BRILLANTES LAW: virtual friend vs. flesh and blood friend

BRILLANTES LAW: virtual friend vs. flesh and blood friend: Am I to realize now the difference between a virtual friend and one of the flesh and blood version? One article distinguishes between virtu...

virtual friend vs. flesh and blood friend

Am I to realize now the difference between a virtual friend and one of the flesh and blood version? One article distinguishes between virtual friends (meaning online buddies) from what she calls flesh and blood versions, meaning, those whom we actually meet in real life. Both send messages online. A flesh and blood friend however goes beyond sending messages by actually showing up to help you when you are in trouble. A virtual friend is someone who invites you online to be his friend. He or she may already be your friend or may just be an acquaintance or someone you simply know, whose invitation you accept just out of courtesy. A friend however of the flesh and blood type, goes beyond mere acquaintance. He or she is someone you like or trusts; someone you sympathize with or support. Friendship thus of the flesh and blood type may be put to a test. You may realize that he or she may not be a true friend, as for instance, he has betrayed your trust or has not shown any sympathy or provided any support to you. No such test is expected of someone who is merely a virtual friend.

Paulo Freire's Philosophy of Education

PAULO FREIRE’S PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION

1.         Paulo Freire and His Educational Philosophy and Program

In all the years we have been studying, have we ever been bothered by the question: what is education? Or what its purpose is? Have we ever felt the need to evaluate whether the education we are getting is what we really need? Or whether the way we are taught in our classes is that which is best for us?

At the start of every semester or school year, we are confronted by many school assignments: the books that need to be read; the researches to be undertaken or reports to be made, that our main concern is to get things done. As to where all our efforts are going to or what purpose of objective they are intended to achieve, are things that we hardly have time with.

Understandably, we do not ask these questions, because ordinarily one does not ask questions, except those who have nothing else to do, until something goes wrong. Take the cell phones we are using, have we ever bothered to examine them? Not until it malfunctions and something goes wrong with it.

Education however has something to do with our life, our future. When something goes wrong with it, perhaps it is already too late to examine or evaluate as we may have already graduated from college. Some graduates are lost and confused, not knowing what to do with their life.  Why? In the very first place, how could they have prepared themselves for life’s challenges, when in the long years they have been in school, it was not clear to them, what and for what purpose they are in school for.

Reflecting on what exactly we are doing in school and what our purpose is, is precisely the concern of the philosophy of education. We shall be guided by the philosophical thought of Paulo Freire.

3)                  Who is Paulo Freire?

Paulo Freire is a Brazilian educator. Confronted by the dehumanizing poverty of his people, he saw a direct link between his people’s oppressed condition and the kind of education dominant in his country. His analysis showed that the kind of education in his country shaped in his people qualities and character traits, which perpetuated their poverty as well as their exploitation by the few who rule society.

As he saw the potency of education as an instrument for the perpetuation of his people’s poverty and oppression, he also saw in it, particularly in a liberatory kind of education, the way to his people’s liberation from their oppressed condition.

It is with this insight that he began to design his philosophy of education, particularly his teaching method, whose precise purpose is to help his countrymen discover the causes of their oppression, as a first step to the realization that through collective action they can liberate themselves from their oppressed condition.

4)         His Literacy Programs

Guided by philosophy and method, he launched nationwide literacy programs in his country, through which he and his co-workers, not only taught reading and writing to thousands of his peasant countrymen, but more importantly awakened in them the hope that with their knowledge and skill in reading and writing, they can have a more meaningful participation in the day-to-day decisions which affected their lives in the Brazilian countryside, thereby having a direct hand in shaping  their future as a people.

5)         Relevance to Us

Freire’s educational philosophy and program is most relevant to us, considering that like the Brazil of his time, majority of our people are poor and have no meaningful participation in the decision-making process in our country. Like the Brazil of his time, our people must come to realize that poverty is not our fate, as it is within our power to liberate ourselves from the poverty and injustice which is widespread in our country, through our collective action.

2.         Man’s vocation is to become fully human

1)                  Freire’s Concern: Man Becoming Fully Human

It will be seen from what I have just shared with you that Freire’s concern for education is basically a concern for the human person, whose vocation according to him is to become fully human. He developed his educational philosophy and advanced his educational programs, precisely for the very purpose of enabling men and women, especially the oppressed, attain their full development as human persons.

2)         The Very Aim of Education Itself

On reflection, this very aim of the human person as seen by Freire is the very aim and purpose of education and the learning process itself. For what happens to us when we learn, which what should take place in all activities we do in school? When we learn, is it not that we gain something or something is added to us? In other words, we grow and develop. The one thus who entered school must no longer the same person who will leave school, as something has already been added to him or he has already gained something which was not with him before.

What do we gain? What is added to us? Most focus only in the acquisition of knowledge or skills. But is this all there is to education? They forget that through education they must also form their character. But as to what character will be formed in them does not depend on the students alone, but more primarily on their teachers, who by their method of instruction, shape the kind of person their students come to be.

Some schools focus only in making competent professionals out of their students, without paying attention to making good persons and citizens out of them; persons and citizens who should be able to think and decide for themselves and who are committed to the advancement not only of their personal welfare but also the welfare of the people as a whole. It is understandable thus why Freire, concerned in advancing the full development of the human person, was led to see in education the means and path for the liberation of his people from their oppressed condition.

3)         Man’s Historical Reality-Dehumanization

Sadly however, says Freire, man’s historical reality is one of dehumanization. He is the slave of a condition which hinders his pursuit of self-affirmation as responsible person; a condition of domination, where the few impose their will on the many; a condition where the majority of the people are kept poor and are deprived of any meaningful participation in the making of decisions affecting their welfare.

Sadly too, the very method of instruction in the classroom and in society in general, shape in the students and the citizens’ qualities, which perpetuate the domination of the few over the many, as they for instance are not taught to think critically, thereby making them easy victims of the deceptions of the few so that they can continue their domination over the many.

Teachers may not realize it and students may not be aware of it, but the kind and manner of education is practiced in the classroom, shape in the students qualities which, instead of helping their students to grow and develop as persons, on the contrary hinder the development of their human person. Freire calls this dominant mode of instruction in the classroom and in society itself as the banking method, one which in fact serve as obstacles to the full flowering of their humanity as persons, thereby allowing their continued oppression and exploitation by the few who rule society.

Before I share Freire’s analysis of the banking method as well as the method of education which he proposes as instrument for man’s liberation from his present social condition, I wish to invite you to examine yourself, how, based on your own experiences is teaching done in the classroom and what qualities this manner of teaching develops in the students.

Please note and reflect on the following guide question:

1)         How is teaching done in the classroom? What does the teacher do or what is his role in the classroom? What to the students on the other hand do or what roles do they take in relation to that of the teacher?

2)                  What qualities do there manner or method of teaching shape in the students?

3)         Will these qualities help or hinder the transformation of society?

3.         Banking Method

By its very name, in the banking method, teaching is depositing. The role of the teacher is to fill the minds of the students with pre-selected, ready-made knowledge. The students on the other hand are viewed as empty containers who merely passively receive and uncritically memorize and repeat what is deposited in them.

In this method, the teacher speaks, the students merely listen; the teacher thinks, the students merely conform to his thoughts; the teacher dictates, the students merely take down notes; the teacher spoon-feeds them and the students entirely swallow what is taught to them. The teacher chooses and enforces his choices and the students merely comply.

In this method then, the students will not develop the ability to think critically: the ability to evaluate, to question the validity/truth of a claim; the ability to think and decide for themselves. They are shaped to become mere passive receivers; blind and docile followers who would not question or challenge their teachers/leaders or the existing system in society and with no creative power to participate in the transformation of society.

This to Paulo Freire is dehumanizing, for apart from inquiry and responsible participation, man cannot be truly human.

It is for this reason that for Paulo Freire, the Banking Method is an instrument of oppression and domination; an instrument for preserving the status quo or the existing unjust and exploitative social order.

To liberate themselves from their condition of oppression and domination, Freire believes that the oppressed must critically recognize the causes of their oppression, so that through transforming action, they can create a new situation and thus make possible the pursuit of their development as human persons. This they can attain through the dialogical method of education.

4.         Dialogical (Problem-Posing) Method

Paulo Freire opposes the Banking Method and believes that if education must be liberative, it must be dialogical. He believes that the role of the teacher is not to deposit but to dialogue with his students. His role is not to provide ready-made answers which he will only pass to his students. His role is to pose problems to them. While the teacher may share his own thoughts, this is not in order to impose these on them, but to challenge them to think and decide for themselves; so that they may themselves search for the answers.

As the teacher listens to the thoughts or answers of his students, he at the same time reexamines his own thoughts and the answers of his students, he at the same time re-examines his own thoughts and answers. He is not a “know-it-all” who would simply pass his knowledge to his students, but one with a genuine desire to listen and even to learn from his student.

           

He is then not just a teacher, but a teacher-student; one who is himself taught in dialogue with his students; one who also learns in the course of his teaching. His students likewise are not just students but student-teachers; not passive receivers but active participants. They are not docile listeners or followers but critical co-investigators, who, in dialogue with the teachers, seek the truth themselves and who, in sharing their own thoughts would give others (their teachers and classmates), the opportunity to also learn from them.

5.         Ways the Method can be Applied

How is this to be done? For one, a teacher, instead of using the straight lecture (spoon-feeding) method, should use the question and answer method. The questions to be posed should not be a mere means for the teacher to dictate his views on his students. They must challenge them to reexamine established beliefs and test the truth of popular claims and views.

Another is for the teacher to form discussion groups, which will serve as a venue for students, to voice their ideas and opinions. Through these discussion groups, the teacher after posing the problem, will initially withhold his own views and simply listen. Acting at the start merely as a facilitator, he would guide the participants, so that they would dwell only on the issue involved and avoid introducing irrelevant matters. Giving the members of the group the opportunity to fully expound on their views, he will also remind them not to dominate the discussion and allow others the opportunity to be heard.

Through this exercise, the students will not only learn to argue, but also to listen while others are speaking and to respect views different from what they hold.

Tom Heaney in issues in Frerean Pedagogy recounts how this method was used in one instance.

            Maria, one of the students in a literacy class, arrived late. She explained that her husband did not want her to go to class and argued that the children are being neglected. Her teacher, instead of giving advice or encouragement, asked the group for help. The members reflected on Maria’s experience and in the process identified several issues: a husband’s “putative” rights over his wife, acceptance of domestic violence against women as normal and that the wife had the major responsibility for her children.

            Finally, it was Maria who interrupted and said, “You’ve told me the way things are; I’ll tell you how they should be and together let’s talk about how to make them so, thus shifting the focus from the patronizing solicitude of some who accepted the present reality to a strategy of social transformation.

6.         Paulo Freire’s Challenge

This however would only be possible if the teacher has deep confidence in the ability of his students to think and decide for themselves and the humility that he can also learn from them.

By posing problems to his students, the teacher should be able to urge them, not only to think but also to respond or act. Personally confronting a problem, the student would feel challenged to seek for answers and solutions. Having personally wrestled with a problem and succeeding in finding an answer, he can no longer remain passive and unconcerned. He feels himself committed to effect change in himself, in others or in society.

Paulo Freire challenges us to use the dialogical method and so that through it, students may be helped to fully grow and develop as human beings; help form in them critical consciousness as well as commitment to act, thereby shaping them to be active participants in the transformation of society.

It is only through this method he says that we can bring about the transformation of society. Thus, he issues the warning to revolutionaries who despite their sincere desire to liberate the people from their condition nevertheless have no faith in the people’s ability to think and decide for themselves. He says, we cannot liberate the people from their oppressed condition using the instrument of the oppressor.

To this end, the school curriculum says Paulo Freire, must address issues like the exploitation of workers, and other forms of oppression. Any curriculum he says which ignores these issues is supportive of the status quo and inhibits the expansion of consciousness, as well as blocks creative and liberating social action for change. To him then, discussion of these should find their way in the different subjects taught in school. Subjects should not be discussed in the abstract, but must reflect the day to day experiences of our people, challenging students to respond to them though collective, transforming social action.

The curriculum for him must be geared towards the transformation of society. Education thus is learning to take control and achieving power for social transformation. Education, thus, for Paulo Freire should be liberatory. It should encourage learners to challenge and change the world, and not merely to uncritically adap

BRILLANTES LAW: A Gandhian Understanding of the February Philippin...

BRILLANTES LAW: A Gandhian Understanding of the February Philippin...: A Gandhian Understanding of the February People Power Uprising 1.       Introduction Was it really people power which played the d...

A Gandhian Understanding of the February Philippine People Power Uprising

A Gandhian Understanding of the February People Power Uprising

1.      Introduction

Was it really people power which played the decisive role in ending the Marcos dictatorship? Can active non-violence under certain circumstances be an effective mode of struggle against all oppressive government?

Some sectors of the Philippines left, together with the Marcos Loyalists claim that it was U.S. intervention which brought about the ouster of Marcos. This is exactly the line taken by U.S. officials. In statements of self-congratulations after the uprising, they boasted that the removal of Marcos was a “‘triumph of the U.S. diplomacy’, ‘the fruit of 2 years of strategy’.” Others attribute the disgraceful exit of Marcos to the Enrile-Ramos-led military uprising. If there had been no military uprising, Cory Aquino they say, there would not have been elevated to the highest post in the land.

While recognising the roles played by the U.S., the Enrile-Ramos military faction and others, the facts show, that the most important force which decided the fate of Marcos was no other than people power. While victory was reaped at EDSA, we must not forget however that the people’s anti-dictatorship struggles date as far back as the 60’s, continuing even during the height of the dictatorship’s reign of terror. People power was the driving force not only in the numerous protest actions held in Metro-Manila and other Philippine urban centers but also in the armed struggles which were waged and until now continue to be waged in the countryside.

2.      A non-violent uprising

While violence was also used in February, 1986 against Marcos and his loyalist soldiers, as evidenced by the armed clashes near the TV stations and the bombings of Malacañang and Villamor Air Base, the February people power uprising was essentially non-violent in character. Active non-violence, was the primary mode of struggle used and the form of resistance which ensured the people’s victory over the dictatorship. This can be attributed to the influences of Senator Benigno Aquino, the post-Aquino assassination protest actions, the Philippine Church and most concretely, the civil disobedience campaign launched by Cory Aquino. And what is common to all of them? It is the faith in the power of active non-violence.

It is with this faith that Senator Aquino returned to our country in 1983, notwithstanding the threats to his life. This is evident in the arrival statement which he failed to read on account of his premature death by assassination. It says. “I have returned on my own free will to join the ranks of those struggling to restore our rights and freedoms through non-violence.”

It is this faith which emboldened the Philippine bishops to condemn the 1986 snap elections as “unparalleled in the fraudulence of its conduct” and to call on the people to stand up against the immoral Marcos regime by means of non-violent struggle, meaning “active resistance to evil by peaceful means.” It is with this similar faith that Cory Aquino despite having been cheated by the dictator’s most powerful machinery of deceit and terrorism has dared launch a people’s campaign of civil disobedience. This campaign which initially consisted of the boycott of crony or government-controlled banks, crony media and corporations, etc., has for its basis the conviction that even without using physical force, Marcos can be forced out of office.

3.      Why just an uprising

That people’s victory in 1986, sad to say, proved to be but short-lived. The Cory government which the people had brought to power through an uprising, instead of realizing the people’s aspirations for genuine social transformation, opted to continue the policies of the old regime and added new ones, the effect of which is the perpetuation of the present unjust and exploitative social order, which condemn the majority of our people to a life of dehumanizing poverty and oppression.

Sadly, EDSA did not turn out to be the revolution it was labelled to be, but just one of those uprisings as we the people continue in our struggle for genuine revolution: the transformation of our society into one which shall equitably distribute the wealth of our nation and empower of the people, one which will give genuine prosperity, freedom and happiness for all.

Because of this grand betrayal committed by the Cory government against the people, some of us today would rather forget what happened in February, 1986. Yet to do so, is to deny ourselves of the valuable lessons which could be learned from those events. One of these is that oppressive regimes like the Marcos dictatorship, under certain circumstances, may be brought down through non-violent means.

4.      Understanding the February uprising

How can that be done by people power, non-violent people power? Where does its power lie? The developments which the events took in February, 1986 and the success of active non-violence in ousting Marcos was never foreseen by some members of the Philippine left. Guided by Marxist social analysis, they consistently held to just one conclusion: Marcos can only be removed through armed struggle. While this might have been true during the early days of the dictatorship, the circumstances in 1986 were substantially different. As shown by the success of the February people power uprising, by then it was already possible to remove Marcos through active non-violence.

To understand the February people power uprising, we need a theory of political power which takes into consideration forces other than the force of arms. This can be supplied by Gandhian philosophy. It is in the light of this philosophy that the questions earlier mentioned shall be answered. While favorable circumstances were important in allowing non-violent struggle to succeed in 1986, its success is not just a matter of the accidental confluence of events. For the events were in fact consciously being shaped by people who were precisely guided by this philosophy- Gandhi’s philosophy of active non-violence. This is most evident in the campaign of civil disobedience and the concrete actions which were taken during the EDSA uprising itself. To see the distinct features of this philosophy, let us contrast it with the views of the proponents of armed resistance.

5.      The Marxist theory of political power.

Following Marxist philosophy, the proponents of armed struggle argue that the present unjust and exploitative social order which keeps the majority of our people in dehumanizing poverty and oppression is preserved by means of violence. This is the organized violence embodied in the state, the instrument of repression of the ruling class, the class in control of the nation’s wealth and which holds political power in our country. This state in the words of Lenin is “an organ of class domination, an organ of oppression…”, “an organization of the exploiting class… for the forcible holding down of the exploited class in the conditions of oppression.”

And what mainly consists this power called the state? “It consists” says Lenin, “of special bodies of armed men who have at their disposal prisons, etc….” Particularly, its chief instruments are a standing army and police. Thus the ruling class in the view of Marxists is able to exercise control and dominance over the people, because it is armed. Conversely, the people are powerless because they are unarmed.

6.      Argument for armed struggle

This class which benefits from the status quo expectedly will exert every effort and use every means within its reach to perpetuate the unjust and exploitative social order from which it enjoys a special position of wealth and power. It will never give up its privileges peacefully, that is, without a violent struggle. Hence “it is clear that the liberation of the oppressed class is impossible, not only without violent revolution but also without the destruction of the apparatus of state power, which was created by the ruling class…” Liberation can only be attained, if the oppressed unite and overcome the prevailing violence of the oppressor with the counter violence of an armed revolution.

That the state is indeed an instrument of repression of the ruling class is amply supported not only by the behaviour of the fascist Marcos dictatorship, but also by that of the present Cory government, which has not hesitated to use armed force to suppress even the peaceful protest actions of the people.

7.      Its view of parliamentary struggle

What about parliamentary struggle? Is it not possible for the oppressed majority to capture political power through elections? This to them is but an illusion. “Contrary to the liberal lie that a ‘poor boy can become president’”, says Amado Guerrero, a leading Filipino Marxist ideologue, “no one has even reached the rank of even a Congressman without representing the exploiting classes and without in the process joining them.”

Indeed to win elections one must either have money or be financially supported by the elite. Under such circumstances, the masses can only choose between candidates of the elite. Election after election, they are given false hopes of liberation from their wretched condition. Yet only faces change. For there is no significant difference in programme between the candidates of these political parties of the elite, both benefiting from the status quo and thus for its preservation. Their only conflict is one of personal interest, i.e. gaining political power in order to obtain greater affluence. “There is so much muckraking between these two reactionary parties, especially on the issue of graft and corruption. But mutually they avoid bringing up the fundamental issues involving the foreign and feudal domination over the country.”

8.      Criticism of pacifism

As opposed to the fascist violence of the ruling class which is intended to maintain the exploitative status quo, the Marxist opts for revolutionary violence as a means of transforming society; not because they are men of violence, but because the concrete social conditions point to them no other way of achieving genuine peace, a peace which is based on justice. If he could, says Felix Greene.

The revolutionary would change society not with guns but with words, with discussion, with persuasion. But the revolutionary is a realist and he knows that history cannot demonstrate a single instance where those who hold positions of power and privilege have given up their position peacefully. The revolutionary uses violence only to destroy a social order which does not any longer allow men to be human to each other.

Criticising the non-violence of pacifism which is equivalent to non-resistance, Greene points out that “submission to violence does not end violence it acquiesces in it… it is very difficult to find instances where violence has ceased because pity has been aroused by the helplessness of the victim, while history records thousands of cases where the defencelessness of a people is precisely why they have been attacked.”

9.      Complicity with structural violence

           

To remain non-violent in this manner, on the contrary, is to allow oneself to become “a partner of violence by allowing it to continue in a non-physical form.” Indeed, violence is not only physical but structural. This is the violence of the unjust social order which by concentrating the wealth of this nation in the hands of a few, force the majority of our people to remain hungry, sick, malnourished, gradually bringing death not only to their bodies but to their dreams, hopes and aspirations as well. This is the violence of the unjust social order which by concentrating the wealth of this nation in the hands of a few, force the majority of our people to remain hungry, sick, malnourished, gradually bringing death not only to their bodies but to their dreams hopes and aspirations as well. This is the violence of unjust social structures which condemn “about 30 million out of the country’s 56 million population (to) live in absolute poverty, in the sense of having an income that did not enable them to satisfy basic needs.”

Violence thus is inescapable, “we are either accomplices in the violence of the status quo or we join the ranks of those who are, if necessary, ready to use violence to overthrow it.”

10.  Non-violence is active, not passive

Is Gandhi’s non-violence the same as the non-violence of pacifism? A person is non-violent if he refrains or does not use physical force. But does this mean non-resistance and submission to the violent status quo? Does non-violence call on us to remain helpless and defenceless in the face of an unjust aggressor and thus be accomplices to our own oppression and exploitation? Certainly, this is not the non-violence of Gandhi or Senator Benigno Aquino. For their non-violence is active and not passive; not non-resistance but a mode of struggle against injustice.

Gandhi points out that “no man could be actually non-violent as I understand it is the most active force in the world.” Gandhi recounts how the people of a certain village misunderstood his teachings when they ran away while the police were looting their houses and molesting their womenfolk. Non-violence, he clarified to them, does not mean running away from the enemy.

11.  Justified violence

If the choice be only between cowardice and violence, Gandhi unequivocally advices the use of violence. “Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence? I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonour.” “I would risk violence a thousand times than the emasculation of the whole race.”

Under certain circumstances, he believes that violence is justified as an act of self-defence. If a woman for instance is attacked, “her primary duty is self-protection. She is at liberty to employ every method or means that comes to her mind in order to defend her honour…” He views this violence as a duty. Thus, when one of his sons asked him what he should have done, were he present when his father was fatally attacked in 1908, Gandhi replied that it was his duty to defend him, even to the extent of using violence. Applying this situation to himself, he said that if he, an old, decrepit and toothless man remained a helpless witness to an assault… his “so-called Mahatmaship, would be ridiculed, dishonoured and lost…”

In 1942, in a climactic speech in Bombay, he explicitly applied this analogy of self-defence to the Indian freedom struggle, “adding British rule to the list of criminal assailants against whom the use of violence in self-defence was permissible.” Gandhi thus differs from those who a priori held that active non-violence is the only morally permissible form of resistance, or that violence in any form is morally wrong. In the new state of liberated India, he even sees the use of violence as a necessity for the state’s survival, to put down criminal disobedience. Gandhi differs likewise from those who issue calls for peace and non-violence, yet remain silent and do nothing against an oppressive government which preserves an unjust social order. As Alice Guillermo has pointed out, this posture of non- violence “betrays an essential bias: while it overlooks or condones the institutionalized violence of the ruling elite to safeguard its interests, it condemns the violence which arises from the masses defending themselves against injustice.”

12.  The Gandhian theory of political power

Despite this view which favour the use of violence, why did Gandhi personally opt for active non-violence and urged the Indian nation to follow this mode of struggle? What is this non-violence which he asserts is the most active force in the world? The answer lies in his theory of political power. Unlike the Marxist which considers physical might as the main basis of political power, Gandhi believes that the ruler’s power to control and dominate over the people ultimately depends on the latter’s consent and cooperation. Referring to British Colonial Rule over India, he said:

            It is my certain conviction that no man loses his freedom, except through his own weakness. It is not much British guns that are responsible for our subjection as our voluntary cooperation. Even the most despotic government cannot  stand  except  for  the  consent  of  the  governed  which  consent is often forcibly procured by the despot.

The people are powerless, not because they are unarmed, but because of their own weakness, they allow themselves to be terrorized, this is similar to what Rizal said regarding our subjection to Spanish rule-“there are no tyrants if there are no slaves.”

13.  Obedience is not inevitable

If indeed this be the case, does this not precisely prove the necessity of using violence? For in the face of physical force and the threat of sanctions, are we not compelled to obey out of fear? And to overcome this fear, should we not ourselves be armed and thus obtain the capacity to strike back and to defend ourselves? Is obedience inevitable?

While it is true that men sometimes are forced to obey because of fear, this obedience is not always inevitable, one wherein our freedom of choice is totally destroyed. Some may obey or cooperate, not because they have no freedom to disobey at all, but because they are unwilling to face the injurious consequences of their refusal to obey.

Men can disobey, notwithstanding the risks of obedience. As Gene Sharp has said, “under certain conditions subjects may be willing to put up with inconvenience, suffering and disruption of their lives, rather than to continue to submit passively or to obey a ruler whose policies they can no longer tolerate.” Herein lies the power of active non-violence.

14.  Satyagraha: the power of active non-violence

What is active non-violence? Gandhi has called his mode of resistance, Satyagraha. This term is derived from two Sanskrit words, Satya which means ‘truth’ and Agraha which means ‘firm grasping’. Satyagraha thus means holding firmly to the truth or fidelity or adherence to the truth. What exactly does this mean?

If as Gandhi says, the oppressive ruler is able to exercise control and dominance over us, because of our consent or cooperation, i.e. we allow ourselves to be terrorized and thus bow to his evil will, Satyagraha or holding firmly to the truth means the refusal to cooperate with injustice and to anything which is violative or our conscience.

And what will be the consequence of this withdrawal of cooperation from the oppressive ruler? Gandhi says “I believe and everybody must grant, that no government can exist without the cooperation of the people, willing or forced, and if people suddenly withdraw their cooperation in every detail, the government will come to a standstill.”

An unjust government rules because we allow it to rule over us. The power of the tyrant has overcome the power of the people, for we allowed it to enslave our hearts i.e. we allowed ourselves to be terrorized. But the moment we refuse to cooperate with it, that government will eventually collapse. There lies the power of active non-violence.

15.  A Gandhian understanding of the February people power uprising

It is in this light that we can understand how the essentially non-violent people power uprising toppled the Marcos dictatorship. By withdrawing their support and assistance from the much hated regime, the latter has been deprived of its power to rule over them. This was evident when the people stayed along E.D.S.A during the military uprising despite Marcos’s threat to use force against them and the military rebels, even blocking the path of attacking tanks and when they stayed late in the evening, mindless of the curfew declared by the tyrant. As one writer has stated:

This man who ruled with wily mind and iron fist, who for two decades had deceived and             cowed             and killed: was he the same pathetic patriarch ordering phantom troops, declaring a state of emergency on a people who no longer allowed themselves to be deceived or cowed or killed.

           

It is in this light that we shall be able to understand the power behind Cory’s civil disobedience campaign. By boycotting the crony and government controlled banks, media and businesses, we pave the way for their eventual bankruptcy and collapse. And since the dictatorial regime derive the resources for its survival from the above, by so doing we deprive it of the means whereby it can further exploit and terrorize us, leaving it completely powerless.

16.  People power as decisive

It is in this light likewise that we can rightly understand the role played by the U.S. and the military uprising in toppling the Marcos dictatorship. If the U.S. has ever withdrawn its support from Marcos, it is not as an act of magnanimity or a high regard for freedom and democracy. For it has supported Marcos for so many years, despite the latter’s abuses, so long as its interests were protected by the tyrant. In those days of February, America has however realized that Marcos can no longer rule over the Filipino people. Thus to continue to support him, is to join Marcos in his downfall To protect its self-interest, it had to distance itself and withdraw its support from its long-time friend and ally.

While the military uprising did contribute in toppling Marcos, its role was but secondary to people power. As originally planned, the R.A.M. officers would launch a coup against Marcos, with no active people’s participation.

Yet because of Marcos’s premature discovery of their plot and in view of their failure to get enough support from their military comrades, Enrile and Ramos for their own survival sought people’s support by recognizing Cory’s victory in the snap elections. Had they not done this, the people would not have gone to E.D.S.A. to risk their lives in order to protect them from the loyalist soldiers. Had there been no military uprising, Marcos just the same would have fallen from power because of the civil disobedience campaign, but with more sacrifices on the part of the people.

17.  Requirement: the readiness to suffer

Indeed, to sacrifice, to be ready to suffer, this is the price to be paid if one decides to embark in a campaign of active non-violence. This will further expose us to the violence of the tyrant, who shall all the more exert efforts to terrorize us. Moreover we have to do away with the shallow and empty comforts that a slave enjoys on account of his cooperation.

Thus one needs to be prepared in this kind of battle, not by means of arms, but precisely by being ready to suffer and take risks, i.e. of being jailed for violating an unjust command or law. The slave avoids this, for fear of harm. Thus he cowardly submits to the will of the evil-doer. Yet the Satyagrahi, the non-violent resister by his readiness to suffer has conquered fear and there lies his strength. From then on, violence loses its power over him; he is genuinely a free man. Jose Burgos, the Publisher of the then We Forum, which Marcos closed, and who was arrested and detained together with his fellow staffers has expressed this message so well when he said in a letter to his readers:

As you read this note, please do not grieve. For contrary to your feelings and sentiments now, I am free- notwithstanding the four concrete walls and steel bars that confine me… I and the rest-may have been physically detained but our spirits left high in freedom.

Are you truly free out there? Or have you resigned yourselves to be shackled by the chains of your fears, your anxieties, you apathies? Smash you chains, be free.

BRILLANTES LAW: Abrenianism

BRILLANTES LAW: Abrenianism: abrenianism [ a Talk which my cousin Fr. Mike Brillantes requested from me in 1988 in connection with Rissik II whose theme is Abrenianism...

BRILLANTES LAW: Abrenianism

BRILLANTES LAW: Abrenianism: abrenianism [ a Talk which my cousin Fr. Mike Brillantes requested from me in 1988 in connection with Rissik II whose theme is Abrenianism...

Abrenianism

abrenianism [a Talk which my cousin Fr. Mike Brillantes requested from me in 1988 in connection with Rissik II whose theme is Abrenianism (Ilokano-Tingguian Cultural Heritage) but which I failed to give due to some miscommunication, resulting in me arriving a day late]

Good morning and Happy New Year. This is a historic event in the life of the people of Abra. For through this program, we signal the ever increasing spirit of Abrenianism among our people, the key to the advancement of our efforts to realize our people’s aspirations for greater prosperity, freedom and happiness.

To be able to use Abrenianism as a potent tool for significant change, we must be able to fully understand it. This task, I have taken as my humble contribution to the people of Abra, a people dear to me, I being myself a true son of the Abrenian race. Thus, we ask: What is Abrenianism? Who is the Abreño?

Is the Abreño a person who was born in Abra; or perhaps one though born somewhere else, nevertheless has his roots traceable to Abra? The past and even the present is a continuing witness to the numerous native sons and daughters of Abra who have excelled in their chosen field of endeavor: lawyers, doctors, nurses, teachers, engineers and many others. This is but an eloquent proof that the people of Abra have the intelligence, capability and determination to succeed.

Most probably they now enjoy a life of comfort, way above the subsistence condition of the majority of our people. In such a state, do they ever still think of Abra, the land of their birth, the land of their forefathers? Do they ever feel concern over the backwardness that remains to be true in their province? Are they taking steps to extend help, to share their time, talent or treasure for the social upliftment of their people.

One may be an Abra native but not necessarily an Abreño. For the true Abreño, I contend is one whose mind, heart and very life is imbued with the spirit of Abrenianism.

To awaken the spirit of Abrenianism, an intimate knowledge of the land and people of Abra is needed: their condition, aspirations and struggles both past and present, with the end in view of finding out how one’s self is related to Abra.

Abra is not as richly endowed in terms of natural resources as compared with the other provinces. The land area suitable for settlement and agriculture is rather small, considering that the big portion of our province’s land area consists of forest lands, mostly located in mountainous areas. Notwithstanding the rather inhospitable environment of our land, we as a people have survived and have grown from the fruits of agriculture. This we owe to our forefathers who did not surrender in the face of the stinginess of nature but rather have struggled to obtain to the fullest whatever the land can offer and have carved the land making it suitable for settlement.

Considering this environment, our forefathers have acquired the virtue of industry, frugality and a cooperative spirit. Whatever wealth  Abra now enjoys can be attributed to these admirable virtues of our forefathers, which we also have inherited to this day.

In addition, our forefathers through history have consistently manifested the virtues of bravery and love for freedom in the face of the efforts of foreigners to subjugate them. This character of theirs can be deduced according to my grandfather Adolfo Brillantes y Cariño from the fact that Bangued was founded by the Spaniards twenty three (23) years after the founding of Vigan, despite the not too far distance between them.

The history of the Filipino nation bears witness to the active involvement of the people of Abra to the Philippine struggle for national independence against Spain, America and Japan. Thus, whatever freedom we enjoy today no matter how limited, we owe to our forefathers who have sacrificed and offered their lives that we their children may be free.

In response, we too must continue to cultivate and live the virtues that have characterized their lives and that is exactly the spirit of Abrenianism: a life characterized by industry, frugality, a coooperative spirit, bravery and love for freedom; the spirit of love and service for the people of Abra; a consciousnes of being one with them in their condition and aspirations; that their joys are my joys and their sorrows are mine too.

That is how they have lived. That is how they have loved us. What then shall be our response?

N.B. In the book entitled "Deo Gracias", written by my late grandfather Adolfo Brillantes y Cariño, I recently learned that I am not only a proud descendant of the heroine Gabriela Cariño Silang and my grandfather Adolfo who was a bar topnotcher and once lone representative of the Province of Abra but also of my great grandfather Manuel Brillantes y Belmonte (father of Adolfo), who was an official of the revolutionary government and due to his services to the revolutionary army was imprisoned at Fort Santiago.