(Re)framing power in the globalizing world

These new twists are, of course, difficult to grapple with: our argument above that there are
fundamental connections between past and present forms of social relations may inadvertently gloss
over equally fundamental shifts in power structures in the postcolonial era brought about by
concentrations of capital and transnational alliances of the powerful.

The power of English

According to Kachru (1986b), the power of English can be seen through its range' and depth'.
The range English refers to the totality of functions which it has acquired as it spread around the globe.
lts depth refers to the amount of societal penetration it has achieved as it moved from the Inner Circle to
the other circles. Although difficult to assess, depth can be gleaned through the pluricentricity of English
and the development of varieties within an educated variety in the Outer Circle.

The case of Philippine English

Issuing from the paradigm of WE, Philippine English is incriminated in a similar discourse of
postcoloniality. In fact, years before Kachrus groundbreaking work (1986a), Gonzalez (1976) had already
conceptualized the unique variety of English in the Philippines as an assertion of self-identification and
(linguistic) freedom which would indigenize the content of English language materials in the country;
Filipinos have started recreating the English language, a case of linguistic emancipation which is parallel
with economic and cultural emancipation. Similarly, Bautista's (1997) edited hook,
English Is an Asian Language, which features the works of Kachru and some prominent Filipino
applied linguists and sociolinguists, also works within questions of ownership, writing hack', and related
issues in Philippine English' and other Englishes.

Conclusion
The main arguments in this chapter are not new since a number of scholars around the globe
have voiced similar sentiments as well. For example, the politics of hybridity (apart from postcolonial
work on this concept, of course) in relation to the power of English in the world today has been
discussed animatedly, for example in an exchange between Rajagopalan (1999a; 1999b) and Canagarajah
(1999a). The postcolonial politics of knowledge production and consumption in academic writing has
been vigorously pursued by Canagarajah (2002), which, in turn, has been vigorously challenged by
Kandiah (2005). Likewise, the politics of equality of languages and varieties of a language has been raised
in various theoretical and disciplinal contexts as well (eg. Mazrui, 1998; Blommaert, 2001; Hymes, 1985).
In the case of the pitfalls of postcolonial theorizing, there is immense work on this matter as well (cg.
Ahmad, 1992; Dirlik, 1994; Shohat, 1992; San Juan, 1998; Goss, 1996: Friedman, 2003). What this
chapter hopes to contribute is to shed light on some political questions that-accrue to the paradigm of
WE. Some work has been done on this matter as well (see Parakrama, 1995; Holborow, 1999;
Canagarajah, 19991); Pennycook, 2003), but this chapter locates its critique within the pitfalls of WE's
own (postcolonial) discourse itself, of course by drawing on class-oriented questions which some earlier
work has done.

5: When I was a child I spake as a child:

Reflecting on the limits of a nationalist language
policy
Introduction
This essay examines the limits of the nationalist language policy in the Philippines which is aimed
at dislodging English from its privileged position in the controlling linguistic domains. Following the
suspect adoption of Filipino (aka. Tagalog) as national language in the 1937 Constitution, the
Philippines has witnessed a resurgence of nationalist rhetoric in defense of the privileging of one of the
countrys more than eighty languages as the de jure lingua franca To the extent that English in the
Philippines has evolved into a distinct variety, the essay advocates its institution as sole official language
of the country, even as it urges the maintenance of the vernaculars, including Tagalog, as integral pan of
the Filipino peoples multicultural heritage. Unlike Tagalog, which is viewed with skepticism by other
ethnolinguistic groups, Philippine English has established itself as an indispensable medium of social and
intellectual exchange and a legitimate vehicle of the Filipino people's vision.

The historical background

The Philippines is an archipelago that consists of some 7,100 islands and boasts more than
eighty languages. That the Filipinos need a language in which to communicate with one another is an
imperative recognized by everybody. The first attempt to formulate linguistic policy came at the height of
the Philippine war of independence from Spain, which coincided with the Spanish-American War. The so
called Malolos Constitution of 1898 spelled out a provisory language policy that adopted Spanish as
official language of the country, even as it provided for the optional use of languages spoken in the
Philippines' (1899 Constitution, Title XIV, Article 93). The Philippines, of course, did not become
independent in the aftermath of that war but was sold by Spain to the USA. The new colonizers, in turn,
promptly implemented their own agenda, which included the teaching of English, its use as medium of
instruction, and its adoption in other public domains, particularly in government, commerce, and trade.
When the status of the colony was changed into that of a commonwealth in 1935, the Philippines
drafted a new constitution which provided for the continued use of English and Spanish as official
languages while Congress [took] steps toward the development and adoption of a common national
language based on one of the existing native languages' (1935 Constitution, Article XIV, Section 3). This
marked the birth of the idea of a national language that was expected to unify Filipinos after they
received their independence from USA in 1945.

Nationalism and the national language question

As already alluded to, historical developments have twice forced a foreign language down the
Filipinos' throats, and the atrocities committed by the foreign powers that subjugated the country in
different periods of its history have been etched in the Filipinos' collective psyche. The desire to discard
the linguistic legacies of colonialism and to promote the indigenous languages in their stead has
therefore been part and parcel of the Filipinos' struggle for freedom itself. The struggle to free the
country from the shackles of colonial rule has also been a struggle to free the minds of the people from
their enslavement to foreign languages. As defensible as the intention is, it is not a license to skirt the
issues of ethnolinguistic diversity. In spite of what In spite of what nationalists would want everyone to
believe, the Filipinos did not become a nation when they finally received their independence from the
USA in 1946 (or, for that matter, when they revolted against Spain in 1896). On Independence Day, they
were to a large extent, as diverse as the Spanish colonizers had found them in 1521. Their common
experience of exploitation and injustice under the Spanish, the Americans, and for a brief period the
Japanese notwithstanding, the. Filipinos have remained culturally distinct from one another, speaking a
variety of languages, practicing a number of religions, and observing different customs and traditions.
Allegiance to the now independent republic demands a high degree of transcendence of ethnolinguistic
boundaries, but not their permanent erasure. The clamor tor a national language is therefore nothing
more than wishful thinking. Like the Philippine flag, national anthem, national costume, and so on, the
national language is a mere symbol that begs the question of the existence of a Filipino nation.

Linguistic imperialism

This grand design is elaborated on by Robert Phillipson in his comprehensive work Linguistic
Imperialism (1992), which focuses on the dramatic spread of English especially in the last century. The
book sets out to expose the ideological underpinnings of English Language Teaching (ELT) and examines
the roles of the various institutions implicated in a linguistic power play with clear Manichaean poles. On
the one hand, there is the essentialized Centre' (suggested by the use of the capital letter), which
consists primarily of the UK and the USA and institutions that are more or less affiliated with them,
including the US information Agency, the British Council, the Peace Corps, the Rockefeller Foundation,
the lMF, the World Bank, Hollywood, the Internet, etc. The 'Centre', the book argues, advances its own
interests through financial aid and the export of material and human resources. On the other hand,
there is the 'Periphery (also capitalized and singular), which consists mainly of former colonies that are
unable to distinguish what is good for them and what is not. The 'Periphery thus ends up infused with
the norms and values of the 'Centre and languishing in a state of protracted cultural dependence. This,
in turn, is a precondition for the economic exploitation and domination of the Periphery by the Centre.
To the extent that Phillipson employs his theoretical framework to describe both the colonial and the
neocolonial situations, one gets the impression that linguistic imperialism is an invulnerably closed
system that is able to travel through time and across geographic space unchallenged and, indeed,
unchanged. Except that history has shown time and again that any assertion of dominance is bound to
elicit some form of resistance.

The development of Philippine English

Fortunately, there has never been a dearth of Filipino scholars that have adopted a more sober
view of the persistent popularity of English in the Philippines. They recognize English as an indispensable
medium of local exchange and appreciate its status as language of wider communication that enables
them to participate in transnational knowledge production as active agents and not simply as objects of
various theorizing.

Philippine literature in English

For his part, Luis H. Francia uses a more combative language to underline the fact that Filipino
writers in the English language are engaged in a counter-hegemonic resistance to the centers incursion
into the cultures of the peripheries: In a sense, many of our Filipino writers in English are engaged in the
literary equivalent of guerilla welfare, using the very same weapon that have been employed to foist
another set of foreign values upon a ravished nation, but now as part of an arsenal meant for conscious
self-determination and the unwieldy process of reclaiming psychic territory from the invader. (Francia,
1993: xiv)

The American standard and Philippine English

That Philippine literature in English has failed to develop a sizeable following outside academe is
unfortunate enough. The problem is, however, aggravated by an improper diagnosis that puts the blame
squarely on the language of choice. When Arnold Molina Azurin remarks that English has failed to
become the medium of an authentic cultural efflorescence in the [Philippines] and that it has served
instead as sort of umbilical cord between the creative minds [in the Philippines] and Mother America'
(Azurin, 1995: 167), he is ignoring the accomplishment of generations of Filipino writers who have
claimed the English language as a legitimate vehicle of their own artistic visions. Coming two decades
after Miguel Bernads famous castigation of Philippine English-language literature as perpetually
inchoate' (Bernard, 1961: 100), Azurin's statement is indeed an anachronism that no longer reflects the
complexity of the present situation. At the core of such criticism are two fallacious notions: (1) the
chosen code, being alien to the Philippines, will never be able to fully express or depict the prevailing
conditions in the country and the aspirations of its people, and (2) should they insist on using English,
Filipinos will have to subscribe to either the American or British standard.

Inequality and English

More serious than the allegation that English can never he made adequate to describe.
Philippine realities is the charge that English stratifies society, with English speakers forming an elite that
enjoys a monopoly of material rewards and in the process alienating themselves from the so-called
masses. While it is true that Americans, in the early years of colonization, systematically implemented a
program of training and development for a select group of Filipinos that would assist them in the
gargantuan task of administering their newly acquired territory, and while it can also be argued that
those Filipinos who studied in the USA and mastered the English language eventually occupied key
positions not only in government but in the economy of the country as well, blaming social inequity in
the Philippines on English is way too convenient and dangerous. For one thing, it absolves Filipinos of
their own culpability in the matter. Certainly the deplorable quality of public education, the inegalitarian
distribution of land, the limited employment opportunities, the rampant corruption in government and
civil service, and the general perversion of democratic institutions are the real root of the problem.
Replacing English with Tagalog, as nationalists have been insisting on, is not going to eliminate the
problem. Those who already enjoy a monopoly of material resources will continue to dominate
Philippine society, as they are the ones who can and will continue to afford the expensive high-quality
education and language training offered mostly by private institutions. Meanwhile, native speakers of
Tagalog will find themselves enjoying undue advantage in addition to their geographic proximity to the
center of power. This, in turn could incite feelings of envy if not enmity from other ethnolinguistic groups
and exacerbate the problem. The conflicts in the The conflicts in the Balkans, Central Africa, and
Indonesia in the recent past should remind everybody of the disagreeable consequences of nationalist
policies that place certain ethnolingnistic groups at a disadvantage. The Philippines is well advised to
steer clear of policies that could translate into chauvinism, interethnic animosity, and open violence. The
only viable solution is to make high-quality education available and accessible to the vast majority of the
population. That means more schools, better infrastructure, more attractive compensation and training
programs for teachers, and a general reevaluation of school curricula and education policies. These are
the real issues; these are the real challenges.

Conclusion

It is high time that the Philippine government re-examined its language policy and admitted that
its aim to dislodge English from its privileged position in the controlling linguistic domains and make
Tagalog the sole official language is a costly and divisive project, devoid of any merit save perhaps for the
symbolic triumph of ridding the Philippines of another colonial legacy. Instead of waxing Romantic in
anticipation of the day Filipinos would speak one indigenous language, nationalists are better off
acknowledging that the culture of the Philippines is 'the sum total of different ethnicities, linguistic
backgrounds, and foreign influences The integrity of Philippine society is not necessarily guaranteed by
language unity, let alone by the imposition of one indigenous language which is viewed with skepticism
by other ethnolinguistic groups (Hidalgo, 19987 27-8; A. Gonzalez, 1991: 12). A more pragmatic
alternative is the adoption of a two-pronged strategy that enhances the surviving indigenous languages
in the country, even as it pushes for Philippine English as the primary means of communication among
the different ethnolinguistic groups and as a legitimate vehicle for their visions. The nationalists'
objection to English is a matter of pride - false pride. More than half a century alter the Philippines
claimed its independence from the USA, they are still wailing over the legacies of colonialism. N. V. M.
Gonzalez put his linger on the problem as early as the mid-1970s when he admonished detractors of the
English language in the Philippines to "ask whether ... the despair is real or only an expression of ... self-
flagellation' (1976; 424). It is one thing to be critical and to resist attempts to hold up one nation, race, or
belief as worthy of emulation, or promote inegalitarian relations between the sexes or among different
social classes. It is an entirely different matter to wallow in cultural insecurity and nationalistic paranoia.
Filipino nationalists will be doing themselves a huge favor by put[ting] away [their] childish things.

6: Taglish, or the phantom power of the lingua

franca
Introduction
In her celebrated novel, Dogeaters, the Filipina-American mestiza writer JessicaHagedorn begins
with a memory of watching a Hollywood movie in a Manila theater in the 1950s. She evokes the
pleasures of anonymous looking amid the intimate presence of foreign images and unknown bodies:
1956. The air-conditioned darkness of the Avenue Theater smells of flowery pomade, sugary
chocolates, cigarette smoke and sweat. All That Heaven Allows' is playing in Cinemascope and
'Technicolor. Starring Jane Wyman as the rich widow, Rock Hudson as the handsome young gardener, and
Agnes Moorehead as Jane's faithful friend, the movie also features the unsung starlet Gloria Talbot as
Jane's spoiled teenage daughter, a feisty brunette with catlike features and an innocent ponytail ...
Huddled with our chaperone Lorenza, my cousin Pucha Gonzaga and I sit enthralled in the upper section
of the balcony in Manila's Finest! First Run! English Movies Only! theater, ignoring the furtive lovers
stealing noisy kisses in the pitch-black darkness all around us.
Jane Wymans soft putty face. Rock Hudson's singular, pitying expression. Flared skirts, wide
cinch belts, prim white blouses, a single strand of delicate blue-white pearls. Thick penciled eyebrows
and blood red vampire lips; the virgin pastel-pink cashmere cardigan draped over Gloria Talbott's
shoulders. Cousin Pucha and l are impressed by her brash style; we gasp at Gloria's cool indifference, the
offhand way she treats her grieving mother. Her casual arrogance seems inherently American, modern
and enviable. (1990: 3-4)

Mestiza envy

To understand the logic of this envy of and for mestizaness, it is useful to recall that in the
Filipino historical imagination, the mestizo/a has enjoyed a privileged position associated with economic
wealth, political influence, and cultural hegemony. Unlike the United States, but more like Latin America,
mestizoness in the Philippines has implied, at least since the nineteenth century, a certain proximity to
the sources of colonial power To occupy the position of mestizo/a is to invoke the legacy of the
ilustrados, the generation of mostly mixed-nice, Spanish-speaking, university-educated nationalists, from
the Chinese mestizo Jose Rizal to the Spanish mestizo Manuel Quezon both credited with founding the
dominant fictions of Filipino nationhood. Betwixt and between languages and historical sensibilities,
mestizoness thus connotes a surplus of meanings as that which conjures the transition from the colonial
to the national indeed, as the recurring embodiment of that transition.
Bakya and the prospects of overhearing
The link between mestizoness and Taglish might be better understood with reference to the
historical workings of a hierarchy languages in the Philippines. English as the legacy of US colonialism as
well as postwar neo-colonial relations has functioned as the language of higher education and, until the
mid-1970s, the dominant medium of instruction in public and private schools. Its use is associated with
the elite circles of multinational corporations, the diplomatic corps, the tourist industry, overseas labor
recruitment, metropolitan newspapers of record, and the medical and legal professions; it is the chief
official language of the, legislative, judicial, and other policy-making bodies of the state, And English is, of
course, the, language of foreign movies, mostly from the United States. which continue to dominate the
countrys film market.

Ikabod and the politics of Taglish

That Taglish could be used for political purposes apart from those of reproducing social hierarchy
proved to be the case by the mid-1980s. In the context of the Marcos dictatorship, where the publishing
and broadcasting industries had come under either direct control or close scrutiny of the state, the
ironizing effects of Taglish proved to be a rich and popular resource for marking oneself off from the
regime. Because it is a kind of speech that can signal ones ability to overhear and see anonymously,
Taglish became the preferred idiom of popular dissent. Especially in the period following the
assassination of Benigno Ninoy' Aquino in 1983 and culminating in the People Power Revolt of 1986,
urban discourse critical of the Marcoses took the form of puns,jokes, and assorted wordplay on the
regime's pronouncements and the names of its leaders. Elsewhere, l have discussed the explosion of
political humor during this period (Rafael, 1986). What is worth noting here is the role of Taglish in
furnishing the means for evading the pressures of the linguistic hierarchy that, at certain points,
broached the possibility of reconfiguring the social order.

Movies and the Iingua franca

In the aftermath of the EDSA revolt and initial euphoria surrounding the Cory Aquino presidency,
the forces of a pre-martial law oligarchy eventually renowned themselves. Alter halfhearted
negotiations, Aquino owned swiftly to brutally repress the Left, especially through the use of vigilante
death squads, while repulsing and finally containing the right-wing forces of the military by putting down
several coup attempts. Subsequent national and local election have resulted in the restoration of what
Benedict Anderson (1995) has referred to as cacique democracy in the Philippines. Concurrently, there
has emerged a climate of cultural conservatism most evident in the reassertion of Catholic moralism
under Sin and Aquino, the spread of Protestant fundamentalism, particularly among younger members
of the middle class, and the rehabilitation of the Marcoses, both the living and dead, culminating in their
return to the fold of Manila's elite circles within the first year of Fidel Ramos's term. A flurry of natural
disasters from floods to the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo, coinciding with the dismantling of the Clark and
Subic military bases, the breakdown of energy-generating infrastructures leading to frequent and
massive brownouts, and the mounting indebtedness to the World Bank and IMF, have all led to further
shrinking of economic prospects for many Filipinos, driving hundreds of thousands to seek overseas
employment so that the export of labor, mostly female, now constitutes the largest source of dollar
revenues for the country.

Conclusion
Taglish in contemporary movies, then, functions to domesticate the crowd into consumers
receptive to the alternating invocation and revocation of linguistic hierarchy. Movies routinize the shock
of hearing and speaking otherwise. In consuming suc h films, audiences buy into the pleasures of
anonymous hearing and seeing. But in doing so they give in to the reified version of anonymity. That is,
they experience it in the mode of envy for those who appear most fluent in Taglish yet, unlike the baklas
or bakyas, are capable of ordering its circulation: the movie star. Indeed. Filipino films would never
survive financially without well-known names. The sight of stars is avidly awaited in networks of publicity
such as gossip sheets, personal appearances, talk shows, and even the occasional political scandal. It is
the stars who become the focus of audience interests, and movies are vehicles for anticipating their
recurring appearances.