means dealing with ourselves also. Many things Filipinos and those shaped by Filipino culture do not like about him or like about him is what they are themselves – openly or secretly. Author Jessica Zafra has defined Duterte very clearly as the Filipino id, also called the unconscious by more modern psychologists. Author Ninotchka Rosca has said that Duterte is a mirage – you see what you want to see. Or could it be that he is a psychological inkblot test? Professor of history Xiao Chua has said that one positive effect of Duterte is that he himself curses less now. He is self-aware.
Self-awareness or mindfulness is seen by modern psychologists as the way to true learning. This can apply to people as individuals or as groups I think. When Germany became aware of its own nastiness after the war, true change started. Denial was the first reaction for two decades, until the 68er movement forced the generation of their parents to think about their role in the past. Denial about the major role of the middle class that ousted Marcos in 1986 in putting him in power caused history books to be thin on his era – the almost rise of his son started a painful review.
Yet the classic against Marcos, Primitivo Mijares’ “Conjugal Dictatorship”, has a scene where some politicians who did not like Imelda made ways to watch her on the toilet to have a laugh about her. Hardly better than the male journalists who laughed when Duterte whistled at a female journalist recently – only to be confronted harshly soon after by another female journalist (link):
Pia: So, Sir, you’re saying you were not whistling at Mariz during the time she asked her question?
Duterte: Of course not. That is, ano, objective, or is it subjective? Subjective?
Pia: No, Sir, because she was asking.
Duterte: You are guessing.
Pia: No, no, no, Sir. I’m not guessing. Because she was asking a question, and the question was directed at you, and your reply to her was a whistle. So unless you clarified that you were talking to someone else–
Duterte: I was exasperated by the question. Whistling is not a sexual thing (whistles again, then mumbles)…Wala nang hinto kundi magtanong.
Pia: Sir, for you it might not be sexual, but to others it might. So the world does not revolve around your definition.
Now how often have we who are Filipinos, Pinoys or shaped by the Philippines behaved as if things or the definition of things revolved around our way of seeing them? How self-centered are we? How often are we 100%ers who think our way is the only right one? How often do we act dictatorial? How often do we curse? How often do we care little about how what we do affects the rest of society or nature? How often have we resorted to intimidation, diversion and other tactics including snobbery when we felt superior? Or attacking savagely when we felt inferior for some reason?
Lots of questions. This is not just about Duterte – this is about all of us. Behind the clean facade of centuries of colonialism and after, so many of us have rotted inside – which is very bad because:
Psychologist Robert Gerzon said, “Socrates believed that the purpose of human life was personal and spiritual growth. We are unable to grow toward greater understanding of our true nature unless we take the time to examine and reflect upon our life. Examining our life reveals patterns of behavior. Deeper contemplation yields understanding of the subconscious programming, the powerful mental software that runs our life. Unless we become aware of these patterns, much of our life is unconscious repetition.” (link)
It is known that many alcoholics deny being alcoholics, and only can kick the habit when they realize what they are. Duterte made some people – I know some more – realize they curse too much. Change indeed came for them because they reduced it. Much of what Filipinos do is habit and unconscious, living on auto-pilot. To “become conscious” is equated with embarrassment. WHY?
Irineo B. R. Salazar, München, 3 June 2016