Into a Promenade of Genders:

A nonexpert gender-portrayal critique on "This Guy's In Love With You, Mare"

by Cheeno Marlo Sayuno

We live in an era where fighting for rights has always been everyone's battle. We would never allow others to violate our rights for expression and all the other things just because of our class, age, or gender. For instance, the feminism began when female theorists started criticizing how the society treats women, that is, an object to men. They began deconstructing literature and art and how these representations favor males. They looked into the history and began problematizing the fact that women are less important than men. They believe that women have power as well and there should be equality. The society then started accepting female rights, and now, both genders can vote, run for positions, and do the same jobs.

Then, LGBT rights became the next thing to fight for. While men and women are equal, the LGBT community would like to point out that they are part of these equating society of the two genders. They should have their share of the societal respect. Although still in the process, these people are being accepted by the society because they are being understood and that they even do well in their crafts, becoming productive and intellectual members of the society.

In order for the LGBT people to be understood and accepted more, I believe that media would have a great share of influence. Thus, their portrayal in media forms should regard them with respect, no matter the form of entertainment or the genre used. While, of course, we understand that comedy only wants us to laugh, of course, whatever portrayal is shown in comedy films, especially on these still partly unaccepted genders, would have a bearing, no matter how big or small, to the community.

Star Cinema's "This Guy's In Love With You, Mare" stars the phenomenal Vice Ganda, along with Toni Gonzaga and Luis Manzano. This film shows a spectacle of gender and how each of the representative gender is portrayed. The story revolves on Lester (Vice), who was left by then-lover Mike (Manzano), as he tries to court Gemma (Gonzaga), Mike's fiancee, in order to make the two break up for him to have Mike again. 

Good Points

1. For the record, this film is far better than previous Vice Ganda films. While "Praybeyt Benjamin" was effective in the sense that it was meant to be a comedy film and it did make us laugh, "This Guy's In Love With You, Mare" had more substance and sense when it comes to the plot, although Praybeyt had funnier antics. There are a lot of funny scenes, and still, the character buildup and the central storyline were still taken into consideration. 

2. The acting of the main characters were really promising. The performance of Toni Gonzaga was really commendable. She was able to deliver in the funny scenes, and her more serious scenes were really moving. Vice Ganda was also commendable because, well, aside from her humor that would really make your stomach hurt, he was able to portray his masculinity without trying too hard. There are gay comedians who, when trying to portray masculinity, were still obviously doing it for the sake of entertainment that their being feminine was still very much obvious. Vice Ganda's male counterpart was seriously done without mustache and all, and he was great at that. He didn't need props just to act as a male despite his real gender, while of course still maintaining the entertainment factor. The cast ensemble, especially Buboy Garovillo and Tessie Tomas, complemented with the main characters' performances.

3. The highlight on Aegis and April Boy Regino is something that we would also have to appreciate. While people may look into it as part of the ridicule, I believe that it is something about appreciating and looking back at the classics that were already part of our rich OPM history. These musical performers are already institutions in the industry, and it was good that they were treated well in the story, that is, as stars that they will always be.

Not-So-Good Points

1. While rich families indeed have a tendency to be cruel to people of lower class, the portrayal of Gemma's rich family does not exemplify the Filipino ways. If you have watched the film, you would have seen the parts where Mike, a visitor, was not given a seat at the dining table. By nature, Filipinos are particularly hospitable to visitors. Although there were hints that Gemma's parents do not like Mike to be Gemma's husband and despite the fact that this was done for comedy, it was unnatural for Filipino families to do that. They would still treat the visitor properly. 

2. While Mike's family was portrayed well and was a representation of how poor families are, the storyline presents the family's acceptance of the culture of the gay people being the source of money. However, Mike's father was supportive but warned Mike of the consequences, which is something positive because it shows fraternal support.

3. The film's plot was patriarchal, with Mike being the center. There was less empowerment on female and gay characters, as they were very much dependent on the male character. This is discussed below.

On Queers and Females (that are portrayed not so good)

1. The film, as mentioned earlier, portrayed women as being too much dependent on men. Gemma, albeit powerful in the parts where Mike and even Lester were apologetic because she stood by her decision, was shown as a weak character, too much affected by how the male characters played on her. Also, in the part where Mike would jump into a river (which wasn't that high for a suicide), Gemma showed submission to power so that Mike would not jump. This is because of love, but still, it could be deconstructed as the female submitting herself to the male, doing what the male character wants.

2. Another scene that does not favor feminism is the earlier part where the bride who was possibly left by her groom jumped into the river. It shows weakness of females and their being too much affected by males. It would hurt, of course, to be left, but committing suicide just because of that is weakness in the part of the female, giving up life that easy because of the male.

3. The acceptance to gay/male relationship was shown in the film. However, it was shown in such a way that the gay character was a provider to the male. For me, showing that and embracing that kind of relationship is not something that could help in uplifting the status of our LGBT countrymen. It might be true, but to promote that kind of relationship on the big screen, humor or not, would only lead to gay people being continually treated that way. Although Mike was shown to have passion for Lester, there was still the obsession of the male to the material things, which the gay character used to have the male. Gay people, I believe, would want to be treated with love, without the material things being used to lure their partner into loving them, although the society, in one way or another, mirrors that. There wasn't a promotion to the alteration of that culture.

4. Moreover, the gay character was portrayed as pathetic. Although the film revolves around that and that the film ended with the gay's acceptance, it was pathetic in the sense that the gay was too desperate that he did grave measures to have the male back. It was less empowering on his part and the gender that he represents.

Media are instrumental to the honing of a society and the culture that it carries. We might not see the effect directly and real time, but there would be an effect. If we portray oppressed members of the society in a way that could lead to them being more suppressed than they already are, it would not do much good for them. It won't help and would even have grave effects that would not favor them. I know that the film in question is an entertainment film meant to make people laugh, but we also have to consider how, despite its being a comedy film that people should not take too seriously, could help in shaping the society where we thrive in. People have a tendency to be influenced too easily especially by media. Let us use that opportunity on a positive note.

Typewriter and Mixtapes:

Perks of Being a Wallflower and the nostalgia that comes along
by Cheeno Marlo Sayuno

We accept the love we think we deserve.

The movie adaptation of Stephen Chbosky’s “Perks of Being a Wallflower” is a hard subject for a film review. The thing is, with Chbosky being the the screenwriter and director of the movie, the book was most likely followed. It is overall a good movie because the book is a good book that sends your emotion into a roller coaster ride, making you inspired then confused then hopeful then sympathetic then loved then nostalgic. It affects the reader, and if a book does so, then it is somehow a good one.

The only problem we usually encounter in book-adapted films is the tendency to not follow the major story line of the book. Except for very minor changes, it wasn’t at all this book’s problem (e.g., the part where Charlie was to read to everyone the poem was cut. I was expecting it to be a moment for him. Also, his siblings’ story lines were cut short, which was forgivable).

Chbosky tried as much as he can to incorporate a lot of parts from the book. His trick was the transitions that was creatively executed while moving through the story.

If you have read the book and felt goosebumps and nostalgia that comes from somewhere deep, you would feel in the movie just the same thing. In “Hunger Games,” the book was strictly followed in the film, but since I have read the book, the film was just OK for me. Good, it followed the book. Nothing more. But in “Perks of Being a Wallflower,” even if I have already read the book, I felt the emotion all over again. Thus, the movie was effective in itself that it doesn’t rely much on the book to induce the same effect. OK, you like the story, but it is just not the story that made you like it. You like the movie not because it was well played and did not try on adding more than what it is in the book or completely changing major story lines. You would like the film because it affects you. It affects you deep within.

The acting of Logan Lerman was very commendable because he embodied who Charlie is. He was naturally awkward and was outrageous when he had to act so, i.e., when high. He speaks intellectually like Charlie. There might be some parts where Lerman is acting out of character that he becomes more than what Charlie should be, but we can charge this to Charlie’s development as a character.

The portrayal of Sam was exactly how I saw her in the book (although Emma Watson’s major problem, if any, would be her accent that is still British in nature).

There are a lot of great scenes that it would be hard to choose. I like the parts when Charlie was starting to have his visions of Aunt Helen again after he sent San off. He was really in his moment and the scene was given justice, matching the camera level play and all the edits.

In the end, the film adaptation reminded me of a lot of things that we would learn from the book. We ought to participate in the world in front of us. If we don’t, we would sink into the background and no one will notice us. Love comes in packages that we least expect, but the love we give is not necessarily what will be received. We might think that we are doing things for the one we love by just letting them be happy, even when it means that you have to get out of the picture, but sometimes, we have to fight for our love if that’s what we really want. We have to treasure the moments that we have, no matter how big or small, because when they’re gone, we can never have them back except for the memories that we ought to keep close in our heart.

Above all, friendship and love in any degree are things that we should share with others. Do not treat others negatively just because of petty things, maybe because of what you hear from other people or what is seen in the outside. Know them deep inside, because we will never know what we are missing.

READ THE CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT FIRST:

A title that should speak for itself so that we can do more than just rant 
By Cheeno Marlo Sayuno 


The dark age of the Philippine cybersphere, they say, has come.

Netizens, bloggers, tweeps, and everybody who lurks in the Internet were shook by this quake brought about by the Cybercrime Prevention Act (CCPA) of 2012, a nightmare we never thought would take shape in reality. While the people of the United States were able to thwart the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), we Filipinos are unfortunate to be shackled with this dreadful act that would definitely bring forth changes that we never imagined possible.

BACKGROUNDER

The CCPA (Republic Act No. 10175) is “an act defining cybercrime, providing for the prevention, investigation, suppression, and the imposition of penalties.” It encompasses various Internet issues that have been problematic since time immemorial. It addresses the issues of cybersex, identity theft, child pornography, forgery, and even libel.

While I am urging you to read the whole act for yourself and chew every bit of it with understanding, I would mention some of the provisions in the law. With the implementation of this act today, cyber squatting will be illegal. You are not supposed to use the name of another as your domain name. You are not allowed to use a domain name that is “similar, identical, or confusingly similar to an existing trademark.” You are not allowed to use URLs that are “acquired without right or with intellectual property interests in it.”

Say goodbye to your cam-to-cam days. Cybersex will be rightfully punished. The police will have the right to access your recorded sessions. With that, say goodbye to your right of privacy. The police and the law-implementing body on CCPA, who will be receiving Php 50M annually toward the implemetation of this act, will have all the right to access your most personal information.

Libel in traditional forms of media is punishable. Libel in the Internet will have heavier punishment than that. If you usually receive advertisements in your mobile phone and emails, you can sue them. Downloading, uploading, and posting of contents that are not yours are punishable as well.

While the CCPA has good intentions, unfortunately, some of the provisions are abridging other laws, most especially on the freedom of expression. The United Nations is suggesting that we decriminalize libel, since it somehow conflicts with freedom of expression and access to information. Now, we are taking the case of libel into a grander platform, that is, the Internet.

ACTUAL POINT

If you would scroll down your dashboards, timelines, and newsfeeds, you would notice how they are all pestered with rants on the CCPA. While there is something to protest about this, somehow, the problem is that people are blabbing their hate without reading first the whole act. How can we have sound judgment and how can we express ourselves better if we don’t really know what is actually happening? For one, I am not really inclined with laws and current affairs and stuff, and I know that a lot of people find reading about these things boring because that is exactly how I feel. But sometimes, we have to try researching first if we want to rant about how much we hate things. It is not good to express opinions that are full of hate but contain nothing more than the actual hate.

The problem is, when we don’t know much about the issue, we tend to bark at the wrong tree and address the wrong problems. We try to make it appear as if we are very opinionated and we say the right things, but others will know that you’re doing the exact opposite. Worse, if we are influential enough to make people believe in what we say and what we are saying is actually wrong, imagine what problems it could bring. People are being misinformed because those who have the power and the influence to inform others are doing it wrong.

Another thing that made me personally sad about is when I saw this person post about his being not a Filipino anymore, given that the CCPA has already been implemented. Come on! So, if the Filipino government is taking away from its people  their rights, is that enough reason to renounce your being part of this country? Joke or not, it is saddening how people could actually say that. Whatever happens,  however the government treats us, I think it is unfair to let go of our nationalism and our being Filipinos. We can’t give up just like that.

Thus, with all things said and with our freedom to express continually being limited and censored, I wish us all the best. I wish that we get grounded to our stand and beliefs. I wish that, before we fight, we learn first the rules and the battlefield. I wish that we don’t just rant but examine things first, so that we can be more sound in our decisions and so that we can persuade more people to join our cause. I wish that we don’t give up. I wish that, instead of not becoming Filipinos, we feel more our blood so that we can be invigorated to join people who are fighting for our rights. We are the people of the nation. If there are no people to be ruled over, there would be no government to rule. Thus, we have power. We should, in moments like this, use it very very well.

Freedom!

TUMBLR TRAPPED IN THE POSTMODERN:

A brief non-expert critique on Tumblr and Postmodernism
by Cheeno Marlo Sayuno 

We were discussing postmodernism in yesterday's class. I don't know a lot about these -isms, but I understood that, when it comes to the postmodern, the mood is rather skeptic. We choose reality without measures. There are multiple conflicting ideas, and it seems chaotic because there is no sole truth in these ideas that we individually correct. Your truth can be true, but I have truths, too. And if your truth clashes mine, that's not my problem anymore.

Accoring to Jean Baudrillard, the high priest of postmodern culture, we have already lost contact of the real. We only live in simulations of reality, not the real real. We actively replace the real with a representation of it. A copy of a copy of a copy.

Without claiming expertise, I say that Tumblr is under the umbrella of postmodernity. Just like any community, we change as time goes by. Before, followers matter. Followers are usually the determining factor for Tumblr fame. But don't you notice that this idea has been overthrown by ourselves? Now, we reject the idea that followers determine your Tumblr status symbol and even hate people who worship this idea. In any -ism, it has been about a certain idea, and the transition is usually about overthrowing that certain idea. Just like what we do on Tumblr.

The loss of history and the reliving of it are also signs of postmodernity. If you would notice, those who have stayed on Tumblr for years would sometimes post about memories of, for example, the White Day meetup, or they would lament about how Tumblr used to be like this or that. Thus, Tumblr is not like that anymore and what has happened in the past will belong to history that is lost, relived and remade, but never the same again.

Another element that relates Tumblr to postmodernism is the conect of consumer society and "cool smile." Cool smile is similar to how endorsers smile and act like that the trend now is to eat this and use that product. It is an advertising strategy, yes. In Tumblr, it is tantamount to how those who are branded famous do activities and influence people to do the same. One blogger would create that four-panel photo of showing Korean, Japanese, Chinese, and Pinoy poses, and others would follow. One would read Fifty Shades of Grey, and when others see that people are reading it, they read the book, partly because they love reading, partly because of the influence of the posts people make about them. In a world where people fight just to fit in and be part of something, we all tend to follow what many do in order to belong.

Superficiality is also postmodern. You would probably know that Tumblr before was about blogging and how your posts arouse interest to other people. Now, with the advent of GPOY and TTH posts and others that relate to the superficial, people follow people more for their physical features and less for the sense and humor that they make in their posts. We are in the process of overthrowing the idea, but for the most part, this phenomenon is still evident. 

My fear is, in the continuous process of postmodernity in Tumblr, we would loss depth to the point that we don't think much anymore. It is a good thing to not problematize things and just enjoy, not thinking too much only to take you nowhere, but sometimes, too much of not thinking leads to senselessness and to the loss of meaning and appreciation of things for more than what they physically are.

With today's technological advancement, we cannot escape postmodenism. However, we can still make sense of the things that need to be taken seriously and not think much of little things that we should not make too much a big deal of. We just have to weigh them properly.

Living in the Mediapolis:
A Reaction to the Article Entitled “A Life Lived in Media” by Deuze et al.
by Cheeno Marlo Sayuno 

The recent devastation to the country brought about by the monsoon and the downpour of heavy rain that came along could have been a lot worse to deal with if not for media’s eminent and significant role in making our countrymen survive this calamity. From flash reports and round-the-clock updates to communicating to the public the need to prepare for the calamity and to help those in dire need, not only television but also the new media, i.e., the Internet, played vital roles in the transfer of messages in emergency situations. With that, indeed, communication has become faster with media.

However, Deuze et al., authors of the article “A Life Lived in Media,” believe that this is an age where human life does not go on with media coming alongside anymore. According to them, we live not with media but in media and our world, and the experience that we accumulate as we go on with life are famed by, mitigated through, and made immediate by media. For them, media, immersive, integrated, pervasive, and existing everywhere as they are, do not come as form of aid or add-on in our lives. In fact, we live in it. Our world has become a view of the world in media perspective under what the authors believe to be distinct terms in media generation, which are invisibility, creativity, selectivity, and sociability.

In trying to prove their claim, I conducted a survey among users of the blogging site Tumblr, where I asked them to list down five things that they cannot live without. Out of 60 respondents, 19 bloggers included the Internet or computer in their answers, 15 included cellphones, 9 included books, and 3 included Tumblr. All in all, 46 answers were media forms. Other top answers were food (39), water (19), God (18), family (17), and home (14).

In the said survey, it is fascinating that these respondents cannot imagine life without media and they are not even aware of it. This is referred to by Deuze et al. as the invisibility of media. Media become invisible when they remix their properties. For one, they include various options in one device to cater the needs of consumers that users are not aware that they are already using media in, for example, checking the time on their mobile phones or playing music on their personal computers. They also become invisible to us either by being too big that they become part of the background or environment that we live in or by being too small and hidden that we do not realize that they exist. With this invisibility, Deuze et al. believes that they accumulate power, which lies in their influence as they automate, augment, and organize our daily life without us being completely aware of it.

Creativity is also embodied in media in a sense that media offers us a variety of ways to defy cultural and spatial boundaries. How, through one button, we can talk to people from the other side of the globe, how we can send messages in a few clicks, and how we can see each other despite distance are all products of media’s attempt to create innovations for consumers.

It is through media that information is found, created, gathered, selected, edited, disseminated, and redistributed. Therefore, with a life lived in media being a kind where there is a creative outlook on one’s world, media workers create ways toward the convergence on media and the aspects of life, as what Deuze et al. further claim. At first, it was just the voice that seems natural when using media since you can actually hear the message from the person who delivered it, and then, there is the advent of imaging and webcams that even transports the image of the person talking in real time. Now, the sense of touch has been delved into, with touch screens, and even actual movements in gaming such as that in Wii.

A life in media is also creative enough that we can be connected and isolated at the same time in it. To do that, according to Deuze et al., each of us is required to rely on our own creativity to make something out of life. When we see texts around us, we give meaning to them and we try to make sense out of them, but in media, we do not just give them meaning. We also symbolically produce them, the way television dramas and films create a representation of everyday lives, the way news articles give us the view of everyday happenstances, the way books tell us about history, and the way social networks expose the minds of people in the open.

Selectivity in media, on the other hand, is on how the industry and the state use the power of media. Those who can control media use it to sell something, make the audience believe in a certain advocacy, or drive them into a certain action that will favor the creator of the message. With all of us being exposed to media in its array of forms, media workers can somehow project how one message can reach its target recipient. There is selective exposure to the messages conveyed through media so that the aim shall be served. Media workers can control how to make housewives buy a certain household product or even how to drive citizens to believe that a certain law should be rightfully passed to Congress. Control of media is evidently important with how they carefully select who gets what messages.

In my opinion, however, one of the most essential parameters that media have that paved way into its further penetration into the lives of men is its sociability factor. It is through media that we get to communicate to people despite distance and time constraints. Media made the unreachable reachable and the long wait for replies short enough that it is as if we are talking face to face. Media had also presented to us a virtual space where we can meet old acquaintances and even create new ones. They have even created a virtual world within our world, where we can create an identity of our choice. And with a bunch of people who love escaping and being part of something, media have hit us at the right soft spot.

Despite the anonymity and the creation of a virtual self that media, particularly the Internet, offer, as what Deuze et al. claim, the people of today generally tend to feel that selectively sharing private information is part of participating in the public realm of social media. Facebook, for instance, offers us options to share personal information, and we were convinced that nothing is wrong with that since everybody is into it. Twitter and Foursquare offer us a space to say where we are and what we do and let the world see that. In spite of this generation of divulging personal information that people may use for your favor and against you, we can still but control who can see them, i.e., by having the power to choose who to add and who to accept as friends, and we may or may not provide true information because no one would even verify the truth in what we provide; thus, we become public at one point and private at the same time, controlling how much we publicize and how much we keep in private.

Deuze et al. has proven through the aforementioned terms that, in a world of globalization and technological advancement, we do not live with media anymore. We live in media; we thrive in its walls and we can never get out of it. In addition, to be able to see the reality where we used to live in, we have to go through media. We have to get through their walls before we actually see the real world.

While it is true that media are part of man’s life and combat for survival, I would still like to believe that we do not live in media. The Media Dependency Theory by Ball-Rokeach and DeFleur states that, the more dependent an individual is on the media for having his or her needs fulfilled, the more important the media will be to that person; however, this is possible if we are constantly exposed to media. We are dependent in media because they are inevitably present around us; take them away, and we still can survive. We still live in reality without media penetrating in it and claiming to be that world. The problem is that people are either not aware or not responsible enough to control media instead of being controlled by them. Thus, it is but important for people to be oriented about media awareness to identify how much of media do we need and not need anymore and how much influence it should give us.

Media may be a social entity, the way they have created their own niche in our society, but they cannot be an independent institution because they can never generate ideas of their own. It is not media that is influential but the people who use and control it. Deuze et al. mentioned that the industry and the state use media as a tool in influencing people. Thus, we do not live in media but live by the ideas transferred to us by those who take advantage of the power of media.

Also, not everything can be communicated in media. Advocacies, for instance, are among those things that people would have to personally deal with in order to obtain such. We can use media to tell people and encourage them, for example, to volunteer for social work, but volunteerism, defined by the Oxford Advanced American Dictionary as “the practice of working as a volunteer, especially in community service or social work,” is not something that can be mediated. The idea is that we use media as a social platform, a space where we can communicate in order to drive others into acting out of media and into the world where we live in.

There would always be something different about the real—the real voice, the real touch, the real presence of people, the real world—that media can never imitate. Media can be our tool in still having temporary and representational realities. Media can cater for our needs to survive and we have to use that advantage. But we should never live in it. Media have a lot to offer, but the world outside of it has something to offer as well that we cannot just let pass just like that.

A new storm is coming to our country. Media will have to aid us once again toward safety. Let us survive with it and not in it. Media are powerful, and so are we.

ON IDENTITY PLAGUES: 
Colonizing the Colonizer’s Language
A Critique Paper on Pinoy English and Internationalism
by Cheeno Marlo Sayuno

That every language has its own identity is one thing; the matter of whose identity is being represented by a language is another.

Filipino as a language, for instance, represents the identity of Filipinos, i.e., how we communicate and the variations that we use, from the basis of location and vernaculars to the changes brought about by the passing of time, in order for us to be able to convey our messages to our intended receivers in daily communication and vice versa. Not only does our language represent our communication skills but it also mirrors our culture and traditions, further contributing in representing our identity as a nation.

However, with how history has become witness and proof of the changes that are too inevitable to avoid, our language, along with our culture and ways of living, among others, has joined the flow of radical change. From this sprouts the question of our language’s identity. The English language, in particular, due to the American’s introduction of a system of education during their invasion and supposed aid in preparing us to be a republic country, has largely affected the Filipino language and the preference of the Filipinos as to which language to use.

Filipinos and Anti-Filipino Filipinos

R. Kwan Laurel, author of Philippine Cultural Disasters, discussed in his book the debate on language issues particularly in the Philippine Literature. In his discussion on Pinoy English and Internationalism, he furthered that the American English has become the touchstone of the Philippine English and that not everybody agrees that this should stay like this forever.

Filipino authors back in the days of yore would argue that Filipino, as our language, should be rightfully used in the Philippine Literature. The problem with using English as a medium is that it takes away the Philippine feel in our literature. A lot of Filipino names, words, expression, and idioms cannot be directly translated in English, and in the process of translation, both the meaning and the impact are compromised. Even Filipino humor, when translated to English, will not be as entertaining as it is in the original.

Also, one of the reasons that Filipinos are not very enthusiastic with reading as an activity is because most Filipino writers would write in English. Not every Filipino is gifted with the mastery of the language. From novels and text books written in English to blog posts and write-ups in the Internet, the Filipino community is generally more attracted to reading those written in Filipino. Seeing evidences of representations of ideas around them all written in a language not very common to them, they tend to reject reading even more. Thus, the use of Filipino in literature was encouraged.

For sure, the Filipino language has its identity. Nowadays, it would rather be carabao English, yaya-to-amo English, conio English, and the like, although there are academic forms as well. But then, Filipino in its authentic form, in its own identity, in a representation of an identity not identified in relation to other identities, is diminished, if not lost.

On the other hand, others would rather embrace the English language instead of eradicating it. Aside from English being a global language, it is not just a matter of language issues but, on a greater perspective, of economic survival and finding a niche in the global arena. We cannot deny that English is indeed the language of the prestige, and if Filipinos would like to have that prestige, we should grab the opportunity while it is there.

However, the tendency is that most writers would instead use English not to uplift the Filipino identity but to become anti-Filipino. This plague of losing the spirit of our being citizens of the Philippines is not new, as the rejection of our own discourse comes along the rejection of our culture in favor of Western societal ideologies. Instead of using the English language to our advantage, we ruin our name and reject our being part of this nation.

Just because we are embracing the English language does not necessarily mean that we will forget the language of our own. Since the Filipino language has been entwining itself to the English language, it resulted to a language that has its own identity—Philippine English.

Philippine English and its Inherited Power

One’s language is a way of representing one’s society. From conversational language to literature, the society is being pictured out using a language. With this, the fear of most Filipino writers is that, in using English in literature, our culture and identity may be subject to misrepresentation, the very reason why they do not approve of the further use of English in the Philippine literary context.

Also, using the English language is emblematic to our approval of being an eternal colony of the United States. We continually feed the colonial way of thinking of these imperialist and it is our way of giving them more power over us than they already have. Our government is forever dependent on them; moreover, we let them take away from us what more we have to call as our identity.

But then, at one point, hyper-representation exists. We consider that the use of the English language symbolizes our bowing down to them, where, in fact, it will always be up to how we use the said language. Any form of discourse will depend on how we use it. Even in pragmatics and ethnography, it is not the mastery of mechanical forms that makes a language powerful but how we put them into good use, that is, in our favor. The functional equivalence of a discourse is important. Shall we use the English language to overthrow our own?

The fact that Philippine English has been bestowed the power of the globally used English language is already an advantage to us. We just have to put it into good use.

Responsibility within Power

In undergoing the process on intellectualization, it is but high time that we build a body of scholarly works using the Philippine English language. Of course, we should not let the Filipino language die just like that. These two languages can coexist. We can use the English language but we should not use it against our own language. At the same time, Filipino writers should still be given their fair share of the arena. They should still be encouraged to write in Filipino and they should be promoted as well.

We could use the English language in showcasing our identity as that Pearl in the Orient Seas. We could use English to improve the language of our own and our ability to communicate to the world our culture and heritage. We could use the power of the English language in portraying ourselves not only in literature but in other aspects so that the world will learn of the richness of our country in various fields. We could use this language in entering into the battlefield of globalization and fitting into a warfare of cultures as the Philippines and not as some country whose people just happens to use the English language.

Filipinos should take the role of representing the Philippines, and for the rest of the world to understand them and for them to belong under the same group who uses discourse as a tool to effectively communicate, the English language should be used in promoting the Philippines and the identity that is truly its own.

How will you ever get out of this labyrinth of suffering?
A Final Paper for World Religions
Submitted to Dr. Hyde
by Cheeno Marlo Sayuno 

We didn’t sign up for this mess called life, but we are given this very complex something, and we ought to live this life out.

Alaska Young, a very good friend of ours, somehow assumed that we are in this labyrinth of suffering. We live in a world where we end up hating things, loving and not being loved back, living without money, working and not getting paid well, being left by the ones we love while leaving the ones who love us, and living the most of our fucked-up lives by being, well, fucked up. We are being infested with all the negative emotions. We have a lot of fears and we are eaten up by them alive. We lose just when we wanted to win. We fail when all we wanted is to be triumphant. We bathe in misery and excruciating pain when all we ever wanted is to be happy. Indeed, this labyrinth is one helluva ride toward nothing but accumulated suffering.

And how do we get out of it? Do we really have to just drive straight and fast, welcoming death while death itself isn’t even knocking just yet? Do we hold the door open for death to embrace us just when it is not even standing at our doorstep? How do we escape this labyrinth when we don’t even know what is waiting for us at the end of this tunnel? Is it worth the escape, then?

To get out of this cold, damp, and sad place, the only thing that we have to do is live. This labyrinth of suffering is also the same labyrinth of joy, of simple pleasures, of genuine love, of random acts of kindness, of littlest forms of hope. There is always something good in the bad. We just have to adjust our perspective and use a more positive lens.

Have you noticed the chirping of the birds and the small conversations by your neighbors in the morning? Have you noticed how strangers smile at you or how they help you even though they don’t know you? Have you noticed how people like your Facebook statuses just so they could make you feel loved and liked and noticed and cared for? Have you noticed how mom checks up if you’re doing well or how your little brother hugs you when you come from school or work?

There are a lot of good things to see with life. Sometimes, we get overwhelmed by the challenges that life throws us, the reason why we fail to see the obvious beauty of it. That is understandable because we are humans and we tend to falter. But then, we are humans and we are strong, too. We just have to use our potentials well to survive the battle of life.

Do not consume much of your time seeing this world as a labyrinth of suffering.  When you do that, you end up getting out of it, and you go back to where you should have been all along. You go back to living your life. That’s the labyrinth that you ought to tread.