Filipinos: Time to become the Big Bad Wolf!
Written on Thursday, May 8th, 2008 at 9:19 am | by benign0Time and again, this view is validated — that it is the people who beg to differ to your views that inspire far more epiphanies than people who agree with you (that said, I am still eternally appreciative of the small handful of people who actually like me).
I’m referring to this gem of a comment Chuck (aka “cvj“) made last night:
Jon, i think Benign0 has to qualify the statement The Philippines is a meaningless concept…to Benign0 because it does have meaning to a whole lot of others. I think this is one of those issues that he has to work out on his own. I agree with Nick that the ‘Philippines’ (as is the ‘United States’ or ‘Japan’ or ‘Singapore’) is a complex concept so it cannot be further reduced into a formula. - chuck
My response to the above is this: Dude, instead of going around stomping your feet about how some people need to “qualify” their statements, why don’t you come up with a proposal of your own.
All you can come up with, for example, is this:
The Philippine Flag stands for everything our heroes fought for, all the good that i now see in our people, and the promise of what we Filipinos could become once we overcome the elitists and get our acts together. - chuck
Real quaint. But not quite the kind of insight that moves mountains.
And then you ask me to do the “qualifying”.
Real, classy, dude.
So here is my epiphany:
It’s no wonder we remain the sheep that we are today and have consistently failed to move up the food chain for centuries. We just rely on other people to do our thinking for us.
If some of us have got a beef against their imaginary friends the “Elitists”, then we need to show them we’ve got what it takes to replace them as society’s trendsetters. This can only be achieved by exhibiting the same cool factor they currently monopolise which enables them to keep the masses dancing the ocho-ocho to their goldmine record labels and Bandila and Wowowee franchises.
The reality is simple:
Elite is cool, populism (read: maka-masa crap) is uncool.
The challenge is to come up with the spin to turn the above equation around.
Che Guevarra’s iconic face emblazoned on T-shirts is an example of how populist sentiment was made cool using clever marketing.
The swastika turned the darkest of evils into a seductive brand that hypnotised a generation of German youngsters.
The power of symbols had, in their own times, turned two of humanity’s great evils — Nazism and Communism into GLOBAL BRANDS the same way Nokia and Starbucks are turning an entire generation of Pinoys into a bunch of vacuous fashionistas.
Mr. Chuck, do come up with something original for a change instead of those tired platitudes you’ve made a career out of dishing out.
Maybe this is what the mission of Filipino Voices should be:
(1) to come up with the symbol
(2) build the substance around it
(3) and market both the symbol and its substance to the Pinoy community
One thing that the Pinoy undisputably is is a consumer. We are world class at consuming but don’t have the production muscle to back it up (which is why we are progressively impoverishing ourselves). But guess what, consumerists are easily marketed to. And the tool of choice of marketers is the Brand.
Hard as it may be to encapsulate meaning, the fact remains that people would rather associate than comprehend. Thus the power of brands. People don’t wanna think? Simple solution. Don’t make them think. Package something up into something that appeals to their vacuous nature.
The old ways of selling change (using tired platitudes dished out by you-know-who types) simply don’t work. You need to manage the pitch using hard-nosed business sense. The same kind of sense that creates the power to divest people of their cash by merely flashing a coloured logo before their faces.
Which calls to light what I once wrote:
Great nations were not built on good intentions. They were built on business sense. Real change in Pinoy society will never be achieved through the “sacrifice” of altruistic “heroes”. True change will be driven by people who find no shame in expecting a buck for their trouble.
(I’m a fan of my own original insight rather than a mere quoter of other people’s)
The sooner we ditch the old sheepish approach of convincing Pinoys to drink Barako instead of Tall Lattes using appeals to emotion and instead get our shit together and compete head-on using wolf-like tactics, the sooner we kick our addiction to Mekong Delta rice and remittance cheques.
The alternative is Mike Hanopol’s timeless advise which some you-know-who’s may be a bit more comfortable with: Magtanim na lang tayo ng kamote — an increasingly viable solution to the food debacle already gripping the islands.
It’s simple, really.
- Mar Roxas, The 2010 Elections, and The Internet
- Let’s Use The Hammer This Time
- Imagine a world without Filipinos
- Because We Can Change the Dynamics of the Game
- The Right to Rule
- Sulpicio’s Rampage and The Abduction Orgy in Mindanao
- We Must Resist
- Maybe, it is all about how one phrases it
- Are We Really A Pathethic And Apathetic People?
- Filipinos to clash over food?
Comments
34 Responses to “Filipinos: Time to become the Big Bad Wolf!”
Leave a Reply
Current Events, News, and Press
- Is Malacanang Finally Coming Clean on the Bangsamoro Deal?
The Arroyo administration took a further step yesterday in its new found 'transparency' about what really is wrong with widely disputed Bangsamoro ancestral domain draft agreement.
Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita: “in the MoA, as much as possible, they avoided using terms that were not agreeable so much before to the other panel, such as reference to the Constitution and enabling laws.”
The Executive Secretary said a new MoA must be “acceptable” to the public.
To better understand what he meant by those words, it was disclosed at yesterday’s news briefing in Malacanang that Solicitor General Agnes Devanadera told the Supreme Court that the MoA-AD “must undergo review” as the executive (meaning the President) will “undertake further negotiations that will lead to the crafting of the final peace agreement within the context of our Constitution.”
Is Malacanang finally coming clean and telling the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
It better be this time, because any further prevarication, stone-walling or lying about just how it has handled the negotiations with the Moro rebels may truly damage the peace process beyond repair.
- Senator Loren Legarda asks MILF to rein in, arrest its 'loose cannons'
Senator Loren Legarda condemned yesterday the killing of innocent civilians caught in the middle of the conflict between the Moro Islamic Liberation Front(MILF) and the military. Read More...
- Senator Lacson To PNP, AFP: Take Proactive Approach On MILF Threat
Sen. Panfilo M. Lacson called on the Philippine National Police and the Armed Forces of the Philippines Tuesday to take a proactive approach in preventing a repeat of the Bloody Monday attack by the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. Read More...
- President Arroyo's Outburst, Caught On Camera
In the recent unscheduled televised speech by President Gloria Arroyo, Jove Francisco among other reporters were made purview of the behind the scenes outburst because of delays in making that speech yesterday. In the footage that has been shown in most news shows, President Arroyo's state of irritation is plainly obvious, in what was to be an important speech to acknowledge the conflicts in Mindanao. Read More...
- Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf Resigns
Under great pressure, the president of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, has resigned, and says that he may have made mistakes, but not intentionally. For the sake of his nation, according to him, he is resigning. Video of his resignation is below. Read More...
- Presidential Statement on MILF
Mga minamahal kong kababayan: Mariing kinukundena ko ang hindi makatarungang pag-atake at paghahasik ng karahasan ng MILF kaninang madaling araw sa ilang bayan ng Lanao del Norte. Read More...
- Barack Obama, John McCain, interviewed by Rick Warren
- Senator Pimentel Calms Fears On Federalism
AMLAN, NEGROS ORIENTAL -- Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. (PDP-Laban) yesterday allayed the fears of fellow senators, Read More...
- Chief Justice Puno: Constitution Does Not Allow Secession
MANILA, Philippines - Supreme Court Chief Justice Reynaldo Puno on Friday rejected the possibility of the creation of a separate state in Mindanao, saying the Constitution does not allow secession. Read More...
- Esperon's Costly Mistakes
In a recent column by Rene Q. Bas of The Manila Times, he cites the costly mistakes made by "peace negotiator" Esperon. Read More...
Archive for Current Events »
- Is Malacanang Finally Coming Clean on the Bangsamoro Deal?
-
Subscribe to Filipino Voices!
-
SONA 2008 FULL TEXT
Your epiphany was:
A cause of the Philippines’ problems is that “we just rely on other people to do our thinking for us.”
And your to this solution is:
“Don’t make them think. Package something up into something that appeals to their vacuous nature.” In other words, continue this reliance on other people’s thinking.
Did I get this right? You’re proposing to solve a problem by perpetuating it’s cause?
With regard to your ‘original’ insight, it sounds just like Ayn Rand’s Objectivism. However, she wrote about it in the first half of the last century.
OK, I’m nit-picking. We stand on the shoulders of giants and all that. But you can’t expect to claim original thought and not get called-up on it.
Put it this way; the insight was influenced by objectivism.
That’s true of course, that using business-oriented marketing strategies to sway the masses is perpetuating this reliance.
Just like mass marketers use a generalisation of a vertical (in this case the masses), we need to view them as a collective as well when coming up with strategies to institute behavioural change.
The challenge to come up with original solutions is directed at the intelligentsia - those to whom we can presumably expect a bit more than the ordinary schmoe.
As I mentioned, it is comments like Chuck’s that leads me to believe that this may be too much to expect at the moment.
Look forward to be proven wrong though..
Actually, your approach of coming up with a national brand is also not original. You just think it is. Besides, how far do you think you’ll go with your ‘marketing’ if your target audience is aware that what you just did was to…
I may have to suggest to Nick (and the group) to put a disclaimer on each post reminding the reader that the views of the individual contributors don’t necessarily reflect the views of the other members of Filipino Voices. Otherwise, baka pati kami madamay.
chuck, benign0,
Oh don’t worry, I’m sure sa sobrang disconnected ng mga opinions dito, it is obvious that the opinions are that of individuals. It’s not FilipinoVoice.com, it’s FilipinoVoiceS.com, so I guess that’s something implied and, if a person doesn’t get it, that person has a comprehension problem.
benign0,
Again of course, the more important question is how.
How do you turn a bunch of herded cows and sheep, who determine their destinies by fads (e.g., 50-60s it was joining the US Navy, 70s it was accounting and nursing, still in the US, 80s it was engineering, in Saudi, 90s it was IT, and here we are again having Nursing as the destiny fad of choice) into go-getting wolves and lions? That’s a huge, huge paradigm shift.
Not enough people will be able to do it on their own, much else on their own enlightenment, and even much less on their own volition.
How do you tell 88 million people that their destinies should not be anchored on leaving their families behind?
Thanks Jon, that’s reassuring. If i’m going to be beaten up, it should at least be for something i believe in.
Jon, in case we haven’t noticed yet, it will take a huge paradigm shift to get the Philippines out of the deep hole it’s dug itself into.
It will take a HUGE LEAP indeed. We cannot just play catch up as China and Vietnam are now and ALWAYS WILL BE one step ahead of us.
Chuck, I see you’ve once again whipped out the proverbial electron microscope and shrunk back into your microscopic world.
It’s just so like a sheep that you are to live in fear na baka siya madamay.
Do a bit of justice to the other writers here and trust that they can take care of themselves and/or are a bit braver than you are. I dont think they need a spokesman.
-
Well, well, here’s an interest discussion!
Both Chuck and Benigno are correct. Benigno’s insights are right on the mark, when he says that we should probably create a brand for the Filipino, a synthesis of external influences fused with local experiences. However, the caution that Chuck said is also a valid point. That’s not an original idea Benigno. Besides, Filipinos have been doing this fusion science since the Spaniards came into our shores.
Do we have original Pinoy concepts? No. Even our brand of Christianity is something of interest to look into. It has been indianized or what a foreign historian described it as “folk christianity”. Benigno’s right when he said that we’re good at it.
On the other hand, Chuck has a valid point–why create another image when we have it already–the Filipino flag. Is’nt it as original as we can get? Tell me another symbol or brand that would encapsulate Filipino values?
The Filipino flag was made by those who know the power of images. This flag is the only one in the world that has mystic meanings. Do you know why the triangle with the sun and the three stars symbolize? Its a purely Pinoy philosophical convention. How about the three stars which many of us say symbolizes the three large islands in this archipelago? How about the triune concept of Godhead being directly applied in that flag?
We don’t need other logos or symbols such as the jeep, etc. No. If we are to market our country, we start with the more obvious one.
I agree Patricio on what you say about the Philippine flag. I like the way it was designed, concise without being too cluttered. Anyway, I believe that we can only get out of a symbol as much as we put in and in this area, our flag has the advantage of already having a history. Our heroes have invested a lot of themselves for the sake of the flag and what it represents. For them, the Philippines is not a ‘meaningless concept’. We just have to follow their lead.
I’m sorry, but all I see is a lot more questions being begged here.
If the flag is not a “meaningless” concept, what does it mean then?
If the triangle and stars stand for the three group of islands or some kind of god (both of which it seems we are not even sure of — thus highlighting the issue of lack-of-meaning even more); so what then?
We keep claiming that these existing symbols mean something. But all I see being put forth is a bunch of wishy-washy platitudes. If said meaning in the flag, the kalabaw, or whatever existing symbol we cite does not stick with or, more importantly, move the psyche, all the “meaning” we smilingly associate with them with will deliver jack squat results.
A key ingredient to a successful brand is stickiness. The flag obviously does not seem to stick to people’s psyches, much less move them. A warship flying the Philippine flag as it sails towards the Spratlys or Sabah WILL NOT evoke fear or power; merely quaint bemusement.
By the way, the process of brand creation and marketing is not the original idea I was referring to. Obviously the process of brand creation has been a textbook marketing concept since kopong kopong so I make no claims to inventing it.
The originality I’m trying to encourage is in the brand that is to be created itself. If we think of a way to re-invent how the flag is perceived, then well and good. That effort takes a bit of creativity, imagination, and ORIGINALITY.
At the moment, the REALITY is that the flag has ZILCH track record of being the galvanizing force we imagine it to be.
What are we gonna DO about THAT? Scrounge around for more wishy-washiness?
A business would approach a problem like this by conducting a survey. And since this is a rather complex subject, it would also conduct focus group discussions. Thus, before we get any answers, we need to agree on what the questions are. What is a Filipino? What is your concept of the Philippines? What is the objective of the Filipino Brand? When you get all these information, a lot of creativity, imagination and yes, originality is needed to package and market the brand in such as way as to achieve the objective. Maybe FilipinoVoices can come up with a series of questions and invite comments from readers as a project much like the “Filipino Issues Project”. I am very interested in these discussions. I hope something comes out of it.
Mr. Pochero, not a bad way to kick things off:
- What is a Filipino?
- What is your concept of the Philippines?
- What is the objective of the Filipino Brand?
And, please, let’s not even think of using those old 10-things-about-Pinoys… crap that gets forwarded all over the Web to answer the above questions.
When we answer the above questions, let’s imagine ourselves in front of a panel of potential investors and us trying to make a pitch as to why Pinoys are worth shelling out cash for and how we will be delivering an ROI to them sometime in the near future as a people.
I wrote in my book about how BRAND is important even for a nation (well, specially one with 90 million souls that are unable to feed themselves):
Note the terms I highlighted in bold. Those are the terms — the only ones — that push the right buttons in the global competition for precious capital.
So by ‘brand equity’, does your example from the world of international cuisine mean something like if i hear the word ‘Hainanese’, i immediately [mentally] attach the words ‘Chicken Rice’?
Reality is, the current brand name of the Philippines is OFW: Fil-Am doctors and nurses, Pinoy seaman, IT technician, domestic worker, etc. Sad to say, there was a hullabaloo in UK several years ago when Britannica(?) tried to define the term Filipina as domestic helper.
Depending on how you look at it, the OFW brand is a good or bad symbol for the Philippines.
I think the difficulty here is that when you scratch beneath the surface, you find that the concept of a nation as a distinct and unique collective is artificial.
After all, the rise of the Nation State came hand-in-hand with the rise of industrialisation and capitalism. It was the mechanism to create artificial bonds between disparate ethnic groups, giving them a shared sense of identity. This collectivisation happened to be most efficient way of mobilising enough people to create wealth during the industrial age.
The Philippines is a prime example of this process.
Now that the Industrial Age has given way to the Information Age, the established institutions and conventions are giving way. The hard boundaries of the past are no longer workable in an environment of mass communication and easy travel. People are starting to question their identity. It’s happening all over the world, not just in the Philippines.
Where does that leave us in this current thread of discussion? Well, if the Nation itself is an artificial construct, then the flag–and all other symbols of the Nation State–are in turn artificial. Thus we can choose to apply our own meaning. And if people can choose their own interpretation, in the end it doesn’t matter what the symbols mean.
In fact, the very nature of our discussion highlights the futility of defining things on merely national boundaries. I’m writing this in London, using tools made in China but designed by Apple in California
and discussing the politics of a country where I wasn’t even born.
My solution to this would be to put aside the concerns about what makes a Filipino. In 50 or 100 years, the very notion of ‘countries’ may be relegated to history. Nationalism’s struggles are no longer relevant; there’s no need to fight the last century’s wars. The challenges of our time is how to equip individuals for this new environment.
Well said, Anthony.
Anthony, 50 or 100 years is a long way. For now, as everyone who needs to apply for a Visa or work permit knows, equipping the individuals for this new environment includes equipping him/her with a nationality.
@cvj Currently everyone is born with a nationality and most people have no choice in the matter.
Where you do have the choice is in equipping yourself with the right knowledge and skills for the global economy. That way, you’ll either not need the work permit, or you’ll be desirable enough to be granted one.
Anthony, i suppose individual self-development is good enough if i did not feel any sense of allegiance towards the Philippines and Filipinos. As it happens, being Filipino is part of my identity. I believe that nationalism (and nationalitie) are values (and concepts) that, under certain circumstances need to be transcended, but i don’t think it’s something that we can or should abandon.
On the practical side, the ‘global economy’ is not something that exists outside the state but is something that is made possible by rules implemented by individual States in coordination with other States, which is why nations still remain relevant.
Another good discussion!
I hold Benigno in highest esteem when we propounded those questions. I agree–this calls for a Focus Group Discussion (FGD). We can do this through video conferencing, I guess, since some of us are abroad. Or some podcasting? Maybe Nick has some bright ideas to do this?
I also agree with Anthony–we Filipinos live in a fast-changing global landscape where geo-political boundaries are fast losing propositions. True, globalization has indeed smashed conventional thinking on concepts such as nationalism, national identity, etc. especially since relationships are indeed the result of production or our affinity with goods.
Though this is the case, I believe that Benigno’s views should still be given importance since branding is still an important aspect of our relations with other races or nations. Though, I’m not quite sure if the Philippines has no brand equity. I mean, I am a branding man myself and I am sure that these elements probably constitute the equity, Benigno is looking for:
1. We are a country blessed with fine beaches and beautiful bitches (sorry for the non political correctness in this)
2. We have a fucked up government who does’nt know where to go because everybody is just concerned with getting their spoils.
3. We are a haven of terrorists.
4. We live in trees.
5. We are a nation of maids. Or maidservants.
These are the elements of our equity. We positioned ourselves based on news.
However, I commend Tourism Secretary Ace Durano for doing some things which try to change all that. Durano has been doing a great job lately, negating those shit that this administration does.
Anthony, excellent post. I agree that the state is neither universal nor natural, but an ideological construct for the most part; what’s even more apparent is that the power that has personified (or fabricated) the state is the same power that is attempting to demystify, delegitimize or deconstruct it, again, as you said, in the service of wealth. Now, would it help the disempowered individual to resist the reverse process? If not, why should the individual simply go with flow (get equipped for paradigm shift, if you will)?
I mean: “If not, why should the individual simply go with the flow (or get equipped for the paradigm shift, if you will)?
For centuries, we have learned to equate culture and identity with the Nation. Now, in a world of the multinational corporation and supranationalism, we’re forced to reassess what this means. As Chuck’s post displays, people still draw comfort in the permanence of their Nation. In reality, Nation States are struggling to remain relevant as their powers are being rapidly eroded by global corporations and supranational bodies. For example, just last month European Union laws drafted in Brussels affected how loud traditional bagpipes can be played in Scotland.
Abe asks if the disempowered individual should resist. We cannot. There are such huge forces in play that resisting will only lead to the annihilation of one’s values. What we must do, as all successful cultures have done, is adapt. In nature, the species that resists environmental change becomes extinct; cultures are no different.
However, culture and traditions cross national boundaries; they transcend the Nation State and need not die with it. Ironically for the Philippines, our disadvantages and failures as a nation has given us a head-start in this new landscape. The Filipino ‘OFW global workforce’ is a sign of things to come as more people leave their countries in search for jobs. The Philippines has much to teach the world about this new style of living.
We must also learn quickly to capitalise on this ‘first mover advantage’. While we spend our time with insular bickering about governmental failures, others are catching up. To put things in context, approximately 90k to 100k Filipinos have settled in the UK over the last three decades. During that time, we have stayed largely underground, our groups mirroring the same divisive squabbling as can be seen in the Philippines. On the other hand, in the 5 years since Poland’s accession to the European Union, around 1 million Poles have moved to the UK. They are making their presence felt and once again Filipinos risk being relegated as insignificant.
As to the ‘Filipino Brand’, nothing can be gained by focusing on negatives. You don’t sell a product by telling people what’s bad. Instead, let’s look to our strengths. We are one of the World’s first International Tribes. Filipinos spread across the globe not to rule and subjugate, but to integrate and enrich their families’ lives. Surely we can find some good in that?
Hi Anthony,
Yes, you’re right. We need to position the good instead of the negatives. But, how do we do that? By lying? By obfuscation? I mean, we do love positioning the positives yet where are they?
Very encouraging insight folks!
Bottom line is we’ve dicked around with politics enough. Let politicians do their thing and let the process of election and attrition do their job of self-correction.
Real value in our society will not be created by Government. It will be created by ITS PEOPLE. And, unfortunately for us, the REALITY at the moment is that the world values products that Pinoys are not very good at producing — which is why we merely resport to producing exporting COMMODITIES and exporting them RAW.
Given this reality and if we resolve to take the effort to rely more on DOMESTIC added-value, THEN we have to develop that capability and ehtic — domestically. Thus this BRAND that we envision should reflect domestic and collective capability (and not capability created by our OFWs or handful of elite individual citizens such as Lea Salonga and Manny Pacquiao).
Anthony, what in effect I am postulating is that both nation-state and a “world of the multinational corporation and supranationalism” are not something given, but constructed by those with the power to do so for a reason and therefore the concept (or process) could be deconstructed or reconstructed also for a reason either by the self-same power to further their interests or by those whose ends are not thereby served or in fact jeopardized in the wake of it.
On the juristic (legal) level, a parallel could be drawn between the conception of the state and that of the (private) corporation, an artificial being no less bestowed by law with certain attributes of a person than a state personified by being invested with a mind and a will of its own. So, if the legal rationale fades out or lapses (e.g., the law is abrogated), what actually break the surface are real people socially relating to each other, or working and collaborating together (and I agree with BenignO that they may not be forged as one identity by some hollow symbolisms like Manny Pacquiao; commonality of purpose may be enough).
The artificial entity, it is well to note, is not just legitimized by a statute or by some agreed upon international legal arrangement, it is also reinforced by a belief system. If we look back at history, the myth of the territorialized nation-state has supplanted another myth, the open and frontier-less kingdom of the absolute monarch. The belief system then was that the king was supposed to have unchallenged authority (sovereignty) because his power was derived directly from God. The Devine Right of Kings was however undone when the struggle for parliamentary democracy was won by once disempowered individuals.
It needs to be underscored too that while we are certain the tectonic transformation of the global village is happening, its consequences are still very problematic. For one, are the winners so far outnumbering the losers? What are the negatives in terms of plain ethics: Does supranationalism value life the same way irrespective of nationalities? Or, supranationalism notwithstanding, to what extent the interests of “our” nationals should be promoted or protected at the expense of “their” nationals? How serious is the concern at this point to reconsider the locus, indivisibility or indispensability of sovereignty, or, just like Divine Right of Kings, consign it oblivion (forget about it)?
The question then is not that “we cannot” resist as inevitable the paradigm shift but more appropriately whether we are unwilling or not to exercise the choice to tame or undo it. For if there is emerging a so-called “network of Empire” (of powerful nation-states in combination with supranational institutions and transnational corporations) poised to rule over a new global order there is also a “movement of peoples” that is materializing as a countervailing force. In the Philippines, we also call the latter phenomenon as People Power.
Come to think of it, if the Blacks in the United States, together with certain enlightened members of the White establishment, dared not struggle to end slavery and the slave economy but simply gave in to “adapting” to their realities, will there be a Barack Obama today?
Abe, I believe what you’re saying is as follows:
The people holding power are directing the Global Village’s advancement to further their own interests. By doing so, they are working against the the common people. However, since globalisation is an artificial construct supported merely by a legal and belief system, people of good conscience can–and should–oppose it. Furthermore, while the task is daunting, history has shown that success is possible as evidenced parliamentary democracy’s emergence and the black civil rights movement’s advances.
Is this correct?
Here’s my take on it. This paradigm pre-supposes that globalisation is inherently bad and should be resisted; that by accepting it, we surrender to the forces that are working against our interests. I don’t agree with this world-view.
I would say that globalisation is neither good nor bad. Like the sea, it can enrich life, bearing the potential for food, trade and the spread of knowledge. When disturbed by a far away earthquake, that same sea becomes a tsunami bringing devastation to the unprepared.
Globalisation is just the next logical step in the evolution of human civilisation. We can fight it and be swept aside, or we can embrace it and use what it brings to our own advantage.
As a case in point, let’s take the Polynesian nation called Tuvalu. It is made up of several islands with no natural resources and is dependent on foreign aid. However, Tuvalu happens to have been assigned the ‘.tv’ Internet country code. It subsequently sold the rights to tv Corporation International, a company based in California, for US$48 million. It also kept a 20% share in in the company, which was later acquired by VeriSign, Inc.
According to the Asian Development Bank, Tuvalu received a lump sum payment of US$10 million (link to PDF) plus “US$2.2 million per annum plus 5% of all revenue exceeding US$20 million sales per year”. The .TV domain is apparently the country’s largest source of income.
Not bad for a bunch or rocks in the Pacific Ocean.
Was this luck or did they just have a different outlook? The following quote is from the Tuvalu government’s presentation to the Third United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries, Brussels, 14-20 May 2001.
“…recognizing that international phenomena such as globalization and the information technology are encroaching on Tuvalu and will be here to stay regardless whether Tuvalu likes it or not, it is vital and imperative that appropriate strategies be developed to ensure that Tuvalu is able to cope, adapt and prepare for these new waves of globalization…”
Anthony, I agree. Globalisation is being sold to us by those who benefit from it as a great good and by those who are disadvantaged by it as a great evil.
But then as you said, it’s all up to everyone who participates to get what they can out of it.
Wealth is sitting under everyone’s noses. It takes just a bit of imagination to harvest it. That’s the spirit of globalisation. You either see free trade as an opportunity or a bane. Primitive minds tend to see it as a bane and instead of stepping up to the challenge of getting their shit together to compete, we shrink back into our shell to complain, blame, and, yes, pray.
It’s no surprise that an imagination-challenged society such as ours is one of the biggest loser in this scheme.
Anthony, I thought I’ve framed the issue appropriately thus: “The question then is not that ‘we cannot’ resist as inevitable the paradigm shift but more appropriately whether we are unwilling or not to exercise the choice to tame or undo it.”
I am arguing that “we can” based on at least two historical milestones: 1) the consigning to oblivion of the well-entrenched Divine Right of Kings, and 2) the dismantling of the institution of slavery and slave economy. But should we resist the phenomenon or at least tame it is a matter of choice. You think “we cannot” there being no alternative since in your view “Globalisation is just the next logical step in the evolution of human civilisation.”
First, I’m not sure if globalization (I have tried to avoid using the term if you note) is a recent phenomenon. For millennia people have traded, migrated and exchanged knowledge. Many of our national heroes - Rizal, Bonifacio, Aguinaldo - were descendants of the first globalizing agents of the world, the Chinese. The Philippines’ ruling elites today are of the same descent. On the other hand, the Arabs gave the Western world Algebra and the Europeans brought to the Incas the smallpox. Christianity, with origin in the Middle East, has become the world’s leading religion. Globalization sounds modern but it is not new.
You say that “globalisation is neither good nor bad.” I say that contemporary globalization is both good and bad. Good for the Tuvalu, one case you have pointed out. It’s certainly good for Japan: Toyota now outsells Ford in the US. Good for China: US, Japan and Europe invested in China in 2002 about $50 billion to build cutting edge factories. And right now I’m exchanging ideas with Pinoys in London, Australia, and Singapore about, inter alia, the situation in the Philippines. Anyone with a computer (with components manufactured by countries in the world) is a Net-citizen making distance and geography almost immaterial.
There are downsides. To cite a few: millions of manufacturing jobs in the US migrated to low-wage economies like Mexico and many of those jobs migrated further to even lower wage economies in the race to the bottom; more women and children are exploited in the division of labors; production may have been diffused but economic power has been concentrated in fewer global corporations; third-world countries like the Philippines have lost control of their economic policies and driven by neoliberalism (the Washington Consensus) that promotes privatization, liberalization and deregulation hold no compunction deciding against the welfare of their citizens; and the continuing degradation of the environment are found traceable for the most part to the actions of powerful global corporations.
Are there more winners than losers? The jury is still out. What do we do in the meantime?
Abe, I also tried avoiding the term ‘globalisation’ but the phrase ‘a world of the multinational corporation and supranationalism’ just became too clunky
Yes, ‘globalisation’ is the backdrop to the whole of human history. We can trace it back to when our early ancestors started colonising the world. This is exactly why I believe that we cannot and should not resist it. Of course, we do have a choice, but I think that those who choose to resist will end up being the ‘losers’, as you put it.
We’ll probably never know if there are more winners than losers but we don’t have to think in those terms. This is not a zero-sum game. By using the principle of comparative advantage, it’s possible to reach scenarios where everyone wins in some way. To do this, we must look for Pareto improvements in our interactions with people, companies and countries.
Nevertheless, you are right to highlight the dangers of a ‘race to the bottom’ as corporations move their capital in search for the absolute advantage. This is where resistance can be effective but it needs to be targeted. Raising enough awareness about specific areas where your [own/community’s/company’s/etc] interests aren’t served can win improvements for all.
For this I shall give the example of call centres. In pursuit of the most profit, banks have been outsourcing this function to the cheapest available labour. This created a boom in higher value jobs in the host country. But here’s the twist! As a customer, the service we receive is terrible and this has recently–within the past year or two–caused a huge backlash in the UK. Because of this, banks have started closing their foreign call-centres in favour of local staff. (The discussion of the jobs lost overseas, belongs elsewhere.) Now, a UK call-centre is a marketing point. Back-office functions, where there’s no direct customer contact, remain overseas where they’re cheaper.
Here’s a re-post of my reply to Abe. I submitted it yesterday but for some reason it wouldn’t go through…
Abe, I also tried avoiding the term ‘globalisation’ but the phrase ‘a world of the multinational corporation and supranationalism’ just became too clunky
Yes, ‘globalisation’ is the backdrop to the whole of human history. We can trace it back to when our early ancestors started colonising the world. This is exactly why I believe that we cannot and should not resist it. Of course, we do have a choice, but I think that those who choose to resist will end up being the ‘losers’, as you put it.
We’ll probably never know if there are more winners than losers but we don’t have to think in those terms. This is not a zero-sum game. By using the principle of comparative advantage, it’s possible to reach scenarios where everyone wins in some way. To do this, we must look for Pareto improvements in our interactions with people, companies and countries.
Nevertheless, you are right to highlight the dangers of a ‘race to the bottom’ as corporations move their capital in search for the absolute advantage. This is where resistance can be effective but it needs to be targeted. Raising enough awareness about specific areas where your [own/community’s/company’s/etc] interests aren’t served can win improvements for all.
For this I shall give the example of call centres. In pursuit of the most profit, banks have been outsourcing this function to the cheapest available labour. This created a boom in higher value jobs in the host country. But here’s the twist! As a customer, the service we receive is terrible and this has recently–within the past year or two–caused a huge backlash in the UK. Because of this, banks have started closing their foreign call-centres in favour of local staff. (The discussion of the jobs lost overseas, belongs elsewhere.) Now, a UK call-centre is a marketing point. Back-office functions, where there’s no direct customer contact, remain overseas where they’re cheaper.
I think that globalization has actually had the opposite effect: people are becoming more nationalistic. After hundreds of years Scotland has decided to have its own government thereby seperating itself from the London government. Wales is thinking of the same thing and due to all this the people in England are beginning to rethink about what it means to be English.
People who migrate to other countries are not assimilating as one would expect. The most explosive issue in the Netherlands today is how Muslims are beginning to convert their country. Numerous Mexican enclaves exists along the southern border of the US such that some signs are now in English and Spanish.
A great number of channels on cable was thought to improve people’s knowledge of the rest of the world but the effect has been the opposite. Filipinos in the US still watch Wowowee and TV Patrol. Al Jazeera’s popularity is due to millions of Arabs/Muslims in other countries tuning in. It seems that cable and the internet has enabled people to keep in touch with home.
It seems that migrating people are not being assimilated in their host coutries but are rather bringing their own culture and practices with them.
It is in this light that we must think about our nationhood, artificial or otherwise. Living in a flat world give us a sense of being a global citizen as well as focusing our thoughts on how our nation plays a part in it. The more we see of the world, the more we think of home.
firstly to benign0, the question is, assuming that your first premise holds true, how do you become a big bad wolf, when your a sheep already herded by lions who would devour you at the slightest hint on your part trying to go against their control? the solution are not actually that simple as you think. you only think this because you a limited understanding of the true state of matters. if it was that simple, don’t you think a nation of 90 million with lots of bright mind, not the likes of you i hope, would have already figured it out and actually made concrete steps to pursue their goals?
to anthony, it is not true what you said about nations dissolving in 50 or so years. nations arose because of mutual distrust of other nations. and as long as this distrust remains, the tendency is to strenghten nations not to demolish it. Iraq for example, imagine yourself as an Iraqi for awhile. would you trust another nation who invades your country, bombing key cities, killing hundreds of thousands, destroying your national economy, and taking over your key industries? i don’t think so. i hope not. nations arose not as an ideological thing, iti is dictated by economy. and all else just follows.
Your exchanges, gentlemen, are breathtaking. George W. is so out of this league.
SOG knives…
Interesting ideas… I wonder how the Hollywood media would portray this?…