The Sword
Volume 1, Number 1 First Semester 2014–15
the up political society review of political science
meditations on politics
From the Editor-in-Chief Edcel John A. Ibarra Editor-in-Chief, Layout Artist
The Sword is the official external publication of the UP Political Society featuring members’ political analytic compositions for political science students. Consistent with the principles of ac-
Alphonse G. Samson Deputy Editor for Externals Reiner S. Gallardo Contributing Editor
ademic excellence, critical thinking, and political awareness, it strives to advance the discipline of political science, to carefully analyze relevant social issues for possible solutions, and to instill awareness of the current social and political developments.
Patricia S. Ignacio Contributing Editor
There is another The Sword, the internal publication, which pub-
Rodolfo L. Lahoy Jr.
lishes news on the states of affairs of the organization for mem-
Contributing Editor
bers and non-members alike. With all due respect to the history of the organization’s official publication, I settled to divide The
Shiela Marie C. Malabanan
Sword into two parallel publications. You can read the internal
Deputy Editor for Internals
publication through this link: bit.ly/ts-inter-1415a. (I elabo-
John Rey C. Alvior
rated in there my reasons for dividing the publication.)
Correspondent Mark Ernest E. Mandap Correspondent
For the external publication’s first issue, the editors find it but fitting to start from the beginning. We decided to write on the concept that is the root of our discipline: politics. There are a myriad of con-
Pauline Faye S. Fajardo Illustrator
ceptions of politics, many of which are incompatible with others in terms of focus and scope; politics is after all a contested concept. But amid this pool of options, we must eventually subscribe to one particular conception, thereby implicitly contesting the contestedness of the concept. As critical thinkers, we do not indiscriminately settle with conceptions provided for in books or by our professors. Instead, we must investigate for ourselves what we mean when we say that something is political. Not only does clarifying the concept help us in our systematic pursuit of knowledge, but it also determines when and where human action becomes socially meaningful. My fellow political science students, I hope the present contributions offer you insights for your own meditations on politics. Breathing politics,
University of the Philippines Political Society (UP POLSCi) www.uppoliticalsociety.com | uppoliticalsociety@gmail.com | facebook.com/up.political.society | twitter.com/up_polsci Beside Third World Studies Center, University of the Philippines–Diliman
Volume 1, Number 1 First Semester 2014–15
Meditations on Politics Remember Foucault | 4 Rodolfo L. Lahoy Jr. opens with an inquiry into the act of defining politics itself. The activity is far from neutral, he argues, and it suits purposes beyond those of research. Instead, defining politics is itself political in that it limits or expands the possibilities of social action.
Politics for Dummies | 8 Patricia Joy S. Ignacio introduces the concept of politics, tracing its evolution from the Greeks to the present, for pedestrians. Eventually defining it as power, she points to the ubiquity and pervasiveness of politics in everyday life.
Politics in the Mundane: Love and Power | 10 Reiner S. Gallardo locates the politics in romantic relationships. He contends that romantic relationships begin, thrive, and end through politics: they are defined by decisions that involve the exercise of power and the exercise of restraint from power.
Towards a Relevant Concept of Politics in the Philippine Context | 14 Alphonse G. Samson contextualizes the concept of politics in the Philippines. He traces how Filipino political scientists have understood it over time. Ultimately, he argues for a power-based conception, maintaining that it better exposes the realities of Philippine politics.
After Power | 18 Edcel John A. Ibarra closes with a critique of politics defined as power. He finds contradictions in the attempt to bring out the ubiquity of politics and in the agenda to liberate the individual from relations of power. He settles instead on the idea of collective existence.
Other Contributions | 22 The Tinkerer and Her Toolbox: Concepts as Devices of Power Christine Joy L. Galunan
Endnotes | 26
Remember Foucault Rodolfo L. Lahoy Jr.
The actors who call the shots within the academic
In the context of the classroom, behind the
discipline have been keen to distinguish “political
usual introductory inquiry into what is “polit-
science” as a field. Firstly, by referring to it as a
ical,” defining is not only a mere practicality, a
science, it is implied that the field follows fairly
mere necessity for us to know what exactly we
reasonable methods that can result to reliable
are studying with our scientific way of viewing
knowledge. In short, political science has been set
the world. There is a desire to delimit the scope
apart as different from (and more valid than) the
of what can be studied by political science as
analyses of your local
a discipline. It is akin to specialization that is
barber or taxi driver. In
Defining politics can
typical of modernity, establishing a “division of
the American context
serve a purpose be-
labor” among those who produce knowledge about
of the 1960s, this sci-
yond that of an aca-
man and society. This question about what is
ence of politics meant
demic nature, and thus
political is a second way of setting political sci-
a “logical positivist
matters in contexts
ence apart, this time from other social sciences.
behavioralism,”1 which
outside the classroom.
has not been free from
However, defining the term can serve a pur-
antagonists such as the movement, in the same
pose beyond that of an academic nature, and
decade, towards a “New Political Science.”2
thus matters in contexts outside the classroom. Describing politics can be oriented towards de-
Another set of antagonisms can be seen in
scribing a world that can be acted upon by agents.
defining the other word: politics. What has
This way, practice can later have a role in the
been deemed as political has not been static
theoretical pursuit of inquiring about politics.
throughout history, especially in the 20th
4
century. Actors have since attempted to fix
As it stands, it is usual in political science to accept
the meaning of politics and the “political.”
the notion that politics is more-or-less concerned
t h e s wor d
with power. As early as Niccolò Machiavelli’s The
sane, proper and improper, which are acted upon
Prince, gaining and maintaining power has been
individuals (e.g., as delinquent or mentally ill) and
important for the practice of rulers. Power, in this
their relations (e.g., in the family). Power, with
sense, is tied to ruling particular socio-political
rules of truth as one of its organs, has been shown
units (principalities or princedoms), to what we
to affect actual, material bodies of individuals.
now call “matters of the state.” What can be noticed here is a conception of power as something,
These ideas have had
in the first place, that can be gained or held.3 It can
some prominence in
Even in the act of
also be a position: one can be “raised to power.”4
classes of political and
defining politics there
social theory. Political
is politics. There is
Akin to these is the notion of power as something
science, however, has
an attempt to limit
that can be “possess[ed] like a commodity” and
not really caught on to
individuals into partic-
can be transferred, for instance, through a con-
adopting Foucauldian
ular ways of thinking
tract.5 This is one of the two conceptualizations of
analyses that focus
about a concept,
power in the modern era, as described by Michel
more on smaller insti-
about a field, and
Foucault. This notion has been located within
tutions. This is not at
therefore also lim-
a Hobbesian theory of sovereign, in which an
all surprising, given
iting the possibilities
all-powerful state demands obedience after power
Foucault’s eccentricity
of their behavior.
has been transferred to it. The second involves
as a thinker, how he
power as something repressive, tied with the idea
only provided “vague guidelines,”8 and the
of politics as war-like, consisting of struggles,
differences of his methodological practices
and involving relations of conflict.6 Foucault,
with traditional political science approaches.
however, later seems to abandon this idea of power-as-repression in “The Subject and Power,”
Mid-20th century American political scientists
even though he still talks of power relations and
have also thought of power as central to what
not merely power as such. In this later writing, a
is political. Robert Dahl in “The Concept of
power relationship is that which involves a person
Power” defined the concept, like (and preceding)
attempting to guide the possibilities of another’s
Foucault, as a “relation between people.”9 It is
actions. However, it does not imply domination or
about A making B do something that B would
complete determination of another’s actions, for
not have otherwise done. In the context of Dahl’s
a freedom to refuse the other’s exercise of power
time, the study of power is about making it mea-
is always recognized.7 Conflict, struggle, or “ag-
surable and reducible to probabilistic rules.
onism” is the character of a power relationship. Some, however, have altogether contested the In this conceptualization, politics as power is
centrality of power. Jacques Rancière, a con-
definitely outside the limited realms of the state
temporary political philosopher, stated this
and the polity. The exercise of power, as Foucault
clearly in the first sentence of his “Ten Theses on
demonstrated, can also be seen in micro-contexts
Politics”: “Politics is not the exercise of power.”10
such as prisons and hospitals. It is through rules
What we traditionally deem to be political in-
that prescribe what is true and false, insane and
stitutions (e.g., government) that hierarchize
t h e s wor d
5
and order individuals and groups in society, he
and the ideas that they engender. Therefore,
calls the “police” order.11 Instead, he defines
even in the act of defining politics there is pol-
politics as a practice in opposition to this hier-
itics. There is an attempt, conscious or other-
archized state of things. Politics is an act by the
wise, to limit individuals into particular ways
excluded (the demos ) in intervening into this
of thinking about a concept, about a field, and
order, disrupting, antagonizing, and disagreeing
therefore also limiting the possibilities of their
with the supposedly contingent hierarchy, to
behavior in regard or in response to that idea.
assert equality. In this, the notion of politics as dissensus (compare “consensus”) does not serve
The second common feature of the three afore-
scientific inquiry, but that of political action.
mentioned notions is a capacity to resist how one is advised to behave, or an ability to disagree
Similarly, Ernesto Laclau
with how a particular order is organized. Here,
and Chantal Mouffe
The function of pro-
the function of describing different notions of
highlight contingency:
viding alternative
power is to show that how we think of our con-
“to say contingent artic-
notions of politics is
cepts now differs from how other people have
ulation is to enounce
to attempt to suggest
thought of them in other periods of history
a central dimension
particular possi-
– “what is” is therefore contingent. The function
of ‘politics.’”12 This
bilities of action.
of providing alternative notions of politics is
means that essential
to attempt to suggest particular possibilities of
to the notion of politics is a particular way of
action: to loosen up a potentially rigid thinking
constituting individuals and organizing society
about the concept, or to encourage going beyond
through discourses (i.e., attempts at establishing
the ideas given to us by academic institutions.
a closure and fixity of meanings in a socio-historical context, and therefore constrain what
The value of Rancière and Laclau and Mouffe
can be thought by individuals and groups).13
in particular, is in their formulation of politics
The hegemony of a particular order is therefore
as something not merely studied, not merely
not inevitable, and is open to be challenged.
a box into which we can peek and from which derive descriptions and theories. The purpose
In Foucault’s notion of a power relationship, and
of an inquiry about politics can move away from
in Rancière’s and Laclau and Mouffe’s notions
merely setting the limits of an academic dis-
of politics, two common elements can be seen.
cipline, and initiate thinking into what can be
Firstly, there are attempts, inevitably, to constrain
done about how society is currently organized i
individuals’ actions, their identities as subjects,
6
t h e s wor d
*
Note: The deadline has been extended to February 15, 2015.
Politics for Dummies Patricia Joy S. Ignacio
As I write this essay in a futile attempt of reaching
underlying fact: that we are all under or bidding
a deadline assigned to me by some higher au-
for the influence of someone else. Power. Politics.
thority, I contemplate the choices I have at hand. I could either, rather unwillingly, succumb to
The definition of concepts and terms evolves
the power of that higher authority by writing
through time. Words once used in the past may
this essay, or refuse to do so and face the conse-
now cease to exist or mean differently. Similarly,
quences it might bring
the term “politics” has evolved through time.
to me and my editor
Everything we do
Going back to the ancient Greeks, politics or poli-
afterwards. Of course,
has involved the
tikos meant (1) of, for, or relating to citizens, (2) be-
by now you know my
society in which we
longing to the state, and (3) the affairs of the cities.
choice. However, rather
live; politics is there-
It is associated with the Greek word polis, meaning
than an actual choice,
fore a social act.
city-states. Aristotle said that “man by nature is
it was more of a sense
a political animal.”1 It is then assumed that the
of obligation and a fear of what might happen
characteristic of being political is already innate,
upon my refusal to comply. Power. Politics.
almost like second nature. This can be proven, since humans can be seen as self-preserving
In everyday life, how many times have you
creatures who forward their own interests while
mused over why you have to do chores when
still, if superficially, seeking to create a better
you are too lazy to do them, why you have to
society. Everything we do has involved the society
take a subject that you do not even like, or why
in which we live; politics is therefore a social act.
you follow laws even when sometimes they do
8
not make any sense at all? The reason may lie
As time passed, different people began to have
in your respect for your parents, compliance to
different notions of politics. For most, politics
school rules, or respect for the government and
involves the government, policies, laws, and
its laws. Whatever it is, it all boils down to one
other public institutions. They believe that what
t h e s wor d
belongs to the public sphere is political – a no-
her who tries to exercise power. We then create a
tion closely interrelated to that of the Greeks. A
hierarchy in society where there is a person at a
shallower definition of the term connotes politics
level higher than us in some aspect who is able to
as merely limited to the acts of voting, cam-
influence us. Subsequently, there may be another
paigning, and the use of power while in position.
person higher than her who can exercise power
It is for this reason that politics is commonly
over her and influence her decisions. Delusions
described as “dirty” by the common person.
and illusions. We believe that we do have options – freedom to decide for ourselves when to be influ-
Within the academe, scholars also have different
enced by some higher
conceptions of politics. Rather than defining it
authority; the ability to
We believe that we do
and giving limitations to its scope, the term has
do something on our
have options, when
extended so vastly that we sometimes become
own volition – when
in reality, we may
confused as to what is considered political and
in reality, we may not
not even have the
what is not. What can be observed, however,
even have the luxury of
luxury of choice.
is that the most basic conception of politics
choice. We think we act
equates it to power. Robert Dahl defines power
based on our own free will when, in fact, we
as the ability of person A to make person B do
may be under the influence of someone else.
something that he/she would not have otherwise done.2 Going back to the Greeks’ original
But politics does not always work that way. Politics
definition, politics is associated with the concept
is not always a zero-sum game and power does
of society and man is considered as a political
not travel in only one direction. There is no need
animal. In any society, it would be normal for
for a higher authority or a prime mover because
humans to have conflicting interests. To resolve
power can come from any individual as long as he/
them, however, they must come to a conclu-
she is able to influence the decisions of others. For
sion either by lobbying, persuasion, force, or
this reason, politics is understood to be no longer
whatever means they have at hand. Power.
limited to what is social and what is public. The concept has certainly evolved through the years.
Some may argue, however, that choice
Politics now involves both the public and the pri-
is just an illusion. As Samantha Borgens
vate spheres – you can exercise power anywhere.
says in the film Stuck in Love, Power relations show us that politics is evSociety, government, money, religion, careers, nuclear families, monogamy. These are all just highly creative, socially accepted delusions that we impose
erywhere. It is neither limited to the government and its laws, nor to acts of voting or
on reality to try and gain some semblance of control
campaigning. It is present wherever power
over our lives. It gives us the illusion of choice.
is present – in my relationship with my editor, in a person’s relationship with his/her
As we equate power to the ability to influence
parents, in a student’s constant struggle with
another person, we also create the notion that
required subjects, and in our everyday life
that other person has a choice as to whether or
as a citizen of whichever country. As long as
not he/she would succumb to the interests him/
power is present, politics is present as well i
t h e s wor d
9
Politics in the Mundane: Love and Power Reiner S. Gallardo
10
Politics has always been connected to the concept
of power is through the decisions we make.
of power. Politics as the study of power is one of
Decisions are exercises of power. Every day we
the most commonly used conceptions to describe
are unaware that our interactions are a result of
what we concern ourselves with in our discipline.
our positions within power relations. Sometimes,
We acknowledge something as political if it in-
we have power over others, like in the case of
volves power relations. We are not talking about
having to choose where to eat during a group
power as understood in physics, but rather power
outing. At other times, we are subjected to the
as in authoritative power, defined as having A to
power of others. For instance, academic require-
“get B to do something
ments and deadlines are clear indicators of some
that B would not oth-
Aware or not, it is
people having power over you. Aware or not, it is
erwise do,”1 or having
undeniable that
undeniable that power guides our everyday in-
the ability to “realize
power guides our
teractions – even interactions concerning love.
their will, even if others
everyday interactions
resist it,”2 or “the acts
– even interactions
Romantic relationships, or what we often refer to
of men going about the
concerning love.
as “love”, are nothing more than a set of decisions
business of moving
we do every now and then. While I do not deny
other men to act in relation to themselves or in
that philosophical love transcends romantic love,
relation to organic or inorganic things.”3 We are
I shall focus on the latter, since it is more apparent
dealing with power as having others do what
and more commonly known. Moreover, unlike
we want them to do regardless if they want to
philosophical love, which could be described as
do it or not. It is the activity that manifests an
unconditional, endless, and even perhaps, true,
exercise of power that we regard as political.
romantic relationships are ridden with struggles.
While we can define power, it is not at all always
Struggles are clear demonstrations of power. They
directly observable. One clear manifestation
are proofs of a system of authority that decides
t h e s wor d
the actions the rest of us should take. From the
of submitting to an authority is not for the sake
start, human interests have always been so di-
of interest, but rather, of arriving at a decision.
verse. While individuals of presumably similar interests gather to form a society, these individ-
Love is like politics. It is full of problems that
uals are not unified all the time. This is why it is
many people claim to understand, but only a few
necessary for an order, a system to hold society
really do. It is also used
together. However, our rigid social structure
by people to justify their
Love is like politics. It
makes sure that our interests remain divided,
domination over the
is full of problems that
that with a concurrence of scarcity of resources,
weak and the ignorant.
many people claim to
people must strive in order to get their needs to
Some would want to
understand, but only
be addressed, bringing forth the need to compete
dominate in it, some
a few really do. It is
for opportunities. Power directs these struggles.
would not care about it,
used to justify one’s
Having power means getting to decide which
some would want to be
domination over the
interests should be given attention and pursued.
in it, some would want
weak and the igno-
to stay away from it, and
rant. It is everywhere,
Similarly, romantic relationships are never
some would want to un-
yet it can hardly be
without struggles. Interacting and having rela-
derstand it. It is every-
understood because
tionships with people who are not exactly like us
where, yet it can hardly
of its complexities.
are more likely than finding a person who is in all
be understood because
aspects similar to us. At some point, there would
of its complexities and paradoxes. Metaphor and
be some minor, or even perhaps, major differ-
hugot aside, love, like politics, involves power.
ences in preference, attitude, and many other things. Problems arise from these differences.
In societies, those who have power, such as the authorities, decide which goals will be collec-
In order to address differences, individuals in a
tively pursued, which interests will be addressed,
romantic relationship must arrive at a decision
and many other binding actions. While this may
that would be binding to the involved. Hence,
resemble romantic relationships, it is not for the
power gets involved at this phase. It is not at
same reason in most cases. Bickering couples find
all times that both parties in a relationship
it more beneficial to submit to the other in order
equally contribute to the decision that binds
to arrive at a decision, rather than risk losing the
them. At some point, one must submit to the
relationship. We have to note that unlike in the
other, building up some sort of authority within
case of government-governed relationship, where
the relationship. However, in a romantic setting,
power is attained for the purpose of addressing
this “authority” would not hold for all decisions
interests, in some cases of romantic relationships,
– though we may encounter “authoritarian” rela-
it is necessary to “assign” power to come to a
tionships where one gets to decide for the other
decision in order not to jeopardize the system.
in all circumstances. Of course, there is a higher chance that this kind of relationship would not
Everyday interactions of love involve the exer-
last (for several reasons that I will talk about
cise of power. All relationships start with the
later). In most functional relationships, the idea
decision of one party to acknowledge the pres
t h e s wor d
11
ence of the other. A girl deciding whether to talk
one exercising power and the other recognizing it.
to a boy or not clearly is an exercise of power.
This is also the same in maintaining relationships.
Power drives people to do things within relationships. Love in itself is an exercise of power.
Real relationships are not exactly the same as
Relationship, based on mutual dependence, re-
those depicted in fairy tales. Not all that is “ever
lies on power to stabilize it. Love is when one
after” in relationships are happy, in the same
person lets his or her loved one overcome his own
manner that not all matches are ideal. Our signif-
reason. Love is when one puts his or her loved
icant other may not be the person that we have
ones needs before his own. Love is when one
expected him or her to be. It may be the case that
recognizes the power of the other over the self.
our significant other would not get along with us. Even more, there is no guarantee that being with
To illustrate, let us
your special one would be like heaven on earth.
analyze the traditional
Contrary to the
Being in a romantic relationship does not elimi-
love-at-first-sight-then-
popular belief that
nate the human side of us – meaning, we would
everything-happens-
power is detrimental
still feel pain, hunger, and so on. Responsibilities
like-destiny story. In
to love, the opposite
are still there. There is a lot more that we have
this case, I assume
is actually truer:
to do other than be in love. Couples encounter
heterosexual roles for
power stabilizes love.
problems that may endanger their relationships.
the sake of simplicity.
Sometimes it is caused by external factors, like
Imagine a guy meeting a girl at class. This is not
workload of a partner or rumors. In some cases,
just a girl – she’s the one who fits perfectly the
it arises internally, like jealousy or misunder-
description of the guy’s dream girl. While we
standing (e.g., the vagueness of “okay,” which can
commonly assume that the beginning of this
mean either “do it” or “do not it”). But neverthe-
romantic relationship resides on the girl’s decision
less, relationships work. Why? Because of power.
to entertain the guy, it would be equally accept-
12
able to assume the other way around: the start of
Contrary to the popular belief that power is det-
the relationship lies on the decision of the guy to
rimental to love, the opposite is actually truer:
gather his balls and talk to the girl. (I am being
power stabilizes love. When power is exercised
traditional here. There may be cases where girls
and recognized, relationships work. Conflict
would take the first step, but the point is that the
arises as some people tend to overuse “love” in
relationship starts when one decides to talk to the
relationships and take the better out of the
other.) This is followed by the decision of the girl
other. Conflict in love, like in politics, can only
to entertain the guy. At this point, the decision to
be “constrained by a balance of power.”4 Since
interact with one another, as well as the decision
relationships are expressions of mutual depen-
to entertain such interaction, commands some
dence, it would work only when there is mutual
sort of authority, as far as this relationship is
recognition of power. It is the love for the other
concerned. It is observable that the beginning of
person that drives us to do things that we would
the relationship depends a lot on mutual recog-
not otherwise do. It is for love that we make de-
nition of power. No progress can occur if not for
cisions. It is for love that we exercise power i
t h e s wor d
Towards a Relevant Concept of Politics in the Philippine Context Alphonse G. Samson
There is no settled definition of politics.1 Even
I find a definition that does not include “govern-
after almost four years, I still find difficulty in
ment,” “states,” and “institutions.” Meanwhile,
defining the very term whose referent I have long
political science has been defined as the study
been studying. Despite the apparent lack of defi-
of these matters. Worse, you will find these text-
nitional clarity, students of politics are still able
books placed on a shelf along with law books.
to engage in academic discussions. This made me think that the definition of politics can depend on
Should textbook authors and bookstores be
context. I believe that
blamed for this definitional blunder? I believe
the greater purpose of
Historically, the
not. Rather, I think that cultural underpinnings of
studying politics is in the
realm of politics was
defining politics are liable. Students of politics like
manner that it can be
never limited to the
me have experienced the burden of being asked
applied, such as political
government, the state,
several times by many people regarding our ca-
analysis, which has to
and institutions.
reers after graduation. Short of making their own
be context-based. Thus,
questions futile, these people already expect an
my objective in this essay, instead of indiscrim-
answer: political science graduates are destined
inately listing down definitions of politics, is
to become lawyers, politicians, diplomats, or civil
to situate the act of defining politics in the
servants – nothing else; otherwise, our four years
Philippine context and thereafter provide a con-
have been simply pol-sayang. To wit: “You are
ception of politics which suits that context.
studying political science? So you will proceed to law?” Quite interestingly, those aforesaid careers
14
To my disappointment, whenever I would scan
are connected to the definition of politics as mat-
introductory political science textbooks in major
ters of government, states, and institutions. This
bookstores in the country, it appears that de-
particular observation is in accordance with the
fining politics is as easy as equating it to matters
fact that through history, several politicians and
of government and state institutions. Rarely do
government officials – some prominent – have
t h e s wor d
taken a degree in political science, along with eco-
matic developments in the discipline. There is,
nomics, business, and law. Hence, a Filipino pe-
however, a problem with the continued adoption
destrian would not expect “politics” to go beyond
of the old paradigm. These paradigms gained
the arena of government, states, and institutions.
prominence because the country was reeling from foreign occupation and the Second World
Historical adaptation of the definition of politics
War; hence, there was
and political science can also be liable. According
a need for a paradigm
Most of the concerns,
to Remigio Agpalo in his discussion of the history
that would aid state-
issues, and problems
of political science in the country, the discipline
building, which I argue
that the nation is
was brought to the country by the Americans
is no longer the concern
facing nowadays
when it was the high time for statist, legalistic,
of the country today.
are not matters of
and institutionalist paradigms in politics.2 In ad-
government, state, or
dition, the discipline, when it was first established
There can indeed be
institutions. Instead,
as a department in the University, had its roots
many realms of poli-
these are matters
in the College of Law, with its first department
tics, yet many people
of processes within,
chair, who was also the acting Law Dean and an
have not removed their
but not limited
American, George Malcolm.3 However, Agpalo
focus on the arena of
to, these arenas.
further discusses paradigmatic changes in the dis-
politics. Most of the
cipline in response to the exigencies of the times.4
concerns, issues, and problems that the nation
During the 1930s, for instance, the behavioralist
faces nowadays are not matters of government,
paradigm became influential in its critique of the
state, or institutions in their entirety. Instead,
legalistic paradigm that rules and laws alone do
these are matters of processes within, but not
not determine the behavior of actors. During the
limited to, these arenas. In saying these, I echo
1960s, the Marxist paradigm likewise became
Colin Hay’s perspective that analysis of politics
prominent because of two factors: the influence
encompasses social relations, that which involves
of Maoism from China, and the response against
the greater sphere of society.6 He was quick to
Marcos’ dictatorship. The point here is simple:
distinguish the political from other aspects, such
historically, the realm of politics was never lim-
as the “cultural” or the “sociological,” both of
ited to the government, the state, and institutions.
which also encompass the societal sphere. He made clear that the political is concerned with
To discount the fact that the discipline may have
power, but not its distribution, exercise, or con-
been introduced in the country and developed
sequences. Instead, it is concerned with relations
in some other way is dangerous, however. This is
of power that is implied in social relations. Hence,
because Agpalo mostly focused on the develop-
for Hay, “politics is not defined by the locus of
ment of the discipline in the University.5 Thus, it
its operation but by its nature as a process.”7
is possible that the paradigm of politics for other educational institutions may have remained
In another chapter, Hay elaborates the concept of
statist, legalistic, and institutionalist – not all
power.8 There he speaks of three “faces” of power
political science scholars and authors in the
in terms of dimensions. The one-dimensional
country were able to carry on with the paradig-
view conceptualizes power as decision-making,
t h e s wor d
15
which is observed in the formal political arena.
scholarships – as well as shoulder expenses for
The two-dimensional view combines deci-
baptisms, weddings, and funerals, among others
sion-making and agenda-setting, manifested in
– to their constituents who, in turn, would sup-
both the informal and formal arenas (e.g., “behind
port and vote for them. What PCF theory shows
the scenes”). Lastly, the three-dimensional view
is that these relations of power, while mutually
combines decision-making and agenda-setting
beneficial, allows patrons to strengthen and
with preference-shaping,
extend their control and influence in their turfs.
which is implicated in
The implications of
the public sphere or
Hay’s conception
Another application of the same perspective of
civil society (e.g., dis-
of power allow the
politics is on the issue of labor exportation. Here
courses and ideologies).
analysis of issues
we see that the government is encouraging more
Thus, in contrast to
to go beyond the
Filipinos to become modern-day heroes ( mga
power conventionally
formal arenas of the
bagong bayani ) by becoming overseas contact
defined as the ability of
government and
workers (OCWs). Jean Encinas–Franco argued
A to make B do an action
its institutions and
that this “labeling scheme” of the government is
that B would not have
towards the greater
simply a discourse that justifies labor exporta-
done otherwise, Hay
sphere of society.
tion.11 Through this powerful discourse, Filipinos
conceives power as the
are made to think that being an OCW is an act
ability of actors to influence the context which set
of heroism while the government is able to hide
the range of possibilities for action of others. Thus,
the fact that it is not providing enough and sus-
the implications of this particular conception of
tainable jobs with competitive salaries within
power allow the analysis of issues to go beyond
the country when it should. In essence, by legit-
the formal arenas of the government and state
imizing labor export, the troubles that Filipino
institutions towards the greater sphere of society.
OCWs face, such as estrangement from their families, abuse by their foreign employers, and
Using this perspective of politics, the patron–
discrimination, are being taken for granted.
client framework (PCF) theory9 gains hold in
16
its analysis of Philippine politics10 as one that
These realities, among a plethora of other issues
is characterized by dyadic and reciprocal ties
and problems that this country currently faces,
between patrons and clients. The patrons are
have been revealed to us through a perspective
typically elected government officials. Meanwhile,
of politics that is not limited by a statist, institu-
the typical clients are the electorate, but public
tionalist, or legalist paradigm. I argue that using
officials can also become clients of their supe-
a conception of politics based on power – not
riors. PCF theory is seen in action especially
on the arena of government and state institu-
during the months before elections, during which
tions – in political analysis is more relevant and
incumbent mayors would give dole-outs and
useful especially in the Philippine context i
t h e s wor d
After Power Edcel John A. Ibarra
Politics as power is fashionable.1 It makes us
changes the research agenda. The study of politics
students of politics take pride in our discipline,
should aim to expose asymmetrical relations
for when politics is power, politics becomes
of dominance and control over resources, and
all-present and political science becomes an
thereby, liberate the individual from those bonds.
emancipatory venture. I, however, cannot find
1 8
the same pride in politics as power. I only find
If politics is power, then politics becomes ubiq-
contradictions and re-
uitous. Advocates claim that politics as power
strictions, which I briefly
In criticizing politics
does not render every relation of power political,
explore in this essay.
as power, this essay
but only those that concern the production, dis-
may be charged by
tribution, and use of resources. Yet any relation
Politics as power re-
radical feminists and
of power can be framed (and rather easily so) as
formulates politics as
classical Marxists as
having an end of securing material resources. For
the struggle over the
an ideological weapon
instance, in criticizing politics as power, this essay
production, distribution,
that only serves to
may be charged by radical feminists and clas-
and use of resources
silence gender or class
sical Marxists – the prime advocates of politics
by attempting to in-
struggles and perpet-
as power – as an ideological weapon, a product of
fluence, dominate, or
uate the domination of
male or bourgeois hegemony, that only serves to
control the behavior
men or the bourgeoisie
silence gender or class struggles and perpetuate
of others.2 It is a reac-
over scarce resources.
the domination of men or the bourgeoisie over
tion against traditional
resources that have long been denied to women
definitions that confine politics to the public
or the proletariat. (So be it; I will have my turn
sphere. Politics also takes place at the private
later.) Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of power
sphere; indeed, it can be all-present, for power
without reference to some material end. Power
can be located in all spheres of social interac-
cannot be its own end, since the most effective
tion. In addition, the reformulation also radically
power relies on having material support, rein-
t h e s wor d
forcing and punishing, to augment one’s influence
I can conceive of one way: death; but surely, that
over others. Moreover, even ideology is propa-
cannot be emancipation. For the moment that we
gated precisely to preserve the existing distribu-
remain alive, we cannot truly talk of liberation
tion of resources or legitimize a new one. Thus,
from power, because power will persist even after
any power relation can be rendered political.
the supposed liberation. The aftermath of every political revolution illustrate this supreme irony.
Similarly, any social relation can be rendered as
In fact, even during liberation, be wary of the sup-
a power relation. As in above, any action can be
posed liberator. Does she not exercise ideological
framed as having been caused by some external
power over a population in defining the terms of
power. If power is not already manifest, the an-
their oppression and their freedom from it? In this
alyst can (and often does) resort to supposedly
sense, emancipation may
latent, i.e., difficult-to-verify, forces. But it is a
very well be subjugation
If power is every-
truism that we are always somehow externally
to the emancipator.
where, then nowhere
influenced. Nothing we think is ever truly per-
lies my liberation
sonal, for beginning with language, thought is
The absurdity is clearer
from it. The premise
always socially mediated.3 And if thought breeds
when we take “politics
of ubiquity contra-
action, nothing we do is also ever truly personal,
as power� as itself an
dicts the promise
for not only does the supposedly private action
ideology. It claims, as
of emancipation.
entail public consequences, but it is also either
do its begetters fem-
socially motivated (i.e., there is a desire either to
inism and Marxism, to be emancipatory, yet it
change the behavior of others or to prove oneself
imposes its own terms of emancipation. It tells
to others) or publicly learned. The determined an-
us that the way to heaven begins with a recogni-
alyst will always find an external power to blame.
tion that politics is power, and when we reject its
Thus, any social relation can be framed as a power
sacramental bread, it tells us that we are uncon-
relation, just as any power relation can be framed
sciously enslaved by invisible demons. But who is
as political. Now, because social relations are
enslaving? My feminist and Marxist friends will
ubiquitous, politics itself also becomes ubiquitous.
point to men and bourgeois hegemony, but surely, they cannot deny that they themselves insist on
But politics as power, while speaking of the
ideological domination. Politics as power and its
pervasiveness of relations of dominance and
advocates claim to be empowering, but along the
control, and thus, of subservient behavior, also
way, they deny us of our autonomy and agency.
simultaneously speaks of liberation from precisely those relations, and thus, of the possibility
Advocates will retort that politics as power does
of autonomous thought and action. Yet if power
not aim to liberate the individual from relations
is everywhere, then nowhere lies my liberation
of power per se, but rather from unequal or unjust
from it. The premise of ubiquity contradicts the
relations of power. But how can there be a just or
promise of emancipation. Politics as power prides
an equal relation of power? Power imposes, ne-
itself on exposing the omnipresence of power, and
glecting along the way the will of the recipient,
thus, of politics, in social relations; but how can
while justice and equality forge compromises,
now an individual escape an all-present relation?
acknowledging along the way the wills of the
t h e s wor d
19
people involved. A just or equal relation of power
existence within a collectivity (i.e., a polis).6
is thus a contradiction of terms.4 Moreover, the
Politics as power already recognizes this, but it
assumption remains that when all relations cease
emphasizes power far too importantly in the
to be relations of power, when they flatten to be
equation. Some relations of power are necessary,
equal or realign to be just, society will reach its
for collective existence relies on some settled
most desirable form. But in the reduction, if not
order.7 (Think of that between the state and the
absence, of power, the concepts of order (which
citizens.) Moreover, the definition suggested
relies on power), society (which relies on order),
above already fits to what politics as power at-
and politics (through
tempted to fulfill in the first place. That politics
which societal order
Behind all pretensions,
concerns the settlement of collective existential
is decided) lose their
politics as power is
conditions does not mean that politics should
meaning. If anything,
actually apolitical: it
only concern the public sphere. Collectivity can
politics as power wants
politicizes everything
be defined such that there are overlapping collec-
to lead us into a world
only to eventually
tivities, from one as small as the family to one as
with neither politics
depoliticize them.
large as humanity as a whole. By extension, those
nor power. Indeed, fem-
who determine collective existential conditions
inists speak of a genderless heaven while
need not always be state actors, and the method
Marxists speak of a classless heaven.
need not always be formal decision-making. Indeed, social movements are also sometimes able
Behind all pretensions, politics as power is ac-
to determine circumstances of collective living
tually apolitical: it politicizes everything only to
through agenda-setting and preference-shaping.
eventually depoliticize them. It also results in unproductive discussions. What happens next
As an alternative to politics as power, I suggest
after exposing where or to whom power is con-
that the idea of collective existence is far more
centrated? Often, the intent in exposing power
characteristic a conception – and far more opti-
is to democratize it. And then? How – towards
mistic a depiction – of politics than power. In so
what vision of collective life – should that power
doing, I also suggest that the state should remain
be used? It does not end in genuine democracy,
central to political analysis, for with its resources,
with each having uniform power to define the
it remains the entity most effectively able to
conditions that govern them, for democracy does
shape how we live with each other.8 Indeed, the
not solve collective problems: it only presents a
less radical advocates of politics as power like
method to arrive at a solution.5 Politics as power
the liberal feminists politicize personal relations
distracts us from focusing on the problems of
precisely to bring problems of collective exis-
collective living, for the erosion of power does not
tence at that sphere to the attention of the state.
automatically lead to the erosion of the problems.
Of course, power is an important currency in setting collective existential conditions, but it is
I am partial to Andrew Heywood’s conception
simply that: a means towards some vision of how
of politics as, paraphrasing, the activity through
best to manage a shared destiny with others i
which people determine the conditions of their
2 0
t h e s wor d
The Tinkerer and Her Toolbox: Concepts as Devices of Power Christine Joy L. Galunan
worldview: if you expect things to turn out for the good, you will always end up disappointed, because there is inevitably a point when things will fail. So expect the worst not just of outcomes,
Since I started out as a student of politics, I had
but of people who are bound to hurt you anyway.
come to the conclusion that nothing is more empowering than encountering an interesting
Under all hopes and expectations, there lies the
concept for the first time. The reaction is not
nagging realist constantly telling us that things
only a post-highlighting internal giddiness, but a
would have been better if only we believed less in
breakthrough with a newfound ease to commu-
the possible. Earlier in the semester, I was under
nicate with people who speak the same language.
duress of a potential connection with someone,
Not only do previous discussions with previously
a connection which I thought was doomed from
unknown words finally make sense, but a linear
the beginning. It seems almost natural, therefore,
thought process, as in taxonomy, emerges and
that realism is the most compatible with situa-
becomes part of communal understanding.
tions that involve us, that even in the absence of any perceivable threat on his part, for instance,
It seems all fine and good – nothing more than
shields must always be up and expectations down.
a tinkerer getting acquainted with her “toolbox,”
Limited interaction, creating deterrence, and
as Prof. Jean Paul Zialcita would put it – but the
maintaining a balance of power were strategies I
other side finally reveals itself when our concepts
actually put to action with regards the potentiali-
begin to intrude in experiences and people.
ties, all in the intention of self-survival. However, the “real” hook of realism, both its best and
Waltzing with Waltz “If you expect that ev-
worst feature, is its self-fulfilling character. With
eryone has the capacity to hurt you, then you
this, the outcome can already be inferred. And
would harden your shells as tough as you can that
to tell you honestly: no, it did not hurt any less.
when it does hit, you wouldn’t crumble as much,” Prof. Amador Peleo IV started the class. He was
Bayan? It was naive of me to think that just
talking about the billiard-ball model, wherein
because a person or a group professes love for the
“you” and everyone else are states likened to
nation, the actor automatically holds the scepter
billiard balls that roll in perennial risk of collision.
as a defender of rights, justice, or progress of (and for) the people. I was seeing “the people” as a
States behave like people – so realists assume. It
concept, without knowing or understanding “the
means that if states reflect human nature, then
people” as subject-agents rather than objects.
we can expect state behavior to mimic human
2 2
behavior. It leads to a(n) (il)logical conclusion that
It is not merely a battle of positions in-themselves,
human interactions exist within the billiard-ball
but between an array of discourses. While there
model: each person must fend for himself, and
may be a scepter of authority, (the perception of)
build a wall of protection at the risk of being
its possession is not accorded through sharing or a
completely destroyed. It takes root not only from a
consensual division of interests, but won through
realist view on human nature, but from a broader
competition. The people is not a monolith, but
t h e s wor d
certain actors lump competing interests under
embedded in everyday interaction, relationships,
the banner “with or for the people” and expect
and principles), we may be tempted to assume
their audiences to swallow it in whole and cheer
these relations as semi-permanent structural
in response to a seemingly populist position.
arrangements that agents have little or no power of subverting. At least, this is how many the-
When you actually interact with people out-
orists frame Michel Foucault’s view on power
side these actors’ spheres of influence, there
relations: their ubiquity implies inescapability.
emerges the question: who are included and excluded in their view of “the people”? More
However, in his article “The Subject and Power”
problematically, does it not run the risk of
and in a 1980 interview, Foucault tells us oth-
treating “the people” as a detached group of ob-
erwise.3 Power relations are embedded, such
ject-receivers, whose interests can only be rightly
that they continue to exist between persons
perceived and defended by those above them?
in any circumstance, but they are also malleable, convertible, and reversible. But does
For Paulo Freire, “to simply think about the
this not mean that once one escapes a partic-
people, as the dominators do… to fail to think
ular relationship of domination, one only en-
with the people, is a sure way to cease being
ters into another relation of power, either as
revolutionary leaders.”1 To involve and fight at
the subject or the object, the conceiver or the
the side of the oppressed, not merely for them as
concept, the controller or the controlled?
their liberator, is a step towards answering the first question, and more importantly, towards
Foucault answers that it is not necessarily
beginning to conceive of “the people” as ac-
so. It ultimately depends on how these rela-
tors’ “constituent matrix”2 or as subject-agents.
tions are constructed between persons, and whether these constructions turn out to be
This is particularly significant in Marxist thought. Society’s preoccupation with objectification has
despotic or dominating. As Foucault concurs, “power is not always repressive. It can take a
a discursive underpinning in its view on sub-
certain number of forms. And it is possible
ject-object relations wherein subjects are reified
to have relations of power that are open.”4
as objects. Reification renders the determinant subjects (e.g., “the people”) to be abstractions
This was certainly the most curious revelation to
or objects who only obey laws or models of be-
me after taking a sociology class on the theory of
havior assigned to them. Thus, lumping “the
society of Foucault under Prof. Luis David. As he
people” as a concept creates a power relation
pinned down in the last lecture, Foucault’s project
in which we, as subjects, may approach the
was precisely to demonstrate “the absurdity of our
world in a controlled and reductionist manner.
label-producing proclivities, markers, producing a social grid that instead of pulling us together,
What does Foucault say? Confronted with
explodes us apart.” Labels that trap people within
the seemingly inescapable web of these power
concepts take us farther from the “freshness
relations (under which all of us appear to be
that actually subsists behind [human] masks.”
t h e s wor d
23
The final word, however, still rests on how
The former leads to a comfortable setting where
these power relations, instead of being re-
we can claim to have a sense of security over re-
lations between subjects and objects, can
ality, but does this lead us to construct authentic
be reconstructed to be between agents in a
relationships? The latter gives us the option, but
non-repressive form. Refusing to be prescrip-
only if we stop treating people as actors outside
tive in the “how”-sense, Foucault tells us a way:
ourselves that we need to study, and instead start
through the resurrection of ethics – a person’s
to regard them as humans with an equally com-
relation with himself grounded in human re-
plex ethical substance. This distances us from
lationships – as a basis for action.5 In other
mere knowledge of one another and brings us
words, a way to subvert the modern project
closer to what human relationships should really
of “mastering” people and the environment is
be about: mutual support towards liberation from
to master the self – our passions, inclinations,
relations of domination and towards the reali-
and purpose – in the Greek tradition of arête
zation of one another’s potentials and purpose.
(virtue), that is by working in interdependently in our community for the common good.
So nothing seems to be as empowering for the student as the discovery of new concepts with
The problem here has already transcended how
which we gain knowledge of the world. But this
one perceives the world as a personal subject,
experience have placed another meaning of
but the question reflects the ever-present di-
empowerment: to synergize being a student
lemma of the social scientist, of the tinkerer
and being a member of a polis, concerned not
with a toolbox. Do we approach the world
only with knowing and mastering the world
hoping to understand and predict social be-
around us, but also with relating with one an-
havior using concepts and models, or should
other in authentic and ethical terms of power,
we instead begin to approach “the people” as
that is, with concern and compassion i
they are, as impossible and unattainable an entire body of knowledge about them may be?
2 4
t h e s wor d
Get an insider look of the org!
Read the Internal Publication at bit.ly/ts-inter-1415a
Endnotes
Remember Foucault*
*
Excuses to Jean Baudrillard, and his essay, “Forget Foucault.”
1.
Clyde W. Barrow, “The Intellectual Origins of New Political Science,” New Political Science 30, no. 2 (2008): 215-44.
2.
Ibid., 238. This “New Political Science” espoused an “intellectual revolution” that called out the behavioralists’ supposed methodological dogmatism and their implicit complicity with the status quo, with liberal-democracy.
3. Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince (London: Bantam, 1984), 9. 4. Ibid., 15. 5. Michel Foucault, “Two Lectures,” in Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings; 1972–1977, ed. Colin Gordon (New York: Pantheon, 1980), 88. 6. Ibid., 90. 7.
Michel Foucault, “The Subject and Power,” Critical Inquiry 8, no. 4 (1982): 777-95; see esp. 789–90.
8. Paul Brass, “Foucault Steals Political Science,” Annual Review of Political Science 3 (2000): 305-330. 9. Robert A. Dahl, “The Concept of Power,” Behavioral Science 2, no. 3 (1957): 201–15. 10. Jacques Rancière, “Ten Theses on Politics,” Theory and Event 5, no. 3 (2001). http://www.egs.edu/faculty/jacques-ranciere/ articles/ten-thesis-on-politics/. 11. Ibid. 12. Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, Hegemony and Socialist Strategy (London: Verso, 1985), xii. 13. Marianne Jorgensen and Louise Phillips, Discourse as Theory and Method (Sage: London, 2002), 36.
Politics for Dummies
1. Aristotle, Politics, qtd. in Andrew Heywood, Politics, 3rd ed. (Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), 3. 2.
Robert A. Dahl, “The Concept of Power,” Behavioral Science 2, no. 3 (1957): 201–15.
Politics in the Mundane: Love and Power*
*
I would like to acknowledge the girl who exercised power over me. This article would not be written if not for you. I would like to also acknowledge Carmille Romero for giving me the idea that love and power are intertwined.
26
1.
Robert Dahl, The Concept of Power (1957), 202-3, quoted in John Scott, Studying Power (Blackwell, 2004), 86.
2.
C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite (1956), 9, quoted in John Scott, Studying Power (Blackwell, 2004), 88.
3.
Floyd Hunter, Community Power Structures (1953), 2-3, quoted in John Scott, Studying Power (Blackwell, 2004), 85.
4.
Andrew Heywood, Global Politics (Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), 2.
t h e s wor d
Towards a Relevant Concept of Politics in the Philippine Context
1. The definition popularized in Andrew Heywood, Politics, 3rd ed. (Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), 4 – “the activity through which people make, preserve and amend the general rules under which they live” – is not even an agreed one. 2. Remigio Agpalo, “Political Science in the Philippines 1880-1998: A History of the Discipline,” Philippine Social Sciences Review 55 (1998): 1–4. 3.
Ibid., 4.
4.
Ibid., 20–4.
5.
Agpalo made this clear in p. 11: “If one talks of political science in the Philippines, he must refer to political science in the University of the Philippines.”
6.
Colin Hay, Political Analysis: A Critical Introduction (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002), 3.
7.
Ibid.; emphasis retained.
8. Ibid. 9.
Nathan Gilbert Quimpo, “Review: Oligarchic Patrimonialism, Electoral Clientelism, and Contested Democracy in the Philippines,” Comparative Politics 37, no. 2 (2005): 229–50.
10. I am aware that the PCF theory has been contested, if not debunked, by subsequent theories (e.g., Bossism, Contested Democracy, Oligarchic Patrimonialism, etc.), but my goal here is to illustrate how a statist, institutionalist, and legalist perspective are unable to explain the phenomena of patron-client relations in the Philippines. This is also to provide the basic view of politics in the Philippines. 11. Jean Encinas–Franco, “The Language of Labor Export in Political Discourse: ‘Modern-Day Heroism’ and Constructions of Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs),” Philippine Political Science Journal 34, no. 1 (2013): 97–112.
After Power
1. The other essays in this collection prove the point. 2.
Andrew Heywood, Politics, 3rd ed. (Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), 11.
3.
See Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, esp. his skepticism with the possibility of a “private” language roughly at secs. 243–351.
4.
There is, however, a legitimate relation of power: that which is defined by authority.
5.
Democracy cannot even function because politics as power in its extreme must eradicate the state, which is a bastion of coercive power that is inherently dominating and controlling.
6. Heywood, Politics, 4: politics is “the activity through which people make, preserve, and amend the general rules under which they live.” 7.
Bernard Crick, In Defence of Politics, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972); see esp. chap. 1.
8.
Gene L. Pilapil, “Some Arguments for an Institutional Approach to Philippine Politics,” Philippine Political Science Journal 27 (2006): 89–124.
The Tinkerer and Her Toolbox: Concepts as Devices of Power
1. Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 30th anniversary ed. (New York: Continuum, 2000), 132. 2. Ibid. 3.
Michel Foucault, “Power, Moral Values, and the Intellectual,” interview by Michael Bess, November 3, 1980; “The Subject and Power,” Critical Inquiry 8, no. 4 (1982): 777-95.
4.
Foucault, “Power, Moral Values, and the Intellectual.”
5.
Claire O’Farrell, “Key Concepts,” Michel-Foucault.com (2007), http://www.michel-foucault.com/concepts/.
t h e s wor d
27
The Sword the up political society review of political science
[Refresh]
universit y of the philippines
POLITICAL SOCIET Y UP POL SCi
Leadership. Service. Excellence. Politics.