Okay, I admit it. I'm a fan of Pilosopo Tasyo. Or more specifically, I'm a fan of his way of thinking.
If I remember correctly (Please correct me if I'm wrong), it was Tasyo who advised Ibarra in Noli Me Tangere to keep his head down, to first court the powerful officials of the land to the extent of figuratively (and perhaps, literally) kissing the hands of the friars and other almighty beings. This had to be done so Ibarra could push through with his plans to improve his town by making sure he had the backing of both the politicians and the friars. By then, his political influence can be so overwhelming that he can now attempt more ambitious attempts at social reform (And who knows? At that point, he can probably subvert, with assured success, the powers-that-be and ultimately undermine and transform for the better the rotten Spanish-era socio-political system). Tasyo encapsulated this philosophy best in the parable of the wind-battered stem, which, while weak, bends with the wind as not to be destroyed at its infancy.
Having introduced Tandang Tasyo's way of thinking, I proceed by saying that I'm not a believer in activism as a potent social force. No, it doesn't mean I hate activists (I have friends who are), nor does it mean that I find activism unnecessary or ineffective ( Rallies and protests are effective but to a certain extent if I may add). What it simply means is that I believe it isn't the best solution out there for the serious reformist.
This is because activists operate, not within, but outside the traditional sphere of power and influence. One can argue against this by saying that some activist organizations have made great leaps by installing their key personnel in Congress and other high offices. But we also have to admit that these "key personnel" are but a puny minority in a group otherwise infested by people with vested interests and corrupt minds. In such a group, it's very hard to win.
One can continue arguing against this by saying that, if majority is the key to winning, activists have the upper hand. For instance, it cannot be denied that activists can mobilize a great deal of people to join rallies or to voice out their discontent over a controversial bill or action. In general, a politician's weakness is the ballot box, and anything which will threaten a politician's number of votes is instant Kryptonite. In other words, having a huge number of people go against you or your bill/proposal won't exactly do wonders to one's political career. But organizing an entire populace to rally against a perceived, malicious agenda is simply too inefficient (the process itself requires too many resources) and the odds for success aren't quite that good either ( Activists have railed against "bad" laws only to have them still in force several years later).
Having said all this, the other solution to social reform that I see is basically what Pilosopo Tasyo proposes and that is, to act small, go inside the organization and start from there. That means establishing meaningful relationships with top-rank officials, winning their trust, building rapport with the establishment, while remaining firmly grounded to one's own idealistic agenda. Then, when the time comes, one has all the backing in the world , all the political leverage, when one pursues attempts at social reform.
What I just said can be considered anathema to activists since the nature of their advocacy hinges on maintaining a confrontational attitude against the government. It's probably not an overstatement to say that activists thrive on confrontation. But this sort of confrontation only produces enemies and most of the time, these enemies are the exact same people you have to win over for your cause to succeed!
Perhaps, one other dilemma confronting this questionable solution is the fact that one has to network with political personalities of questionable character and/or reputation. For a hard-core activist, this implication is nothing short of despicable ( It's like sleeping with the enemy!). But such a solution has already been applied a long time ago by a carpenter named Jesus, who sat down with the so-called "sinners" and succeeded in bringing them into his fold.
Simply put, confrontation as a means to social reform is untenable and as long as "activism" maintains this kind of stance, it will never be good enough for me and thus, will remain my last option for social reform.
Maybe, in another post, I can elaborate my point further by going into the details of my position. Until then, peace out.
If I remember correctly (Please correct me if I'm wrong), it was Tasyo who advised Ibarra in Noli Me Tangere to keep his head down, to first court the powerful officials of the land to the extent of figuratively (and perhaps, literally) kissing the hands of the friars and other almighty beings. This had to be done so Ibarra could push through with his plans to improve his town by making sure he had the backing of both the politicians and the friars. By then, his political influence can be so overwhelming that he can now attempt more ambitious attempts at social reform (And who knows? At that point, he can probably subvert, with assured success, the powers-that-be and ultimately undermine and transform for the better the rotten Spanish-era socio-political system). Tasyo encapsulated this philosophy best in the parable of the wind-battered stem, which, while weak, bends with the wind as not to be destroyed at its infancy.
Having introduced Tandang Tasyo's way of thinking, I proceed by saying that I'm not a believer in activism as a potent social force. No, it doesn't mean I hate activists (I have friends who are), nor does it mean that I find activism unnecessary or ineffective ( Rallies and protests are effective but to a certain extent if I may add). What it simply means is that I believe it isn't the best solution out there for the serious reformist.
This is because activists operate, not within, but outside the traditional sphere of power and influence. One can argue against this by saying that some activist organizations have made great leaps by installing their key personnel in Congress and other high offices. But we also have to admit that these "key personnel" are but a puny minority in a group otherwise infested by people with vested interests and corrupt minds. In such a group, it's very hard to win.
One can continue arguing against this by saying that, if majority is the key to winning, activists have the upper hand. For instance, it cannot be denied that activists can mobilize a great deal of people to join rallies or to voice out their discontent over a controversial bill or action. In general, a politician's weakness is the ballot box, and anything which will threaten a politician's number of votes is instant Kryptonite. In other words, having a huge number of people go against you or your bill/proposal won't exactly do wonders to one's political career. But organizing an entire populace to rally against a perceived, malicious agenda is simply too inefficient (the process itself requires too many resources) and the odds for success aren't quite that good either ( Activists have railed against "bad" laws only to have them still in force several years later).
Having said all this, the other solution to social reform that I see is basically what Pilosopo Tasyo proposes and that is, to act small, go inside the organization and start from there. That means establishing meaningful relationships with top-rank officials, winning their trust, building rapport with the establishment, while remaining firmly grounded to one's own idealistic agenda. Then, when the time comes, one has all the backing in the world , all the political leverage, when one pursues attempts at social reform.
What I just said can be considered anathema to activists since the nature of their advocacy hinges on maintaining a confrontational attitude against the government. It's probably not an overstatement to say that activists thrive on confrontation. But this sort of confrontation only produces enemies and most of the time, these enemies are the exact same people you have to win over for your cause to succeed!
Perhaps, one other dilemma confronting this questionable solution is the fact that one has to network with political personalities of questionable character and/or reputation. For a hard-core activist, this implication is nothing short of despicable ( It's like sleeping with the enemy!). But such a solution has already been applied a long time ago by a carpenter named Jesus, who sat down with the so-called "sinners" and succeeded in bringing them into his fold.
Simply put, confrontation as a means to social reform is untenable and as long as "activism" maintains this kind of stance, it will never be good enough for me and thus, will remain my last option for social reform.
Maybe, in another post, I can elaborate my point further by going into the details of my position. Until then, peace out.
