"you're rebellious and ungrateful of my love" - ellaine miller to anita, almost famous

A Rejoinder by Sarah Raymundo and Bogart Jaime

In Ms. Evangelista’s reply to our blog “Patricia Evangelista: Rebel Without a Clue,” she merely reiterated her argument that “political activism is one among many ways to help the country, and that people determine their paths based on personal beliefs and experiences;” and that “[she] make[s] the personal choice not to become an activist.” While she insists that her “argument is simple,” we think that it is rather simplistic. It would be more convenient to direct the reader to our friendster blog but we decide to restate our positions. It is our argument that the “many ways to help the country” are often antagonistic than complementary as is usually presupposed. Should we perhaps believe that GMA’s effort to help the country through her Strong Republic complements the genuine agrarian reform program advanced by the Left? Her public announcement that she chooses not to be an activist counters the activists effort to arouse and mobilize the broadest number of Filipinos towards an organized movement for national sovereignty and social justice. Without having to allude to this organized movement, she is antagonizing the practice of “activism” which has virtually become a metonym for this very movement. It is perfectly fine to challenge the Left and its claims. It is a remarkable feat for a college coed to problematize the Left. However, we find that her denial of the antagonistic positionalities defeats the very purpose of any meaningful debate on social alternatives. It is curious how appeals for ‘tolerance’ is often addressed to the Left as when Ms. Evangelista says that her column is “an attack on intolerance, in the context of activism.” We engage this position since it is not only Ms. Evangelista who assumes it. For how is ‘tolerance’ used in its actual context, i.e. in ‘multicultural’ societies like the USA? The liberals in the US, for instance, address their plea for ‘tolerance’ to their government and policy-makers. Tolerance, in this context, is addressed to those who are in power. It is amusing to have to see columnists demanding ‘tolerance’ from a group that could hardly marginalize privileged voices (of columnists, radio commentators and other media personalities, not excluding some actors in showbusiness). Of course, the Left can always challenge dominant opinions but marginalizing opinion-makers is an impossible act for the Left to do. To think that the Left and the State (institutions and their honchos) wield equal power in the Philippines is a gross miscalculation. Furthermore, it is the least of our intentions to condescend to Ms. Evangelista that she is a “victim lured by the discourse of neoliberalism”. While we said that she is “lured by the discourse of neoliberalism”, we never painted her as a victim. We argued that she seems to have interrnalized the neoliberal ideology. It is clear to us that the victims of neoliberalism are the peasants and workers from Third World nations who are now protesting the ongoing WTO talks in Hong Kong. We demur Ms. Evangelista’s claim that we condemned corporations and charity institutions. In saying that corporate social responsibility is a conjunctural phenomenon, and a strategy of containment in the context of global monopoly capital, we are not opining that corporate social responsibility must be viewed this way, we are saying it has historically been that way. Given the logic of profit accumulation, we have yet to see Ms. Evangelista’s point that there are two kinds of motives for the setting-up of corporations namely “altruistic” and “purely commercial.” We pose that capitalist exploitation can never be negated by “acts of generosity.” We concede that there are impoverished individuals who are assisted by charitable institutions. Contrary to her misreading, we did not censure organizations like Gawad Kalinga. We pointed out the limits of charity within the context of global monopoly capital. This is far from dismissing the function of these institutions. We sense a refusal on Ms. Evangelista’s part to analyse poverty, charity, corporations and interests in a systemic light. Rather, these elements are thought in terms of “motivations.” We clarify this in the light of Ms. Evangelista’s take that we “speak as if only [us] have the right to dictate the motives of individuals.” We do not operate in that mode. We prefer a dialectical analysis of motivations vis-?-vis structures. This is why we find it important to finally reply to Ms. Evangelista’s rebuttal. We feel that it is our task to make it clear that our blog entry was not written as a personal attack. We are reading her arguments as symptoms of ‘reading history’ in a way that legitimizes the dominant social order. To take offense from this symptomatic reading is as good as implying that she is the sole author of her beliefs. Who is ever? Moreover, we are amused at Ms. Evangelista’s cunning in “cutting” our statements and “pasting” them in a manner that is rather self-referential and ostensibly decontextualised. Allow us to cite a an instance: she claims that we called her a “socialite.” We made certain formal moves to illustrate the phenomenon that we are assessing, i.e., the hold of neoliberal ideas. In our argumentation, it is formally impossible to isolate elements of our critique of charity via the historical limitations of utopian socialism. It is apparent that Ms. Evangelista’s argument articulates elements of utopian socialism. We even explained how utopian socialists like Robert Owen realized the logical conclusion of charity is a rupture in the social relations of production. Ms. Evangelista’s apotheosis of corporate social responsibility forecloses this very rupture in the social relations of production. As for her grasp of the sentence where the word “socialite” appears, we can only refer the reader to the original text. At this point, it is necessary to address Ms. Evangelista’s assertion that we were the ones who said that Professtor Lani Abad’s statements reek of totalitarianism. We find this as a malicious sleight-of-hand. Furthermore, it is not true that we accuse Ms. Evangelista of being a “megalomaniac.” The word “megalomaniac” in our blog entry appears as the first term of a compound noun ‘megalomaniac fantasies’. It is the fantasy that is being referred to. Unfortunately, we do not have the training to diagnose her, or even our very selves of such psychological ailments. Ms. Evangelista rests her whole argument on open-mindedness. We agree that open-mindedness is important in the debate on conflicting alternatives to the current social order. It is Ms. Evangelista’s premise that there could be a coexistence to all of these conflicting alternatives that we find debatable. Besides, how can she claim open-mindedness when she is deploying notions like ‘extremism’ as though the term is not subject to political contestation? If there is indeed ‘extremism,’ ‘terrorism,’ and ‘ideological intolerance,’ then there must be an entity who ascribes these to particular groups. Should we perhaps just accept these labels as defined, for instance, by the U.S. State Department? Although we earlier challenged her notion of open-mindedness, we cannot deny the authenticity of her claim to open-mindedness as when she says, “I believe and respect activists and their contribution to society. Neither do I close the possibility of ever choosing their way.” It is in her expression of a dimension of her personality that gives potency to her assertions. We therefore disagree that an erasure of one’s particularity (i.e. personality) is necessary for a debate. That a debate must be confined to ideas is logically sound since ‘people are not what they do’. In pointing out some of Professor Abad’s characteristics, we are simply trying to sculpt the flesh-and-blood from the stereotype of an activist academic. We welcome Ms. Evangelista’s Nietzschean realization: “I’ve always thought my beliefs are strong; it’s only now that I have to fight for them that I can honestly say they are.” But the question is, will her strong beliefs be the object of state repression? This year alone (2005) 150 activists in the Philippines were killed on account of their beliefs. Tolerance? How about justice?