipino-American War (1899-1913), the natives were called “Niggers,” “khaki ladrones,” and other colorful epithets. More horrendous were the massacres of Muslim Filipinos, whom we now call BangsaMoro, in Mindanao and Sulu that Mark Twain bewailed as barbaric piratical adventures. Are these tendentious names just symptoms of paranoia, the hostile imagination of the warrior psyche? Part of the strategy to dehumanize the enemy, these modes of stigmatizing by name-calling aim to exonerate the agents of genocide from guilt or blame—after all, you are fighting for democracy and Christian civilization. 

Toward Dialogue and Colloquy

But let us for now cut short this historical background and jump into our topic: the controversy over the use of “Filipinx” among Filipinos everywhere—over ten million Overseas Filipino Workers constitute a growing diasporic population.  An article in the online webside of INTERAKSYON (June 2, 2020) released a barrage of animosity toward this neologism. Catalina Madarang summed up the exchanges in Twitter, mircroblogger platforms and Reddit Philippines. 

“Filipinx” is obviously a copy of “Latinx,” introduced mainly by academics and students in social media around 2004. Activists began to use it “to advocate for individuals living on the borderline of gender identity. But most Hispanic and Latino Americans prefer ‘Hispanic’ and ‘Latino/Latina’ to describe themselves, only 2 to 3 percent use Latinx” (Wikipedia 2020).  The Hispanic commentators, while acknowledging the impulse to sound non-binary, gender-neutral or inclusive, reject the term because it is ungrammatical, difficult to pronounce, and disrespectful toward conventional Spanish—in short, “a bulldozing of Spanish.” Is this a case of linguistic imperialism on both sides? The term “Latino/Latina” designates anyone of Latin-American origin or ancestry, while “Hispanic” refers to native speakers of Spanish, whatever nation they originated. Likewise, “Filipino” refers to anyone of Philippine origin or ancestry, regardless of province or linguistic cohort. But unlike Spanish, Philippine languages have neither gender attribution nor gender-specific pronouns.

“Filipinx” is thus a bastard term mimicking its original, ignoring linguistic specificities and historical contingencies. Whatever the other motives are, the intention is honorable: namely, to acknowledge genderqueer (LGBTQIA) members of the Filipino diaspora in whitecentric, binary places.  It seeks to decolonize the identity of Filipinos in westerncentric societies, not just in U.S. or Europe, but also in the neocolony itself, the Philippines, which has been profoundly distorted by 300 years of Spanish colonial rule and over a hundred years of U.S. domination.  Perhaps this is a tactical reformist move, but are the effects positive? As endorsement, Twitter-user Jenika Cruz, senior associate editor of The Atlantic, wrote recently: “Filipinx friends, I made rly good chicken adobo….pls clap.” Is this a sign that everyone is now joining the bandwagon for a new christening? Are we on the way to decolonizing Filipinos claiming, to quote Carlos Bulosan, that “America is in the heart”?

It was an article critiquing the use of  “Filipinx” in Bulatlat by Prof. John Toledo of the University of the Philippines, Los Banos that piqued Delia D. Aguilar's interest in pursuing the matter. She had wrongly assumed that Filipinos in the Philippines would accede to this modification that, after all, signified solidarity with another US community of color. Instead, Toledo urged his readers to "resist such adverse essentializing of our identity." He ends his criticism with a plea: "We, the Filipino virtual community, have to resist this Western hype and empower our languages in the Philippines. We are all Filipinos. Isn't it much more important today to battle the rhetoric that our mother nation is a province of another nation?"

         Encouraged by Toledo's rejection--speaking truth to power in a time of national and global crisis--and curious about how others might respond, Aguilar reached out to a handful of friends and colleagues for their opinions. What resulted was a spirited conversation that everyone involved later agreed might be useful to share publicly. What follows are the candid responses of Filipinos in the U.S., Canada and the Philippines involved in community organizing, teaching, and scholarly work. Aguilar's comments are interspersed in the back-and-forth exchange as they occurred.

A Veteran Filipino-American Activist’s Response

          First to offer his view is Freedom Siyam, principal of Balboa High School in San Francisco, who has been active in organizing and teaching in the Filipino community for a long time now. We reproduce the preface he wrote for a district document celebrating Filipino American History Month:

Why Do We Use ‘Filipinx”

A recent phenomenon to acknowledge the systematic oppression of Black, Indigenous, People of Color through the history of over 500 years of colonization and imperialism transpired when progressive members of the Latinx community replaced the “A” and “O” with the “X” to emphasize gender neutrality and inclusivity of people in the community who are gender non-conforming.  

Filipinxs also share a similar history as Spain began colonial conquest of the Philippine archipelago in 1521 and as colonization almost completely eradicated indigenous cultural practices, spirituality, and language and replaced indigenous practices with Spanish patriarchy, Christianity, and sweepingly gendered relations throughout the islands.  

To this point, Spanish gendered prescriptions manifested in many words, whereas native dialects had no gender markers, and pronouns were siya or sila (essentially they/them).  The adoption of the “x” by members in the Filipino American community is an attempt at inclusivity and breaking past the binary of gendered markers imposed by colonization.  It is also important to note that this is a very specific characteristic of conscious Filipino American communities and not necessarily adopted by Filipinos in the Philippines, nor broadly in the United States.  Thus Filipinx should be seen as synonymous with Filipina or Filipino, without the gendered prescription, and we should not try to play “woke” olympics with each other.

Purist may resist this attempt to problematize the Filipinx identity with an X, and while the writers acknowledge shifting language helps continue to sharpen our understanding of inequities therefore facilitate a clearer path to genuine equity, we also know that a change in nomenclature is just that, an empty change in terminology, unless genuine liberation of the oppressed is obtained and equity and justice is systematized institutionally, and in the context of Filipinx history, including genuine liberation of the Philippines from uneven neocolonial political, economic and military policies.  

Furthermore, those who identify with the X should be aware that Filipinos from the Philippines may not identify with the term and consider that this is a Filipinx American and a product of US multiculturalism (Reference: “Choose Filipino or Filipinx”).

__________________

After Freedom Siyam’s public pronouncement, Delia Aguilar's reflection reminds us of the need for historicizing discourse. She explains: Free, you are spot-on in saying that none of these attempts to change labels alter material conditions, but neither should we deny the impact of culture on material life. To hold Philippine Cultural Night and, more important, Filipino American History Month, are of great significance. I would guess that up to now Fil-Am students are not getting information about Philippine history from their parents who are simply too busy to survive in a society that absolutely requires consumerism in order to acquire a measure of self-assurance. 

        Context is key, in my opinion. I completely understand the desire to go with Filipinx because you're in the US attempting to express solidarity with Latinx and Blacks. (Blacks are not calling themselves Blackx, are they? This x business is confined to immigrants, I assume?) I would ask that you not forget to emphasize vigorously that the Philippine situation is entirely different. The Philippine nation is living under the heels of US domination--and resisting trendy, even purportedly progressive stuff in the US is part of that--and Filipinos have no obligation whatsoever to accept this presumed expression of solidarity. There have been many a time when I've felt that Filipinos today (yes, in Manila, California's suburb) have voluntarily and completely submerged themselves in US culture that I feel like raising my hands in surrender. This is why I was very pleasantly surprised by Toledo's Bulatlat article.

      

Qualifications from a Filipino resident in Canada

We were able to solicit reflections from May Penuela, a Filipina educator living in Canada, whose thoughts recall for us the turmoil of the current conjuncture: 

I think it’s ironic how little use Filipinx is politically given Laude’s murder back in 2014 and Duterte’s pardon of Pemberton this summer.  I mentioned this case in a diversity discussion for a staff meeting in ‘14 on transgender issues.  The mention of US militarism in the Philippines was outside the scope of using the correct terms originating in the US for marginalized communities.  The discussion closed as if it was too political and off topic bringing that up.  Let alone talking about the responses from Gabriela and women’s organizations in the Philippines who clearly had a more advanced analysis and strident support of Laude as a woman.  There was little virtue signalling, if I could use that phrase, in the Philippine context from what I read at the time.  I agree with Toledo’s main point in the article.  The flow of political direction in the U.S. is seldom informed outside its solipsistic national context.  And this goes to the heart of critiquing Ensler and the history of neocolonial feminism she branded globally, the flow of political exchange and influence is one way.   Which begs the question of the ethics for that term politically — whose self-determination is one referring by Filipinx in 2020? 

May commends Freedom’s “sharp emotionally attuned and integrative approach” in his formal and organizational duties.” She confesses that she gets “emotionally reactive” with identity politics acting like “McCathyist thought police.” 

Delia Aguilar's response to May Penuela: I am very much impressed with what you write. I especially like your bringing up the brutal murder of Jennifer Laude in 2014 and the recent exoneration of Joseph Pemberton, her murderer. It's a case that, and I hate to say this but I will, seems to ridicule the presumed linguistic resistance of Filipinx. (Never mind that the adoption of the term also is but another symptom of our aping, gaya-gaya puto-maya tendency.) This, along with your reminder about Eve Ensler, speak volumes to me. Because wasn't Ensler denounced by feminists of color in the US and Canada for being racist? And yet it was precisely her being the white feminist savior that she is that catapulted her into the warm embrace of GABRIELA. What does this tell us?

Intervention from a Scholar in Quezon City, Philippines

Meanwhile, let us hear from a Filipino academic in the Philippines, Charlie Samuya Veric, professor of English at Ateneo de Manila University, who holds a Ph.D. in American Studies from Yale University. Veric has written several books of poetry and a pioneering work on postcolonial studies in the Philippines entitled Children of the Postcolony. He wrote in FB:

Filipino and Filipinx are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they both need to flourish. But if one cancels the other, then that’s where the problem begins. Filipino is founded on identification with the Philippine nation whereas Filipinx dis-identify themselves from the heteronormative and white supremacist American state. There’s a crucial difference between identifying with a young Philippine nation and distancing oneself from the long imperial history of the US. So if we force Filipinx on Filipinos in the Philippines, that creates more trouble than needed. Give the Filipino nation its time in the sun. Let it grow and mature first. Then we can start denying it. One cannot deconstruct what is not fully constructed.

Veric’s remarks provoked May Penuela’s wide-ranging comment: 

I greatly appreciate Charlie's comments, Delia.  His distinction of the two forms of identification struck me, where the unity between what I see as a positive and negative identification is possible.

Using Charlie's distinctions, Filipino as identification with the Philippine nation is a positive identification in the proactive sense, for and with an emerging Philippine nation.  Whereas, "Filipinx dis-identify with the heteronormative, white supremacist American state,” "distancing oneself from the long imperial history of the U.S."  "Filipinx" is a negative identification in the sense that is not yet for a specified project.  It is an ambiguous identity, except in its proclamation against heteronormativity and white supremacy.  What is it for?  Is it for statelessness?  For a multinational state?  For a non-white settler state?   In solidarity with BIPOC and LGBTQI liberation, what U.S. state is required?   That's not to say that there is or should be a pre-determined, specified construction.  But, what is the political consciousness that makes up an anti- or “negative “ construction and what are its tendencies moving forward?

What does it mean to "distance oneself from the long imperial history of the U.S.?"  To recognize that it's messed up? But then what? Does Filipinx identify an alternative project to imperialism?  What is the project?  Does it serve to cancel imperialism?  Because the Filipina/o positive identification, moving towards national autonomy in its self-determined construction, requires the end of the U.S. state as an imperial project.   Imperial negation is necessary for Filipinos to construct their own national destiny.  Are Filipinx folx up to the task of fully negating U.S. imperialism?  

As Charlie rightly points out, trouble begins if one identification development cancels the other.  Radicalization, however it emerges, is a positive and important development in such different contexts.  But I think it's fair to say that Filipinx as a political project requires more maturation in its development and requires rigorous scrutiny through this fundamental contradiction.  I don't mean to be too cheeky, but x has greater potential to negate the a's and o's. So, how to move in a mutually affirming way?  Where are the possibilities for mutual political exchange?

Jennifer Laude's brutal murder is a repeat offense of the heteronormative, white supremacist state on Philippine soil. U.S. Imperialism in real time, running the course of its 122 year history in the Philippines with distinctive consequences means that in 2014 a 19 year old man/child turned into a Marine by the U. S. state, has impunity to negate the life and development of a 26 year old transgender Filipina expressing her full humanity.  Their hook up in anticipation for some mutual human pleasure ended in its complete opposite, horrid outcome — Jennifer's violent death at the hands of the American man/child experiencing a psychotic and emotional crisis of the racial, sexual, gender, class, and national contradictions all integrated in one fateful intimate moment between the two.  

With the support of both the Philippine and mighty U.S. state, Pemberton gets a restart at life six years later.  He's now the same age as Jennifer when she was killed. He can go home.  

Perhaps gender non-conforming and cis gender Filipinx struggling with the historical meaning of Filipina/o can find solidarity and grasp this case as a concrete access point to consider the stronghold of U.S. influence on Filipino lives, or reconsider it if they're already aware of this case. Because of BLM, the pandemic, and everything going as it is, U.S. based activists might fully grasp how this case resonates with many other negations: Breonna Taylor’s, Berta Caceres, MMIW, etc, etc., to respond in similar scale and synchronous timing in national and global outrage, amplifying (to use that trendy word) the brutalities of imperialism for the people in the belly of the beast to evaluate and reconcile with U.S. militarism.  That's an affirmative direction that Filipinx might reflect upon.  

Delia Aguilar responds to May: Your situating the discussion in the context of BLM and the pandemic is also significant because, as many progressives today have observed, we are at a critical moment in history where race and capitalism are being publicly questioned in ways that never happened before. People are now talking about racism as systemic. And look, even Bob Woodward, interviewing Trump, raises the issue of their shared "white privilege." This was unthinkable before this time! In other words, you remind us that the adoption of Filipinx has to be contextualized in history and current events.

Exchanging with Two Filipino-American Academics

From the groves of U.S academe, we asked Prof Jeffrey Cabusao of Bryant University what his take is on this new “Filipinx” fad.  He hails from San Diego, California, holds a Ph.D. in English from the University of Michigan, and currently teaches at Bryant University in Rhode Island. He asks if Filipinx is seriously challenging the heteronormatic and white-supremacist state, and if so, what have these so-called Filipinxs contributed to challenging the U.S. Marine killer Pemberton’s pardon? He agrees with Charlle Samuya Veric’s distinction of the neologism as a Fil-Am concept and “Filipino” as a term designating the long history of mass struggle for national sovereignty in the neocolony. He thanks Freedom Siyam for his insightful reflections. Here is his concluding observation: 

I’d like to suggest that “Filipinx” itself is a term that has yet to mature—a term that signals that we live in “new times = new politics.”  While the term “Filipino” is rooted in a very long history of mass struggle against U.S. imperialism (an “old” mode of political engagement), “Filipinx” is quite recent and rooted in contemporary U.S. identity politics... an intersectional politics of diversity and inclusion... a contemporary queer politics that oftentimes privilege trans visibility over a systemic critique of racism, militarism, and materialism (the three evils critiqued by MLK).  

For example, how is Chelsea Manning celebrated at Pride?  Whether locked up or released, she remains a marginalized voice — a pariah (given her politics) — within the LGBTQ community and the larger U.S. society.  For Manning, the struggle for trans rights are interconnected with the struggle to dismantle the prison system.  Also, “Filipinx” seems to be inspired by the shift to “Latinx.”  The eagerness of Fil-Ams to adopt the “Filipinx” identity/category (to copy our Latino/as/x sisters and brothers) is symptomatic of a deep (and painful) desperation among many Fil-Ams to be “seen” and “heard” in the United States (among U.S. BIPOC activists, within the U.S. academy and its publishing venues, within mass media)... so much energy around the “x” just to get a slice of the pie.  

    For his appraisal of this colloquy, let us hear from Prof Michael Viola, a veteran teacher/scholar of social justice and multiethnic education at St Mary’s College, California, and author of the award-winning book, Hip-Hop(e): The Cultural Practice and Critical Pedagogy of International Hip-Hop. He took time out from his many duties and commitments to provide us his insights:

I agree with Charlie Samuya Veric's insights and the poignant ways that May, Free and Jeff built upon them around how names enable important pathways to identify with historic and persistent struggles against U.S. imperialism. May's point, which she was quite clear in BOLD honestly builds on the important critiques that Tita Delia and Uncle Sonny have made for decades in the way that U.S academics have contributed greatly to the benign identity politics that make various nuanced moves yet are ultimately devoid of a class analysis and a critique of global capitalism. Such critiques are important to remember as their work have shown how dominant strands of Filipno American studies has cut ties to a wider struggle against U.S. imperialism and its barbaric manifestations in the Philippines (via "post-al analytics). Such an analysis that Jeff has been at the forefront within Asian Am studies more broadly to recuperate is so crucial in understanding the asymmetrical relationship between the Philippines and the United States. Thank you all for showing the ways that FILIPINX driven predominately by immigrant academics in the corporate academy are fashioning new trends that are culpable in also reproducing this unjust neocolonial relationship. 

I've been re-reading Manning Marable and he points to the two global currents post 9/11 world: 1) a liberal democratic tendency: still dominant in the US that broadly has been driven by a project for human rights, welcoming a public discourse around issues of identity and difference yet is assimilative to global capital and (2) a radical egalitarian tendency most strongly offered by movements of the Global South that refuse incorporation to the capitalist world order and seek the abolition of capitalist relations in its various manifestations. For me, Marable's insights are important in this time - especially as we see the rise of rightist / authoritarian forces in the US, the Philippines, and throughout the world. Ultimately, he poses a wonder question: is it possible to build a broader front to unite these two tendencies? How can we offer a consistent yet dialogical critique of FILIPINX that enables a recognition of  the struggle that younger generations of youth are identifying yet invites them to "intersect" their struggles with a project for liberation from the barbarism of global capital that is at the heart of why our world is literally burning. 

Rejecting the FILIPINX tout court, especially for the reasons that Free points out (as a younger generation of students and youth are connected with other immigrant youth where the term Latinx has become much more commonplace) may further isolate us from the kind of consciousness raising and community organizing we have been committed to. Yet, it is important to point out who is naming the term FILIPINX (neoliberal academics??) and how such a term may problematically be a "cut and paste" job or ahistorically imported from its Latinx communities and struggles.  What happens when our communities do that? What happens to our ability to historicize and make connections to the ongoing neocolonial conditions in the Philippines and the dispersal of Filipinos all over the world? May is sharp in stating that “Perhaps gender non-conforming and cis gender Filipinx struggling with the historical meaning of Filipina/o can find solidarity and grasp this case [Laude murder] as a concrete access point to consider the stronghold of U.S. influence on Filipino lives, or reconsider it if they're already aware of this case." That's exactly what academics, activists, cultural workers need to be doing, helping to create those "access point(s)" and to help intersect those struggles as opposed to "intersectional identity work" that has led us nowhere.

__________

Delia Aguilar wraps up the exchange with the following observations: Thank you, Mike, for your thoughtful contribution. When I first reached out to you all, what I had in mind was simply to get your reactions to John Toledo's article. I had no thought of getting anything printed. Since then, Tito Sonny called my attention to an online discussion of Filipinx among Filipinos in the Philippines who more or less scoffed at the tag. You can just imagine what a relief--and sense of hope!--this gave me, because at times I feel our subalternity to be sedimented and sempiternal. "Tumigil na kayo diyan," someone said in exasperation. Another had to explain that Filipinos belong to the Philippines, a nation--one still fighting for genuine independence, it is true, but a nation nevertheless. Is there a Latino nation? No.

  

           In the early 80s when the women's movement was just beginning to assert itself within the revolution ("broader struggle," we used to say), a Filipina feminist cited the authority of "The Second Stage" in which Betty Friedan wrote that "we have gone too far." This woman was quoting Friedan to warn Filipino women, who'd only barely begun, that we'd gone too far already. Remember the apocryphal tale of the Lone Ranger and his sidekick Tonto (Spanish for dolt or imbecile)? "We are going to get killed!" cries the Lone Ranger, facing an imminent attack by Indians. "Who's the 'we,' white boy?" was Tonto's retort. If only we had Tonto's smarts.

          I could be wrong, Mike. But wasn't Manning Marable writing about a very different moment in history? Latinx belongs to that moment. Times have changed since. The seismic shift in public consciousness about race brought on by BLM-led protests amidst the ongoing pandemic and its continuing mismanagement has radically altered the sociopolitical landscape of the US. This will necessarily have an impact on academic puerility (allow me to dream here) of which I take preoccupation with identity politics to be a symptom. Let's not forget that the plague and those BLM protest marches, the massiveness and composition of which have heretofore been unseen in this country, have opened a gateway for progressives, as Arundhati Roy aptly put it, hopefully to another world, assuming we have an alternative vision. No movement in the US has ever created or produced international reverberations the way that this one did. There were solidarity marches all over the world! Remember those? Surely we can acknowledge that the marches and clamor have resulted in a radically revised public outlook. Shouldn't  we seize the moment and work with this palpable change in popular consciousness instead of trailing behind in the caboose?

A Provisional Summing-Up

       There appears to be a consensus in all the participants that it is important to grapple with the implications of ethnic labels and other taxonomic devices with grave political ramifications. The use of “Filipinx” foregrounds the need to elucidate what is involved in its use and application, where and when, for whom, etc. While “Flip” and other offensive tags have disappeared, there’s a feeling that “Filipino” has become a term of rejection or marginalization. Is this true for everyone? So is “Filipinx” the new feasible gateway to acceptance, if not assimilation?  Would this tweaking of the old label facilitate better access to the larger community of Filipinos residing in the U.S. (most of whom are likely to vote for Trump in this November 2020 election), and thus acceptance by the EuroAmerican majority? Who is being served by this new category, whose interests are enabled by this new terminology?

We can rehearse the crucial arguments for further assaying. There is consensus that this neologism is a psychological/semantic response to the dominance of a white-supremacist, heteronormative, patriarchal culture, a climate aggravated by the current regime of a flagrantly white-supremacist U.S. administration. No harm in that symptomatic reflex of a new discovery or awareness. What is contentious is its resonance or implication. Does it invigorate or paralyze movements for racial equality? More important, does it subordinate the struggle for genuine national sovereignty to the paramount goal of gender-neutrality? Does it obscure the asymmetry between the imperial hegemonic United States and its virtual neocolony, the Philippines? To push further, which cause would advance a systemic solution to racist, sexist global capitalism? Intersectionatlonal measures have been tried; but after Obama, we got Trump and its virulent racist-sexist program of destroying all that has been gained from past Civil Rights struggles of LGBTQIA and diverse ethnic communities..

The Philippines is still a U.S. dependency, whatever claims may be made about Filipino adobo, Miss Universe this and that, growing incomes of Filipino-Americans, increasing popularity of Filipino films, singers, etc. We are one of Trump’s “shitholes,” let us not demur, whose chief export and dollar-earners are Overseas Filipino Workers around the planet. From 1946 when nominal independence was granted up to now, the Philippine military and police establishments have been wholly dependent on U.S, support, advice, training, logistics, etc. While direct U.S. investments have declined, the unchallenged stranglehold of U.S. culture—its music, films, lifestyle, ideology of free-market liberalism, anticommunist/antisocialist mentality of individualism, etc.—shows no signs of waning or disappearing.

The final caveat is whether gender-neutrality and anti-heteronormativity (LGBTQIA) would free the homeland from dependency and backwardness. More crucial, we are in a time of huge mass policization as a response to Trump’s racist policies toward immigration, ecological degradation, the pandemic/health care crisis, warmongering, etc. Should we miss this moment in history as part of this great wave of mass mobilizations, here and in the homeland, to fight for social justice and economic emancipation which would lay the groundwork for all other freedoms? Or should we subordinate that to the principle of getting the right name to insure that everyone is acknowledged, whatever their situation is?  Do we repeat the old saw, “pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will,” to settle this issue of legitimizing “Filipinx” if “Filipino” still hangs in the balance?—###

____________________________________

     DELIA D. AGUILAR, previously a fellow of the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, Harvard University, was professor of Women’s Studies at Hamilton College, Washington State University, and the University of Connecticut. Her books include The Feminist Challenge, Filipino Housewives Speak, Toward a Nationalist Feminism; and edited the anthology Women and Globalization (Humanity Books).

E. SAN JUAN, Jr., 2009 fellow of W.E.B. Du Bois Institute, Harvard University, was chair of the Dept of Comparative American Cultures, Washington State University; and emeritus professor of Ethnic Studies and Comparative Culture. He was recently visiting professor of English, University of the Philippines. His recent books include U.S. Imperialism and Revolution in the Philippines, Between Empire and Insurgency, Faustino Aguilar, and Peirce/Marx.