Damaging culture
HERE I STAND
By Geronimo L. Sy
Thursday, November 24, 2005 - Manila Times
IN the November 1987 issue of the Atlantic Monthly, the American essayist James Fallows wrote, “Individual Filipinos are at least as brave, kind and noble-spirited as individual Japanese, but their culture draws the boundaries of decent treatment much more narrowly. Because these boundaries are limited to the family or tribe, they exclude at any given moment 99 percent of the other people in the country. Because of this fragmentation, this lack of useful nationalism, people treat each other worse in the Philippines than in any other Asian country I have seen. The tradition of political corruption and cronyism, the extremes of wealth and poverty, the tribal fragmentation, the local elite’s willingness to make a separate profitable peace with colonial powers—all reflect a feeble sense of national interest and a contempt for the public good.”
The article started a furious debate on our culture and the right of a foreigner to criticize us. The question “What’s wrong with us?” continues to nag and hound us today in every imaginable forum or discussion. Everyone has an opinion on it, although there is no consensus on what ails us, if at all it is a sickness. It is a good exercise in that it becomes a call for reflection and introspection not only on deciphering our country’s woes but also to help us individually understand, and hopefully act on solutions.
What has not been brought up or clearly presented is that for a culture to be damaged there must be a culprit—a “damager,” so to speak. A damaged culture may mean a deviation from a healthy culture. In the Philippine context, a damaged culture exists only in relation to a damaging culture. Both meanings can be true in that our way of life was good and a-OK until external elements intervened and disrupted our natural state. And who are the guilty?
To blame our colonizers is an easy way out and simplistic, at the very least. To point the accusing finger to our ruling class or elites suffers from the same fallacy. This is not to say that either or both did not contribute or exacerbate our present state of development, rather, underdevelopment. Is it the collective body of Filipinos? No doubt we each are responsible for our actions and should be held accountable for the consequences. Who do we then hold liable for past sins and historical faults?
Regardless of the answer to this question, we need a fresh page to write our destiny. A new day is always the best start to a new life. By all means this is not to advocate forgetfulness or to condone offenders. It is saying that we let go of the mental mindsets and the emotional baggage that hamper us from achieving our potential as a people. By all means, punish the guilty, protect the innocent, make reparations – these cannot be compromised. What can be done is not to stop moving forward into the future even as we deal with our present and look back at our past. The first step is to identify what is wrong with how we live and how we do things and expel and cast it away from our system.
We are a consuming nation, although materialism is not a Filipino value. By and large, I can say with honesty that we value family, character and reputation more than a bigger house and shinier cars. Pervasive corruption is but a result of inverted and skewed priorities.
Relativism is an imported evil. We’ve always had a notion of the good of the community. It is not a “me, myself and I” type of thing. Filipinos are considerate; we treat each other better. We are God fearing and God loving; our self-interest ought to come after the welfare of others. Our politics is a reflection of selfishness and lack of concern.
We can be punctual. Lately, the meetings and functions I attended began on time. Much remains to be done in terms of valuing and respecting time. One way to do it is to simply decide that on December 1, 2005, and henceforth, we will hold events and functions on time all the time. We can also declare that on the same date, all drivers will be courteous and practice defensive driving. Ambitious, yes! Impossible, no!
These modern ills are not ours exclusively. We need not fret or worry too much for today is sufficient unto itself. Indeed, when Fallows said that ours is “a society that has degenerated into a war of every man against every man,” he could as well have been writing about any other country.
By Geronimo L. Sy
Thursday, November 24, 2005 - Manila Times
IN the November 1987 issue of the Atlantic Monthly, the American essayist James Fallows wrote, “Individual Filipinos are at least as brave, kind and noble-spirited as individual Japanese, but their culture draws the boundaries of decent treatment much more narrowly. Because these boundaries are limited to the family or tribe, they exclude at any given moment 99 percent of the other people in the country. Because of this fragmentation, this lack of useful nationalism, people treat each other worse in the Philippines than in any other Asian country I have seen. The tradition of political corruption and cronyism, the extremes of wealth and poverty, the tribal fragmentation, the local elite’s willingness to make a separate profitable peace with colonial powers—all reflect a feeble sense of national interest and a contempt for the public good.”
The article started a furious debate on our culture and the right of a foreigner to criticize us. The question “What’s wrong with us?” continues to nag and hound us today in every imaginable forum or discussion. Everyone has an opinion on it, although there is no consensus on what ails us, if at all it is a sickness. It is a good exercise in that it becomes a call for reflection and introspection not only on deciphering our country’s woes but also to help us individually understand, and hopefully act on solutions.
What has not been brought up or clearly presented is that for a culture to be damaged there must be a culprit—a “damager,” so to speak. A damaged culture may mean a deviation from a healthy culture. In the Philippine context, a damaged culture exists only in relation to a damaging culture. Both meanings can be true in that our way of life was good and a-OK until external elements intervened and disrupted our natural state. And who are the guilty?
To blame our colonizers is an easy way out and simplistic, at the very least. To point the accusing finger to our ruling class or elites suffers from the same fallacy. This is not to say that either or both did not contribute or exacerbate our present state of development, rather, underdevelopment. Is it the collective body of Filipinos? No doubt we each are responsible for our actions and should be held accountable for the consequences. Who do we then hold liable for past sins and historical faults?
Regardless of the answer to this question, we need a fresh page to write our destiny. A new day is always the best start to a new life. By all means this is not to advocate forgetfulness or to condone offenders. It is saying that we let go of the mental mindsets and the emotional baggage that hamper us from achieving our potential as a people. By all means, punish the guilty, protect the innocent, make reparations – these cannot be compromised. What can be done is not to stop moving forward into the future even as we deal with our present and look back at our past. The first step is to identify what is wrong with how we live and how we do things and expel and cast it away from our system.
We are a consuming nation, although materialism is not a Filipino value. By and large, I can say with honesty that we value family, character and reputation more than a bigger house and shinier cars. Pervasive corruption is but a result of inverted and skewed priorities.
Relativism is an imported evil. We’ve always had a notion of the good of the community. It is not a “me, myself and I” type of thing. Filipinos are considerate; we treat each other better. We are God fearing and God loving; our self-interest ought to come after the welfare of others. Our politics is a reflection of selfishness and lack of concern.
We can be punctual. Lately, the meetings and functions I attended began on time. Much remains to be done in terms of valuing and respecting time. One way to do it is to simply decide that on December 1, 2005, and henceforth, we will hold events and functions on time all the time. We can also declare that on the same date, all drivers will be courteous and practice defensive driving. Ambitious, yes! Impossible, no!
These modern ills are not ours exclusively. We need not fret or worry too much for today is sufficient unto itself. Indeed, when Fallows said that ours is “a society that has degenerated into a war of every man against every man,” he could as well have been writing about any other country.
posted by Admin at 8:36 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home