Citation
Kenny, P. (2020). Why Is There No Political Polarization in the Philippines? - Political Polarization in South and Southeast Asia: Old Divisions, New Dangers. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Retrieved from https://carnegieendowment.org/2020/08/18/why-is-there-no-political-polarization-in-philippines-pub-82439.
Summary:
The article explains the lack of political polarization in the Philippines. Kenny characterizes the term ‘polarization’ of society splitting into two clear opposing sides or a clear support or opposition towards the government. He explains that socioeconomic, ethnoreligious, and regional differences do not dominate the political climate in the Philippines and explores key historical issues that Duterte’s presidential campaign was able to capitalize on – the country’s long history of corruption and oligarchy.
Analysis
The article is published by Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a non-profit organization that labels itself as “independent” and “non-partisan”, which increases the credibility of the article. The influence of potential biases on the validity of information is very limited, as Kenny’s claims is continuously backed by statistics. For example, the lack of polarization in the Philippines is illustrated through a Pulse Asia research poll conducted in December 2019 which showed only 4% of Filipino disapprove of Duterte’s performance. Kenny also doesn’t undermine the importance of defining his terms, he describes the criteria used in defining ‘polarization’ to ensure his readers are on the same page.
Moreover, since its purpose is to inform rather than persuade, emotive words are hardly used even when describing the controversial war on drugs. Kenny employs formal terms such as “extrajudicial killings” to deliberately remove any trace of emotion that could sway the readers to a particular opinion; he does not describe these killings as “unjust” but rather defines it in strict legal terms of not authorized by law. The use of jargon such as “extrajudicial” hinders the accessibility of text, however it is a research project that offers political insight into Global South, and the main audience is not the general population.
Even when discussing issues that could result to a stronger polarization in the future, Kenny maintains the credibility of his claims by continuing to provide supporting data and acknowledging the limits of these predictions. A great example is Duterte’s affinity towards China. Kenny describes this as a ‘vulnerability’ of Duterte’s presidency, citing a 2014 Pew study that shows 92% of the Philippine public has a ‘favorable view of the United States’. However, he quickly assesses the importance of this statistic and recognizes that this doesn’t necessarily translate to people’s reception of Duterte’s presidency, with fewer than 3% of Filipinos who rated “defending the integrity of the Philippines’ territory” as the most urgent problem of the country.
Kenny, P. (2020). Why Is There No Political Polarization in the Philippines? - Political Polarization in South and Southeast Asia: Old Divisions, New Dangers. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Retrieved from https://carnegieendowment.org/2020/08/18/why-is-there-no-political-polarization-in-philippines-pub-82439.
Summary:
The article explains the lack of political polarization in the Philippines. Kenny characterizes the term ‘polarization’ of society splitting into two clear opposing sides or a clear support or opposition towards the government. He explains that socioeconomic, ethnoreligious, and regional differences do not dominate the political climate in the Philippines and explores key historical issues that Duterte’s presidential campaign was able to capitalize on – the country’s long history of corruption and oligarchy.
Analysis
The article is published by Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a non-profit organization that labels itself as “independent” and “non-partisan”, which increases the credibility of the article. The influence of potential biases on the validity of information is very limited, as Kenny’s claims is continuously backed by statistics. For example, the lack of polarization in the Philippines is illustrated through a Pulse Asia research poll conducted in December 2019 which showed only 4% of Filipino disapprove of Duterte’s performance. Kenny also doesn’t undermine the importance of defining his terms, he describes the criteria used in defining ‘polarization’ to ensure his readers are on the same page.
Moreover, since its purpose is to inform rather than persuade, emotive words are hardly used even when describing the controversial war on drugs. Kenny employs formal terms such as “extrajudicial killings” to deliberately remove any trace of emotion that could sway the readers to a particular opinion; he does not describe these killings as “unjust” but rather defines it in strict legal terms of not authorized by law. The use of jargon such as “extrajudicial” hinders the accessibility of text, however it is a research project that offers political insight into Global South, and the main audience is not the general population.
Even when discussing issues that could result to a stronger polarization in the future, Kenny maintains the credibility of his claims by continuing to provide supporting data and acknowledging the limits of these predictions. A great example is Duterte’s affinity towards China. Kenny describes this as a ‘vulnerability’ of Duterte’s presidency, citing a 2014 Pew study that shows 92% of the Philippine public has a ‘favorable view of the United States’. However, he quickly assesses the importance of this statistic and recognizes that this doesn’t necessarily translate to people’s reception of Duterte’s presidency, with fewer than 3% of Filipinos who rated “defending the integrity of the Philippines’ territory” as the most urgent problem of the country.
Citation:
Uyheng, J., & Montiel, C. (2021). Populist polarization in postcolonial Philippines: Sociolinguistic rifts in online drug war discourse. European Journal Of Social Psychology, 51(1), 84-99. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2716.
Summary:
The scholarly article explores the sociolinguistic differences between citizens who conduct online discourse in English and Filipino. It deconstructs the assumption that the use of either cosmopolitan or vernacular language determine a citizen’s stance on the populist regime of Duterte. It also tries to explain the difference of populism between the west which is more focused on ‘us vs the alien population’, and the ‘Global South’ in which the elite is targeted. It argues that the difference between vernacular and English users also mirror the hierarchy in the Philippine society post colonization.
The article also introduces new ideas of ‘populism from above’ in which cosmopolitan populist support legitimize Duterte’s regime as a patriotic civil servant, extending beyond the paternal figure idolized by uneducated masses; ‘resistance from below’ which reimagines how violence stemming from populist platforms could be combatted in grassroot level.
Analysis:
The information in scholarly journals is credible as they are written by experts in the field which are then peer reviewed before it is published, therefore, although the scholarly article cannot be fully objective, we can trust its argument to be informed and be based on an extensive amount of research. The article was also very recently published (2021) which illustrates the relevance of this social media discourse.
The authors deploy a discourse-historical approach, which accounts for historical context that influence how language is used by people of different backgrounds, particularly socioeconomically, in meaning-making during these discussions. Contrary to previous approaches which simply explore polarization in terms of support and opposition, the method allows for a dynamic analysis.
Through this, the scholarly article succeeds in presenting the multiple perspectives of Duterte’s regime. Anecdotes are provided from different facets of the discourse: the cosmopolitan pro and against, and the vernacular pro and against. The meaning and context of discourse, composed in Filipino and presented in English, could easily be lost in translation and the methodology of the publication takes that in account, thereby increasing its credibility. It maintains the structural integrity of vernacular discourse by translating through a ‘historical discourse lens’. These anecdotes provide depth that statistics cannot replicate and offer these perspectives a qualitative aspect that allow for better understanding.
By exploring the polarization of politics in the Philippines outside the Western version of populism and acknowledging that this doesn’t often extend to the dynamics in the Global South, the scholarly journal limits the influence of western politics in their conclusions, thereby increasing the credibility of its commentary. The article is successful in exploring the differences between cosmopolitan and vernacular support for the war on drugs and analyzing the roots of these discussions.
Uyheng, J., & Montiel, C. (2021). Populist polarization in postcolonial Philippines: Sociolinguistic rifts in online drug war discourse. European Journal Of Social Psychology, 51(1), 84-99. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2716.
Summary:
The scholarly article explores the sociolinguistic differences between citizens who conduct online discourse in English and Filipino. It deconstructs the assumption that the use of either cosmopolitan or vernacular language determine a citizen’s stance on the populist regime of Duterte. It also tries to explain the difference of populism between the west which is more focused on ‘us vs the alien population’, and the ‘Global South’ in which the elite is targeted. It argues that the difference between vernacular and English users also mirror the hierarchy in the Philippine society post colonization.
The article also introduces new ideas of ‘populism from above’ in which cosmopolitan populist support legitimize Duterte’s regime as a patriotic civil servant, extending beyond the paternal figure idolized by uneducated masses; ‘resistance from below’ which reimagines how violence stemming from populist platforms could be combatted in grassroot level.
Analysis:
The information in scholarly journals is credible as they are written by experts in the field which are then peer reviewed before it is published, therefore, although the scholarly article cannot be fully objective, we can trust its argument to be informed and be based on an extensive amount of research. The article was also very recently published (2021) which illustrates the relevance of this social media discourse.
The authors deploy a discourse-historical approach, which accounts for historical context that influence how language is used by people of different backgrounds, particularly socioeconomically, in meaning-making during these discussions. Contrary to previous approaches which simply explore polarization in terms of support and opposition, the method allows for a dynamic analysis.
Through this, the scholarly article succeeds in presenting the multiple perspectives of Duterte’s regime. Anecdotes are provided from different facets of the discourse: the cosmopolitan pro and against, and the vernacular pro and against. The meaning and context of discourse, composed in Filipino and presented in English, could easily be lost in translation and the methodology of the publication takes that in account, thereby increasing its credibility. It maintains the structural integrity of vernacular discourse by translating through a ‘historical discourse lens’. These anecdotes provide depth that statistics cannot replicate and offer these perspectives a qualitative aspect that allow for better understanding.
By exploring the polarization of politics in the Philippines outside the Western version of populism and acknowledging that this doesn’t often extend to the dynamics in the Global South, the scholarly journal limits the influence of western politics in their conclusions, thereby increasing the credibility of its commentary. The article is successful in exploring the differences between cosmopolitan and vernacular support for the war on drugs and analyzing the roots of these discussions.
Citation:
Chua, E. (2017). Please, let's stop throwing around the word 'populism'. The Stanford Daily: Stanford University. https://advance-lexis-com.srv proxy2.library.tamu.edu/api/document?collection=news&id=urn:contentItem:5MN6-FXV1-JBSN-346M-00000-00&context=1516831.
Summary:
The opinion article criticizes the use of ‘populism’ to label the rise of illiberal politicians around the world. Chua argues that this label fails to recognize the different social, cultural, and political contexts in which these politicians originate from, and attributes it to a simple refusal in trying to understand the complexities within the Philippine’s political climate. He states that analyzing a Filipino politician, like Duterte, only within the frameworks of a Western figure, like Trump, is a form of cultural colonialism.
Analysis:
The article originates from the opinion section in a student newspaper and therefore explicitly announces its lack of objectivity, as the author tries to present his argument. However, this does not mean the article and his argument lacks credibility itself. The article is written without the assumption that the reader is familiar with the topic; he provides links to help locate the context for the audience. For example, before he asks why populism has ‘negative connotations’, an article with the headline ‘Donald Trump, Putin, Duterte: Dangerous, populist leaders a ‘threat’ to world’ is hyperlinked, showing that his claims are substantive.
In the piece, he denounces the similarities between Trump and Duterte; although both are characterized by their rough talking rhetoric, Chua states that Duterte is left leaning; he provides examples of the policies the Filipino president has enacted despite his previous bigoted remarks towards the same marginalized groups in the country. However, the article does little to assess the actual damage Duterte’s rhetoric propagates. By joking about the rape of an Australian missionary, and using ‘gay’ as derogatory, the message this sends to the general population must be considered and not simply dismissed because of his legislative actions.
Moreover, Chua contends the semantics behind “populism” and its definition, but to what extent is this argument beneficial? The article argues that the use of ‘populism’ reduces a group of politicians originating from different cultures under one category which is valid and logical, however this has the tendency to result in a cyclical discussion with no end. Other approaches to this dilemma are focused on the different manifestations of populism – in which populism has a concrete and agreed definition, whilst simultaneously exploring how policies of populist politicians in the West and East might differ, like the one featured in Uyheng’s scholarly article.
However, Chua does a good job mentioning other issues that are important to consider moving forward to combat the rise of these illiberal politicians which strengthens his argument. Instead of discussing the semantics and political theory behind the success of the likes of Trump and Duterte, he suggests looking deeper into the lack of readily available information to the general population and the concerns of the same people that these politicians can appeal to.
Chua, E. (2017). Please, let's stop throwing around the word 'populism'. The Stanford Daily: Stanford University. https://advance-lexis-com.srv proxy2.library.tamu.edu/api/document?collection=news&id=urn:contentItem:5MN6-FXV1-JBSN-346M-00000-00&context=1516831.
Summary:
The opinion article criticizes the use of ‘populism’ to label the rise of illiberal politicians around the world. Chua argues that this label fails to recognize the different social, cultural, and political contexts in which these politicians originate from, and attributes it to a simple refusal in trying to understand the complexities within the Philippine’s political climate. He states that analyzing a Filipino politician, like Duterte, only within the frameworks of a Western figure, like Trump, is a form of cultural colonialism.
Analysis:
The article originates from the opinion section in a student newspaper and therefore explicitly announces its lack of objectivity, as the author tries to present his argument. However, this does not mean the article and his argument lacks credibility itself. The article is written without the assumption that the reader is familiar with the topic; he provides links to help locate the context for the audience. For example, before he asks why populism has ‘negative connotations’, an article with the headline ‘Donald Trump, Putin, Duterte: Dangerous, populist leaders a ‘threat’ to world’ is hyperlinked, showing that his claims are substantive.
In the piece, he denounces the similarities between Trump and Duterte; although both are characterized by their rough talking rhetoric, Chua states that Duterte is left leaning; he provides examples of the policies the Filipino president has enacted despite his previous bigoted remarks towards the same marginalized groups in the country. However, the article does little to assess the actual damage Duterte’s rhetoric propagates. By joking about the rape of an Australian missionary, and using ‘gay’ as derogatory, the message this sends to the general population must be considered and not simply dismissed because of his legislative actions.
Moreover, Chua contends the semantics behind “populism” and its definition, but to what extent is this argument beneficial? The article argues that the use of ‘populism’ reduces a group of politicians originating from different cultures under one category which is valid and logical, however this has the tendency to result in a cyclical discussion with no end. Other approaches to this dilemma are focused on the different manifestations of populism – in which populism has a concrete and agreed definition, whilst simultaneously exploring how policies of populist politicians in the West and East might differ, like the one featured in Uyheng’s scholarly article.
However, Chua does a good job mentioning other issues that are important to consider moving forward to combat the rise of these illiberal politicians which strengthens his argument. Instead of discussing the semantics and political theory behind the success of the likes of Trump and Duterte, he suggests looking deeper into the lack of readily available information to the general population and the concerns of the same people that these politicians can appeal to.
Citation:
Claudio, L. (2017). Defending Liberalism in the Global South: Notes from Duterte’s Philippines. Global South, 11(2), 92–107. https://doi.org/10.2979/globalsouth.11.2.06
Summary:
The scholarly publication argues for liberal integration in the Global South amidst the rise in autocratic politicians. Liberalism is an ideology considered by most post-colonial theorists to be antithetical to the collectivist culture of the region, the belief that the alienation of an individual is justified should it cater to the greater good and is criticized to simply be an extension of colonialism, through the creation of an “uncivilized object” and therefore cannot be applied to the Global South. Claudio contends with these criticisms throughout and reiterates the importance of upholding the values of tolerance and human rights found in liberalism that critics often dismiss as non “Asian” values.
Analysis:
The article has synthesized an argument in favor of liberalism in the south by collating and reviewing published works by other experts, such as post-colonial theorists. As such, the nature of the piece ensures that Claudio acknowledges the other side of the argument throughout, thereby increasing the validity of his argument.
He is able to recognize the strengths of these other perspectives that question the fit of liberal ideology in the Global South, an example includes Uday Singh Mehta who argued that “imperialism was not a contradiction within liberal thought but inherent in it” through its creation of an “other”, “uncivilized” object. Claudio expands on these theories coherently enough for his audience to comprehend the logic behind the opposition and for the audience to understand the exact points he is arguing against. Whereas Claudio agrees on liberalism’s creation of “others”, he contends that all philosophies that “create bonds of community” have done the same thing: Marxism with the bourgeoise, religion with non-believers, and nationalism with its foreigners.
He is able to give credit where it is due, the piece recognizes that Mehta is “correct” in stating that liberal ideology has been used to justify expansionist policy in the past, but Claudio offers a new perspective, in which he argues that liberal rhetoric has also been employed by the subjected population to combat their colonizers.
Throughout the scholarly article, Claudio does not disqualify these existing theories that explore the fit of liberal ideology in the Global South, but rather offers a perspective in which things could simultaneously be true. He argues that these theories have reduced and undermined liberalism into mere “cliches” and that the ideology has the capacity to “self-correct”.
Claudio, L. (2017). Defending Liberalism in the Global South: Notes from Duterte’s Philippines. Global South, 11(2), 92–107. https://doi.org/10.2979/globalsouth.11.2.06
Summary:
The scholarly publication argues for liberal integration in the Global South amidst the rise in autocratic politicians. Liberalism is an ideology considered by most post-colonial theorists to be antithetical to the collectivist culture of the region, the belief that the alienation of an individual is justified should it cater to the greater good and is criticized to simply be an extension of colonialism, through the creation of an “uncivilized object” and therefore cannot be applied to the Global South. Claudio contends with these criticisms throughout and reiterates the importance of upholding the values of tolerance and human rights found in liberalism that critics often dismiss as non “Asian” values.
Analysis:
The article has synthesized an argument in favor of liberalism in the south by collating and reviewing published works by other experts, such as post-colonial theorists. As such, the nature of the piece ensures that Claudio acknowledges the other side of the argument throughout, thereby increasing the validity of his argument.
He is able to recognize the strengths of these other perspectives that question the fit of liberal ideology in the Global South, an example includes Uday Singh Mehta who argued that “imperialism was not a contradiction within liberal thought but inherent in it” through its creation of an “other”, “uncivilized” object. Claudio expands on these theories coherently enough for his audience to comprehend the logic behind the opposition and for the audience to understand the exact points he is arguing against. Whereas Claudio agrees on liberalism’s creation of “others”, he contends that all philosophies that “create bonds of community” have done the same thing: Marxism with the bourgeoise, religion with non-believers, and nationalism with its foreigners.
He is able to give credit where it is due, the piece recognizes that Mehta is “correct” in stating that liberal ideology has been used to justify expansionist policy in the past, but Claudio offers a new perspective, in which he argues that liberal rhetoric has also been employed by the subjected population to combat their colonizers.
Throughout the scholarly article, Claudio does not disqualify these existing theories that explore the fit of liberal ideology in the Global South, but rather offers a perspective in which things could simultaneously be true. He argues that these theories have reduced and undermined liberalism into mere “cliches” and that the ideology has the capacity to “self-correct”.
Citation:
Nolasco, J. (2019). Why so serious: the limits of liberal democracy in the Philippines. New Mandala. Retrieved from https://www.newmandala.org/why-so-serious-the-limits-of-liberal-democracy-in-the-philippines/.
Summary:
Nolasco explores the culture of “smart – shaming” and “anti - intellectualism” in the Philippines, citing the important roles of class and social inequality that play in it. He argues that liberal platforms based on rational thinking must not overlook the importance of pathos to appeal to the general population.
Analysis:
The article was published in New Mandela, an organization that provides anecdotes and different perspectives on the societies and political climates of Southeast Asian countries. Nolasco, who is the author of the article, is an editor of ‘Asian Studies: Journal of Critical Perspectives on Asia’ published by the University of Philippines – showing his credibility as a commentator on the political climate in the Philippines.
The political leanings of the author, although not explicitly mentioned, is implied in the article. He advocates for liberal ideology throughout, ‘rightly devoted to science and reason’ and undermines Duterte’s presidency in his reimagination of a liberal democracy describing it as, ‘safe, drug-free, and clean. Without dead bodies.’
His argument does not focus on trying to unpack the reasons behind Duterte’s popularity or reimagine how culture and society is in the Philippines, but rather he takes it as is and offer solutions that liberal politicians can work with to make ‘rational politics’ more palatable to the masses. This, for Nolasco’s purpose, is highly effective as it offers a practical perspective, in a discussion mostly populated by ‘should’s.
He also furthers the credibility of his argument by acknowledging the validity of the opposition and is able to criticize people who are on his same side. For example, he argues that to label the culture of ‘anti-intellectualism’ as ‘sheer irrationality’ only benefits the anti-elitist rhetoric of the populist movement. The article also features an image of Duterte greeting his supporters, at the very beginning. The people are ‘kayumangi’, an endearing term often used to refer to the darker skin of Filipinos, reiterating the fact that Duterte’s supporters are simply ordinary people who you encounter every day.
Nolasco, J. (2019). Why so serious: the limits of liberal democracy in the Philippines. New Mandala. Retrieved from https://www.newmandala.org/why-so-serious-the-limits-of-liberal-democracy-in-the-philippines/.
Summary:
Nolasco explores the culture of “smart – shaming” and “anti - intellectualism” in the Philippines, citing the important roles of class and social inequality that play in it. He argues that liberal platforms based on rational thinking must not overlook the importance of pathos to appeal to the general population.
Analysis:
The article was published in New Mandela, an organization that provides anecdotes and different perspectives on the societies and political climates of Southeast Asian countries. Nolasco, who is the author of the article, is an editor of ‘Asian Studies: Journal of Critical Perspectives on Asia’ published by the University of Philippines – showing his credibility as a commentator on the political climate in the Philippines.
The political leanings of the author, although not explicitly mentioned, is implied in the article. He advocates for liberal ideology throughout, ‘rightly devoted to science and reason’ and undermines Duterte’s presidency in his reimagination of a liberal democracy describing it as, ‘safe, drug-free, and clean. Without dead bodies.’
His argument does not focus on trying to unpack the reasons behind Duterte’s popularity or reimagine how culture and society is in the Philippines, but rather he takes it as is and offer solutions that liberal politicians can work with to make ‘rational politics’ more palatable to the masses. This, for Nolasco’s purpose, is highly effective as it offers a practical perspective, in a discussion mostly populated by ‘should’s.
He also furthers the credibility of his argument by acknowledging the validity of the opposition and is able to criticize people who are on his same side. For example, he argues that to label the culture of ‘anti-intellectualism’ as ‘sheer irrationality’ only benefits the anti-elitist rhetoric of the populist movement. The article also features an image of Duterte greeting his supporters, at the very beginning. The people are ‘kayumangi’, an endearing term often used to refer to the darker skin of Filipinos, reiterating the fact that Duterte’s supporters are simply ordinary people who you encounter every day.
Citation:
Oliveros, J (2017, May 24). In one of my innumerable debates with my Dad… [Quora thread]. Quora. https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-view-on-smart-shaming-in-the-Philippines/answer/John-Camarines.
Bayani, Luzviminda. (2017, May 30). Smart-shaming – isn’t this a very condescending phrase? [Quora thread]. Quora. https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-view-on-smart-shaming-in-the-Philippines/answer/Luzviminda-Bayani.[CA1]
Summary:
These opinions were posted as a response to a question “What is your view on "smart shaming" in the Philippines?” posted in Quora. The first reply argues that smart – shaming is a result of insecurity within individuals due to their limited educational backgrounds and encourages others to extend their empathies to them whilst simultaneously not taking them seriously.
The reply under criticizes the proclaimed “educated” and their frustrations in not being able to communicate with the masses. They describe the prevalent misuse of the word “smart-shamed” when discourses happen between two individuals, particularly of cultural, political, and religious nature.
Analysis
This exchange mirrors the polarization that currently populates the online discourse in the country.
Both posts were published in Quora, a social media platform and therefore, the author’s credibility or authority on the subject matter at hand is irrelevant because the thread focuses on opinions. Therefore, the logic behind his opinion and its ability to resonate with other people matter more. His post echoes the other replies in the thread, showing that this perspective is shared by many users, at least in the Quora platform. Because of the different dynamics in different social medias, this popularity cannot be extrapolated to represent the majority in real life.
The first post has a clear antagonistic view of “smart-shamers” implying their incompetence throughout. While he urges everyone to recognize their privilege and avoid the generalization of Duterte’s supporters, he contradicts himself by saying “we must not take them seriously” which embodies a condescending tone. The words used throughout the post are provocative; “this does not mean that ALL.. are mentally challenged” which implies that some of them must be. “Mentally-challenged” eliminates the possibility of a constructive discussion, as it is clear that the author sees them as “other” and “less than”. This reductionary approach undermines the validity of his opinion, as it doesn’t attempt to even understand the nuances or different reasons behind why “smart-shaming” might occur.
The second post is more sympathetic to these smart shamers. The post was published by a user named “Luzviminda Bayani”, a username which combines the three regions of the Philippines into one: Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao and “bayani” that translates to hero; their username alone is indicative of their patriotism, and their ability to recognize the different plights across the country. The author challenges the use of the word, explaining that people who claim to be smart-shamed are not shamed for their intellectual ability but rather on their insensitivity towards the struggles of other people in the country.
Interestingly enough, no replies in the thread were conducted in Filipino. Even the two posts featured above use comprehensive vocabulary in English, that is most likely inaccessible to the subject of their discussions; it shows the lack of actual representation in these discussions and how it is rather dominated by two privileged groups discussing an inferior ‘other’.
Oliveros, J (2017, May 24). In one of my innumerable debates with my Dad… [Quora thread]. Quora. https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-view-on-smart-shaming-in-the-Philippines/answer/John-Camarines.
Bayani, Luzviminda. (2017, May 30). Smart-shaming – isn’t this a very condescending phrase? [Quora thread]. Quora. https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-view-on-smart-shaming-in-the-Philippines/answer/Luzviminda-Bayani.[CA1]
Summary:
These opinions were posted as a response to a question “What is your view on "smart shaming" in the Philippines?” posted in Quora. The first reply argues that smart – shaming is a result of insecurity within individuals due to their limited educational backgrounds and encourages others to extend their empathies to them whilst simultaneously not taking them seriously.
The reply under criticizes the proclaimed “educated” and their frustrations in not being able to communicate with the masses. They describe the prevalent misuse of the word “smart-shamed” when discourses happen between two individuals, particularly of cultural, political, and religious nature.
Analysis
This exchange mirrors the polarization that currently populates the online discourse in the country.
Both posts were published in Quora, a social media platform and therefore, the author’s credibility or authority on the subject matter at hand is irrelevant because the thread focuses on opinions. Therefore, the logic behind his opinion and its ability to resonate with other people matter more. His post echoes the other replies in the thread, showing that this perspective is shared by many users, at least in the Quora platform. Because of the different dynamics in different social medias, this popularity cannot be extrapolated to represent the majority in real life.
The first post has a clear antagonistic view of “smart-shamers” implying their incompetence throughout. While he urges everyone to recognize their privilege and avoid the generalization of Duterte’s supporters, he contradicts himself by saying “we must not take them seriously” which embodies a condescending tone. The words used throughout the post are provocative; “this does not mean that ALL.. are mentally challenged” which implies that some of them must be. “Mentally-challenged” eliminates the possibility of a constructive discussion, as it is clear that the author sees them as “other” and “less than”. This reductionary approach undermines the validity of his opinion, as it doesn’t attempt to even understand the nuances or different reasons behind why “smart-shaming” might occur.
The second post is more sympathetic to these smart shamers. The post was published by a user named “Luzviminda Bayani”, a username which combines the three regions of the Philippines into one: Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao and “bayani” that translates to hero; their username alone is indicative of their patriotism, and their ability to recognize the different plights across the country. The author challenges the use of the word, explaining that people who claim to be smart-shamed are not shamed for their intellectual ability but rather on their insensitivity towards the struggles of other people in the country.
Interestingly enough, no replies in the thread were conducted in Filipino. Even the two posts featured above use comprehensive vocabulary in English, that is most likely inaccessible to the subject of their discussions; it shows the lack of actual representation in these discussions and how it is rather dominated by two privileged groups discussing an inferior ‘other’.
Citation
Gatdula, J. (2016). The damage of liberal elitism to the Philippines. Foundation for Economic Freedom. Retrieved from https://www.fef.org.ph/jemy-gatdula/the-damage-of-liberal-elitism-to-the-philippines/.
Summary:
The article explores and criticizes the echo chamber of liberal thoughts that exists within the top universities in the Philippines. The author argues that the lack of thought diversity present in these institutions make learning futile.
Analysis:
The article was published by Jemy Gatdula, a lawyer specializing in international and economic law. A browse through Gatdula’s blog posts quickly reveal his contempt towards “progressive” ideologies, with titles such as: “Divorce and the progressive ambition to destroy the family”; “The hubris of liberal progressive ‘education’”; “The continued womanization of men”. However, we cannot invalidate his piece on the basis of political bias alone, as this would be an example of ad hominem.Gatdula’s disapproval of liberal ideas does not necessarily disqualify his critique of the supposed dominance of liberal educators within the top universities.
The article tackles the problem of “thought homogeny” present in these schools, Gatdula expands on this by describing the labels conservatives face: “medieval”, “bigoted”, “uninformed”, and provides evidence based on anecdotal experiences This links back to a critique of liberal ideology, described in Claudio’s scholarly article. Liberalism “mediates and allow for plural values” but it also insists on universal principles like human rights, and therefore refuses to accommodate to more Eastern values that tend to prioritize the common good instead of individuals. Gatdula frames this as the inadequacy of liberals to generate conversations with people with opposing opinions, using specific, and extreme examples that further his point. He claims that if you ever mention God in an intellectual conversation, a liberal would immediately nullify the discussion. A liberal would label you bigoted should you question transgenders and bathrooms. He frames them as tyrannical, emotional beings who reduce any “dissenters” as “bigoted”.
Gatdula then says learning becomes “inutile” as a result, a word he could have replaced by “futile” – a more common English word. This is particularly interesting because “inutile” directly translates to Filipino as “inutil”, a more explosive and emotive word, often used to describe people, that also mean “useless”. Considering that his main audience is familiar with the Filipino language, this is an intelligent use of the word that serves to provoke and lead to the question– is learning inutile, or are liberals?
However, a vulnerability of Gatdula’s argument is in its accessibility. He requires the audience to have some sense of familiarity with past Filipino events, for example he recognizes the national guilt that both plague the US and Philippines, race and slavery in the US and Bangsomoro in the Philippines, but he lacks any hyperlinks that will help the audience locate the context or understand how these important examples play into his argument.
Gatdula, J. (2016). The damage of liberal elitism to the Philippines. Foundation for Economic Freedom. Retrieved from https://www.fef.org.ph/jemy-gatdula/the-damage-of-liberal-elitism-to-the-philippines/.
Summary:
The article explores and criticizes the echo chamber of liberal thoughts that exists within the top universities in the Philippines. The author argues that the lack of thought diversity present in these institutions make learning futile.
Analysis:
The article was published by Jemy Gatdula, a lawyer specializing in international and economic law. A browse through Gatdula’s blog posts quickly reveal his contempt towards “progressive” ideologies, with titles such as: “Divorce and the progressive ambition to destroy the family”; “The hubris of liberal progressive ‘education’”; “The continued womanization of men”. However, we cannot invalidate his piece on the basis of political bias alone, as this would be an example of ad hominem.Gatdula’s disapproval of liberal ideas does not necessarily disqualify his critique of the supposed dominance of liberal educators within the top universities.
The article tackles the problem of “thought homogeny” present in these schools, Gatdula expands on this by describing the labels conservatives face: “medieval”, “bigoted”, “uninformed”, and provides evidence based on anecdotal experiences This links back to a critique of liberal ideology, described in Claudio’s scholarly article. Liberalism “mediates and allow for plural values” but it also insists on universal principles like human rights, and therefore refuses to accommodate to more Eastern values that tend to prioritize the common good instead of individuals. Gatdula frames this as the inadequacy of liberals to generate conversations with people with opposing opinions, using specific, and extreme examples that further his point. He claims that if you ever mention God in an intellectual conversation, a liberal would immediately nullify the discussion. A liberal would label you bigoted should you question transgenders and bathrooms. He frames them as tyrannical, emotional beings who reduce any “dissenters” as “bigoted”.
Gatdula then says learning becomes “inutile” as a result, a word he could have replaced by “futile” – a more common English word. This is particularly interesting because “inutile” directly translates to Filipino as “inutil”, a more explosive and emotive word, often used to describe people, that also mean “useless”. Considering that his main audience is familiar with the Filipino language, this is an intelligent use of the word that serves to provoke and lead to the question– is learning inutile, or are liberals?
However, a vulnerability of Gatdula’s argument is in its accessibility. He requires the audience to have some sense of familiarity with past Filipino events, for example he recognizes the national guilt that both plague the US and Philippines, race and slavery in the US and Bangsomoro in the Philippines, but he lacks any hyperlinks that will help the audience locate the context or understand how these important examples play into his argument.
Synthesis:
The NGO provides a foundational knowledge for my argument. It details the long history of corruption and oligarchs that has plagued the country and describes the political scene that allowed the emergence of a political figure like Duterte. In a sense, the country’s history has primed its citizens for a president who propagate anti-elite rhetoric, to capitalize on the dissatisfaction of the public.
The scholarly article provides a closer and multidimensional look into these perspectives, splitting the public into four spheres, colonial and vernacular, rather than two. The scholarly journal also helped explain the concepts briefly mentioned in the opinion piece written by Chua, which provided an insight into the effect of colonialism and the way it still affects the country, which is often overlooked when studying the nature of these discourses. This helped explain the ever-growing split between the elite and the poor, in which the power of the West shifted to the local elites and the role of colonialism in framing these discussions regarding Duterte, that both articles mention.
However, there is actually no source in this bibliography that features an opinion piece written by a person that all these sources allude to: the ‘ordinary working-class Filipino’ or even those of lower classes that might not have completed their formal education. But because of the nature of my argument, I think the scholarly article focused on social media polarization, and the other sources that include quotations from these residents are able to provide sufficient information as compensation.
The Quora thread and Jemy Gatdula helped shift this discussion outside of expert lenses, as both sources illustrate how and what ordinary people think. Gatdula’s piece was interesting since it displayed a disdain for liberalism outside of the ‘uneducated’ sphere, here is a lawyer who had access to a formal and higher education criticizing liberalism. It shows that people don’t just reject liberalism because they are uneducated or unaware of it, and displays the flaws of the ideology as seen by educated oppositions.
The scholarly article on liberalism is featured to locate the relationship between colonialism, populism and liberalism in Duterte’s Philippines, and to serve as an exposition on the ideology. This might be the most important source, not necessarily for my argument, but for personal means, as it helped me determine to which extent are my criticisms of Duterte, the Philippine culture and society, are simply adopted thoughtlessly from ‘Western lenses and ideals’ and which are actually valid.
All the sources explore or illustrate the lack of appeal of liberal politics to the masses, both as a theory and rhetorically. This disconnect is often attributed to the elitism present in both the Liberal Party of the Philippines and the manner in which these liberal ideologies are being ‘sold’.
The NGO provides a foundational knowledge for my argument. It details the long history of corruption and oligarchs that has plagued the country and describes the political scene that allowed the emergence of a political figure like Duterte. In a sense, the country’s history has primed its citizens for a president who propagate anti-elite rhetoric, to capitalize on the dissatisfaction of the public.
The scholarly article provides a closer and multidimensional look into these perspectives, splitting the public into four spheres, colonial and vernacular, rather than two. The scholarly journal also helped explain the concepts briefly mentioned in the opinion piece written by Chua, which provided an insight into the effect of colonialism and the way it still affects the country, which is often overlooked when studying the nature of these discourses. This helped explain the ever-growing split between the elite and the poor, in which the power of the West shifted to the local elites and the role of colonialism in framing these discussions regarding Duterte, that both articles mention.
However, there is actually no source in this bibliography that features an opinion piece written by a person that all these sources allude to: the ‘ordinary working-class Filipino’ or even those of lower classes that might not have completed their formal education. But because of the nature of my argument, I think the scholarly article focused on social media polarization, and the other sources that include quotations from these residents are able to provide sufficient information as compensation.
The Quora thread and Jemy Gatdula helped shift this discussion outside of expert lenses, as both sources illustrate how and what ordinary people think. Gatdula’s piece was interesting since it displayed a disdain for liberalism outside of the ‘uneducated’ sphere, here is a lawyer who had access to a formal and higher education criticizing liberalism. It shows that people don’t just reject liberalism because they are uneducated or unaware of it, and displays the flaws of the ideology as seen by educated oppositions.
The scholarly article on liberalism is featured to locate the relationship between colonialism, populism and liberalism in Duterte’s Philippines, and to serve as an exposition on the ideology. This might be the most important source, not necessarily for my argument, but for personal means, as it helped me determine to which extent are my criticisms of Duterte, the Philippine culture and society, are simply adopted thoughtlessly from ‘Western lenses and ideals’ and which are actually valid.
All the sources explore or illustrate the lack of appeal of liberal politics to the masses, both as a theory and rhetorically. This disconnect is often attributed to the elitism present in both the Liberal Party of the Philippines and the manner in which these liberal ideologies are being ‘sold’.