Can Tsismis be Truer than History? (Part 1)

 

by Rommel A. Curaming

The spirited reactions to Ella Cruz's offhand comment that "history is like tsismis" are fascinating. Some went as far as saying that she and her comment are signs that we're really in trouble and that there is a "crisis of history". That history is in crisis of some sort has long been experienced in other countries such as the US, Germany, and Australia. It took the return of a Marcos to the pinnacle of power for the idea to start gaining a foothold in the Philippines. Important in itself, it deserves a fuller treatment in a separate post.

Whether “history is like tsismis” is not an irrelevant question, for it forces us to clarify what history is and is not. In my view, however, it is neither the most interesting nor the most productive point to shed light on. Why some people think so, and why others vehemently insist otherwise, may generate more productive discussions. Perhaps, of greater consequence is to push the issue further by asking whether tsismis can ever be truer than history.

Many are quick to draw a sharp divide between the two. If it is tsismis, it cannot be history; if history, it cannot be tsismis. One is deemed factual or truthful, while the other is falsehood. On the ground, things are far from straightforward. Anyone who follows the history of the politically and academically contentious “history wars” over, say, the Holocaust, Enola Gay exhibition in the 1990s, the mass killings in Indonesia in 1965-6, race riots in Malaysia in 1969, the Stolen Generation and aboriginal history in Australia, just to mention a few, will think twice about the certainty of such dichotomy and the presumed hierarchy between the two. One might be surprised claims that are branded and rejected by certain groups as tsismis (or propaganda, historical revisionist, fake news, conspiracy theory, hearsay, urban legend, folklore, old wives’ tale) may contain more truth than what professional historians and society at large are willing to contemplate or concede. Conversely, what is regarded as legitimate history (both official and academic) by dominant groups, is rejected or doubted by others as propaganda, fake news, or conspiracy theory, and not without bases. For those interested, there exist a small but expanding body of work on the 9/11 truth movement bannered by scholars, architects, and engineers who seriously doubt the common understanding of 9/11, as well as well-publicized efforts to debunk their views. 

Why scholars and others dismiss certain positions offhand via rhetorical murder, assigning loaded and pejorative labels like tsismis or conspiracy theory, may be linked to the anxiety and efforts of concerned groups to protect the moral and political certainties which are favorable for their own self-interests. Such self-interests may or may not coincide with those of the majority of the people. They are often concealed by or couched in vocabularies fit for promoting public good like democracy, human rights, and academic freedom. 

In societies where information flow is highly regulated, free-thinking individuals do rely more on gossip, what is talked about hush-hush, than legitimate channels, such as media and scholarship. The contents of such gossip could or likely to be truer than what society widely accepts as history. We can draw from Indonesia during the New Order and Malaysia up to now, if it is about the 1969 race riots for illustrative examples. One can include as well the Philippines under Marcos, particularly in relation to the Jabidah massacre, among other instances. 

However, even in liberal democracies such as the US and EU, where freedom is supposed to be the first principle, there are historical taboos or doxas that reflect the regulated character of knowledge production and distribution. Due to a heavy cost of transgression, only a few scholars, if any at all,  dare raise inconvenient questions about the widely accepted interpretations of, say, the Holocaust, the 9/11, Pearl Harbor bombing, atomic bombing of Japan, Church history and sex abuse, and the fate of aboriginal population in the Americas and elsewhere, to cite just a few. Those who crossed the line were ignored, canceled, vilified, fined, lost job, or even jailed, for those who doubted key aspects of the Holocaust. With the distribution channels for alternative interpretations curtailed in academia and the mainstream media, people resort to other outlets such the social media. It is weapons of the weak that are at work here.

Rather than veracity or truth-content, as commonly supposed, the uneven power relations in a particular discursive context may be more decisive in determining what qualifies as history and what would be dismissed as tsismis. A tsismis that is agreeable to widely held views and/or favorable to the interests of the dominant groups may circulate freely, even included in textbook, as history, whereas a verifiable historical claim that is unsavory to the interests or self-image of hegemonic groups or the nation may be suppressed or ignored, and branded as conspiracy theory or tsismis.  One is authorized, while the other is subjugated, and either could be true or false or mixed of both. The labels, in other words, do not coincide with truthfulness or falsity. They are separate issues, which I will discuss further in Part II, and fusing them together is a rhetorical sleight of hand that everyone must be aware of. It is a clever way of hiding political interests. It is politics by other means. 

At the heart of the issue lies the question of who has got the right to define what history is, for whom, and for what purpose. For so long, professional historians had the monopoly of this right. Since the past few decades, however, the twin processes of rising anti-intellectualism and populism in various parts of the world increasingly chipped off this privilege. Ordinary people, who were alienated by the authorized history (both official and academic), are claiming their right to their own usable past. This is disconcerting for many scholars and other liberals, but this is democracy warts and all. The painful defeat of expert historians and curators in their struggle against public opinion, veterans, politicians, and media outlets over the Enola Gay exhibition in the mid-1990s stunningly showed this. As more Filipinos now seem to believe that history is too important to be left alone to historians, it raises concerns among academic historians, whose traditional source of power or authority is in jeopardy. Their knee-jerk reactions are telling: they tend to disparage popular expressions of historical consciousness that oppose their preferred interpretations, calling them with derogatory labels such as tsismis, but they are fine with those that support their views, even if they may qualify as tsismis.

Liberal and left-leaning scholars are quick to denounce relativism and misinformation. They insist on the objective nature of history and invest enormous efforts in fact-checking. Claim to factuality or truthfulness will remain foundational in any history writing efforts, be it official, mainstream, leftist, rightist, or alternative. Thus, any history that favors any political standpoint will claim that their version is objective, and dismiss contrarian versions as relativistic or subjective. They (liberal-leftist scholars) seem to think that they still have the monopoly of authority to define what is objective or impartial history, and what is merely a tsismis. Whatever it is that they have written or fact-checked may be the only valid history. Perhaps it is about time they shed of the emperor's new clothes mindset, as many Filipinos have already seen through it.  Rather than pretending that their position--being liberal, left-leaning, pro-people--is a non-political, objective, or impartial stance, they should own it up as their own politics, one among possible relativist or subjective political standpoints. It is not relativizing history; history simply is. It cannot be otherwise, and it is not any less useful or valid because of it. The revitalization of history as a progressive, pro-people profession will have to start from that. Honesty is the first step to gain credibility and people's trust. 

With partisanship of fact-checkers already exposed as "dilawan" or "pinklawan", fact-checking may not address the problems. It will be tantamount to preaching to the choir. Rather than chastising them for their supposed stupidity or gullibility, liberal-left scholars should endeavor to understand people on their own, rather than on liberal-leftists', terms. It is convenient to blame misinformation, but candid self-examination or self-reflection is needed to grasp why increasing hordes of people have grown skeptical of them and their scholarship.

 One way is to fact-check all sides, not just pro-Marcos claims. It is imperative to be critical of what needs to be critiqued about the Marcoses and the Aquinos, among other political families, and about the government/military, CPP/NPA, other rebel groups, religious organizations, NGOs, media, and all other progressive and conservative groups that have an impact on the welfare of the people. 

For so long, progressive scholarship in the Philippines has been mainly anti-state. It has largely spared the sins of the liberal and leftist organizations, which may also have been detrimental to the welfare of Filipinos. It must, in other words, be aware of its liberal/pro-left biases, so they could do something about it. If the Filipino scholarly community wishes to regain people's trust, it must gain and demonstrate its autonomy. Rather than be held captive either by the state or the anti-state forces, by pro- or anti-Marcos groups,  it should serve as an effective analyst and assessor of all sides. 

I believe that a truly pro-people progressive scholarship needs to be re-oriented or reinvented away from merely being critical. Critical stance remains essential but it needs to be reinforced. The starting point is to assume that people's interests may not be the same as what the intellectual-political elites from the liberal-left, right, and center think they are. A truly progressive scholarship must enable or empower people to arrive at an informed decision as to which side would be most beneficial for their own interests. Elsewhere, I argue that in addition to critique, which is the preferred preoccupation among scholars of all ideological orientations, cartography of power/knowledge may prove more useful for common people. Rather than debating conceptual or theoretical salience and empirical accuracy of knowledge, mapping out who makes, distributes, and consumes knowledge, when, in what context, for what purpose, and with what effects to whom, and through time, may be more relevant and empowering for common people This requires a lengthy explanation, which I cannot do here as it is already too long. To anyone interested you may read my article and the conclusion of my book for relevant ideas. 

History and tsismis share common as well as contrasting attributes. In Part II, I shall discuss their convergent and divergent features to show why history may indeed be in certain respect like tsismis, why tsismis could be truer, and more effective, than history, and why the push-back against talking about them in the same breath. I shall also discuss what progressive historians and other scholars can do to more effectively address the quickly changing historical landscape in the Philippines. Fact-checking is not enough, as it is a liberal solution to an illiberal problem.