Sarah Raymundo versus Patricia Evangelista

A Rejoinder
by Sarah Raymundo and Bogart Jaime

In Ms. Evangelista’s reply to our blog “Patricia
Evangelista: Rebel Without a Clue,” she merely
reiterated her argument that “political activism is
one among many ways to help the country, and that
people determine their paths based on personal beliefs
and experiences;” and that “[she] make[s] the personal
choice not to become an activist.” While she insists
that her “argument is simple,” we think that it is
rather simplistic. It would be more convenient to
direct the reader to our friendster blog but we decide
to restate our positions. It is our argument that the
“many ways to help the country” are often antagonistic
than complementary as is usually presupposed. Should
we perhaps believe that GMA’s effort to help the
country through her Strong Republic complements the
genuine agrarian reform program advanced by the Left?
Her public announcement that she chooses not to be an
activist counters the activists effort to arouse and
mobilize the broadest number of Filipinos towards an
organized movement for national sovereignty and social
justice. Without having to allude to this organized
movement, she is antagonizing the practice of
“activism” which has virtually become a metonym for
this very movement. It is perfectly fine to challenge
the Left and its claims. It is a remarkable feat for a
college coed to problematize the Left. However, we
find that her denial of the antagonistic
positionalities defeats the very purpose of any
meaningful debate on social alternatives.

It is curious how appeals for ‘tolerance’ is often
addressed to the Left as when Ms.
Evangelista says that her column is “an attack on
intolerance, in the context of activism.” We engage
this position since it is not only Ms. Evangelista who
assumes it. For how is ‘tolerance’ used in its actual
context, i.e. in ‘multicultural’ societies like the
USA? The liberals in the US, for instance, address
their plea for ‘tolerance’ to their government and
policy-makers. Tolerance, in this context, is
addressed to those who are in power. It is amusing to
have to see columnists demanding ‘tolerance’ from a
group that could hardly marginalize privileged voices
(of columnists, radio commentators and other media
personalities, not excluding some actors in
showbusiness). Of course, the Left can always
challenge dominant opinions but marginalizing
opinion-makers is an impossible act for the Left to
do. To think that the Left and the State (institutions
and their honchos) wield equal power in the
Philippines is a gross miscalculation.

Furthermore, it is the least of our intentions to
condescend to Ms. Evangelista that she is a “victim
lured by the discourse of neoliberalism”. While we
said that she is “lured by the discourse of
neoliberalism”, we never painted her as a victim. We
argued that she seems to have interrnalized the
neoliberal ideology. It is clear to us that the
victims of neoliberalism are the peasants and workers
from Third World nations who are now protesting the
ongoing WTO talks in Hong Kong.

We demur Ms. Evangelista’s claim that we condemned
corporations and charity institutions. In saying that
corporate social responsibility is a conjunctural
phenomenon, and a strategy of containment in the
context of global monopoly capital, we are not opining
that corporate social responsibility must be viewed
this way, we are saying it has historically been that
way. Given the logic of profit accumulation, we have
yet to see Ms. Evangelista’s point that there are two
kinds of motives for the setting-up of corporations
namely “altruistic” and “purely commercial.” We pose
that capitalist exploitation can never be negated by
“acts of generosity.” We concede that there are
impoverished individuals who are assisted by
charitable institutions. Contrary to her misreading,
we did not censure organizations like Gawad Kalinga.
We pointed out the limits of charity within the
context of global monopoly capital. This is far from
dismissing the function of these institutions. We
sense a refusal on Ms. Evangelista’s part to analyse
poverty, charity, corporations and interests in a
systemic light. Rather, these elements are thought in
terms of “motivations.” We clarify this in the light
of Ms. Evangelista’s take that we “speak as if only
[us] have the right to dictate the motives of
individuals.” We do not operate in that mode. We
prefer a dialectical analysis of motivations vis-à-vis
structures. This is why we find it important to
finally reply to Ms. Evangelista’s rebuttal. We feel
that it is our task to make it clear that our blog
entry was not written as a personal attack. We are
reading her arguments as symptoms of ‘reading history’
in a way that legitimizes the dominant social order.
To take offense from this symptomatic reading is as
good as implying that she is the sole author of her
beliefs. Who is ever?

Moreover, we are amused at Ms. Evangelista’s cunning
in “cutting” our statements and “pasting” them in a
manner that is rather self-referential and ostensibly
decontextualised. Allow us to cite a an instance: she
claims that we called her a “socialite.” We made
certain formal moves to illustrate the phenomenon that
we are assessing, i.e., the hold of neoliberal ideas.
In our argumentation, it is formally impossible to
isolate elements of our critique of charity via the
historical limitations of utopian socialism. It is
apparent that Ms. Evangelista’s argument articulates
elements of utopian socialism. We even explained how
utopian socialists like Robert Owen realized the
logical conclusion of charity is a rupture in the
social relations of production. Ms. Evangelista’s
apotheosis of corporate social responsibility
forecloses this very rupture in the social relations
of production. As for her grasp of the sentence where
the word “socialite” appears, we can only refer the
reader to the original text.

At this point, it is necessary to address Ms.
Evangelista’s assertion that we were the ones who said
that Professtor Lani Abad’s statements reek of
totalitarianism. We find this as a malicious
sleight-of-hand. Furthermore, it is not true that we
accuse Ms. Evangelista of being a “megalomaniac.” The
word “megalomaniac” in our blog entry appears as the
first term of a compound noun ‘megalomaniac
fantasies’. It is the fantasy that is being referred
to. Unfortunately, we do not have the training to
diagnose her, or even our very selves of such
psychological ailments.

Ms. Evangelista rests her whole argument on
open-mindedness. We agree that open-mindedness is
important in the debate on conflicting alternatives to
the current social order. It is Ms. Evangelista’s
premise that there could be a coexistence to all of
these conflicting alternatives that we find debatable.
Besides, how can she claim open-mindedness when she is
deploying notions like ‘extremism’ as though the term
is not subject to political contestation? If there is
indeed ‘extremism,’ ‘terrorism,’ and ‘ideological
intolerance,’ then there must be an entity who
ascribes these to particular groups. Should we perhaps
just accept these labels as defined, for instance, by
the U.S. State Department?

Although we earlier challenged her notion of
open-mindedness, we cannot deny the authenticity of
her claim to open-mindedness as when she says, “I
believe and respect activists and their contribution
to society. Neither do I close the possibility of ever
choosing their way.” It is in her _expression of a
dimension of her personality that gives potency to her
assertions. We therefore disagree that an erasure of
one’s particularity (i.e. personality) is necessary
for a debate. That a debate must be confined to ideas
is logically sound since ‘people are not what they
do’. In pointing out some of Professor Abad’s
characteristics, we are simply trying to sculpt the
flesh-and-blood from the stereotype of an activist
academic.

We welcome Ms. Evangelista’s Nietzschean realization:
“I’ve always thought my beliefs are strong; it’s only
now that I have to fight for them that I can honestly
say they are.” But the question is, will her strong
beliefs be the object of state repression? This year
alone (2005) 150 activists in the Philippines were
killed on account of their beliefs. Tolerance? How
about justice?