The online conference, which I co-organized with Karl Patrick Mendoza, Toward a Nuanced History of the Marcos Era, was successfully carried out on February 28-March 1, 2023. We had DLSU-SEARCH (Southeast Asia Research Center and Hub) and UST’s Tala: An Online Journal as partners, and the Philippine Historical Association (PHA), Philippine National Historical Society (PNHS) and Adhika ng Pilipinas as supporters. Karl and I appreciate deeply their support, without which the conference would have not made it. Over 400 registered, but actual attendance via Zoom varied from session to session, peaking at around 140-150. There were others who participated via FB live stream. Participants’ evaluations indicate very high approval of practically all the sessions, with “thought-provoking”, “eye-opening”, “well-organized” and “more conferences like this, please” among comments they gave.
Seeking to take an unflinching look at the Marcos era, the conference served as a free and safe space for views or questions that are deterred, if not suppressed, by political correctness driven by the long-standing hegemony of the liberal and leftist groups in the Philippine academia. The recent surge of popular support for Marcos—cutting across all ages, genders, geographic and educational backgrounds— unsettled, if not upended, power dynamics as an alternative center of power now competes with the liberals-conservative-leftists triumvirate in defining and gatekeeping what is politically and morally correct in the Philippine public sphere.
The main task the conference sets for itself is to help chart a pathway to render obsolete the need for a nuanced history of the Marcos era. By its very nature, history is nuanced: it is inclusive of all sectors and attentive to both the good and the nasty, as well as anything in between and beyond. Left on their own, historians capture the complexity, ambiguities, and contextual dynamics of what happened in the past. In a normal situation, there is no need for nuancing. Against the backdrop of the highly polarized political atmosphere in the Philippines, however, history is held captive to the interests of two warring factions, the pro- and anti-Marcos groups. This sharp divide is reflected in the two dominant narratives as captured by opposing slogans, Dark Age and Golden Age. One can say anything contrarian to them only at the risk of being severely castigated or canceled by either, or both, sides.
It is no wonder why the questions and challenges of moral judgment take a center stage, as very well-articulated in the thought-provoking keynote address by Filomeno Aguilar Jr.. Entitled “Moral Judgement and the History of the Marcos Era, 1965-1986”, the paper reflects over the inevitability, necessity and difficulties posed by moral judgment. Among other hard-hitting questions, I find these particularly spot on: “Can professional historians claim that their version is superior to the version of the nonprofessionals, who have crafted their own ‘public memory’ of the Marcos past? Can professional historians who critique Marcos claim to have a better ground for judging the past than the nonprofessionals who praise Marcos?” Putting a spotlight on the assumed analytic and moral ascendancy commonly attributed to academic history, such questions are refreshing. They transcend the narrow politics and facile moralizing that hold hostage the historical discourses in the country for so long (If interested, you may watch the recorded video of the session here)
Many, including hardcore anti-Marcos scholars, might easily brush off such questions as nonsense. “Of course, they can, or did already, and rightfully so!” In my view, anyone who seriously wishes to be self-reflexive and analytically rigorous would find these questions confronting and painful to ponder. Can they, indeed, given the limited number of empirically comprehensive and analytically balanced studies on the era? Do they really have the guts to claim so, knowing too well the politically and morally charged atmosphere that heavily censures scholars, or anyone for that matter, who say anything neutral or positive about authoritarianism, in general, and the Marcos era, in particular?
Anthony Borja’s paper, “Neutrality, Impartiality and Political History,” provides a philosophically adept reinforcement to the key points raised in the keynote address. Teasing out the distinction between being politically neutral and being politically impartial, he makes a case for the untenability of neutrality and the preferability of impartiality. Being impartial here does not mean the absence of politics, as power relations or the political may be ultimately inescapable, but being able to go beyond the false dichotomies forced upon the public by the purveyors of the clashing narratives of Dark Age vs Golden Age.
Against the backdrop of the long-reared tradition of partisan scholarship promoted by well-meaning and vociferous liberal-left intellectuals in the country and beyond, I can sense young scholars are being conditioned, even pressured, to believe that taking an anti-state and pro-liberal/left-leaning politico-moral stance is a must. Not only are analytic rigor and impartiality considered deficient, but they are also deemed cowardly. This was clear in a spirited discussion during one of the session. Such positionality ignores, so I opine, the possibility that given the paralyzing political stalemate that traps the country, impartiality and analytic rigor, rather than fidelity to either the pro- or anti-Marcos groups, constitutes today’s moral obligation among Filipino intellectuals. It is arguably what the Filipino people and the country as a whole need to make sense of the problems and address them, move forward, and coexist civilly, if not peacefully. Lest we forget, there is so much more to Philippine history, both during the Marcos era and today, than the politico-moral squabbles between the pro- and anti-Marcos groups. The victims and critics of the Marcos regime have all the right to castigate the Marcoses and hold them accountable, but they have no right to invalidate what others, the whopping 60% of voters, think and feel about the Marcoses. We liberals (yes I am a liberal. For my autobio as a liberal, see) ought to stop making a big joke out of ourselves, defending ardently personal freedom and free expression while denying the same to those who do not agree with us. Long overdue is for us--liberals, conservatives, apolitical, and leftists--to learn how to live and let live.
We better pay heed to the likelihood that for most Filipinos, what matter is a better life, regardless of how one defines it. Whether it is a democratic or authoritarian regime that delivers, or the pro- or anti-Marcos or the don’t-care-about-Marcos groups, it may not really matter to most people. That Duterte enjoyed an overwhelmingly favorable approval rating till the end attests to this possibility. How are certain groups able to hold the nation captive for long to the liberal, anti-state, and left-leaning talking points (anti-Marcos, anti-authoritarianism, pro-democracy and human rights), for what and whose purposes, with what effects on them and the rest of the country, seem to be interesting objects of serious sociological-political analysis.
No comments:
Post a Comment