The Sword: The UP POLSCi Review of Political Science

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.