Reform and revolution By: Ambeth R. Ocampo

It is unfortunate that many students are still reared on the dated Agoncillo-Constantino histories of the 1960s, that are ideologically slanted to give preferential option for the revolutionary hero of the masses, Andres Bonifacio, against the reformist and burgis Jose Rizal.

Schoolchildren are often made to choose, who should rightfully be our national hero? Rizal or Bonifacio? Why can’t they be taught that both Rizal and Bonifacio are national heroes? There should be no conflict between them if only because Bonifacio himself looked up to Rizal and even consulted him, through an emissary sent to Dapitan, before he hatched the revolution.

Renato Constantino, in his landmark 1968 essay “Veneration Without Understanding,” argued that Rizal was against the revolution. Constantino based this view on a document Rizal issued in December 1896, asking the Katipuneros to lay down their arms and condemning the violence that was planned without his knowledge and consent. Constantino also argued that Rizal was an American-sponsored hero, citing without any documentary proof, an alleged Philippine Commission meeting when the American colonial government chose Rizal as the foremost national hero because he was non-violent and reformist, unlike Bonifacio or Aguinaldo. What Constantino conveniently leaves out are: that Rizal was considered a hero in his lifetime; that he was honorary president of the Katipunan; that his picture was displayed during Katipunan meetings; and that his name was one of the passwords of the Katipunan. Then, of course, the annual commemoration of Rizal’s death each year in Dec. 30, was started by Emilio Aguinaldo’s short-lived First Philippine Republic in 1898 (before the American colonial period) and continues to our day.

Then, the December 1896 Manifesto, used against Rizal both by the Spanish who condemned him to death for inspiring the revolution, and the pro-Bonifacio groups in our day, is not read in full. Rizal was not against the revolution but felt, rightly so, that it was premature.

Rizal is branded a mere “reformist” because they have not read his letter to Ferdinand Blumentritt from Geneva on June 19, 1887, his 26th birthday, that reads:

“I assure you that I have no desire to take part in conspiracies which seem to me very premature and risky. But if the government drives us to the brink, that is to say, when no other hope remains but seek our destruction in war, when the Filipinos would prefer to die rather than endure their misery any longer, then I will also become a partisan of violent means. The choice of peace or destruction is in the hands of Spain, because it is a clear fact, known to all, that we are patient, excessively patient and peaceful, mild, unfeeling, etc. But everything ends in this life, there is nothing eternal in the world and that refers also to our patience.”

Alas, we do not know the issue or situation that gave rise to Rizal’s words. But these words are significant if only to show that Rizal was not averse to revolution or violence if necessary. We also have to realize that when some historians and teachers of history created a gap between reform and revolution, between the campaign for reforms and assimilation in Spain and the outbreak of the Philippine revolution, they fail to see that Rizal, Marcelo H. del Pilar and others saw reform and assimilation only as a first step to eventual separation from Spain, the independence of “Filipinas.” Reform was a means to freedom not the destination.

Polarizing our youth and developing a Rizal vs. Bonifacio mindset resulted in two contrasting positions of reform/revolution convenient for classroom debate, when the real lesson should have been convergence. These positions are clearly seen, iconographically, with Rizal/Bonifacio, such that when students play out the characters in the “Noli Me Tangere” representing positions of reform/revolution, Ibarra always looks like Rizal in monuments, with the black coat, book and quill; while Elias looks like Bonifacio in statues, wearing a white camisa de chino and red kundiman pants, and carrying a bolo and a flag. Rizal and Bonifacio did not meet till 1892, during the foundation of the Liga Filipina in Tondo. Rizal could not have thought of Bonifacio when he published the “Noli” in 1887. Thus, if we are to understand Rizal correctly (and even astrologically because Rizal is a Gemini), when Ibarra and Elias discuss their positions on reform and revolution, this is not Rizal and Bonifacio arguing. Rather, both Ibarra and Elias are Rizal. In the “Noli” we see Rizal thinking aloud, arguing with himself.

We presume Rizal chose reform over revolution in 1887, by killing off Elias rather than Ibarra. To make up for this twist in the “Noli,” we have Simoun in “El Filibusterismo” (1891). Simoun incited violence and the persecution of his people to move them to revolt. He failed—not because Rizal was against the revolution, but because he reflected on the anger and bitterness in his heart following the agrarian dispute in Calamba, and realized that one must start with a good intention to succeed. A poisoned tree cannot produce good fruit. Rizal demanded a pure heart.

Purity of intention is the challenge because it is so hard to find both in Rizal’s time and ours.

CHASING DEVELOPMENT: From Blueprint to Guideposts by Prof. Feliece Yeban

Myopia

Development has often been equated with economic development. This view has already been proven myopic. It is useful to recall how the world was divided along the line of capitalism on one hand and socialism on the other. The industrialization the Soviet Union underwent under Stalin’s New Economic Program during the 1930s which centered on the elimination of well-off peasants did not improve the nation’s collective life (Hermoso, 1994). We were witnesses to the disintegration of the USSR into smaller states in the late 1980s and early 1990s and to these new states’ abandoning of the socialist promise. Similarly, the pursuit by the Philippines of a more capitalist oriented import-based, export oriented development model has not resulted to substantive economic gains for the poor and marginalized. A country may attain what is considered as economic prosperity but not without attendant problems such as loosening of the social and moral fabric, discarding certain civil and political rights for “political stability,” alienating the self from the spiritual sphere of life, depleting the planetary resources and controlling the intellectual and ethical life of the public. Conversely, a society may opt to resist “development thrusts” in the name of retaining integrity of one’s culture and protecting the same from the perceived concomitant problems of “development”. Such societies will have to endure “trade offs” such as but not limited to diseases and short life span. In this light, one cannot be faulted to declare that there is no blueprint of development. Both capitalism and socialism failed.

The pursuit of “development models” has also given rise to diverse social movements. Some have exploded into different factions brandishing their respective “truth claims” on the best development model to pursue. Others have imploded to oblivion if not into sheer banditry or mob. Some have re-invented themselves availing, with relative success, every political space they can use to pursue their cause either through active resistance or creative alternative making. The mutation of social movements and government as development agents has further made development a disputed concept. To this day, we lack a synoptic vision of development that could cultivate convergence of efforts of stakeholders.

 Re-imagining

The government flaunts one development plan after another – Philippines 2000, Angat Pinoy, Beat the Odds, to name a few. These are undoubtedly economistic development models. The left on the other hand, is still debating whether to affirm or reject development agenda conceptualized in the 1960s. The civil society sector has more varied development projects either driven by funders or by their avowed commitment (Illo, et.al). The business sector is re-inventing itself by claiming to be socially responsive more than ever. All these sectors could claim a degree of success and will never run out of experiences of hope to share. Whether one believes or suspects “success claims” of these sectors, all these point to the fact that there is no blueprint for development, only guideposts. These are lessons learned chasing development which are then translated into principles that underlie development projects which have been proven to bring relative success.

Both the capitalist and socialist blueprints have been proven inadequate in bringing about genuine, holistic, inclusive, and long lasting development. As development workers and agents, a shift in the way we view development from outcome to process, from content to praxis, and from blueprint to guidepost might be necessary.  Below is a list of guideposts from which development workers could derive ideas for their creative alternative making endeavors. The list evolves as we continuously engage ourselves either individually or collectively in development praxis. 

Guidepost # 1 – A Game of Power

Development must be inclusive. Power is unequally distributed in society. As such development programs are inevitably influenced by who holds power. The marginalized sectors such as the women, children, peasants, urban poor, and the indigenous people must be “privileged” to enable them to participate substantively in the development process. They have equal stake in development as the business sector and other stakeholders. More often than not, the marginalized are asked to sacrifice. The sacrifices that should be made in the name of development must be consented to by the people who are asked to sacrifice. Any development policy or program must be formulated and implemented with due consideration of the “privileged” sectors identified. However, it can not be pursued for them but with them (Freire, 1970).

Guidepost # 2 – Valuing the 3 Ps

Development must be sustainable. There are balancing acts that are essential for sustainability to be possible. The creation of personal and national wealth must be pursued at all level. Filipinos cannot remain to be satisfied simply as the world’s workers. Entrepreneurial culture to serve both self and others must be strengthened. Individually, collectively, and institutionally, we need to be the creators and protectors of our country’s economic wealth and national wealth for the benefit of present and future generation.

Our pursuit of wealth creation, should be tempered by due consideration of the equal valuing of the three Ps - people, planet, and profit/productivity. Neither one of the three Ps should be sacrificed nor pursued recklessly.  For instance, at the individual level either as a consumer or producer, one must be conscious of the more sustainable lifestyle and entrepreneurial philosophy one will have to live by. Also, both the workers and entrepreneur must get their fair share of the economic values produced. In the same vein, embracing a more ecological consciousness does not mean “preserving” the environment to the point of “non-use” at all. A “naturalistic view” of the environment may not successfully accommodate burgeoning population and its needs. However, utilizing our natural resources beyond sustainability is unacceptable as well.

A further balancing act is necessary among the three sectors of wealth production namely, business, state, and social sectors. The dynamic participation of the social sector in wealth creation is the natural shield from the tendency of business to monopolize and manipulate wealth creation. The role of the state in this balancing act is vital and cannot be abandoned. The issue is not about how to make the state either strong or weak but effective and responsive. A vibrant social sector, an effective governance, and a tempered business sector is a better alternative to the onslaught of economistic and materialistic model of development and to the havoc wrought by globalization’s unbridled capitalism.

Guidepost # 3 – Parameters

Development must be people-centric. The human rights framework is crucial in three ways. It has achieved international normative standard, it is holistic in its view of the human person as object of development, and it provides a more “inert” conceptualization of development that can be readily measured in terms of acts of commission and omission by the “duty bearer” and degree of enjoyment and deprivation of the “rights holder”. Whether we use as measures human development index, gender development index, quality of life, gross national happiness, World Bank’s indicators of sustainable development, all these are informed by human rights promotion, protection, fulfillment, and respect. The human rights framework has the advantage of a built in enforcement mechanism.

Guidepost # 4 – Interface, integration, and interconnectedness

Development requires a micro-macro link and agency-structure connection.Development is both a personal and collective enterprise and an individual and structural project. This means that it happens at different layers of society and it manifests itself invariably at these different arenas. The macro layer as represented by the institutional agents of development such as the government must be able to articulate a development agenda that also correspond to the people’s pursuit of a good and meaningful life. Likewise, the people should be able to acquire a “sociological imagination” to enable them to locate within the structures opportunities to get their agenda (the public interest) institutionalized. It is the dynamic interface of the subjective (individual, collective) and objective (structure) that will “broker” development.

Guidepost # 5 – Negotiation

Development is a process. The process will determine its content. To bring about development, stakeholders must “own” the process of development (Bautista)t. Nobody can be a free rider nor can we allow the state and other development agents to be the sole decision makers. We should all be part of the communicative action. The challenge is how to expand the space for dialogue and milieu for engagement. This requires a process characterized by consultation, participation, partnership, transparency, and synergy (Baviera, et.al). Development workers do have a critical role in weaving silos of communities and individuals into a knot of mutual understanding and negotiated conception and practice of development. This process of engagement will determine the content of development. By shifting emphasis from content to the process of development, we are generating energies that move people to engage in creative activities that facilitate flow and momentum for development. We then stand to benefit from synthesis and not just from analysis of current development efforts. We can extend our discourse from the lack of development (a critical stance) to an inventory of what worked (an appreciative stance). It is process that will bridge theory and practice and vice versa. This new posturing of stressing process over content opens up traffic for creative alternative making towards a synoptic vision of development.

A Praxis –

Development is both a mindset, a ”heart set”, and a “work set”. As such it requires a set of knowledge, values, and skills that cultivate appropriate thinking, valuing, and doing development. To engage in this project requires a deconstruction, reconstruction, and construction of knowledge, values, and practices at the personal, interpersonal, communal, societal, and global levels. Concretely, this ranges from simple acts such as continuing self examination; advocating reforms in education, legal, and governance systems; and embracing new business philosophy; appropriate science and technology, and simpler but more meaningful lifestyles;   to the more complicated initiatives in social forestry, agronomics, transpersonal psychology, complexity studies, biopsychology, biocracy, and other emerging fields that blur the boundaries dividing the social sciences, natural sciences and the humanities. Kalaw (1997) argues for the “construction of a Science of Development that can provide normative and functional integration of economics, ecology, (self), and society and the development of management technologies that look at ecosystems, cultures, ethnicities, community, and evolution as units of analysis and management”.

Let me end this paper with a personal note that I approach my work as a development worker with humility that I may be wrong. However, there is so much work to be done that I have to take a leap of faith that I can contribute something to the development project of my generation. It is reflexivity that allows me to learn from my own and others’ experiences. My reflections range from understanding my inner self to comprehending and applying the science and theory part of development as practiced by people from diverse fields. This way, I am both consumer and producer (and distributor) of development knowledge and practice.

‘Rabo de toro’ By: Ambeth R. Ocampo

On the eve of the Chinese New Year, I was in a Pampango home whose main dinner dish, competing with the lechon, was rabo de toro (ox-tail in sauce). On New Year’s Day itself, I was in another Pampango party that lasted from a late lunch at 1 p.m. to dinner. The birthday celebrant explained that at his age, he and his friends often meet at wakes and funerals so he felt it best to throw one big party so that his friends could come together in a more joyful setting. Here competing   with freshly carved rib eye, glazed ham and Chinese ham was rabo de toro again! Frankly, I hoped to find cabeza de jabali (boar’s head), which was described in 19th century travel accounts of the Philippines and a staple in the grand meals of Sulipan in the home of the Arnedo family.

The marathon Chinese New Year party was held in Café Ysabel, which is run by Arnedo descendants, so I was hoping to catch a glimpse of the fabled utensils and toothpick holders of Philippine silver, or at least the porcelain dinner service presented to Arnedo by a Russian grand duke who had enjoyed his hospitality in the late 19th century. But that may be asking too much, so I suggested that, to be more in touch with the times, they serve Lipitor and an assortment of medications on a silver salver set prominently on the buffet table.

The dessert table was literally groaning with an assortment of sweets  to drive your sugar count to dangerously high levels. The first thing that  disappeared was the tocino del cielo, a mini bite-size leche flan that is more lethal because each piece, following the traditional recipe, must have one egg yolk and lots of sugar. There were sans rival and a  mountain of glazed cream puffs that was the frontispiece in a turn-of-the-20th-century cookbook and called “roquembucheng caraniuan,” which made everyone wonder what the special one was like.

In a Pampango feast, the main dishes are hearty meat dishes. If you serve fish, it has to be the expensive apahap, which is the closest thing to Chilean sea bass.

I don’t remember seeing green tossed salads  on fiesta tables—vegetables seemed to be scarce on special occasions. What I do remember from my childhood is that the dessert table often had a wider assortment on offer than the main dishes. Little wonder, most of my relatives were afflicted with diabetes and high cholesterol.

Because the party described above was held on the Chinese New Year, I wondered why there seems to be little or no Chinese influence in Pampango cuisine. While there are many Chinese words in the vocabulary that deal with food, utensils and cooking methods, I have yet to see a  Chinese banquet in a Pampango home. I have partaken of Japanese-themed dinners, even Thai food served in Pampango households but no Chinese lauriats. There are unmistakable foods from China or of Chinese origin, such as toyo (soy sauce) or noodles like pancit and sotanghon, but these don’t take pride of place. If noodles are served at all, these are round or flat noodles in Italian-style tomato or cream sauces. Lumpia and okoy are staples for merienda but rarely as main courses. Bowls, small dishes and chopsticks are used for Japanese food but not for Chinese-style food. One could say that whatever Chinese influence can be found in the food culture of Pampanga, it is so deeply ingrained that it has become invisible unlike Spanish or French influences.

Being a historian complicates eating because instead of just enjoying a good meal I look at the origins of dishes. For example, the tamales of Pampanga is nothing close to the Mexican kind, which is described as “a kind of small dumpling made of Indian meal seasoned with chili wrapped in the husk of Indian corn and boiled in oil.” Even in shape the Pampango tamales is different: it is square and made up of ground rice with chicken, ham and egg, the amount of filling depending on how special it is. These are wrapped in layers of banana leaves and steamed.

Turron de casuy is similar to the Spanish turron Alicante,  long rectangular blocks of hard nougat with almonds and honey wrapped in an almost invisible but edible film. Turron de casuy must have been  made to simulate turron Alicante but, having no almonds, local cooks used cashew nuts instead. Instead of big blocks, turrones de casuy come in easier to bite bars made of a similar nougat. Honey is not white like that in turron Alicante, but brownish. Turrones come wrapped in an edible wafer like that used for Eucharistic hosts. First timers have to be told that you don’t peel a turron de casuy. You bite and eat everything.

Biringhi sounds the most exotic of all. But when one sees it on a  fiesta table, one might mistake it for Spanish paella. While the  Spanish paella is made from saffron-colored rice with chicken and pork topped with bell pepper and lemon, biringhi is made from malagkit or glutinous rice instead of the ordinary rice. It has chicken, pork and chorizo, but instead of saffron ange is used, giving it a distinct green color. Sometimes gata or coconut milk is added to make it  richer than the  paella.

Food is a marker of culture, a  reflection of history. Studying food may be complicated, but sampling  it beats a trip to the library or archive any time. Food is something  we take for granted, but it says a lot about who we are and where we came from.

Owning Social Science by Prof. Feliece Yeban

I have always been fascinated by the question whether the Philippines is best represented using the paradigm of modernity which divides society into pre-modern, modern, and post-modern. The reference of such categorization is modernity which is presumed to have transpired. But the narratives about the Philippines contained in our history, society, and culture books say otherwise. Constantino and Guerrero both used a Marxist approach in writing our story as a people and both have argued that we failed in our modernizing effort because the elite have captured the state. One characteristic of modernity is the hegemony of science and technology in organizing the world. Pertierra (2006) “explored the complex relationship between science-technology and the culture of everyday life in the Philippines and have shown that various aspects of everyday culture inhibit an orientation towards science and technology”. 

To Pertierra, modernity in the political sense presupposes that government has become settled because it is founded on a significant ideological consensus. Most social groups (ethnic, religious, linguistic, and the like) have been successfully assimilated, or have achieved protection, equality, or self-determination through autonomy, federalism, or other special devices; Secessionism no longer constitutes a major goal of minorities. Territorial frontiers have become legitimized and sanctified through legal instruments; Leaders are selected on the basis of a regular procedure like elections. No group, family, clan or sector can hold power permanently; Military and policy organizations remain under effective civilian control; The mores of governance preclude personal enrichment through various political activities.

These characteristics of a modern state are not predominantly found in the Philippines state which is described as premature because its claim to statehood is a product of its colonial history and not formed by a popularly accepted notion of “nationalism”. To this day, its legitimacy is relentlessly challenged by different resistance groups. The Filipino national identity is still evolving if not contested. All these have made the Philippine state weak. Its institutions unable to manage ethnic, religious, and socio economic diversities.

As a student and practitioner of social science, my private discomfort in looking at Philippine society from the lenses of modernity and history is leading me to suspend my subscription to the logic of the dominant social science paradigm that captivates Filipino social scientists which gives premium to the role of history to make sense of the present. My work is leading me to privilege our imagining of the future than our narration of the past. My present is defined by my view of the future.

My View of Philippine Society

One’s action is determined by one’s thought. I have acquired certain beliefs about our society which I use as framework for making decisions relevant to my practice of social science. These are worth discussing herein.

I see the Philippines as a colonial construct. There would have been no Philippines had we not been colonized by Spain. What we have is an inorganic state that was imposed to put under its umbrella the more than 100 ethnic communities and lump them all together as Filipinos. We are not a homogenous state but rather a deeply multicultural state whose main challenge is to “engineer” in the minds of the current population the idea of Filipino citizenship, which I would venture to say, is not yet totally successful. The idea of “imagined communities” by Benedict Anderson is very insightful to understand why statehood cannot be imposed on peoples found within the jurisdiction of Philippine territory. I do not however, subscribe to “balkanizing” the country. It is important to note here the role of the traditional agents engaged in the “social engineering” process of constructing “Filipinoness” – the state and the school system.

The Philippine state, from my view, is suffering from what Alfred Mccoy calls anarchy of families. Historically, the elite of this country have always had access to both political and economic power. From north to south, the government is run by traditional names in Philippine politics that have time and again ran roughshod over the country’s resources and laws. We both have the old and new “rich” controlling, at different historical timeframes, the government and its subsidiaries. It is no wonder then, that the state is not felt on the ground. How then can we galvanize support for an entity who is “absent” in the day to day business of its people?

The school system is likewise suffering from perpetuating what Antonio Gramsci calls “false consciousness” – that of educating the population of knowledge, values, and skills that promote the interests of the dominant group, thus, the general population unconsciously subscribe to a worldview or “ideology” that perpetuates the hegemony of the dominant group. The history of the school system in the Philippines is replete with “pacification” goals of either the Church or the colonial masters. Sadly, the western system of education which the eminent education theorist Paolo Freire calls “banking system” of education has not totally been exorcised from our system.

The call for governance and education reform is very fundamental to render effective the construction and re-construction of Filipino nationhood. Nationhood is not a given in the Philippine context. Construction and reconstruction of this “ideology” in the minds of Filipinos (referring to all ethnic communities) must proceed “surgically” through multi-layered efforts of different stakeholders whose role is to foster mutual understanding of this “ideology” and forge a “social contract’ among us.

My View of the Social Sciences

There are many exciting things happening in the social science field. For instance, the traditional view of history as linear is now being challenged. Passion and Revolution by Reynaldo Ileto, Contracting Colonialism by Vicente Rafael, and Pantayong Pananaw by Zeus Salazar are just among the many “new” ways of writing history. These new approaches are telling us that there are many “histories”. The challenge then is how to integrate these “new histories’ into the work of the classical historians such as Agoncillo, Constantino, dela Costa, etc. and then learn from them. The writing of our history is not yet complete to accommodate the many narratives of people who have been part of building this nation.

Both anthropology and sociology are blurring the lines that divide them to better approach the complexities of studying Filipino structures, organizations, and cultures. Filipinology and Philippine Studies are emerging fields resulting from this. Traditionally, sociology in the Philippines is informed by very western tradition of the structural functionalist and Marxist schools, nevertheless, postmodernism and post structuralism as “fad” in the West has in a way forced Filipino sociologists to re-visit their practice of doing sociology. Randy David has even challenged Filipino social scientists to re think our way of doing research in the social sciences. Rather than being hung up in the methodology, he calls for the reorienting of emphasis on recommendations which to him are the real “thesis” of the researcher. The structure-agency debate in the west does not seem to bother most of the Filipino sociologists and anthropologists. This is probably due to the fact that most of our social scientists are in some way or another involved in the national project of transformation rather than “neutral” observers.

Psychology is one field, whose role in my participating in the national project of transformation needs to be elevated. I am particularly interested in positive psychology. Martin Seligman calls for a new psychology that studies the strengths and virtues that enable individuals and communities to thrive.  The history of the Philippine is a history of struggle. In the recent past, the active involvement of the civil society in creative alternative making initiatives is telling me that approaching social transformation from “what’s wrong with us” point of view does not account for the many success stories produced by individuals and groups who have exerted effort in transforming Philippine society. I am interested in tweaking my critical approach of understanding society towards a more appreciative approach.

Appreciative inquiry provides a way to explore what is glossed over by critical approach. It is a process for catalyzing positive change (Cooperrider and Whitney, 2005). It is the study of what gives life to human systems when they are at their best. It dwells more on what worked rather than what did not work. As a method, it starts with the discovery phase which requires identifying what worked well in people, communities, and organizations. It tries to take stock of success stories rather than problems to be solved. It aims to build upon the best in people, communities, and organizations. This means identifying of and building on the positive core (Cooperrider and Whitney, 2005).  The discovery phase is followed by the dream phase. It is the phase that explores what the future might be like if the positive core discovered in phase one is optimized. The third is the design phase which is simply planning how to optimize the positive core. The last phase is called destiny which is implementing the plan, making the dream a reality.

In this approach rather than talk about what is not there, the focus is on analyzing and expanding what has already worked in the past to facilitate an evolved and better state of affairs which we could call development. A quote from The Power of Appreciative Inquiry: A Practical Guide to Positive Change sums up the mindset of this field well. "We are not saying to deny or ignore problems. What we are saying is that if you want to transform a situation, a relationship, an organization, or community, focusing on strengths is much more effective than focusing on problems."

Political science is a field which traditionally has been very statist in its approach in doing social science. There has of late been a renewed interest in this discipline (political science used to be considered as preparatory to a law degree) due to the rise (maybe a re-introduction is better) of new institutionalism. This new (?) orientation proposed that formal organizational structure reflected not only technical demands and resource dependencies, but was also shaped by institutional forces, including rational myths, knowledge legitimated through the educational system and by the professions, public opinion, and the law. The core idea that organizations are deeply embedded in social and political environments suggested that organizational practices and structures are often either reflections of or responses to rules, beliefs, and conventions built into the wider environment. The insights generated by practitioners of organizational development could very well enhance political science. Whether we view this field from an institutional or behavioral point of view does not spell much difference for me.

The pursuit of good governance is what I perceive should be at the core of this discipline. I am partial to the role of the human rights paradigm because it is an international normative standard and a very clear framework of governance.

A sense of citizenship – commitment to the realization of the aspirations of the state – must be re-invented in the light of the changing and changed context of 21st century societies. One phenomenon in today’s politics is the increasing difficulty of governments to address adequately economic and social problems. Political power traditionally exercised by governments dominated by a few is now perceived as indicative of bad governance. Governance is now perceived as shared domain of both the government and the citizens. Gone are the days where people are passive recipients of government services. Governments are increasingly recognizing that efficiency and effectiveness of public service is better achieved if the citizens are involved and engaged.

Government agencies have three corresponding human rights duties: the duty to respect, the duty to protect and the duty to promote or fulfill human rights. From these emerge several human rights-related tasks and functions such as human rights promotion and education.  Traditionally, human rights education for citizens means equipping people with the knowledge, values, and skills to demand from their governments to respect, protect, and promote their human rights. However, making governments the audience of HRE means enabling the governance structures to deliver good governance. Good governance has now come to mean people’s participation in decision-making, transparency, rule of law, human rights, responsiveness to people’s needs, and government accountability. It means the effective management of a country's resources in a manner that is open, transparent, accountable, equitable and responsive to people's needs. The rule of law; transparency, accountability and effectiveness of public sector management; and an active civil society are all essential components of good governance. Researches in political science, I believe, should be around the core theme of governance and as described herein is not only focused on the state but extended to other actors such as individuals and communities as well.

Economics as a field has conventionally been very positivistic. However, I view this discipline’s primary role to be to facilitate understanding of globalization, development, and poverty. These are the themes that predominate developing countries such as the Philippines.

The government flaunts one development plan after another – Philippines 2000, Angat Pinoy, Beat the Odds, to name a few. These are undoubtedly economistic development models. The left on the other hand, is still debating whether to affirm or reject development agenda conceptualized in the 1960s. The civil society sector has more varied development projects either driven by funders or by their avowed commitment (Illo, et.al). The business sector is re-inventing itself by claiming to be socially responsive more than ever. Despite these, we are still at a loss as to how to solve poverty, control the adverse effects and exploit the positive effects of globalization, and to pursue a development agenda that work for majority of the Filipinos. Both the capitalist and socialist blueprints have been proven inadequate in bringing about genuine, holistic, inclusive, and long lasting development.

What all these point to is that economics as it currently stands cannot adequately help us understand globalization, development, and poverty because these are complicated concepts that require knowledge of other disciplines for us to fully comprehend.

In summary, the social sciences are suffering from fragmentation. Each discipline invariably focuses on the different aspects of Philippine society rendering a fractional and bounded view. The challenge to the social science practitioners then is how to integrate insights generated by the different fields to enable the social scientists to formulate new research questions whose answers provide a more holistic basis for our action.

My tool around the fragmentation of the social sciences is to tweak my practice around the idea of development. I am influenced in this stance by Kalaw (1997) who argues for the “construction of a Science of Development that can provide normative and functional integration of economics, ecology, (self), and society and the development of management technologies that look at ecosystems, cultures, ethnicities, community, and evolution as units of analysis and management”.

Development is both a mindset, a ”heart set”, and a “work set”. As such it requires a set of knowledge, values, and skills that cultivate appropriate thinking, valuing, and doing development. To engage in this project requires a deconstruction, reconstruction, and construction of knowledge, values, and practices at the personal, interpersonal, communal, societal, and global levels.  Concretely, this ranges from simple acts such as continuing self examination; advocating reforms in education, legal, and governance systems; and embracing new business philosophy; appropriate science and technology, and simpler but more meaningful lifestyles;   to the more complicated initiatives in social forestry, agronomics, transpersonal psychology, complexity studies, biopsychology, biocracy, and other emerging fields that blur the boundaries dividing the social sciences, natural sciences and the humanities.

The Role of Bounded Rationality in My Social Science Practice

Unlike the natural world whose composition is more stable hence knowledge is predictable, the social world is more fleeting, hence knowledge is more tentative. Truth is a lot more difficult to establish in the social science because perceptions, ideas, beliefs, culture, and even ideology are held as “truths”. The role of social research is to sift through this web of subjectivities. Knowledge then is both static and dynamic. For instance, Rizal being our national hero is a static knowledge, but why he was selected as such and if he deserved to be the national hero might be subject to the dynamic discourse of the relevant community, hence knowledge is dynamic and a discourse. The importance of this knowledge or any social science knowledge for that matter is to acknowledge if such social science knowledge is able to help individuals and communities make better and informed decisions about their realities.

My knowledge of Philippine society is not and will never be complete. I pursue my social science work with intellectual humility in recognition that I do not possess the best knowledge there is but still is confident enough to proceed from what I know and convince people to join my agency. This cautious stance allows me to be open to what others have to say and to draw insights from the work of others. Despite this, I have the confident predisposition to make decisions and actions. In a way there is a degree of taking a leap of faith.

In a complex and uncertain world, humans draw inferences and make decisions under the constraints of limited knowledge, resources, and time. Bounded rationality is based on behavioral notions and upon observations of the ways in which decisions are actually taken in practice. Criticism of classical rationality led Nobel laureate Herbert Simon (1972) to propose the notion of bounded rationality. It assumes human rationality has its limits, especially when operating in conditions of considerable uncertainty.

The notion of bounded rationality gives rise to the concept of different modes of thinking that individuals employ. One mode is called the "systematic" mode and the other is called the "heuristic" mode. The systematic mode refers to a person who is engaged in careful and effortful thinking. The thought process is active, creative, and alert. This is our more reflective thinking system. It is useful for making judgments when you find yourself in unfamiliar situations and have more time to figure things out. It allows us to process abstract concepts, to deliberate, to plan ahead, to consider options carefully, to review and revise our work in the light of relevant guidelines or standards or rules of procedure. This is the system which relies on well articulated reasons and more fully developed evidence. The heuristic mode, on the other hand, relies heavily on a number of cognitive maneuvers (rules of thumb), key situational characteristics, readily associated ideas, and vivid memories to arrive quickly and confidently at a judgment. This kind of thinking is particularly helpful in familiar situations when time is short and immediate action is required.

People (even scientists) are flexible in their thinking and can move back and forth between the two modes. Sometimes we are systematic and other times we are heuristic. The mode we use depends on situational and personality factors. People also have strong individual preferences for particular modes of thinking. Some people have a high need for cognition and typically think carefully about things most of the time. By contrast some people have a low need for cognition and typically think as little as possible about a situation. In between are most people who are more sensitive to situational factors. Thus, our mode of thought can be driven by the situation or our personality predispositions. Note that even people who prefer to be heuristic thinkers can still shift into the systematic mode when the situation calls for it. The school is traditionally expected to train the minds of the students to systematic thinking. Socialization to one’s culture reproduces the heuristic mode of thinking. However, I believe that both schooling and socialization produce and reproduce both (and other) modes of thinking.

The implications of these modes of thinking are far reaching in the practice of social sciences. On one hand you have the everyday knowledge about the world as experienced by people. On the other is the systematic and scientific knowledge produced by research and methodical approach. It is reasoning based on what we have learned through careful analysis, evaluation, and explanation. The former is more intuitive knowledge while the latter is more rational thought.

The social science practitioner is challenged to bridge this seeming divide. For instance, how do we bridge the divide when the government claims there is economic growth yet people complain about their decreasing standard of living?

My Social Science Practice

I am an educator who is engaged in social transformation. The educative process does not only happen in school. Every social engagement I have with individuals or groups is an educative opportunity both for me and for others I encounter. I have the listening ear and inquiring eye of an anthropologist, the social imagination of a sociologist, the predisposition to ask who has the power and who gets what of a political scientist and economist, and predilection to understand the individual of a psychologist. All these are mindset and heartsets necessary in the practitioner of a social transformation.  There are many ways to contribute to this but I choose to be in field of education.

Education is an occasion for us to confront life as we pursue a meaningful existence. Education should equip us with the knowledge to know, comprehend and act on our social reality using our different disciplines may it be the natural sciences, social sciences or applied sciences or folk knowledge. Social transformation means being able to identify, describe and confront problem areas in our society and in our world as well as appreciate positive dimensions of our realities. This means, we need education to enable us to navigate and take control of our inner world and our inner selves so we can relate more positively with the outside world. Education is not only for the good of the society but also for our personal well being as well. Without personal growth, we won’t have enough citizens who have the consciousness required to co-create a healthy society

The transformative educator must recognize that the practice of transformative education entails the following:

1. Continuous reflection on the human condition and how education can help construct new social realities.
2. Defying conventions and cultural norms when necessary.
3. Constructing new practice and structures which might require taking risks which include the danger of isolation.
4. Being prepared to deal with resistance.
5. The process of doing transformative is the reward itself.
6. Finding the difficult balance between self-actualization on one hand and selfless social engagement on the other.
7. Taking action to effect the necessary change.

To fulfill the above, knowledge of the social sciences is a must.

Sino kami?

Kami ay mga guro sa hinaharap na nagpapakadalubhasa sa kasaysayan.
Binuo itong blog upang makapagpost kami ng aming requirement sa Development studies (LOL!)

so feel free to read, leave comments, suggestion and etc.