STRUCTURES Define what can and cannot be done in a particular space, determine how we believe, act, and engage

e with each other. There is a yearning for STRUCTURE in Philippine politics Yearning for STABILITY, REGULARITY Desire to be liberated from a condition of formlessness UNITES FILIPINOS o Prognosis: condition of soul suspended in time o When we finally decide, will that put an end to ARBITRARINESS? o Isnt VIOLENCE present every time we decide? o Is the decision the proper response to yearning? POLITICS PeitheinPersuasionPolitics Polis: Greek city-state (POLITICS is that which has to do with the affairs of the POLIS) o Common o About living together (bawal yung kaniya-kaniyang trip) o POLITICS (the POLIS) should be a PUBLIC event, on the level of speaking or EXPRESSING (Politics is about being a public character o Today, politics is too PRIVATIZED, MARKET-ORIENTED o Instead of the polis, which we think is too noisy, we privilege instead market, CHOICE, CONSUMERISM (Antithesis of DEMOCRACY OF POLIS: oligarchy of market) Alternative to peithein: SILENCE which is a product of VIOLENCE (we are usually silenced by violence) Politics already exists in the way we talk about it Why is it important to talk about politics? Why not just do? o Yearning for FORM/STRUCTURE o We are tired of politics because we are not involved in it; we are merely SPECTATORS o There is a ceaseless manufacturing/production of dis-interested and politically disengaged subjects (we are created to be this way) o Therefore we should investigate not just ourselves, but the structures producing us to be the way we are. POWER The problem is proper enforcement and implementation of legal order o Laws are well-crafted and we just need to follow o How is the law constituted? o What is the process in which the law announces and proclaims itself as law? o How does the law operate?

We want the law to be objective and transcendental; we want it to be above or outside of human relations (We fetishize the law). This is where the ARBITRARINESS of the law comes from. What constitutes POLITICS? (Marites Vitug) o Partisan politics (Privileges the interests of a few instead of those of the STATE) o Coalition building (you cant raise an issue on your own; you need a support group; involves mass action) o Networking (Connections in order to advance business interests, personal ambitions, etc. Ex. JBC) o POLITICS then is the DISTRIBUTION OF POWER and influence Should the law be politicized? Politics is not just a matter of distribution, it is also a matter of the CONSTITUTION OF POWER (how we perceive ourselves as empowered subjects) How do we constitute POWER? o Spectemor agendo: Let us be seen in public o Harold Lassvell: POWER is about who gets what, when where, how. How is POWER recognized as power? o Basis: (Certain kinds of) KNOWLEDGE o Legitimation: Discourse of NECESSITY Should POLITICS be concerned with human necessities? Congressmen legitimize their roles through the provision of human needs, when their job is to make laws o What kind of knowledge do you need to participate in PHILIPPINE POLITICS? Do intellectual, ideological issues even matter? It isnt about platforms or ideas, but about INTIMATE KNOWLEDGE. Pork barrel: strategy of government to build supporters in congress and a way for congressmen to increase their power o If power is constituted by intimate knowledge, how can we deconstruct or subvert it? STATE How are we integrated into the logic of STATE POWER? ARBITRARY POWER: Not rational or institutionalized o Western account of politics vs. Philippine Postcolonial account of politics Western Politics: STATE is public, the site of powercoercive; POWER tries to influence SOCIETY (through coercion?), which is private. The STATE tries to LIMIT power through representation. Philippine Postcolonial Politics: There is an INTIMATE RELATION between public and private spheres (State and Society) through KNOWLEDGE. The STATE operates through allocation, redistribution, transfers, and exchange

(of resources?) which are implemented or provided for SOCIETY via the budget process, pork barrel, and social services. POWER is exercised/asserted through DISPLAYS OF EXTRAVAGANCE. Max Weber: State power is centralized and operates in a rational manner. (The State can coerce society, but society can use their representation to correct the State)

THEORY Because POWER is exercised differently in the Philippines (arbitrarily), we need to retheorize the way State power is constituted in the country. In the postcolonial situation, power isnt constituted by coercion and formal institutions, but by DISPLAYS OF EXTRAVAGANCE (logic of excess) and INTIMATE CONNECTIONS (blurring of divide between public and private, hence a totalizing power of the State). We need to dismantle the Western political system o The State has colonized society via intimate relations. o How then do we intervene or resist State power? o Can we even portray ourselves as dominated or resisting? o How do we concretize a new vocabulary? Achille Mbembe: Power is play. We look at power through the multiple identities and strategies of individuals rather than institutionalized power. PHILIPPINE POLITICS In the Philippines, political power is o Arbitrary o Extravagant Circular Purposeless Demonstrates violence o Intimate/familiar o Familial (Alfred McCoy) o These challenges the models we use, particularly the Western model of how power is constituted o We have a State that is DECENTRALIZED in terms of its power o Political power is legitimized not through the separation of the public and private spheres but through relations of intimacy. o Dynasty Building OLIGARCHY OF POWERFUL FAMILIES (this depends on wealth, and is therefore very unstable.) Political power legitimized through the family (Alfred McCoy) Kinship structure: Bilineal, extended

Using your family to guard against and prey on the State (to protect your familys interests) They seize the power of the State to re-distribute rents through special favours dispensed by the State to connected families (rent-seeking oligarchic families) Patron-client relationship 7 Ms of dynasty-building Money (Should we ban dynasties from running? Should we publicly fund candidates campaigns?) Machinery (political parties should be ideological, platform based and not just an electoral vehicle; in the Philippines, the family is the machinery) Media (to reach the masses) INCOMPLETE The Philippine State does not have an empirical dimension (compulsory organization, monopoly of legitimate violence, rational administrative apparatus) o The State according to Max Weber: The State is the framework of the government who runs it. Autonomous bureaucracy (must derive its logic from its own rules, cannot be manipulated by external actors) Calculability and predictability Need for an insulated state apparatus (instead, we have rent-capitalism where either a very strong bureaucracy preys on the weak business sector or a very strong business sector preys on apparatuses of the stateus. Not productive capitalism) o Colonial history is to blame Power was outside of the State apparatus (Booty capitalism reading) Should we then abandon democracy, since democracy weakened the State? Should we have a dictatorship instead? (Marcos centralized power not to the State, but to himself; he wanted to be the main cacique) Our dependence on our previous colonizers in the form of aid and debt prevents us from developing the economy on our own. (Colonizers are the core, we are the periphery; as long as the core develops, the periphery underdevelops.) The State is a juridical creation. It is the product of international community; even if you dont have the attributes of a State, you will remain one as long as internationally, you are accepted as such. Internal, not external, dynamics should push the State. We should cut ourselves off from the global capitalist order. Why is SOCIALISM necessary in the Philippines? o It will divert power from the oligarchs

We have powerful men rather than powerful laws (voting for parties instead of people) How do we grapple with ARBITRARY POWER in the Philippines? o The sovereignty of the State does not function to guarantee STABILITY o Ideal working of sovereign State: Theory of LIBERALISM (Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, J.J. Rousseau) What is the foundation of legitimate power/political authority? How can we limit the arbitrariness of the State by establishing institutions that will control the arbitrariness of the State? (Whut) The main question of liberalism is: Why do we need a State? Hobbes: For politics to survive in the age of modernity, it must ground itself on a scientific world view. It must look into the nature of man. Man will always fight in order to survive/ preserve himself against his enemies. Therefore we need to give up our rationality to an external force: the State. The State will be the summation of all rationality. It will prevent a return to the anarchy of the state of nature. (Leviathan State: The State must neutralize every opposition to its rationality; there is a need to ensure that the Leviathan State will not encroach upon the individual lives of people) What founds authority is the insecurity of men from human relations that is not mediated by a higher authority Locke: There will always be natural law. People will be prevented from war by their sense of a natural order (the law of nature). Surrendering rationality may be too much; instead, we should entrust society to the State(trustee of rationality) because of the need for a uniformity/efficiency in our dealings with each other. The natural order is the order of property relations. (Context: industrial, bourgeois class) The State is the arbiter; it does not have its own logic and cannot have its own motives or goals. Representative government (public office is public trust) J.J. Rousseau: Sovereignty is not so much about the State. It is about the authority of the people. The State can only establish itself as sovereign if it can establish itself as singular, indivisible, one. (General will) Majority principle (voting) Task of majority to educate minority because they are uneducated Liberal theorists: Sovereignty is violent (Hobbes), can be reconstitutednot permanent, protect property relations (Locke), lies in the people, majority (Rousseau)

How do we transfer sovereignty of the people to something more institutional? Electoral System o Basic structures to looks at: How we elect presidents/executives (plurality; the winner is not necessarily majority Legislature Single member district Multimember- proportional representation system (voting for party instead of a specific person) o Open list vs. closed list system o Threshold (quota) o Interests will be based on sector o Democracy is all about trade-offs. Citizens will be forced to reckon with their identity (you can only vote for one party) Party Machinery Dynasty Building How do we institutionalize power? o According to Liberal Democracy: We need to establish strong institutions. Three institutions we can look at are: Electoral institution Party system Executive and legislative branches These institutions operate on certain rules, which provide incentives and shapes our behaviour. The assumption is that these rules can be drawn from society, that they are objective and do not favour anyone over the rest of society. However, Karl Marx will illustrate that this is not the case. According to him, the rules of society are created by and favour the ruling class and oppress everyone else. CAPITALISM/POWER AS OPPRESSION Rejection of Hegel When I work, I humanize the world. Marx: Historical materialism=mode of productionmeans of production (your position here determines your class; workers should be controlling, appropriating means of production) Relations of production (Political relations; sustain classes; maintains oppositions between classes which allow the continuation of the means of production; class society; economic class=political classcapitalists also determine how we live our lives. Engles: Economic class determines a big part of our lives.)

History is progressive, and progress is propelled by revolution. No matter how violent the contradictions or the solutions to the contradictions might be, the next step is always better. However, it is not linear. o Capitalism is your bad ex-boyfriend that you cant get over. o Marx: Lets begin history; lets develop still. o Why cant we imagine the end of capitalism, when we dont sell our labour power? o Rise of capitalism: Abolishment of feudal system because of the French revolution End of feudal lord/serf relationship because of the move to the city, where labourers offer abstract labour (the abstract capacity to labour) Emergence of the free wage earner Commodification of labour Alienation (from means/tool; from productwe dont get to enjoy the products of our labour and we fetishize commodities: we dont see the value of how much human energy was put into them; from fellow labourers or species-beingrivalry Exploitation (Wage: Commensurate amount of necessary labour time to produce a number of goods; the value of the product when traded in the market is equivalent to the socially necessary amount to survive in a day. Commodification of labour: Labour is the source of value; What we sell is abstract labour. But not all things are grasped by the concept of exchange. Commodity fetishism) According to Marx, labour is that which humanizes us and allows us to produce extensions of ourselves. It should allow us to build genuine human communities. The Capitalist has to earn in order to reinvest product. Capitalism wont survive without exploitation. It is the source of value in capitalist society. Capital is not a personal power, but a social power. There can be no good capitalist. Capitalisms goal is to accumulate profit. In the drive for efficiency, labour is usually expended (replaced by machines); but machines deteriorate while labour, which is the source of value, has an unlimited supply. Capitalist laws of motion: o In the long run, profits will fall. o Overproduction/underconsumption o overconcentration of capital. These will result in revolution, which in turn will result in global proletariatization. The collapse of capitalism is inevitable. Every advancement of capitalism is ushered in by CRISIS. Capitalism is inherently crisis-prone. SOCIALISM is the actualization of our humanity; CAPITALISM dehumanizes us.

 It questions why the small percentage of the population who controls most of the resources can determine even our (the majoritys) social relationsthe way we live. The things we consider possible today have been predetermined for us by the ruling class. They are not real possibilities. (Ex. The courses offered in universitiesthey are the possibilities that help keep up the status quo) o The impossible is in the revolution. (Marx) o IDEOLOGY predetermines our consciousness. The State intervenes on behalf of capitalism. As long as the State exists, there will be capitalism. o State: Reform, or REVOLUTION? (Who will lead the revolution? The proletariat because they represent a fundamental wrong which can be universalized; that society can gather and mobilize.) Problem with REFORM: Ex. Cleaning up corruption Nothing really changes. Simply fighting for change does not put into question the legitimacy of institutions of power. Things wont really change unless we completely change the STRUCTURES that run society. o HEGEMONY The proletariat have to realize that their suffering is the suffering of society. They are united by their position in class society and aware that they are united by this (class consciousness) o We can only grasp truth from the side were defending. There is no essential, all inclusive truth; there is only truth that claims to be such. o The proletariat will revolt when they realize that they have no stake in the present system. o According to Marx, power is something that is possessed and so we have to analyse who holds power. POWER AS KNOWLEDGE Antonio Gramsci (How is bourgeois society able to maintain hegemony?) o The hegemony of the present capitalist society is attained through coercion and consensus (seeing the state of affairs as a matter of common sense or CULTURE. Because it is CULTURAL, it becomes more acceptable to us.) o Production of historical blocs (assemblage of civil society, academe, and other social forces which interpret the present system) CONSENSUS; Capitalism infiltrates our very values. o Therefore, revolution cannot merely be a violent war (a war of position), but also a more intellectual war (a war of movement). It must involve a revolutionary theory (a new kind of thinking). The very act of theorizing itself becomes a form of praxis. This also involves making a different interpretation of the world. Every praxis is laden with theory.

 The capitalist mode of production distorts the idea of freedom and liberty. Possession of power is demonstrated by the VIOLENT use of power. Power is found not only in official and formal functions, but also in how capital is obtained. o The idea of cleaning up corruption is a middle class bourgeois discourse (Walden Bello); we fail to analyse how resources are distributed. There is a possible deficiency in critiquing power only in terms of violence and oppression; the State is not always exploitative or oppressive. Power is also exercised through KNOWLEDGE (Foucault) o Power in fact seeks your benefit. o Questions the concept of SOVEREIGNTY. Power is now about an assemblage of things that have their own regularity or autonomy. o Power is not always the tool of one class over another. o Power is characterized by polyvalent (different, multiple interests) o It is no longer about justice, but about CONVENIENCE (Power operates by allowing us to do what we want) o Power is not just from one source, but comes from everywhere. Everything must be seen as a moment of power relations. o Power is about the spatial rather than the temporal (how people are arranged in spaces) Governmentality (Foucault) o Power as an art or instrument of governmentality Machiavelli: There is a singular source of power (power is transcendental). There is an external relationship between subject and power. The objective of power is to protect and strengthen the principality. Guillaume LaPerriere: Looking at power in terms of governance (What does it mean to govern?); it is about looking at the right disposition of things so as to lead to a suitable end. o Governance: Prior to the 19th century, it was limited to the oikos (household); it had nothing to do with the POLIS (which was protected and strengthened). The management of the household (oikos) became the model of politics (introducing economic management into the life of politics) Three types of government: of oneself (morality), of family (economy), and of State (politics) Model of family: SURVEILLANCE rather than violence. In modernity, we need to shift our attention from violence as a manifestation of power to how we are put under surveillance. The use of power eventually leads you to your suitable end. The more you are able to do what you want, the more you are a subject of power. The State is responsible for your very existence and security. Management of life itself (bios) This new modality of power secures life (BIOPOWER). The State has to protect life.

o o o

The State is running the lives of people. We need to apprehend the biopolitical power of the State. Internal manipulation of its subjects (The State tells you that there is something inside of you that wants to submit to power: SOULCRAFT) The State provides the mechanisms by which we can reach a plurality of possible ends. In its multiplicity of goals, the state defines even the truth you say about yourself. In governmentality, what we see is the patience, subtle diligence, and wisdom of the government, rather than its grandeur. Pastoral: ShepherdSheep relationship (Shepherd knows sheep and takes care of them so they can function; Sheep are embodiments of docility Pastoral+Biopower= DISCIPLINE, NORMALIZATION (instances where power is very strong; normalizationi through DISCOURSESforms of knowledge define what is normal and what is not; it is woven into the narrative of biopower. What normalizes us are discourses about life and how life is constituted.) Family shifts from MODEL to TARGET to INSTRUMENT OF STATE POWER The family enables State power The State does not just govern the family, but governs through the family. Governing through the family allows the State to exercise power over the POPULATION. (Statistics. Generalized knowledge.) Genealogy Method of looking at the descent of discourse in a way that goes against the idea of progression To be where we are at the moment (time in a genealogical sense, in a geological manner Time is discontinuous; history moves through RUPTURES, through discontinuities. (SPATIAL concept of history rather than temporal) The State we have now is a result of power relations. What it means to be normal today, given genealogy, is a matter of contingency. Things become normal because it is the discourse that won in the struggle. There is nothing natural or essential in the way we do things, in the way we live. They are the product of the movement of history in a discontinuous manner. To genealogize is to make ourselves foreign to ourselves, because the self we are so used to is not natural; it is an outcome of political struggles. We must look at the self as a matter of self-creation. Care of the self (ephemeleia) Freedom is not simply a right that we take for granted as a given. We are not always free. We work on being free. What is the implication of the state using the family as an instrument of power? We cannot critique state power, because state power is me.

But at the same time, the fact that we are instruments renders us as AGENTS. The State cannot function without our consent. o What kind of self should we create in order to resist State power? This means rendering the self completely useless to the State (useless=unclassifiable) o What we need today is CONFLICT, where constructs can be negotiated. In Foucault, the political becomes personal. Not everything is always-already political. o We need to disrupt consciousness. Where nothing is new, the realm of political power recedes (?) o For us to change something today, we have to realize that WE ARE NOT AGENTS OF CHANGE o The moment in which we govern ourselves is already a moment where power is exercised over us. We should no longer look at formal institutions to find power; we should look at the ensembles of ideas and practices used by the government. (What kinds of logic do the government propose we live in today?) State power rules from a distance. The more invisible that power, the more effective it is. Therefore, the notion of sovereignty is still present. There is still absolute dominion, but in a different way: self-empowerment. Our moment of being able to choose legitimizes the State. o State capacity doesnt matter anymore; what matters are the mentalities that bind us to the State. o Meanings matter. Meanings we use to makes sense of what we are doing is our form of AGENCY. How can we produce alternative meanings? Rollback of the State Neoliberalism Privatization, consumerism (Ex. How is consumer mentality reproduced in the RH bill debate?) Soulcraft: The instrument of power is our very being (kalooban) DIAGNOSIS: The political project is not so much prognosis (an ethical project); it is not a normative exercise. RH Bill debate: uses RATIONAL arguments (State rationality); To resist the State, we have to use IRRATIONAL arguments (OPINIONS rather than facts) o Foucault: The hallmark of modernity is the politicization of life. o Hannah Arendt: The manner of this politicization is that of a totalitarian camp. Experiments on how to manage life Stripping of judicial character of human life It is no longer human life, but just mere life (Just a living thing) Replacing the principle of action with the principle of production (process)

Gregorio Agamben: The very politicization of life does not begin in modernity. It began in the ancient POLIS Two accounts of life: BIOS and ZOE ZOE o Bare life; principle of life itself; mere life; very fact that you are living and breathing. o Life has no meaning. It is simply contained in the OIKOS. It is private. It has a voice, but is not heard. BIOS o The sweet life; happy life; life in the POLIS o Life of meaning, of language, of speech o PUBLIC; life under LOGOS (Word) The POLIS excludes ZOE; it contains only the BIOS (bios politiko). In order for the polis to be constituted, the ZOE must be excluded. To be part of the POLIS, your ZOE must be excepted, taken out from your existencemere life is irrelevant. What excludes bare life (zoe) is the LAW. However, it is that very exclusion of the zoe that is its inclusion as well. It is its exclusion that defines what is included in the polisits exclusion creates the very system (included exclusion) Homo sacer (someone condemned to die; a criminal): He is no longer protected by the law (anyone can kill him); however, people are forbidden to sacrifice him (under the law, there are rites of sacrifice). In this way, he is excluded from the law (no more protection) but at the same time is inscribed in it by his very exclusion (he cannot be sacrificed). Zone of indistinction: Homo sacers life depends on the DECISION of the SOVEREIGN LAW. It is a relationship of PURE ARBITRARINESS. You are neither bios nor zoe; you are subjected to the arbitrary decision of the sovereign law. So, can we redeem the law? In protecting us, it has to un-protect something. Should we then live a life under the law, when it always has to exclude something in order to protect? Or is the answer anarchy? If the law exists by deciding on the exception, what it does is to say that there is crisis. When there is crisis, the law is suspended. And this is the moment in which State power is at its strongest. In the very suspension of the law, the law is established.