Blog #5: Dominasyon ng Disney

Magsisimula ako sa isang personal na karanasan. Dati’y inis na inis ako sa mga magulang at anak na Inglisan nang Inglisan, lalo na sa harap ng madla. Nakakainis. Ang aarte! Palibhasa kasi’y laki ako sa isang pamilyang wala naman gaanong kaya, ngunit nagsumikap magtaguyod ng sariling pamumuhay sa tulong na rin ng maraming tao at ng Maykapal. Marurunong naman kaming mag-Ingles dahil nakapag-aral sa magagandang pamantasan, ngunit Filipino ang usapan sa bahay. Ang ama kasi ay tubong Laguna at ang ina naman ay Bulakeña. At Pilipinas ito, hindi Amerika. Sabi ko sa sarili ko: “`Pag ako nagka-anak, hindi ganyan.”

`Di nagtagal ay kinain ko rin ang aking mga salita. Nagkaroon ako ng sariling anak, isang taon matapos ikasal sa aking nobya. Laking Tundo si misis, ako nama’y taga-QC. Sa umpisa’y Filipino ang usapan sa bahay. Pragmatiko naman kami, kaya’t nagkasundo kaming dapat matatas pareho sa Filipino at Ingles ang aming magiging anak. Sa madaling salita, iba ang naging resulta. Palibhasa’y kapwa subsob sa karera, wala kami pareho sa bahay buong araw tuwing araw ng trabaho. Iyon pala’y walang ibang pinanood ang unico hijo namin kundi Disney Junior simula nang matuto siyang humawak ng remote (dahil na rin ayaw namin siyang manuod masyado ng teleserye na siyang gawain ng kasambahay). Ang laki pala talaga ng impluwensya ng mga palabas na Mickey Mouse Clubhouse, Hi-5, at Thomas and Friends sa isang paslit kahit pa may ABS-CBN at GMA. Ilang buwan pa ay hindi na makaintindi ng Filipino ang aming anak. Isang araw, paggising nami’y Inglisan na kami nang Inglisan. Ang mga kinamuhian namin dati ay naging kami.

mula sa vintagedisneymemorabilia.blogspot.com

Tinanggap naming mag-asawa iyon, siguro dahil na rin ganoon ang mga kapitbahay, ang mga kaibigan. Ginusto na rin siguro namin. Nagiging upwardly mobile kami. Kailangan ang Ingles dahil lahat sa preschool nag-i-Ingles. So, sige, sabi ko, okey lang. Isang araw, ako’y nagulantang. Nag-uwi ang anak ng mga pagsusulit. Matataas ang mga marka, halos perpekto. Nakita ko ang marka sa Filipino. Mataas! Okey. Hanggang sa binasa ko ang mga tanong. Sa sobrang Inglesero nitong anak ko, `di ako nakapaniwalang nasagot niya ang mga ito nang walang anumang tulong. At duon ko nalaman na sa paaralan pala niya’y kapag `di mo naintindihan ang tanong sa eksam, isasalin ito ng guro sa Ingles. Sabi ko, ‘Teka, may mali.’ Kasi nuong ako ang nasa Grade 1, mani ang Filipino. `Di na nga kailangang mag-rebyu e. Ngayon, baligtad. Isang gabi naman, `di niya natapos ang homework. Paano, `di niya naintindihan ang ibig sabihin ng mga salitang “gansa,” “tandang,” “inahing manok,” “butiki,” atbp. Kaya `di niya maibigay kung ano ang tunog ng mga hayop na iyon, na siyang simpleng tanong sa libro. Filipino, hindi math, hindi science, ang pinakamahirap na aralin! Ilang ulit ko man sabihin na mag-aral siyang mag-Filipino, marahil ay huli na. Ingles na ang unang lenggwahe niya. Ingles na siya mag-isip. Kahit kausapin mo ng Filipino, Ingles ang sagot sa iyo. Kahit `di Amerikano, may twang. Mas diretso pa nga mag-Ingles sa akin.

Gaya ng nasabi na, pragmatiko ako. Mahalaga ang Ingles para makipagsapalaran sa mundo. Ngunit `di maiwasang malungkot o manghinayang na sa sariling bansa, mas may pagpapahalaga sa wikang banyaga. Ingles ang gamit ng bata sa guro at magulang, Filipino naman sa kasambahay o kalaro sa kalye. Nabalewala (taken for granted) ang Filipino. Mas lubos kong naiintindihan ngayon ang saloobin ng diskursong post-kolonyal at ang kaakibat na kilusang linggwistiko. `Di ko namalayan, ang pamamahay ko pala’y nadomina na ng komersyal na interes ng isang banyagang korporasyon (“The Walt Disney Company”). Tunay ngang napakalawak pa rin ng impluwensya ng Kanluran kahit dekada na ang pagsasariling pulitikal ng bansa—sa pamamahala, ekonomiya, edukasyon, at higit sa lahat, kultura. Iyon bang pagkakakilanlan natin bilang mga Pilipino at bilang isang bansang Pilipinas ay laging nakasalig sa banyagang kultura? Nandito ang puwang para sa pag-aaral na post-kolonyal. Malaki ang ambag at ang magigi pang ambag nito sa mahaba at `di pa tapos na prosesong pagtataguyod ng isang bansang may sariling pagkakakilanlan. Ang post-kolonyalismo ay isang critique, at ang pagiging mapanuri ay kailangan `di lamang ng mga nasa poder na nagpapalakad sa pamahalaan at kalakalan, kundi pati na rin ng masang babad sa kultura ng Hollywood. Hindi dahil ito ang dikta ng global elite ay susunod na ang lahat. Ano ba ang interes ng bansa?

Sa kabilang banda’y aaminin kong kay hirap lunuking buong-buo ang mga prinsipyo ng post-kolonyal na diskurso. Kailangan bang iwaksi ang mga bagay na tinanggap na ng Pilipino bilang bahagi ng kanyang pagkatao? Halimbawa’y Kristiyanismo. At oo, ang kagalingan sa Ingles. Sanay ako sa Ingles bilang mamamahayag at patnugot. Iiwan ko na ba ito sa ngalan ng pagtataguyod ng pambansang pagkakakilanlan? Sa palagay ko, ang Pinoy ay dapat matutong iwaksi ang mga masasamang dulot ng mga siglong kolonyal at pagyamanin naman ang mga magagandang bunga nito—ang pagkakabuo ng isang bansa, pamilya, pananampalataya, atbp. Masalimuot ang kasaysayan ng bansa, gaya ng iba pang mga nasakop, ngunit dapat tayong makipagkasundo dito para na rin sa ating kapakanan.

* * *

Ito ang una kong blog sa Wikang Filipino. `Di naman ako gaanong nahirapan ngunit aaminin ko na may ilang salita sa Ingles na ang katumbas sa Filipino ay napunta sa dulo ng dila ko. Buti na lang may diksyunaryo sa Google. Nag-isip din ako kung wasto ang aking gamit sa “nang” at “ng”. Pumurol na pala sa balarila. E kasi nga, ako man ay kulang sa pagpapahalaga sa Filipino. Ngunit kapansin-pansin na mas mahaba ang naisulat ko dito ngayon gamit ang sariling wika. Dapat nga pala talagang huwag alisin ang Filipino sa kolehiyo. Maigi na ring nabuhay ang isyung ito kaakibat ng usapin sa sistemang K to 12, para na rin maipaalala sa marami, lalo na sa mga Inglisan nang Inglisan sa harap ng madla, na may sarili tayong wikang dapat gamitin (kahit minsan!) at pagyamanin.

Blog #4: Getting at the truth

How does one create knowledge and arrive at the truth? The positivist explores the natural world and establishes his or her findings based solely on what is measurable and observable, or what can be subjected to an experiment. Science has no business outside this strictly empirical domain. The post-positivist or post-behavioralist, taking his or her cues from Kuhn or Popper, does not entirely abandon scientific methodology but allows sufficient room for reflexivity. Finally, the interpretivist rejects positivism, preferring to understand the world better by immersing himself or herself within it.

The dominance and continued survival of the positivist paradigm continue to be intimately linked to the utility of its results. In a recent forum, one of the top figures in the country’s scientific community stressed the importance of using scientific means to minimize risk, uncertainty, speculation, and guesswork, particularly in government decision-making. “It is therefore quite important,” he argues, “that decisions are based on the most rigorous scientific analysis and risk assessment.  We need to develop a society that views science as a way of thinking that develops skills in objective thinking.  That is questioning, observing, formulating and testing explanations—rather than emotively reacting to new and different ideas and developments.”

This is by all means logical. Indeed, in crafting labor policy, it would be reasonable to look at the results of the quarterly Labor Force Survey, which covers 50,000 households. The Consumer Price Index is indispensable in fine-tuning monetary policy. This widely monitored index requires 400,000 price quotations on a monthly basis, with a market basket that is in turn based on the consumption patterns of 44,542 households. The sheer magnitude of these government surveys impresses upon us that government policy is on sure footing. These surveys even allow the government to dismiss the oftentimes contrary findings of private pollsters whose limited resources allow for much smaller sample sizes.

Not all pursuit of knowledge, however, is policy-driven. (As an aside, not all policymaking is based on evidence. Wage setting, for instance, is a political outcome of a tripartite process at the regional level, employment and inflation data notwithstanding. Monetary policy setting is fraught with limitations, because not all causes of inflation are captured by the central bank’s short-term forecasting model. A presidentially appointed Monetary Board makes the decision to hike, cut, or maintain policy interest rates, not an econometric equation.)

While it professes, sincerely in my view, to work for the best interests of the public, in particular the disadvantaged, the dominant approach tends to marginalize those who do not have access to the huge resources (financial, etc.) needed in the production of social scientific knowledge. The large scope and technical know-how needed to come up with such wide-ranging studies also means those who control the resources also have a hand in the priorities and even output of research.

Wider acceptance of interpretivism could lead to a more inclusive framework for the practice of the social sciences. Fay spells out clearly the role of this verstehen approach. Interpretivism must 1) look into and examine the motivations of society’s actors and 2) find out the underlying set of rules by which by which society operates, relating them to one another. Approaches such as ethnography, grounded theory, and the interview have the capacity to produce meanings and enrich human understanding beyond descriptive methodology. Resources should also be devoted to these approaches.

These methods are not entirely divorced from objective principles, if by objective we mean the means rather than the end. Fay points out that interpretivism also makes use of publicly available evidence.

To be sure, interpretivism has its own limitations (Fay) namely its inability to understand or explain unintended consequences, structural conflict, and historical change. It professes to facilitate human understanding but is not clear about the terms of communication. It tends to stick to the status quo.

The important thing, however, is for the social sciences to become truly meaningful. What story does the social scientist have to tell? Does it make plausible claims and convey meanings? Does it resonate with the audience and lead to some kind of transformation? We cannot begin to deal with these questions if the social sciences are confined to quantification, replication, and generalization.

Blog #3: Pragmatic social sciences needed

The critique of the social sciences has often centered on their gradual movement toward quantification as they aspire to gain equal footing with the physical and biological sciences. Economics is a prime example of this progression. In 1987, the dean of the country’s top school of economics was proclaimed national scientist by the President, upon recommendation of the National Academy of Science and Technology. This was no less than an imprimatur by the Philippine scientific community on the stature of the economics discipline as full-fledged science.

To be sure, the positivist approach adopted from the natural sciences has lent much-needed credibility to the results of research in the social sciences, at least from the point of view of the layperson. The neatness, certainty, and assurance provided by replicable empirical evidence (e.g., mathematical, statistical) in the physical and biological sciences are presumably at work in the way the output of the social sciences is appreciated by the public.

Galileo at the Leaning Tower of Pisa
from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/02/140215-galileo-450-birthday-appreciation-science-history/

Thus, mainstream economists today can hardly think about economics without econometrics. Psychology is far ahead in this regard—in the Philippines, the most recent graduates of the course are about to take the first-ever board examinations for psychometricians, with the concomitant on-the-job training and intensive review classes. The way things are going, it would not be far-fetched to think that graduates of economics, which has become a highly mathematical discipline, would be asked to take licensure exams in the future. Why not? Financial market investors rely on them for expert advice. Economists are sometimes asked to appear in commercial courts to render testimony on the feasibility or infeasibility of corporate rehabilitation plans. Even governments depend on them to chart fiscal, monetary, and socioeconomic policy. Are economists, especially those who do technical consultancy or those who recommend policy, really different from, say, certified public accountants?

But the empirical positivist approach is just one way of doing social science.

Qualitative methodologies under interpretive approaches produce valuable insights and meanings—through hermeneutics, fieldwork/participant observation, and other tools—that even the most complex mathematical modeling cannot provide. Using critical approaches, the social science researcher is liberated further from the strictures of “value-neutral” science and is able to stand for something as well as analyze the human condition from a particular point of view.

There are two realizations here. First, the social sciences have to be pragmatic and acknowledge the fact that the totality of human experience cannot be subjected to the rigidity of “scientific” inquiry. The methods of natural science, strictly speaking, cannot entirely apply to the study of human experience. And this is because (second) the social scientist cannot claim value-neutrality all the time. The choice of a research topic is in itself a subjective exercise. More so is putting a premium on “objectivity” and the “scientific method”, which are, ultimately, products of subjectivity.

We have to confront this notion of objectivity (as Lukes points out) and reflect on what really is the purpose of scientific inquiry. In many respects scientific objectivity could be an illusion and thus an unnecessary burden on those who would like to make sense of what's happening in the world without being shackled.

Rorty puts everything in perspective in saying that the social sciences should be able to “enlarge” or “deepen” our “sense of community.” Without necessarily abandoning the useful methods of empiricism, interpretive and critical studies should help the social scientist achieve this goal.

Blog #2: Building knowledge and its limits

What is the fountainhead of knowledge? That human reason (deduction) and human experience (induction) can both serve as bases for the production of knowledge has been well-established. The question is whether both are reliable.

Through sheer logic, one can arrive at the truth. Through reasoning and argumentation, one can convince others of the validity of a position. With these tools, philosophy occupied pride of place as a discipline for ages.

View of Pluto from one of the ex-planet's moons.
from http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/multimedia/display.cfm?Category=Planets&IM_ID=16383

Today, it would be hard to accept that reason alone suffices. Much more is demanded. This is where human experiences and the senses come in. Where conjecture falls short, scientists and academics demand proof, and by proof, they mean empirical data. The injunction is for school instruction to be “evidence-based.” The same is true for the findings of researchers to become official policy of the state.

Much of what we know today is the result of this empiricist movement. An example is medicine, wherein diagnosis and treatment are based on numerous studies that must first go through the wringer of rigorous blind review by peers as part of the journal publication process.

New drugs and new uses of existing drugs have to undergo extensive clinical trials, and then be approved by big government agencies such as the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Even those in the hard sciences, however, agree that their quantitative methods have inherent limitations. Going back to the example of the drug approval process, the FDA has its “hall of shame” of medicines recalled from the market due to different safety issues.

If such is the case in the physical and biological sciences, then practitioners of the social sciences cannot ask their intended audiences to rely entirely on the findings of quantitative approaches.

For one, quantitative methodologies themselves rely on a specific, even rigid, set of assumptions. Violate one of these and the results will be useless. One finds out later that much of the assumptions do not hold true in reality. Another limitation can be the error of measurement. Variables or concepts might not have been well-defined conceptually and operationally.

Econometrics, the bread and butter of economics, uses statistical methods with the aid of economic theory in quantifying the relationships between dependent and explanatory variables. Autocorrelation between independent variables and other similar problems will, however, render the results of multiple regression analysis invalid. The bigger problem is when no data is at all available.

Opinion polls are all the more in vogue as the populists’ tool of choice. But surveys are only as good as the kind of questions asked by the enumerator’s instrument. Moreover, human experiences and the way humans perceive them are complex.

Where empiricism falls short in explaining its results, the social scientist can turn to qualitative approaches. To insist solely on the use quantitative approaches would be to limit the frontiers of knowledge.

The more controversial question for me is the still unresolved opposition between absolutism and relativism. Bernstein’s words are striking: Neither absolutism nor subjectivism is a “live option.” The author notes that “there are no non-trivial claims that are immune from criticism,” while relativism has become a “roaring torrent.” 

Social scientists will have to work harder to convince people amid the plurality of viewpoints.

Will humans be ever capable of knowing the truth? What’s clear is that despite the progress of the myriad branches of science, we still don’t have all the answers. The more we know about the world, it seems the less we are certain.

Blog #1: 'Scientific revolutions' and the pursuit of knowledge

The writings of Toulmin, Feyerabend, Lakatos, and others render inevitable the conclusion that science is not a monolithic, infallible body of knowledge devoid of ideological moorings. “Science” is simply the prevailing orthodoxy that could eventually be overturned by yet another competing science. The scientific consensus can shift. This is clearly proven by the inadequacy of systems of analysis (Cartesian, Marxist, etc.), including history, that had sought to establish science as a hegemony and an ultimately decisive undertaking.

The idea of falsifiable science (and therefore, falsifiable facts, knowledge, “truth”) is admittedly unsettling. Indeed, it is more convenient to cling to what we think are stable bodies of knowledge or belief systems. That science is immutable seems to be a popular notion. But the falsifiability of science is crucial to the generation of knowledge. Without acknowledging it, scientific thinking will be unable to advance how humans understand themselves and the world around them.

The Copernican revolution
from http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/pictures/k4.jpg

It also has to be acknowledged that the state and other actors try to influence the production of knowledge. We do not have to look far beyond for examples of sanctioned science. Government statistics are official statistics (albeit subject to revision, e.g., gross domestic product, inflation). The Philippine government supports the National Academy of Science and Technology and elevates select (elite) practitioners to the prestigious roster of National Scientists. The government, despite its meager fiscal resources, funds research undertakings based on its own (predetermined) research agenda. An example is the Philippine Institute for Development Studies, which, while operating independently as a policy think tank, conducts its research based on a state mandate. It exists primarily to influence policymaking.

As a young journalist, I saw (even executed) firsthand the production of knowledge or discourse (“truth”) on a daily basis using the format of news. We were taught to be objective “truth-tellers,” to report only the facts and not editorialize. This pursuit of journalistic truth is a solemn duty, without which journalism becomes advocacy, or worse, propaganda.

Now, even journalism recognizes that “all truths — even the laws of science — are subject to revision,” but that journalists “operate by them in the meantime because they are necessary and they work.” Thus, journalism pursues a “practical and functional,” not absolute or scientific truth (Kovach and Rosenstiel). The problem is that journalism can be influenced by interest groups such as politicians, state bureaucracies, businesses (advertisers), lobbyists, international agencies, and NGOs. Journalistic content (presented as “facts”) can be the product of power play.

Economics, which I covered as a journalist, is also dominated by prevailing orthodoxies (neoliberal, Keynesian) that are constantly challenged. For instance, the pursuit of economic growth has since been tempered by the egalitarian desire to achieve inclusivity, as a result of high rates of growth that had not translated into more employment and less poverty.

“Scientific revolutions” (Kuhn) are simply manifestations of our common and constant quest for knowledge, even at the cost of doing away with what we already know and are comfortable with.

In a skeptical, postmodern world, monolithic science can no longer be the final refuge that will wipe out virulent opposition that occurs across the board (as exemplified by climate-change deniers and intelligent design advocates in the right and anti-vaccine, anti-GMO activists in the left). Whatever we think of these groups, their persistence tells us that skepticism is deeply embedded in the way humans think, even when confronted by scientific evidence.
 

Making Philippine economic growth inclusive in the context of regional integration

Recent Philippine economic performance has been phenomenal, driven by a dominant services sector. Last year, the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) grew by 7.2 percent, outpacing the previous year despite the devastation caused by Typhoon “Haiyan” and other natural disasters. Services, which account for nearly 60 percent of GDP, grew by 7.1 percent; industry expanded by 9.5 percent. Agriculture, meanwhile, managed to grow by 1.1 percent. On the demand side, growth in household and government consumption slowed down to 5.6 percent and 8.6 percent, respectively, while capital formation jumped by 18.2 percent. For 2014, our think tank, the Philippine Institute for Development Studies, forecasts Philippine GDP to grow by 6.6 percent (Navarro and Llanto 2012).

Compared with neighboring countries, the Philippines equaled or outpaced China in the first two quarters of 2013, and grew faster than Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam in all four quarters of last year.

There has been a lot of good news in the Philippines recently. Better governance as shown, for instance, by improved fiscal health, has earned successive sovereign credit rating upgrades for a country once known as Asia’s basket case. One year after getting investment-grade status, the Philippines was again given an upgrade by S&P, which said the latest action was due to its belief that “ongoing reforms to address shortcomings in structural, administrative, institutional, and governance areas will endure beyond the current administration” (Batino and Yap 2014).