The Unconscious

The Unconscious
by regsubermensch

Submerged, hidden, unconcealed,
Prohibited, never to be revealed,
In the darkest space of uncertainty and oblivion,
Lies your real feelings, yet repressed emotions.

Under the light of the day,
'till the humidity of the noon comes its way,
It is he you wish to show to the world,
And he they want you to behold.

But when the silence of the dark steals the night,
'till the night reveals its unquestioned might,
Your dreams explode into enchantment and fantasy,
Wishing this is but eternity.

But as the real emotions slowly grow,
The illusive radiance of the light begins to show,
Confused, you held back to the light,
Because that's what they say is right.


Submerged, hidden, unconcealed,
Prohibited, never to be revealed,
In the darkest space of uncertainty and oblivion,
Lies your real feelings, yet repressed emotions.

Here I am, hidden but not far,
Waiting for you to dream as the night shows the stars,
Irresistible indeed the pleasure of the night,
Which captures you like the strength of a knight.

Mary and the Church

Mary and the Church

Lecture delivered to the members of the COM, Lapu-Lapu City

May 12, 2012

Regletto Aldrich Imbong

 Before we formally begin with our discussion, let me first explain the perspective I am adopting in giving this lecture.

Let me raise this question first: what event in the Bible makes Christianity or the existence of the Church possible? If we say it’s Jesus’ death alone, then there is something missing in our faith. Gutierrez clarifies that through Jesus’ “death and resurrection, he redeems man from sin and all its consequences…”[1] Central to the Christian faith is the Resurrection of Christ (which I believe is near to your hearts for you annually re-enact this event) which happens on the Easter.

During the Easter Triduum, I sent messages for reflection to my close friends. The message goes like this: In this Easter Triduum, let us view Christ’s suffering, death and resurrection from a different perspective: from the perspective of the women. Unlike Peter, who denounced him three times for fear of punishment, Mary and Magdalene were constantly accompanying Jesus even at the foot of the cross, fearless and courageous. Unlike the other apostles, they “followed those who took down Jesus’ body from the cross to see where they would put him.”[2] Finally, unlike Thomas, Magdalene undoubtedly proclaimed her faith during their encounter with the risen Lord, with her response Rabbouni. In terms of faith, the men failed in some instances to prove it to the messiah; the women on the other hand were always consistent with it.

It is in this regard that my lecture, entitled Mary and the Church be framed from a feminist perspective. I would make a contention that, in the course of the history of the church, little importance has been given to women who in fact played a very crucial role in the establishment of the Church. My hope is that, after this lecture, we would be more enlightened with the important role women plays today, both inside and outside the church. I will divide my lecture into two parts. First is entitled Mary and the Magnificat which gives another perspective of who Mary was, and the second is entitled The Church and its Poor which is a sort of reminder of what the Church really should be as confirmed by the Second Plenary Council of the Philippines (PCP II)

MARY AND THE MAGNIFICAT

            Let us begin our discussion by examining and sharing our thoughts regarding one biblical account:

            My soul magnifies the Lord, and my Spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has looked with favor on the lowliness of his servant. Surely, from now on, all generations will call me blessed; for the mighty one has done great things for me, and holy is his name. His mercy is for those who fear him from generation to generation. He has shown strength with his arm; he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts. He has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty. He has helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy, according to the promise he made to our ancestors, to Abraham and to his descendants forever (Lk. 1: 46-55 NRSV).

            From the Canticle of Mary, we can discover new insights which we fail to recognize from her before, being a woman and being a mother. In the Magnificat, Mary started by praising the deeds of her savior to her. Why? Because “he has looked with favor on the lowliness of his servant.” We must consider the context of Mary’s praise. During her times, women were inferior entities as compared to men. Thus, they were outcasts of society that they would even be used as scapegoats for the sins committed also by men (we are familiar with the story of the woman caught in adultery [John 8: 1-11], ending in Jesus’ comforting words, neither do I condemn you).[3] The eyes of the finite had seen guilt among these women but the eyes of God had seen favor to them, especially to Mary.

            More than being a woman is Mary’s being a Mother. The canticle happened during Mary’s visit to her cousin, Elizabeth, shortly after the birth of Jesus was foretold. By that time, Elizabeth was also pregnant (Lk. 1: 41). Aside from the nature of their unborn children (one being human only and the other being both human and divine), what makes Mary’s pregnancy different from that of Elizabeth?

           

            As conceived by the Holy Spirit, Mary’s pregnancy does not need a man. As Miles argued “Mary doesn’t need a man to have a baby”[4] and this means danger for Mary has to disobey worldly social norms. Imagine yourselves being a woman and you got pregnant, without any known partner/husband. How would the eyes of society, of those people who are judgmental to the guilt of others, describe you? You would perhaps feel shame. But your shame will not end there. Let us say that you will tell them that you are conceiving the Son of God. How much insult and mockery will you get from these kinds of people? If they will not make you as a laughing stock, then they will condemn you for blasphemy! You could just imagine the circumstances Mary was about to undergo.

But the question is: did she let the social norms, the patriarchal voices of the religious leaders of her time, hinder her submissive faith to God? “Be it done unto me according to your word” was her reply, a courageous and fearless response that implies disobeying established social norms. I am reminded of the intro of the song by Sampaguita entitled Nosi: wag mong pansinin ang naninira sa ‘yo basta’t alam mo lang, tama ang ginagawa mo.

Mary’s canticle expresses both Mary’s submission to God’s will and subversion against oppressive social orders. Coming from the mouth of a creature considered inferior, Mary proclaimed that “[h]e has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty.” Consistent with her radical attitude to go against social norms is her proclamation of faith that those people in power, those whose actions oppress others, those whose riches and wealth starves the many, will be cast down by God from their thrones, sending them away empty. Furthermore, showing His favor for the lowly, the marginalized, the women, the poor, God will fill them with good things. Mary simply is reminding us to surrender to God rather than to oppressive social orders; oppressive structures that cater to the greed of the few. As Jesus reminded us “[y]ou cannot serve God and wealth” (Mat. 6: 24).

Inspired by the saying vox populi vox dei, I was able to suggest to the VDR-KOASM that our motto would be “service to the people is service to God.” We cannot serve God directly. However, Jesus had given us a hint on how we can genuinely serve God when he told us the parable of the judgment of the nations: “whatever you do to the least of my brethren, you do it to me.” This challenge calls each of us to perform our collective task as a Church, with the help of Mary, our mother.

THE CHURCH AND ITS POOR

            I am assigned to explain the four marks of the Church which I suppose have been taught to us over and over again. These are One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. To understand these concepts better, we will place these in the context of the proclamations made during the Second Plenary Council of the Philippines (PCP II).

            What I find interesting when we address to the Church is that we use feminine pronouns like her or she. What could be these feminist attributes of the Church consistent with its four marks? What is Mary’s role in the Church?

Basic to our understanding of the Church is that it is the Church of the poor. Moreno clarifies this when he argues that concerns centering on the Church of the poor “include evangelical poverty, love for the poor, solidarity, justice, the poor as subjects (not only objects) of evangelization, and following Jesus Christ through poverty.”[5]

            Let us now clarify each mark of the Church. First, the Church as One implies unity: we are united in being “mindful of the conditions of the people in the society.”[6] Unity means community[7] and this community today is “finding expression in one ecclesial movement, that is the movement to foster Basic Ecclesial Communities” (PCP II 137). Furthermore, the “Basic Ecclesial Communities consciously strive to integrate their faith and their daily life… Poverty and their faith urge their members towards solidarity with one another, action for justice, and towards a vibrant celebration of life in the liturgy” (PCP II 139). These BEC’s are now very common especially in the countrysides, where peasants and farm workers gather together to celebrate their faith in God. And in these small communities, women play a vital role of sharing their faith and practice to others. They are reminded of the faith of Mary who, like them, was also a peasant from Galilee.

            Second, the Holiness of the Church does not come from herself. Rather, it is an overflow from the Holiness of God himself/herself. Gutierrez argues that “God does Justice: God is Holy.”[8] Holiness requires the practice of justice. That is the reason why Isaiah, announced that “is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of injustice, to do the thongs of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke?” (Is. 58:6) Furthermore he continued “is it not to share your bread with the hungry and bring the homeless poor into your house; when you see the naked, to cover them…” (Is. 58: 7).

To work for justice is to work for the liberation of the subjugated, including the women. As Pope Paul VI described Mary, “the disciple who works for that justice which sets free the oppressed and for the charity which assists the needy.”[9] Justice, as one of the moral virtues, enables us Christians to genuinely love our brothers and sisters, and cultivate holiness in us. Let us ask ourselves, have we really been holy, or is our holiness rooted in our self-righteousness? Let us not be the same with the Pharisees who equated holiness with self-righteousness.

            Third, catholicity of the church means its universality, its inclusivistic attitude. In this sense, “the Church is Catholic because she has been sent out by Christ on a mission to the whole of the human race.”[10] The missionary characteristic of the church proves its catholicity and its faithfulness to the challenge during the Pentecost. This implies evangelization, of proclaiming the Good News. This is a task of men and most especially of modern women, as Mary was also present in the Pentecost event.

But we must be reminded of the preference of the Church in proclaiming the gospel. A lot of people today do not have the chance to hear good news: contractual laborers, unemployed graduates, out-of-school youth, exploited women, the poor. All they have heard in their entire lives is the affirmation of their sad state of affairs. The Church then must have a preferential option for the poor, to evangelize, to bring the good news of salvation, of liberation, to the poor. Gutierrez affirms that “the proclamation of the good news to the poor is a sign of the presence of Christ the messiah in human history.”[11] As Balasuriya reminded, “The Church’s love of preference for the poor is wonderfully inscribed in Mary’s Magnificat.”[12] There is no greater relief than giving hope to the hopeless.

Lastly, the Church as apostolic reminds our apostleship in Christ. We are called to become followers of Christ, to be on earth his compassionate heart. Doing this entails love. The love to commit ourselves in building God’s Kingdom here on earth. As Jesus’ prayer goes “your kingdom come,” God’s Kingdom is something we have to establish here on earth, here and now. We have to be vigilant to the signs of the times. Poverty, injustice, hunger, exploitation and oppression all run contrary against the essence of God’s Kingdom. We must dismantle the structures that preserve these evil conditions. Therefore, “the kingdom requires us to change our present reality, reject the abuses of the powerful, and establish relationships that are fraternal and just.”[13]

Again, Pope Paul VI reminds the modern women that “Mary of Nazareth, while completely devoted to the will of God, was far from being a timidly submissive woman... on the contrary, she was a woman who did not hesitate to proclaim that God vindicates the humble and oppressed, and removes the powerful people of this world from their privileged positions.”[14]

This is our role as members of the Church. And we must always be inspired by that peasant woman, who sacrificed her reputation in order to bring into fulfillment God’s plan for humanity. I do hope that we could appreciate better Mary as a mother, our mother, and before ending this day, let us greet her in advance “Happy Mothers’ Day.”

BIBILIOGRAPHY

Books

Gutierrez, Gustavo. A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics and Liberation. Trans. Sr.           Caridad Inda and John Eagleson. New York: Obrbis Books.

_____________. The God of Life. Trans. Matthew J. O’Connell. Manila: St. Pauls        Philippines, 1994.

____________. Gustavo Gutierrez: Essential Writings. Ed. James Nickoloff. New York:          Orbis Books, 1996.

Nolan, Albert. Jesus Today: A Spirituality of Radical Freedom. Quezon City: Jesuit       Communications Foundation, Inc.

Journals:

Moreno, Antonio. S.J.. “PCP II Ecclesiology: A Critical Evaluation.” Landas. 8 (1994): 42.

Mangibin, Ferdinand. “’Church of the Poor: ‘Revisiting the Catholic Social Teachings of      the Church.” Lumina. 20, 2 (2009): 1.

Electronic Sources:

Balasuriya, Tissa O. M. I. Mary and Human Liberation. Article Online. Available from             http://tissabalasuriya.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/mary-human-liberation1.pdf. 12 May 2012.

Miles, Sara. My Soul Proclaims: Submission and Subversion in Mary’s Magnificat. Article         Online. Available from         http://www.journeywithjesus.net/Essays/20071210JJ.shtml. 12 May 2012.

Catechism of the Catholic Church. Second edition.             http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm. 12 May 2012.

---

[1] Gustavo Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics and Liberation, trans. Sr. Caridad Inda and John Eagleson (New York: Obrbis Books), 176. Emphases mine.

[2] Albert Nolan, Jesus Today: A Spirituality of Radical Freedom (Quezon City: Jesuit Communications Foundation, Inc.), 86.

[3] Alber Nolan enlightens us with this issue. Ibid., 84.

[4] Sara Miles, My Soul Proclaims: Submission and Subversion in Mary’s Magnificat, 10 December 2007, 12 May 2012 http://www.journeywithjesus.net/Essays/20071210JJ.shtml.

[5] Antonio Moreno, S.J., “PCP II Ecclesiology: A Critical Evaluation,” Landas, vol. 8 (1994), 42.

[6] Ferdinand Mangibin, M.A., “’Church of the Poor:’ Revisiting the Catholic Social Teachings of the Church,” vol. 20, no. 2, 1. Mangibin further clarifies that the solidarity with the oppressed and the poor entails three important points: deeper practice of Christian living, read the signs of the times, and duty.

[7] We can learn better the concept of community through examining the early community of the Christians found in Acts 4: 32 which says “Now, the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common.”

[8] Gustavo Gutierrez, The God of Life, trans. Matthew J. O’Connell (Manila: St. Pauls Philippines, 1994), 3.

[9] Tissa Balasuriya, O. M. I, Mary and Human Liberation, 12 May 2012, http://tissabalasuriya.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/mary-human-liberation1.pdf.

[10] Catechism of the Catholic Church, second ed., 12 May 2012 http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm.

[11] Gustavo Gutierrez, Gustavo Gutierrez: Essential Writings, ed. James Nickoloff (New York: Orbis Books, 1996), 264.

[12] Tissa Balasuriya, O. M. I, Mary and Human Liberation, 12 May 2012, http://tissabalasuriya.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/mary-human-liberation1.pdf.

[13] Ibid., 174.

[14] Tissa Balasuriya, O. M. I, Mary and Human Liberation, 12 May 2012, http://tissabalasuriya.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/mary-human-liberation1.pdf.

Mechanics for the reaction papers

Tips for a good reaction paper

Things to be done:

1. Understand the article you are reading.

2. Think of 2 or 4 major points which you want to explicate or criticize on your paper.

3. What are the things you learned, agreed, and disagreed?

4. Defend and justify your claims.

5. It would be better if you relate your ideas to real-life experiences e.g. if it talks about politics, then cite (and criticize) the current political situation of your locality or your country.

Things not to be done:

1. Merely summarizing everything. I expect a reaction paper, not a summary of what you read.

2. PLAGIARISM. Be sure to acknowledge the authors whom you cited on your paper.

For the format…

1. Use a short size bond paper.

2. Adjust all margins to 1 inch.

3. On the line spacing options, use double spacing.

4. Font style: Calibri, Font size: 11

5. I encourage you to use Microsoft office.

6. Most of the articles you are going to read exceed 2000 words. I require you to submit a paper of NOT LESS THAN 1000 words.

7. Use APA/MLA format for citations and bibliography. Ask help from your English teachers for this.

8. Please do not forget to WRITE YOUR NAME AND SECTION.

Submit through my email (reglets_87@yahoo.com)

NOTE: Study the criteria for you to be able to create a quality output. GOOD LUCK!

Criteria
	Poor 10 pts Does not meet assignment objectives	Fair 20 pts Assignment objectives minimally met	Good 30 pts Meets assignment ojbectives	Excellent 40 pts Exceeds assignment objectives
Content & Development  40%	Poor - Content is incomplete. - Major points are not clear and /or persuasive. Questions were not adequately answered.	Fair - Content is not comprehensive and /or persuasive. - Major points are addressed, but not well supported.  - Responses are inadequate or do not address assignment. - Content is inconsistent with regard to purpose and clarity of thought.	Good - Content is accurate and persuasive. - Major points are stated. - Responses are adequate and address assignment. - Content and purpose of the writing are clear.	Excellent - Content is comprehensive, accurate, and persuasive. - Major points are stated clearly and are well supported. - Responses are excellent, timely and address assignment including course concepts. - Content and purpose of the writing are clear.
Organization & Structure  30%	Poor - Organization and structure detract from the message of the writer. - Paragraphs are disjointed and lack transition of thoughts.	Fair - Structure of the paper is not easy to follow.  - Paragraph transitions need improvement. - Conclusion is missing, or if provided, does not flow from the body of the paper.	Good - Structure is mostly clear and easy to follow. - Paragraph transitions are present. - Conclusion is logical.	Excellent -Structure of the paper is clear and easy to follow. - Paragraph transitions are logical and maintain the flow of thought throughout the paper. - Conclusion is logical and flows from the body of the paper.
Format  10%	Poor - Paper lacks many elements of correct formatting. - Paper is inadequate/excessive in length. -Paper is not double spaced	Fair - Paper follows most guidelines. - Paper is over/ under word length.	Good - Paper follows designated guidelines. - Paper is the appropriate length as described for the assignment. -Format is good.	Excellent - Paper follows all designated guidelines. - Paper is the appropriate length as described for the assignment. -Format enhances readability of paper.
Grammar, Punctuation & Spelling  20%	Poor - Paper contains numerous grammatical, punctuation, and spelling errors. - Language uses jargon or conversational tone.	Fair - Paper contains few grammatical, punctuation and spelling errors. - Language lacks clarity or includes the use of some jargon or conversational tone.	Good - Rules of grammar, usage, and punctuation are followed with minor errors. Spelling is correct.	Excellent - Rules of grammar, usage, and punctuation are followed; spelling is correct. - Language is clear and precise; sentences display consistently strong, varied structure.

The Fallen Ubermensch

The Fallen Ubermensch

For once you sheltered me with your nurturing love
That which is praised even from the one above
You caressed my broken being and made it whole
But now shatters it in front of all

I do not wish for eternity
I only desired time
For eternity is not mine to experience with felicity

But for your paramour accused with no crime

Time is that which was stolen from me
Judgment had been passed, pronounced as guilty
Unworthy to love and to be loved
Harsh words they say I deserve to have

I am not what you think I am
I am what you think I am not

So I fought, and failed, and fought again
Blinded, I believed that I was not beaten
I stayed, and struggled, only to end up getting strangled
Deceived, I believed that victory is what I hold

Empty handed I continued the battle
But this time not a single enemy is visible
Belied, you told me that I finally won
But later reversed the judgment, pronounced "victory undone"

Puzzled, I tried to reflect
Perplexed, I wondered what's next
Enlightened, I hid the tears
Deserted, I consumed the beers

For he's a god and I am not
He's perfect, and I deserve to rot
He's a diamond, I am a stone
He's got everything but I am all alone

I am stranger, he's a noble
I am a body, he's a soul
I am a slave, he's a king
I am nothing, he's something

I wish you'd understand
That I am not what you think I am
I am what you think I am not.

Philippine Education and Democratic Governance

Regletto Aldrich D. Imbong

INTRODUCTION

            In this paper, I would contend for the crucial role that education plays in creating and maintaining a good democratic government. In the social-curricular relationship, the social consciousness of the people is produced or reproduced by the curriculum and the established forms of knowledge preserved in the latter. This expresses the direct relationship between the social mind and the classrooms that create the individual minds; what is presumed here is that the knowledge “transmitted” in the schools encourages a system that is oriented towards social goals.[1]

            But the problem, as I would argue, is that in the age where neoliberalism has wreaked havoc in all institutions, – not even sparing education – education’s social responsibility of producing citizens have been distorted into maintaining the status quo i.e. capitalism’s drive for profit through accumulation of cheap human labor. As a consequence of neoliberal educational restructurings, which place more emphasis on market values rather than on democratic values[2] and problem-posing[3] pedagogy, the current curricula have been structured to adapt an apolitical stance vis-à-vis the different socio-historical and political phenomenon Filipinos experience. As an effect, most of the teachers and students the current curricula create are designed to become future apolitical and uncritical citizens, who merely are reduced as driving forces of the market and industry.

            The urgent task therefore, is to implement genuine educational reforms that both dismiss the market-oriented scheme of neoliberal globalization on education, and defend the language of social critique both inside and outside the classrooms as a condition for a democratic and just society. The real gauge for a strong and democratic government resides neither only on the credentials of its political leaders nor to subservience to foreign dictates, but most importantly on the active and collective involvement of its citizens, empowered to change oppressive social and political structures rather than adapt to them.[4]

PHILIPPINE EDUCATION AND NEOLIBERALISM

            First and foremost, it is important to define what the term neoliberalism means. Contrary to common understanding, it is not just an economic system. More than an economic system, it is also a “moral and social system designed to advance 20^th century global capitalism.”[5] It is hegemonic in character, and as a consequence, it becomes an ideology that “recognizes no national borders, political boundaries, or limits.”[6] It “is a distinctly US economic model… that devastates and blames the poor while rewarding and celebrating the rich.”[7] Lastly, “it promotes an economic structure that allows the owners of capital and production to operate virtually unobstructed around the world to take full advantage of poorly paid labor markets and nonexistent environmental regulation. The system is openly unjust and shows disdain for any pretense of social equality.[8]

            Second, we need to establish the fact that neoliberal globalization has indeed affected education – especially Philippine education. In Education Reform and Education Policy in Asia, Ka Ho Mok has stressed the fact that “no country is immune from the impact of globalization,”[9] and this includes Philippines. The economic, political and cultural aspects of the country has been structured and framed according to how it could best respond to a market-driven economy. Mok and many other scholars believe that “education policy and development is not immune from globalization pressures.”[10] This is actualized when educational systems change their “school governance models and curriculum design to accommodate the changing need of the knowledge economy.”[11] Thus, “the reconstruction of schooling is part of the neoliberal stage of capitalism” in order to “prepare workers, managers, and ancillary personnel for an exploitative system whose motor force is the accumulation of capital.”[12] In the present neoliberal condition, education is merely an “instrument that is used to facilitate the integration of the younger generation into the logic of the present system and bring about conformity to it…”[13] It has produced blind slaves rather than critical citizens.

            As early as the 1970’s, Constantino had already exposed the colonial and market-oriented nature of our education, which he technically termed as miseducation. He traced the historical origin and purpose of education introduced by the Americans in the Philippines. Describing the educational leaders of the country, Constantino cautions “that the educational system and philosophy of which they are proud inheritors were valid only in the framework of American colonialism. The American educational system introduced by the Americans has to correspond and was designed to correspond the economic and political reality of American conquest.”[14] In subjugating the Philippines as a colony, the American imperialists did not only utilize brute military force to sow fear among the people but also through pedagogical means to harvest blind obedience from the citizenry. Indeed, the best means of conquest is the moulding of people’s minds.[15] And the Americans, contrary to the Spanish colonialists, were able to realize this by implementing a public system of education in the Philippines,[16] having a façade of free education geared for the patronization of free market globalization.

            Constantino’s sharp and critical analysis of the Philippine educational system still holds true even today. The market-oriented character of Philippine education, though influenced by foreign powers, is legitimized by local legislations and orders. As explicitly expressed by CHED (Commission on Higher Education) in its strategic plan for 2011-2016, one of its major targets, in line with their “Rationalization of Higher Education Institutions and Programs,” is to develop and implement curricula which are integrated to the 21^st century skills and competencies and responsive to the needs of the market, both local and international.[17] CHED even called for the active involvement of industry representatives in developing the curricula. Directly quoting from the strategic plan, CHED explains that “in order to produce highly competent and competitive graduates, HEI’s[18] are encouraged to offer programs that are in demand and responsive to the needs of industry, both domestic and international.” The thrust – just like in the past – in Philippine education is the preparation of future workers equipped with both the skills to adapt to the workplace and the docility vis-à-vis oppressive working conditions.

What is implied in this system is the preservation of the culture of indifference common to the new generation of Filipinos. Filipino students, trained to merely respond to the needs of the industry, are shut through the walls connecting the schools to the industry. The current pedagogical practices in the Philippines disconnect the student from his/her everyday life as he/she is merely prepared and designed for the industry. In this case, “schooling thus becomes technocratic and rationalistic to the extent that it is removed from the material and everyday world and the experience of students.”[19] No longer are they exposed to the society and made aware with the different relationships and contradictions present in it. Social responsibility is already understood as to how individuals could maintain and adapt with the economic (capitalist) system rather than in the active engagement and involvement in creating history. In this sense, they are dominated and alienated from their right to participate in history.[20] History is now exclusive for the powerful.

TOWARDS A FILIPINIZED CRITICAL PEDAGOGY

            Employing Marx’ argument, there is the necessity and urgency to alter the kind of intervention done to our education and to rescue it from the influence of the ruling class.[21] With the market-oriented educational system practiced in the Philippines and its possible consequences to society, there arises a need to embrace a pedagogy that examines critical theories, and endeavors to link these to the people’s experiences of living and struggling. Furthermore, this pedagogy must question oppressive and violent systems – neoliberal globalization included – that dehumanizes persons and denies social transformation and democracy. It must be a Filipinized critical pedagogy.[22]

            The concept of critical pedagogy is difficult to define in a brief and compelling manner. It’s not all about learning pedagogical techniques and methods. Rather it is “grounded on a social and educational vision of justice and equality” and “constructed on the belief that education is inherently political.”[23] It does not view education as a neutral ground but concerns with       “’the margins’ of society, the experiences and needs of individuals faced with oppression and subjugation”.[24] Most importantly, it focuses on “understanding the profound impact of neo-colonial structures in shaping education and knowledge.”[25]

            Contrary to how neoliberal globalization has fashioned educational systems, education, as argued by Henry Giroux, is “a moral and political practice.”[26] As a moral practice, it is not limited to matters of “individual choice or relativism but a social discourse that refuses to accept needless human suffering and exploitation.”[27] It teaches both the teacher and the student the evils brought about by neoliberal or market-oriented policies that only preserve and even defend inhuman conditions for the sake of the capital. As a political practice, it “prepares students to engage in a common struggle for deepening the possibilities of autonomy, critical thought, and a substantive democracy.”[28] This aspect is absent in the present educational system for the latter simply fashions individuals ready for the workplaces. However, I would also clarify that critical pedagogy’s concern, as opposed to the current pedagogical practice, is already expanded: it both prepares students to land decent jobs in the future and empowers them to constantly adapt the language of social critique, that, for example, if ever oppression is present in their individual workplaces, they have the voice to question and the courage to struggle against it.

            But contextualization is necessary in the application of critical pedagogy. There is a need to critically apply a Western concept and practice to the concrete Philippine conditions. Michael Viola attempts to contextualize the task of critical pedagogy, affirming that Philippine history, as a treasury of struggle and experiences, has much to teach to Filipino educators. The latter, according to Viola, has the “responsibility to understand the world in which they are preparing future generations to live and work.”[29] Viola started with examining the current situation of education in the Philippines, stressing the (centuries-old) facts about low wages of public school teachers (prompting them to find extra jobs to augment their daily needs), unhealthy classroom proportion between teachers and students, the lack of learning-conducive classrooms and comfort rooms and malnutrition vis-à-vis the necessity for students to learn.[30] Viola connects all these problems with the US (neoliberal) drive to expand its hegemonic economic rule, forcing Philippines to adopt structural adjustment programs aimed at exploitation of cheap human labor brought about by the deskilling of poor Filipino students through the commercialization of education. Viola, quoting David Harvey, maintains that “public utilities and social services were turned into sinister opportunities for privatization and profit.[31]

            The Filipino educator therefore, as the molder of future generations, must make its pedagogy relevant to the lives, experiences and struggles of the Filipinos. To realize this, Viola quoted Epifanio San Juan Jr. that the educator (but certainly not limited to him/her) must “interrogate the totality of capitalism and the contradictions of history.”[32] The educator does not merely confront the educational problems presented earlier[33] but must show these to his/her students in a manner which is politically awakening, and encourages collective and organized action to uproot its cause, i.e. (monopoly) capitalism.

            This is the essential element of critical pedagogy. The delimiting walls that connect the classroom to the workplaces, set up under a market-oriented education, are destroyed. New democratic visions and horizons are shown to students (and the teachers as well), making them realize that the schools are but microcosms of the bigger society.

DEMOCRACY AND GOOD GOVERNANCE

An empowered citizenry is the most important element in good democratic governance. A citizenry that is not silenced (through pedagogical manipulations) but endowed with a political consciousness (molded through critical pedagogy) prepared to question and alter inhuman conditions, and having the vision and hope to build a democratic society. Without this, there is a great possibility that the bureaucracy would abuse its power and even use this against the people. In this case, democracy fails.

The concept of democracy has been distorted and even used by the ruling class against the exploited masses. Definitely, the democracy that I mean here is not the current liberal democracy taught, used and defended by the bourgeoisies: a commodified democracy reserved for the “haves” and restricted from the “have nots.”[34] Rather, it must be the type of democracy that listens to the centuries-old demand of Filipino peasants for agrarian reform, protects workers from an unstable, cheap and contractual labor, and defends Filipino professionals from underpayment.

Unless these conditions – which are basic and should have been prioritized by our government – are met, the good and democratic government will remain to be an impossible dream. Lastly, unless these conditions are granted, the government will never be from the people, by the people and for the people.

REFERENCES

BOOKS:

Constantino, Renato. A History of the Philippines: From the Spanish Colonization to the Second   World War. London: Monthly Review Press, 1975.

Dale, John and Emery Hyslop-Margison. Paulo Freire: Teaching for Freedom and            Transformation: The Philosophical Influences on the Work of Paulo Freire. New York: Springer, 2010.

Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London: The Continuum International Publishing Group Inc., 1970.

Giroux, Henry. Border Crossings: Cultural Workers and the Politics of Education. New York:      Routledge, 2005.

Kincheloe, Joe, Knowledge and Critical Pedagogy: An Introduction. Quebec: Springer, 2008.

Kincheloe, Joe and Shirley Steinberg. “Politics, Intelligence and the Classroom: Postformal Teaching.” Joe Kincheloe et.al. ed. Rethinking Intelligence: Confronting Psychological Assumptions About Teaching and Learning. New York: Routledge, 1999.

Marx, Karl. “The Communist Manifesto.” Karl Marx: Selected Writings. Ed. David McLellan. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. 259.

Mclaren, Peter. Critical Pedagoy and Predatory Culture: Oppositional Politics in a Postmodern    Era. New York: Routledge, 1995.

Mok, Ka Ho. Education Reform and Education Policy in East Asia. New York: Routledge, 2006.

Zizek, Slavoj. “From Democracy to Divine Violence,” Democracy in What State?. Ed. Amy Allen. New York: Columbia University Press, 2011. 101.

JOURNAL

Viola, Michael. “The Filipinization of Critical Pedagogy: Widening the Scope of Critical   Educational Theory.”Journall for Critical Education Policy Studies 7. 1 (June 2009): 18.

ELECTRONIC SOURCES:

Assessor, An. “Testing, Privatization and the Future of Public Schooling.” Monthly Review 63.3   (July-   August 2011), (no page). 8 February 2012.                                                                 <http://monthlyreview.org/2011/07/01/testing-privatization-and-the-future-of-       public-schooling>.

Constantino, Renato. “The Miseducation of the Filipino.” Article Online. Available from             http://www.scribd.com/doc/32721186/Renato-Constantino-The-Miseducation-of-  the-      Filipino.4 September 2011

Einstein, Albert. “Why Socialism.” Monthly Review 61.1 (May 2009), (no page). 4 February 2012. < http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism>.

---

[1] Albert Einstein, “Why Socialism,” Monthly Review, Volume 61, Issue 1, May 2009, 4 February 2012, 3-4.

[2] Henry Giroux, Border Crossings: Cultural Workers and the Politics of Education (New York: Routledge, 2005), 209.

[3] Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (London: The Continuum International Publishing Group Inc., 1970), 26.

[4] Henry Giroux, Border Crossings: Cultural Workers and the Politics of Education (New York: Routledge, 2005), 66-67.

[5] John Dale and Emery Hyslop-Margison, Paulo Freire: Teaching for Freedom and Transformation: The Philosophical Influences on the Work of Paulo Freire, (New York: Springer, 2010), 6.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8]Ibid.

[9] Ka Ho Mok, Education Reform and Education Policy in East Asia (New York: Routledge, 2006), 13.

[10] Ibid. Mok, quoting from Mok and Welch narrates that “after completing a series of comparative studies, they find that educational developments in the region, including Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea, mainland China, Japan, the Philippines, Cambodia, New Zealand, and Australia, have been affected by the trends of marketization and corporatization.” Ibid., 4.

[11] Ibid., 5.

[12] An Assessor, “Testing, Privatization and the Future of Public Schooling,” Monthly Review, July-August 2011, 4 February 2012, http://monthlyreview.org/2011/07/01/testing-privatization-and-the-future-of-public-schooling>.

[13] As argued by Richard Shaull in his foreword to Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (New York: Continuum International Publishing Group Inc., 1970), 34.

[14] See Renato Constantino, The Miseducation of the Filipino, 4 Sept. 2011<http://www.scribd.com/doc/32721186/Renato-Constantino-The-Miseducation-of-the-Filipino>.

[15] See Renato Constantino, The Miseducation of the Filipino, 4 Sept. 2011<http://www.scribd.com/doc/32721186/Renato-Constantino-The-Miseducation-of-the-Filipino>. Also see Renato Constantino, A History of the Philippines: From the Spanish Colonization to the Second World War (London: Monthly Review Press, 1975), 309.

[16] Renato Constantino, A History of the Philippines: From the Spanish Colonization to the Second World War (London: Monthly Review Press, 1975), 308. Religious mystification was not employed by the Americans. The mystification process undergone by the Filipinos were through the acceptance and eventual education of an alien and colonial curriculum.

[17] With the Philippine government unable to establish nationalized industries and rather strongly relies on foreign investments, the concept of “local” markets is minimal if not impossible. So, to the question on who benefits this type of education, I would argue that Philippines is the disadvantageous party.

[18] Higher Education Institutions.

[19] Joe Kincheloe and Shirley Steinberg, “Politics, Intelligence and the Classroom: Postformal Teaching,” Joe Kincheloe et.al. ed., Rethinking Intelligence: Confronting Psychological Assumptions About Teaching and Learning (New York: Routledge, 1999), 242.

[20] Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (London: The Continuum International Publishing Group Inc., 1970), 130.

[21] Karl Marx, Karl Marx: Selected Writings, ed., David McLellan (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 259

[22] Critical pedagogy is not a new term of which the researcher invented. Its theoretical roots could go as far back to Marx, in the German Ideology, emphasizing that “life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life.” But the movement is more popularized first in Latin America, especially by Paulo Freire, and later to some Western scholars and pedagogues. But critical pedagogy per se is a Western product. It sprung from a condition alien to the Philippine setting; the task therefore is to be able to reformulate such a concept suitable for the analysis, critique and reform of Philippine education.

[23] Joe Kincheloe, Knowledge and Critical Pedagogy: An Introduction (Quebec: Springer, 2008), 10.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Henry Giroux, Border Crossings: Cultural Workers and the Politics of Education (Routlegdge Taylor and Francis Group, 2005), 209. First and foremost, this stand is based on the belief that education is never neutral; it is not an apolitical but a political issue. See Peter Mclaren, Critical Pedagoy and Predatory Culture: Oppositional Politics in a Postmodern Era (New York: Routledge, 1995), 16.

[27] Henry Giroux, Border Crossings: Cultural Workers and the Politics of Education (New York: Routledge, 2005), 67.

[28] Ibid., 209

[29] Michael Viola, “The Filipinization of Critical Pedagogy: Widening the Scope of Critical Educational Theory,”Journall for Critical Education Policy Studies, vol.7 no.1, 18.

[30] Ibid., 16-17.

[31] Ibid., 17.

[32] Ibid., 13.

[33] Doing so would reduce the issue to mere reformism, a move which does not radically answer the basic contradiction/s underlying these problems. For example, if teachers merely initiate feeding programs for the malnourished, the fact that a million more students are still malnourished still lingers. Or if charity institutions construct classrooms, the problem of the yearly budget cuts on education is left untouched, if not unsolved.

[34] I would compare this liberal democracy to how Zizek described “(market) freedom is unfreedom for those selling their working force…” See Slavoj Zizek, “From Democracy to Divine Violence,” Democracy in What State?, ed. Amy Allen (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011), 101.