A language for nationalism?

(for April 4, 2006)

by Alfred A. Yuson

Of course friends called, texted, e-mailed their support. Some, not all,
agreed with the points I raised in that column a fortnight ago. Most were
privileged to read the pig Latin in my flak vest, so their offers of
assistance stayed private. Some actually said: Hey, own up, you’re playing
rope-a-dope, right?
Well... Okay, let’s be a tad bit serious. A lot of hackles have been
raised, for which I’m sorry. No intention there to raise the rage level on
this
planet. But I should have known better than to provoke a bit of a
firestorm over “nationalism.” So here’s clarifying some points, in
response to those raised.
A pity that poet Joi Barrios’ intended letter-to-the-editor didn’t see
print. Not sure she did send it, but it got first play on the Internet.
Basically, Joi took umbrage over my apparently reckless endangerment of
Bien Lumbera’s person, given the recent crackdown on perceived enemies of
the state.
I’d like to make this clear. I didn’t label Bien a communist.
Even if he
were, which I don’t know, nothing wrong there. It’s legal to be a commie
in this country. In any case, I’m not into that sort of vintage labeling.
What I more than inferred, and decried, was the “nationalist” posturing
(being careful now to employ quotation marks, as an indication of both
eyebrows raised) of his fan base.
The passages in my column that quoted what I’ve heard in beerhouses and
then some (about “communist candidate” and nothing really memorable in his
works, something like that) were meant to add some flavor of reportage. Oh
yeah? What kind of reportage is that when it doesn’t identify the
speakers? Tsismis reportage, that’s what. Hearsay, firsthand.
No need to reveal the identities of those from whose lips I heard those
views, to which I must confess a level of tacit agreement on my part.
But Joi may have been in her rights to raise the alarm. As for
“red-baiting,” no, I assured her by SMS, I’m not into that either. Just as
I don’t have “patrons” whose desires or policies I could’ve been carrying
out. Why, I don’t even dislike communists. What I didn’t text Joi was that
I found them rather funny at best.
The Left, with its wide gamut of ideological predilections, I
respect as a
whole, albeit not entire. I told Joi that I’m with her and “them” when it
comes to mounting any civil struggle against the “pang-gigiit” against
Reps. Beltran, Ocampo and company.
Okey naman kami ni Joi matapos ng mahabang diyalogo sa
selfon. Sa wari ko.
She said I better clarify all of that. I agreed. So here it is: I wasn’t
red-baiting — which would be an even funnier proposition than any
perceived goals of the intended prey. And I’m not a Commie-hater, since
hardly any gander gets up to ever replace bemusement.
As for the reported comments on Bien’s candidacy for the
National Artist
award, to relate these to any Commie witchhunt was a stretch, I thought.
Maybe I’m not given to paranoia where I sit or stand. But if it alarms
friends and colleagues alike, then I regret having included those remarks.
What I found admirable in Joi’s heartfelt communication, in
private, was
her loyalty to her mentor Bien, whose influence she acknowledges with
great appreciation. In gist, she said she couldn’t allow anyone to attack
Bien and get away with it.
Again, I assured her I hadn’t been on attack mode. It was her rejoinder
that was “banat,” I said, before adding facetious remarks like “buti na
lang banat na’ng mukha ko” — to which she replied something about “Botox.”
And that’s how our SMS dialectics ended.

Next came a diatribe from Gary Devilles of Ateneo something or other, in
very angry Filipino. I can’t comment on his protest over what I wrote on
the National Artist awards, as I sense from his language that he’s so used
to denounce anything in high dudgeon. Aba’y palengkero daw ako, eh siya
yung nag-gagalaiti at halos makita na’ng tumiklop ang mga litid sa leeg.
Rosario “Chari” Lucero’s letter, published in this space last
week, I can
appreciate for its relative elegance and elements of humor, irony, sarcasm
and hyperbole. The valid points raised are marred somewhat by academically
liberal — in more ways than one — leaps of deconstruction. I never equated
“nationalist” with “communist.” That inference she made on her own.
Neither have I ever put myself “forth as a spokesperson for Philippine
literature.” Maybe for beerhouses, even as I favor whisky.
I agree that Dr. Lumbera enjoys a “primary position”
in “Philippine culture and literature.” Never mind the academic “canon”
to the left and right of us. Her proposal to thresh out matters of
literary evaluation in a conference would be welcome had it not betrayed
unfair terms of engagement, as well an assumption that a rep from the lush
life can’t partake of an educated exchange.
Jonathan Chua was most civil, for which I am thankful. He too
raised valid
points that can be properly addressed, most soberly indeed. He credits Dr.
Lumbera with having co-pioneered the “Bagay” poetry movement together with
the multi-genre genius Rolando Tinio. All I know, in my semi-illiteracy,
is that some lines of Tinio’s “Valedictory sa Hillcrest” are still recited
from memory by lushes like myself. I’m sorry, but I can’t recall a single
poem title by Bien. True, he still qualifies as an artist, because he has
written exemplary librettos, some early poetry, and voluminous critical
work.
I don’t dismiss all that. Bien deserves to be a National
Artist all right,
but for his art and not for his perceived “nationalism.” (More on this
later.) What I maintain is that if the choice should be between Cirilo
Bautista’s and Bienvenido Lumbera’s totality of artistic merits, the
former would undoubtedly be more formidable. Bien has been a
scholar-critic more than a literary artist. But his lifework and influence
have also been formidable, for which he also deserves the highest award
imaginable. And yet, to my mind, not over Cirilo. The problem, as I saw
it, is that ideological accommodation played a part in the choice.

I would’ve been very surprised if Paolo Manalo hadn’t joined the Internet
critics. This fellow has long had it in for me, for reasons we both know
but which would be irrelevant to mention here. I just wish that as
literary editor of Philippines Free Press, Manalo makes a better effort at
ensuring that contributors receive their fees, for it is a more
fundamental responsibility than writing precipitate poetics.
Reuel Aguila was right. I made dabog. Naiintindihan ko rin
kung saan siya
nanggagaling. Nirerespeto ko ang kanyang kakayahan at mga akda, at ang
bunga ng kanyang batikos ay isa na rin sa aking pinagsisisihan. Hindi ko
naman gustong makipag-away sa mga Filipinista. Dapat nga tayong
magtulungan.
As expected, the most sophisticated and enlightening take on
the brouhaha
has been Adrian Cristobal’s. He intelligently takes me to task, but seems
to exonerate me even before he engages in subtle excoriation. Whee! And I
can only agree with his closure:
“We should judge writers by their works alone, lest we
consider Ezra Pound
and Carlos Bulosan to be bad writers because one was a fascist and the
other a communist.
“That risk belongs to the philistine. May their tribe decrease!”
Others have joined the fray in strange ways, like e-mail-baiting in
private and then sharing the exchange in public, while masking themselves
with pseudo-addy-nyms. Oh, well. Blithe as blithe goes, to each his
perverse pleasure.

Now, for more provocation, possibly, owing to the sensitivity that has
only led to token politeness, and, well, tokenism.
But let’s get “nationalism” out of the way muna. The reason I
place that
term within quotation marks is that I find the manner in which it is
commonly claimed credit for as unbearably proprietary. The trouble with
“nationalists” is that they love to proclaim themselves as such, as if
everyone else who doesn’t cannot be a nationalist.
It’s become a matter of seething too much, denouncing too much, bearing
too much of a humongous chip on the shoulder for too long, while taking
too much credit for being the only lovers of country.
I agree with Jimmy Abad. (I hope his letter to the editor appears
somewhere on this page.) There’s no monopoly on nationalism, which is not
gauged by the language one uses or where one lives. I love our country for
all its faults, our faults, and our own brand of occasional idiocy. But I
do not have to proclaim myself a “nationalist” to the exclusion of most
everyone else. And I’m tired of having to walk on eggshells due to PC
awareness of sensitivity.
Ma. Luisa Igloria, recent winner of the highly prestigious Stephen Dunn
Award for Poetry, is no less of a nationalist for writing in English, let
alone for choosing to teach literature out there in Virginia, USA. By the
by, she competes in a much larger, more challenging arena. And yet she
does us all proud with her Filipino poetry in English. Heck, make that
poetry, period.
When Eric Gamalinda gets a story accepted by Harper’s, it’s
an honor for
all Filipinos, whether they write in Filipino, English, or Spanish. Heck,
whether they write at all.
I am not advocating that we all write in English. I try to write in
Filipino, but am better trained in English, as was most of my generation
that grew up in Manila. Let us strengthen Filipino, and all other
languages in our regions. Let us not however equate writing in Filipino
(or Tagalog), or favoring the writing of Filipino (or Tagalog), with
stronger or more authentic nationalism.
The demographics alone are against that sort of reckoning. We
still have
more Cebuano speakers. Ilocano writers write in Ilocano, Ilonggos in
Ilonggo or Hiligaynon, Bicolanos in Bicolano. Sure, there are exceptions:
a few Ilocanos, Ilonggos and Bicolanos write or also write in Filipino.
But more of the same can and do write in English.
Contrary to doomsayers for English literary use at the height of the
bilingualism debate of the ’70s, greater numbers of Filipino poets and
writers are writing in English, I believe so much more than the increasing
numbers of writers in Filipino. That’s because Filipinos outside the
Tagalog region have not yet reached any proficiency in Filipino. Someday
it’ll happen, when the electronic media — radio, TV and film — manage to
eventually improve that proficiency.
For now, there are hardly any venues for literature in Filipino. Hardly
anyone even engages in travel writing in Filipino, or creative non-fiction
in Filipino. Which is not saying that it’s an inferior language. It’s just
younger than major literary languages of the world.
When a Filipino writes in English, he necessarily takes on a tougher
challenge — that of participation in the continuing evolution of a
language that has been used for centuries, by the likes of Chaucer and
Shakespeare and Oliver Wendell Holmes and Salman Rushdie and Michael
Ondaatje.
When a Filipino writes in Filipino, yes, he is writing in the
language of
his blood, and yet — and this is no invidious comparison — he is
upholding, enhancing and reinventing a much younger tradition that “only”
goes back to Balagtas and Lazaro Francisco and Amado Hernandez and
Virgilio Almario.
When Cirilo Bautista writes in English, he vies against the
standards of
excellence that continue to be set in that yet dynamic language. When
Bienvenido Lumbera champions Filipino literature almost to the exclusion
of the merits gained by Filipinos in literary English, I believe he does a
bit of disservice to scholarship and criticism.

Three years ago, I formally argued for a National Artist award for
Virgilio Almario because I believed in the total creative worth of his
literature in Filipino. I even said it was high time another NA award went
to a writer in Filipino, after Amado Hernandez. I would have argued the
same for Dr. Lumbera, but not at the expense of Dr. Bautista.
Of course all this has been moot, even when I first wrote on the matter
(which is why Reuel is right in saying na nagdabog lang si ako) — given
the fact that Lumbera was already chosen as the sole finalist for
Literature. Even as this is being written, he could well be on his way to
gaining the award. I cannot begrudge him or any other writer or Lotto
winner any prize.
On an aside, as I texted Jonathan, bigyan naman sana ko ng
konsiderasyon
na sa tanda kong ito, alam ko namang ang nakikitang pagbatikos ko kay Bien
ay malamang na mag-garantiya na maging NA nga siya. Alam naman natin ang
sikolohiyang bumabalot sa mga nagdedesisyon.
No claiming of any credit, however, in hindsight or with
foresight. I just
had to say what I believed in, maybe because I have the guts, or chutzpah,
or moxie, or apog. Na magdabog.
But again, at the risk of offending sensibilities, even those of my
ka-barkadang mga Filipinista, uulitin ko ang aking paniniwala na mas
mahigpit pa rin ang hamon ng pagsusulat sa Ingles. Kayat ang dapat ay
galingan pa ang pagsulat sa Filipino. Mas madaling mangyari ito kung
ilalapag na lang muna ang bagahe ng ideolohiya.
Sa ganun ay dadami ang magsusulat ng mga kaakit-akit na kakaibang mga
tula tulad ng mga gawa ni Freddie Salanga, Pete Lacaba, RayVi Sunico, Beni
Santos at Allan Popa — na siyang mga aral din sa Ingles at nagamit ang
kanilang natutunan dito. O mga akdang pang-awit tulad ng mga hinahangaan
natin mula kina Heber Bartolome at Joey Ayala — at panibagong hinahangaan
kong si Israfel Fagela ng sisikat na bandang Los Chupacabras.
To my calumnists, please understand that not everyone can
have a regular
newspaper column. Some of us are asked to fulfill the role. I try to
popularize literature, mostly Philippine — more often those in English
because there are more works in English. I am not a critic but a reviewer
and a tsismoso. I also try to be light, which is why I dub someone like
the young Angelo Suarez “the Kobe Bryant of Philippine Literature.” Sorry
if I can’t similarly laud efforts to tack on to a topical-trendy term like
“jologs” for perishable poetry.
I am so sorry to Bien and Shayne for the hurt I caused.
Couldn’t help it;
it couldn’t be helped.
Let me end with gravity and flippancy: two sides of the same coin of
eloquence (ahem). “The language of nationalism is in the heart, while the
art of literature is in the mastery of universal craft.” That is mine.
“Thanks for the intellectual discussion. It’s always hard to defend a
losing argument. But you did a decent job of it.” — From the Cleveland
Cavaliers message boards, and which we’re all free to say to one another.

* * *


The Editor,
Philippine Star

Letter to the Editor


National / Nationalist Artist Award

I’ve been mentioned in Alfred A. Yuson’s column and in Joi Barrios’
response to it. I wish to contribute a thought on the matter.
All Filipino writers in whatever language are nationalists,
unless it can
be proved beyond reasonable doubt that, following the definition of
“nationalism” in the document on National Artist Awards, a writer does NOT
“promote national cultural identity and the dignity of the Filipino people
through the content and form of their works.” As Sir Walter Scott has so
well put it, “Breathes there the man with soul so dead, / Who never to
himself hath said, / This is my own, my native land!” I believe that
“nationalism” is what is meant by the word “National” in the title of the
Awards.
Yet “nationalism,” as defined for the Awards, is hardly an artistic
criterion. There are many nationalists who, not being writers or artists,
cannot be given the Award. The key word is Artist. The Award then is to be
conferred on the sole ground of a nominee’s inimitable achievement in Art
as a rich and distinctive contribution to our national cultural heritage.
In that light, if by literature as Art we mean “literary
works” or “works
of imagination” (poetry, fiction, drama), I believe Cirilo F. Bautista
fully deserves the National Artist Award in Literature. Since 1963 to the
very present, he has wrought a considerable body of works in Literature,
in English and in Tagalog-Filipino – epic and lyric poetry, the short
story, the novel – all of exceptional worth and quality. I make no
invidious comparisons. I only insist on Art and artistic merit.
Incidentally, I cannot see why, in a given year for the
Awards, there may
not be two or even three, National Artists in one or the other artistic
field. On artistic merit alone is the decision based, not on budgetary
allotment.

Gémino H. Abad
U.P. Department of English
March 22, 2006