This
essay, that draws heavily from Valerio Nofuente’s “Jeepney: King of the Road?,”
is a chapter in Velunta’s dissertation: “Jeepney Hermeneutics: Reading the New
Testament inside a Jeepney.”
FILIPINOS
AND THEIR JEEPNEYS
By Revelation
Enriquez Velunta
“The western mind is so used to having everything planned and
performing like clockwork while the Filipino, conditioned by survival instincts
and desperate situations, can do things on-the-spot waiting for every
development to guide the next big move. This is simply revolting to the Western
mind… The jeepney is typically representative of the Filipino character. It
evolved out of a need to survive, to earn a living, to augment an inadequate
transport system. Western countries will have all the reasons not to have the
jeepney as a means of public transport. Yet millions ride to work and school
daily on it. Majority actually prefer it to the buses.”
From The Philippine Daily Inquirer, April 19, 2001[1]
Definitions
This essay offers no
definitive truth claims. It is a work
of fiction. By fiction, I’m following Clifford Geertz’ definition: “Something
made, something fashioned—the original meaning of fictio—not that they
are false, un-factual, or ‘as if’ thought experiments.”[2] I present my own constructions of some
fragmented realities representing what I believe are powerful symbols of the
decolonizing Filipino. According to Gerald Arbuckle, “A people can communicate,
transmit, and hand over their culture to the coming generations by means of symbols.
And the whole gamut of their knowledge, values, beliefs, and outlook in life is
thus transmitted.”[3] Symbol,
according to Geertz, has been used to refer to a great variety of things, often
a number of them at the same time.[4]
Turner offers a similar broad definition: “Almost every article…every
gesture…every song or prayer, every unit of space and time that stands for
something other than itself. It is more than it seems, and often a good deal
more.”[5] One of Turner’s specific definitions is
helpful for my argument: a symbol is a thing regarded as typifiying or
representing something by analogous qualities or by association.[6]
And according to Geertz symbols as vehicles of culture should not be
studied in and of themselves. They should be studied for what they can reveal
to us about culture. Symbols are concrete embodiments of ideas, attitudes,
judgments, longings, and beliefs.[7]
More importantly, people need symbols as sources of illumination to find their
bearings in the world[8]
and they instigate social action and exert influences inclining persons and
groups to action.[9]
Fernando Segovia
defines the imperial-colonial framework as the structural reality practiced in
terms of a primary dynamic: on the one hand, a political, economic, and
cultural center, more often than not symbolized by a city or metropole, on the
other hand, any number of margins, colonies, politically, economically, and
culturally subordinated to the center. He continues: this primary dynamic
entails and engenders in turn any number of secondary binomials:
civilized/uncivilized; modern/primitive; cultured/barbarian. This reality
should not be seen as uniform in every imperial context across time and culture
but as maps or broad representations; and this reality is of such reach and
such power that it affects and colors the entire artistic production of both
center and margins, especially their literary production. Yet, in the wake of
this reality lies the inverted, deconstructing, de-colonizing dynamic of
resistance, where the margins actually take the initiative, while the center is
forced into a reactive position.[10]
This work of fiction,
focused on one particular symbol for the de-colonizing Filipino, attempts to
make available what Geertz calls, “answers that others… have given, and thus to
include them in the consultative record of what man [sic] has said.”[11]
Jeeps and Jeepneys
On
the shores of Mactan Island in the Visayas, central Philippines, people will
find two monuments memorializing April 27, 1521. One reads: “On this spot
Ferdinand Magellan died on April 27, 1521 wounded in an encounter with the
soldiers of Lapulapu, chief of Mactan Island.
One of Magellan's ships, the Victoria, under the command of Juan
Sebastian Elcano,sailed from Cebu on May 1, 1521, and anchored at San Lucar de
Barrameda on September 6, 1522, thus completing the first circumnavigation of
the earth.” This monument was erected in 1941 when the Philippines was still a
US Commonwealth. The other reads:
“Here, on April 27 1521, Lapulapu and his warriors repulsed the Spanish invaders,
killing their leader, Ferdinand Magellan.
Thus, Lapulapu became the first Filipino to have repelled European
aggression.” This second monument was
built in 1951, six years after Independence.
In
1941, the same year the Magellan plaque was put up, the US War Department
adopted the Willys model for its all terrain, go-anywhere, reconnaissance
vehicle: the military jeep. In 1951, the same year the Lapu-Lapu plaque was put
up, the jeepney was already on its way to becoming the most popular means of public
transportation in the Philippines.
The US Army specifications for the jeep called for three bucket
seats, and a mount for a 30-caliber machine gun. The first thing Filipinos did in their transformation of the
military jeep was to get rid of the machine gun mount. They then transformed the vehicle into some
sort of mini-bus that eventually could accommodate sixteen or more people. There are those who look at a jeepney and
call it a Frankenstein’s monster. There are others who see it as a “Filipino
home on wheels” complete with an altar. Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s WWII
liberation forces, after literally bombing Manila to smithereens, rode into the
shell-shocked city in jeeps. Today,
American Special Forces, stationed in the Philippines as part of Pres. Bush’
anti-terror war campaign, patrol the poverty-stricken streets of southern
Mindanao riding jeeps. The military jeep was, and still is, a symbol of
imperialism.[12] A jeepney resists this symbol.
According to Dianne
Bergant, anthropologists when confronted with the particularities of social
reality attempt to construct a “thick description” of behavior, a highly
detailed ethnographic analysis that explicitly includes, as far as this is
possible, the insider's perspective.
The most common approach toward this end is through a process of radical
empiricism known as participant observation. Concerned with the comparability
of empirical data, it begins with a particular, microscopic life-situation, and
moves toward a contextualized understanding of meaning with the hope that
general principles or parameters might be formulated. The findings then are tested against data from other life
situations. Conclusions are drawn by
induction as well as by comparison. The key authenticating factor here is
resonance.[13]
By resonance, I mean the power of a text, an object, or a song to
reach out beyond its set boundaries to a larger world, to evoke or conjure up
in readers, viewers, or hearers a variety of memories, feelings, or responses. In the Philippines, the invitation “Mangisda
tayo” (Let’s go fishing) has at least two meanings in Tagalog (the language
spoken by a third of the population). The literal is the summons to go catch
fish. With over seven thousand islands, the Pacific Ocean to the West and China
Sea to the East, many Filipinos are fisherfolk. The symbolic meaning, according
to Leny Strobel, comes from Tagalogs of the 16th century who
listened to friars’ sermons in Spanish, and fished out words and phrases out of
the stream of the sermon and arbitrarily assigned them to their own imaginings.
Out of a barrage of unreadable signs, the Tagalogs were struck by recognizable
words then went on spinning out narratives that bore no relation to the logic
and intent of the priests’ discourse.[14]
“To fish” is to conjure up unexpected meanings.
Valerio Nofuente’s
essay,“Jeepney: King of the Road?,”[15]offers
a thick description of a jeepney.[16]
As I go through his detailed description, I will interrupt the narrative flow, disrupt
the interstices of structure, “fish” for meaning, with insights, particularly
from Geertz and Turner, that I hope helps me prove my case: that the jeepney
works as symbol of the decolonizing Filipino.
Jeepneys: A Thick
Description
War-torn Philippines ceased to be a US colony on July 4, 1946.
World War II had crippled the country’s economy, left almost all engine-driven
vehicles wrecked, and transportation—or the lack thereof—loomed as a major
recovery problem. The Americans, according to Nofuente, also had a problem:
what to do with the surplus of jeeps rotting and rusting at various depots. A
mutual solution was reached. The
vehicles were sold to Filipinos, who turned these into mass transportation
units. The jeepney, therefore, was supposed to be a temporary solution to a
postwar problem, but the short-term turned permanent. This turn of events was
unexpected for the Americans. Not only were their rejects sold at a profit but
suddenly they had a growing market for spare parts.
Nofuente continues: “The first jeepneys, then, were hybrid
vehicles. Engines and body frames came from the US, all the rest were Filipino
add-ons and creations. The frame was stretched and an opening was made in the
back to allow easier entry for passengers. The plain olive drab was removed and
repainted with a rainbow of colors. Jeepneys have evolved from the early
eight-passenger AC (Auto Calesa) to the long 16-plus-passenger PUJ (Public
Utility Jeep). In 1970, Japan and Germany began supplying the engines.” I
believe that Baguio City, 5,000 feet above sea level and established early
during the US occupation as a summer retreat for American military officers and
their families, is probably the only place in the country that still have ACs.
“Between 1945 and
1968,” according to Geertz, “sixty-six countries attained political
independence from colonial rule… the great revolution against Western
governance of Third World peoples is essentially over. Politically, morally,
and sociologically, the results are mixed. But from the Congo to Guyana the
wards of imperialism are, formally anyway, free.”[17]
The
realities of postcolonial life, for Geertz, can be a deflating experience.[18]
Considering all that independence seemed to promise including popular rule,
economic growth, equality, cultural regeneration, national greatness, there are
those in the former colonies who, confronted with concrete demands and
challenges of postcolonial life, thirst for anything that reminds them of their
former lives.
Thus, as Nofuente points out, there are those who quite easily
conclude that the jeepney is an ugly mutation of the jeep. Its extended frame
looks out of proportion, it is narrow and crowded, and it almost always drags
when full of passengers. Because a foreign-made car is a status symbol, there
are jeepneys that use car parts—or copies of car parts—as decorations. It is
not uncommon to see jeepneys with hoods that bear the Mercedes Benz star, or
have Toyota hubcaps, or Volkswagen mudguard, or even a Benz radiator grill.
Geertz, in describing the impulses involved in decolonization,
describes essentialism as a people’s need to look for mores, for traditions,
for roots that will ground the basis of a new national identity. Epochalism, on
the other hand, is to “look to the general outlines of the history of our time,
and in particular to what one takes to be the overall direction and
significance of that history.”[19]
The tension between these two contrasting impulses—to hold on to an inherited
course or to move with the tide of the present—gives nationalism its peculiar
air of being at once morally outraged at modernity and hell-bent toward
adopting it.[20]
I
agree with Matt Stevens[21]
who describes epochalist strains as those movements that espouse concrete steps
that the nation, as one people, has to take before it can join the modern
world, to stand on its own. These tendencies accuse the United States and its
agencies of hamstringing local economic development and keeping the country in
a perpetual state of dependence and poverty. I grew up under Ferdinand Marcos’
epochalist Bagong Lipunan (New Society) that promoted a “One Nation, One
People, One Language” approach to industrialization. For Stevens, the
essentialist strain, celebrates nationhood and independence as efforts to strengthen
and restore indigenous culture and traditions. These tendencies argue that the
West, particulary the United States, has done irreparable damage to Filipino
culture. Essentialists condemn the cosmopolitanism' of the metropole, and sees
separation from all things Western and American as the only way to preserve
Filipino culture from extinction. I would classify historians and
anthropologists who advocate a grand pre-colonial history dating back to
250,000 BC, and linguists who celebrate the country’s different languages and
dialects as essentialists.
These two strains
according to Geertz[22]
are present in just about nationalist movements, but they are not equally
present in every movement. For Stevens, the strength of one strain or
another depends on the severity of the 'nation's' problems, and the extent to
which they can be blamed with any credibility on the former colonial power. If
poverty, unemployment and underdevelopment are chronic problems, and there are
no signs that the current state is willing or capable of dealing with them,
then the 'epochal' strain will be fairly strong. On the other hand, the
'essentialist' strain will be emphasized if the local culture seems in danger
of being supplanted by that of the metropole. These two strains may also appeal
to different groups within the separatist movement. Epochalist
nationalism may hold a greater appeal for the poor, the unemployed and the
financially insecure. Essentialist nationalism, on the other hand, will
probably have a somewhat different constituency: The devout, who see local
pieties undermined by metropolitan heresies; intellectuals, who feel more
comfortable speaking in their own idiom but who feel forced to use the symbols
of an alien culture; bureaucrats and businessmen, who have to learn the
language of the metropole if they want to keep their jobs. To simplify, one
could say that epochalist separatism appeals more to the poor, and essentialist
nationalism appeals more to the well to do, as a general rule.[23]
Nofuente’s description shows both these impulses at work in a
jeepney. Right on top of the jeepney, dead center is a plastic headdress that
looks like a crown, and, since crowns are symbols of king (of the road or a
pre-colonial past?) names like JEEPNEY KING, QUEEN LEAH, SUPER-STAR or simply
the kings of jeepney body makers, SARAO MOTORS, INC., are written on it. By
night, this area is filled with blinking lights, almost like vigil lights
around a saint's statue. Sometimes there is a dark-colored sun visor below the
headdress, perhaps with a pair of outspread eagle's or chicken's wings, also
surrounded by lights. Usually, between the visor and the windshield, is a
plastic strip with the jeepney’s destination, route, or main road plied such as
"Dasmarinas-Silang," or "UP Diliman-Quezon Boulevard." On
the windshield are plastered the last few years’ accumulation of Land
Transportation Commission stickers, stickers from colleges and universities, or
from pilgrimages to Our Lady of Peace and Good Voyage at Antipolo, and colored
pieces of reflectorized paper that serve as a patterned border around the happy
windshield. Between the hood and the windshield is a bit of space dedicated to
the "name" of the jeep: the name of a child, grandchild, or the
owner, like "Nanay Cely," "Gingging-Nene," in big, bold
letters.
The hood, as Nofuente observes, is about a meter square, is a
repository of the creativity of the jeepney decorator. Almost required here is
the chrome horse bolted upright on the hood, which may signify homage of some
sort to the horse drawn calesa. However, what does it mean when an operator has
many as 10 such horses on the hood? Along with the horses is a forest of other
decorations, mostly roosters and other animal forms, bolted on the hood. I
would characterize these, like the headdress, as essentialist tendencies. There
are also straight and U-shaped stainless steel bars; antennas not connected to
any radios, but wrapped in plastic strips; perhaps 10 side mirrors creatively
placed; and parking lights in the combinations of red, green, blue, and orange.
One wonders how the driver sees his or her destination through such exaltation
of ornaments.
I would like to point out that not much has been written about the
Filipinos’ relationship with the animal kingdom. As Daniel Patte, in his
teaching stints in the Philippines, has experienced first-hand: there are
churches in the country where even dogs, cats, and birds congregate.
Cockfighting and horseracing are two of the most popular past-times in the
archipelago. E. Arsenio Manuel, in Treasury of Stories: Filipino myths and
folktales, argues that in many
indigenous Filipino myths, first there were plants, birds, and animals. Then came humans.[24] Manuel’s arguments resonate with Howard
Harrod’s who, in his The Animals Came Dancing, says that Native American
traditions made the point that being human meant fundamentally being
intertwined with a relationship with particular places and specific animals.[25]
It is no wonder then that in Mindanao, home of the endangered
Philippine Eagle, jeepneys are called “Agila” (eagle).
Nofuento sees the grill as another fertile area for Filipino
artistry, since it may be copied from Ford, Toyota or Mercedes Benz or made of
red steel bars arrange side-by-side in some welding shop. Here one can see
hanging as many as 19 blinking parking lights. The bumper serves, not just to
ward off bumps, but to hold more artwork. Here are fastened the license plate,
the trademark of the jeepney’s body builder, and strips of reflectorized
sheets. A skirt-like rubber sheet may hang from it decorated with a sun motif,
or five stars surrounding the title of a popular or sentimental song, usually
foreign ditties like " Love Me Tender," "No Other Love," or
"You're My Everything."
The jeepney’s sides are a painter's canvas. In between the chrome
strips again echoing the car, and the steel bars, painters insert different
colors, lines, pictures, mini-landscapes, decorative motifs. One often sees
rocket ships in wild chase, as in Star Wars or Buck Rogers; jet formations,
like those of the Philippine Air Force's Blue Diamonds; planets in orbit;
bursts of flame; "realistic" landscapes, and girls’ names. Are these
epochalist tendencies? The extra-wide jeepney windows take on a homey look,
what with the red and yellow cloth, or crocheted curtains, the jalousies, and,
when it rains the plastic awnings go down. Below the window is usually screwed
the signboard of the destination or route of the jeepney, like the one in
front. Right beside the driver is the ever-present spare tire, as smooth and
bald as the four tires in use. There is a hubcap which, don't believe if you
can't, has whirling lights rigged up on it so that at night it seems like a
mini-Ferris wheel or the fireworks made in Bocaue, Bulacan, for New Years’.
Nofuente observes that the back of the jeepney has been through
over half a century of evolution too. This opening, meant to let passengers
through, used to be covered by a canvas curtain. Now, however, a dome structure
has evolved, suggesting perhaps a door, even a church door through which pass
royalty and nobility. On each side of this entrance are steel bars to hold
onto, as one pulls oneself up and into the jeepney. Here, too, can hang the
passenger for whom there is no longer room inside. Here, too, one will find hooks on which to hang market baskets,
bushel baskets, shopping bags, puto (rice cake) containers, and taho
(soft tofu drink) cans.
The steps are another obvious place for more slogans since one has
to look at them as one gets in. There are the welcoming sign: "WATCH YOUR
STEP," "HALINA BABY(Let's go, Baby)", "WELCOME
CHICKS;" or the teasing ones - "WOW LEGS," "CHICKS
LOADER," "CHICK MECHANIC." The bravado and bluster of the
jeepney driver is never missing, so sometimes the rubber skirt (there is one
here too) has still more information like "DRIVER, WALANG SABIT (The
driver is unattached);" "WANTED WIFE; 35-25-35;" or it may
boastfully warn: "DISTANCIA AMIGO (Keep your distance, friend)." The
mudguards may bear Toyota, Volkswagen or Mitsubishi Galant imprints, or may be
bits of rubber improvised by some auto shop with "Passing side"
written on the left and "Suicide" on the right.
The slogans that appear sexist and not “welcoming” to women are
exactly that, sexist and not “welcoming” to women. Those slogans serve as
reminders of the West’s worst contributions to the country: the objectification
of women. What is ironic is that once one gets past those steps one discovers
that the majority of jeepney riders are women. Actually, women make up the
majority of the population.
It is a fact of history that Spain introduced patriarchy in the
Philippines. Sr. Mary John Mananzan, one of the foremost Filipino feminists,
using Spanish sources argues that “when the Spaniards came in 1521, they were
shocked by the freedom manifested by the mujer indigena, which did not
fit into their concept of how women should be and behave since the women in the
Iberian peninsula at that time lived like contemplative nuns. Although the
missionaries were forced to acknowledge the superior quality of the indigenous
woman, they set out to remold her according to the image and likeness of the
perfect woman of the Iberian society… The Spaniards introduced the cult of the
Virgin Mary that was focused on the obedient Mary of the Annunciation. They took
great efforts to convince the indigenous woman that she had a pearl of great
price, her virginity to protect, yet as the documents of the Archivo General
de Nacion show, the Spaniards both lay and religious were guilty of robbing
her of this very same treasure.” [26]
They also introduced prostitution in the service of Spanish soldiers.[27] Mananzan points out the unfortunate reality
that in the predominantly Christian country, women are still discriminated
against and subordinated in the home, in church, and in society.[28]
For many women, a jeepney ride with mostly women is probably the best respite,
though fleeting, from the established structures of patriarchy.
Nofuente observes that there are three entrances by which one
enters a jeepney. One is only for the driver, or anyone he or she allows to
squeeze into the tiny space between spare tire and driver’s seat. The second
one is for the two passengers who can be accommodated beside the driver. The
third is the most important, the one at the back that leads to the passenger
compartment. When one enters the jeep,
one senses an atmosphere different from that of most motor vehicles, since he
seems to be in a Filipino home rather than in a conveyance. First of all, one
notices the altar, with its image of the Sto. Nino, or the Suffering Christ. It
seems to be a ritual, the faithfulness and regularity with which the driver
hangs a garland of sampaguita, the national flower, or everlasting flowers near
this altar (sometimes on the rearview mirror.
Fr. Jaime Belita, in And God Said:Hala!, argues that
Filipinos’ dedication to the Sto. Nino, or the Suffering Christ is an example
of “relating to deity with a vengeance.” He continues: “It is similar to
nationalist Jose Rizal’s description about ‘colonized Filipinos’ fishing out
for meaning—that is, deriving a meaning that is different from the one
intended. These devotions were forms of vengeance against a rationale
introduced to perpetuate white domination. Instead of simply accepting the
lordship of Christ, a fitting model for the dominant Christian colonizer,
Filipinos accepted him as Lord Infant Jesus, but more infant and crucified than
Lord, with all the weakness and vulnerability that these images suggested.”[29]
Nofuente observes that just below the altar, within easy reach, is
the moneybox that must be filled before the jeepney is returned to the
operator. To the right, with a miniature bottle of San Miguel beer or Coca-Cola
glued on top, is an 8-track cassette recorder-player lustily blaring a Yoyoy
Villame song in the vernacular. Notice that the ammeter and the gas and oil
gauges are not working. This is ironical, since the dashboard is equipped with,
aside from the 8-track, a crocheted doily on top of the recorder, a tiny
electric fan, and eight small blinking lights. Ornamentation is complete, but
the gauges are inoperative. Stuck to the windshield beside the 8-track are
stickers and printed inscriptions that give the "house rules" as if
to say "You’re in my house so you follow my rules." One reads,
"Magbayad ng maaga nang di maabala (Pay early so as not to cause
delays);" "Barya po lamang sa umaga (Only change please, in the
morning);" To remind passengers that discounts are only given to students
with proper identification, there is "Barok, Dabiana, ID mo'y ipakita
(Barok and Dabiana, show your ID's)." Fares are paid in the jeepney
according to the "honor system," since there are no tickets or
collectors; thus the sticker "God knows Hudas not pay" which can be
interpreted at least two ways: “Hudas” can be read as “who does” so “God knows
who does not pay.” The sticker is an appeal to conscience. “Hudas” can also be
read “Judas.” The sticker then has more bite: “God knows Judases don’t pay.”
Between the driver and the passenger is a board on which are
usually found pin-up posters of famous Filipino movie stars, singing idols, or
"bold" stars (stars of soft-porn films). Up on the ceiling are hung
the two perpetually blaring stereo speakers. There are two parallel bars for
passengers to hold onto so they don't fall off or over each other during sudden
stops (which are frequent, especially in Manila).
The ceiling serves as canvas for assorted designs, names and
titles. On it one might find the names of the jeepney operator's whole clan, or
the titles of his or her favorite songs, or six local comic strips.
The images, metaphors, and rhetorical devices that build
nationalist ideologies are, according to Geertz, cultural devices designed to
render the broad processes of collective self-definition and self-redefinition
into a practical force.[30]
In my opinion, there is nothing more powerful than the jeepney as a
transformative cultural device. To be more specific, then and now, only a
nationwide jeepney strike can paralyze the whole Philippine economy.[31]
I have heard foreigners describe their experience with jeepneys as a cultural
event.
I agree with Nofuente’s comment that the seemingly elastic
capacity of the jeepney mirrors the Filipino's power to adjust to situations.
Six passengers fit, but one can make that seven, and even crowd in eight. If
there isn't enough sitting space, someone can hang on at the steps, see?, it
can be done. It is something like the Filipino home. If one arrives while the
family is at table, an extra place is immediately laid, and the rice and fish
somehow are enough for all, for everyone adjust his intake for the guest. But
more than creating more space, elasticity mirrors the Filipino’s loob.
I have argued[32]
elsewhere that in the Philippines, the
criterion of ethical value is in interpersonal relationships and communal
interaction. This value system resonates with Geertz’ observations about
Balinese notions of personhood that is focused toward achieving smoothness in
interpersonal relations, quite different from the European autonomous ego.[33]
Among most Filipinos, it is the other tao
(human), the equal tao, kapwa (neighbor, fellow human), that is
the foundational objective and external reality that tests the humaneness of
humanity. The ideal of loob is kabuuan (wholeness, integrity, harmony) or kapwa/kapatiran (the collective body of loob). In the New Testament, the church has often been described as
the body of Christ.[34] In Filipino thought, this identification is
most important because the body and body parts have always been used to
symbolize the Filipino.[35] For example, the English “You worthless
ingrate” is Walang hiya (shameless)
or Makapal ang mukha (thick
faced). Both translations are about
“face.” A man without honor is walang bayag (no balls) in Filipino.
Melanio Aoanan argues
that the most vital part of the Filipino human body is the loob. The center, the core
of one’s loob, is his or her lamanloob or bituka ( the intestines--roughly the equivalent of the Greek splagxnon which literally means “guts” or “entrails”). The most concrete example of its use as a
term for connectedness, for the community of loob is the word kapatid
(brother/sister/sibling). The word is a
contraction of the Tagalog patid ng
bituka (cut off from one intestine).
The word in Visayan is igsoon
(igsumpay sa tinai) and kabsat
(kapugsat iti bagis) in Ilocano.
Therefore siblings come from one and the same intestine![36] To children who get bruised or who are
bleeding from minor cuts their elders say in a soothing tone: Huwag kang mabahala, malayo sa bituka
(No need to worry, the wound is far from your intestine). But more than being body-related concepts,
these terms do not just describe individual parts but communal body parts.[37] Thus a small wound is not just far from the
center of one's loob but also
peripheral and insignificant as far as the center of the community of loob is concerned. The community inside a jeepney is an example
of this communion of mga loob. Those soothing words from elders simply
mean: "Children, we (meaning the community and its collective experience)
know about little cuts like these and we do not worry about them so you do not
have to worry about them too."
This is the reason why
most Filipinos greet each other with “Kumain
ka na ba?” (Have you eaten?)[38]
instead of the Western form “How are you?”
And this is not just a perfunctory greeting. Filipinos are renowned for their hospitality. Closely linked to this “relational” practice
is the padigo or patikim where neighbors share with neighbors what they have
cooked.
When my brother, sister
and I were children we could not understand why Nanay (Mom) had to share food with our neighbors. We also had to leave some food on our plates
for our pet dogs and cats. She used to
tell us that food shared fills up more than one's stomach. When I was a teenager working with urban
poor communities in the garbage dumps of Tondo,
Manila, I met a girl, a young scavenger.
She was probably around twelve. I offered her the remaining half of the Coke I had on that hot, humid
morning. She drank a third of it. Realizing that she might not be accustomed
to having a softdrink all to herself, I told her, "Drink all of it. It's all yours." She smiled back and asked (and I remember
this scene as if it were yesterday), "Can I bring this home? I have two little brothers who would love to
have a taste of Coca-Cola."
According to Virgilio
Enriquez: “Relationship or pakikipagkapwa
is evidently the most important aspect of Filipino life. As codified in the
language, eight levels of interaction have been identified: (a) pakikitungo (transaction/civility with);
(b) pakikisalamuha (interaction
with); (c) pakikilahok
(joining/participating with); (d) pakikibagay
(in-conformity with/in-accord with); (e) pakikisama
(being along with); (f) pakikipagpalagayan/pakikipagpalagayang-loob
(being in rapport with/understanding/acceptance with); (h) pakikiisa (being one with).
These levels of conceptual and behavioral differences are most
concretely manifested in Filipino food-sharing, in the context of meals.”[39] It is not uncommon to see jeepney
passengers, literally strangers, sharing food.
Nofuente argues that each jeepney ride seems part of a communal
experience. The passenger who sits directly behind the driver helps collect
fares, as a matter of course, be reaching for the money of those sitting
farther. The money is often passed from hand to hand. If someone asks the
driver to stop (and the jeepney can stop almost anywhere), everyone echoes the
request, just in case the driver has not heard. If a child is in the jeep and
an adult gets in, he or she is offered a lap (not necessarily a relative's) to
sit on in order to make space. If a woman laden with a market basket and a
chicken gets in, hands reach out for her basket, and feet are moved aside to
find a place for it. The passengers seem to be performing a ritual. They are,
as a matter of fact, not facing the direction of their destination, but each
other.
A jeepney ride, fleeting and communical, is a liminal experience.
By liminal, I’m using Arnold Van Gennep’s definition: all rites of transition
are marked by three phases—separation, margin (limen or “threshold”), and
reintegration. “The first phase of separation comprises behavior signifying the
detachment of the individual or group from an earlier fixed point in the social
structure, from a set of cultural conditions, or both. During the intervening
liminal period, the characteristics of the ritual subject, the passenger, are
ambigious; he[sic]passes through a cultural realm that has few or none of the
attributes of the past or coming state. In the third phase, re-aggregation or
reincorporation, the passage is consummated.”[40]
For most jeepney riders, that ride could run from minutes to hours depending on
location. Jeepney rides early Monday mornings in the Silang-Dasmarinas route in
Cavite are usually liminal moments between home and work, home and school, or
home and marketplace.
For Turner, liminal personae, “threshold people,”or liminal
entities are neither here nor there; they are betwixt and between. They are
represented as possessing nothing; their behavior is humble or passive obeying
leaders or instructors completely; they develop intense comradeship and
egalitarianism.[41] Turner
calls these fleeting relationships of lowliness, homogeneity, and comradeship,
involving liminal personae, communitas.[42] The passengers in one of those jeepneys
plying the Silang-Dasmarinas route is a communion of equal individuals who
submit to the authority of the jeepney driver, their lives are in his or her hands.
Race, rank, education, possessions do not matter. What matters are the two
pesos each person needs to get to his or her destination. Van Gennep argues
that people are released from structure into communitas only to return
to structure revitalized by their experience of communitas.[43]
People need a break. And for majority of Filipinos who have to face the daily
grind of work, school, church, and other structured communities, the jeepney
ride is the only non-structured break they can get, yes, even from home. And
many look forward to it. A jeepney ride is an example of spontaneous communitas,
a “winged moment as it flies,” or what hippies might call “a happening,”[44]
moments that disrupt the interstices of structure.
Recently, the multi-nationals Ford, Toyota, Volkswagen and
Chrysler decided to cash in on the popularity of the jeepney and created
similar small passenger vehicles. However, since these are mass-produced, they
are plain, and without the art and the baroque designs. They come in plain
colors. A few drivers of the Tamaraw (Toyota) tried painting in designs - a
pink heart, some flowers - but it just didn't have the jeepney magic. The
structural lines of the mass-produced jeepney are too straight, and do not
tally with the curves and twists of Pinoy sensibility. A “jeepney”
mass-produced by multi-nationals, agents of globalization, which is what
imperialism calls itself these days, cannot, by definition, be a jeepney.
Nofuente concludes: compared to the bus, a jeepney is more
wasteful, since it sits fewer people, uses up almost as much gasoline per day,
and spends almost as much on tires and spare parts. It crowds the streets.
Research shows that some 27,000 ply the major routes of Metro Manila, a figure
equivalent to 4,050 buses in passenger capacity. There have been many attempts
to eliminate the jeepney from the transportation scheme, but these have never
succeeded because the jeepney is part of the sociological situation. The
Philippines has an unemployment problem, and the jeepney provides employment
not only for the drivers, but for the body-makers, painters, accessory makers,
repairmen, “sampaquita” and cigarette vendors, and even “call” boys—children,
mostly boys, barkers who call out to passengers at jeepney depots. Philippine
streets are narrow and dimly lit; most of them cannot take large busses. It is
in these tight and crowded streets, a network of capillaries that criss-cross
the country, where the jeepney lives and breathes. And so it will still be
around, this bastard vehicle that is literature, pop art object, ambulant home,
statement of belief and personality, center for transient and communality and,
at the moment, King of the Road.
The history of decolonization, for Geertz, has four phases: that
in which the nationalist movements formed and crystallized; that in which they
triumphed; that in which they organized themselves into states; and that
(present one) in which, organized into states, they find themselves defining
and stabilizing their relationships both to other states and to the societies
from which they arouse.[45] I would like to argue that these phases fall
into that liminal stage between and betwixt colonial rule and that point in the
future Geertz has defined as “when the desire to become a people rather than a
population, a recognized and respected somebody in the world who counts and is
attended to” is realized.[46]
The jeepney’s evolution, from the time that 30-caliber machine gun
mount was removed, to the time the first 8-seater ACs roamed postwar Philippine
streets, to the advent of the colorful 16-plus-seater PUJs, to its present
position as eye-sore to the elite yet favorite of the masses, can serve as a
gauge of the Filipino people’s unfolding process of decolonization. The jeepney
is in transition: caught between and betwixt the military jeep and that
uncertain future version dictated by powers-that-be beholden to multinationals
whose development plans don’t include the jeepney. The people the jeepney reflects is almost in the same position:
caught between and betwixt a painful colonial past and a future quite far off
from Geertz’ stage of “worldwide recognition and respect.”
Eleazar Fernandez, in
Exodus-toward-Egypt, notes that majority of Filipinos remain willing subjects
of the United States’ “mental colony.”
Migrant Filipina domestic workers, numbering over 7 million, are the
global servants of late capitalism.[47] Tens of millions find themselves squatters
in their own homeland. Those who have
opted for “The Promise Land,” the United States, find themselves treated as
second-class citizens.[48]
Yet, there is hope for both the jeepney and the Filipino people.
Jeepneys and Revolutions
The quote from the Philippine
Daily Inquirer at the beginning of this essay attempts to explain to the
Western mind the recent People Power uprising, popularly called EDSA II, which
ousted Joseph “Erap” Estrada from power.
Jeepneys, according to the article, best represents the Filipinos’
on-the-spot survival instincts conditioned by centuries of desperate
situations. The “people” in People
Power are the millions who face the violence of hunger everyday, those who
barely get the minimum wage. They are the “bakya” (wooden clogs) crowd, the
“masa,” Mark’s ochlos. The late Luis Beltran, popular radio political
commentator, called them “bubwit” (mice). These are the millions who are
underpaid, who are overworked, and who will never get a bank loan approved for
a house or even a second-hand car. These are the ones who ride jeepneys
everyday. Yet, these are the ones who overthrew Marcos and “Erap.” According to
nationalist historians Teodoro Agoncillo, Renato Constantino, and Reynaldo
Ileto, the “Revolt of the Masses” that overthrew Spain was exactly that—a
revolt of the masses![49]
“No uprising fails. Each one is a step in the right direction.” Ileto memorializes this famous saying of
peasant leader Salud Algabre in his Pasyon
and Revolution.[50] Algabre was one of the leaders of the
anti-American Sakdal uprising in 1935.
The quote is from an interview she gave in 1968. Ileto comments that her words may seem
perfectly clear to us. The first thing that comes to mind is the notion that
each resistance movement, in whatever form it is mounted against the empire,
learns from the experience, particularly the mistakes, of its predecessors. Though an uprising leads to failure, it
paves the way,it becomes part of that “archival power” that eventually leads to
victory. But Ileto thinks that
Algabre’s meaning was more than this.
He argues that she privileges the resistance movements that we actually
never read or hear about, the “pocket revolts of the masses.” This “Little Tradition,” distinct from the
“Great Tradition” that glorify the Ilustrados led by Jose Rizal and Emilio
Aguinaldo, was and still is muffled to preserve the image of elite-led national
unity against colonial and, now, neocolonial rule.
For me, what Salud Algabre ultimately does with that short yet profound
statement is memorialize all those unnamed legions of freedom fighters that
have been victimized by the violence of institutionalized forgetting. These include the indigenous communities of
Igorots and Lumads, forcibly driven out of their ancestral domain, in the name
of development that now find themselves squatters in their own homeland. These include rural “messiahs,” like Hermano
Pule and Macario Sakay, who led anti-colonial movements against Spain and
America yet are marked as tulisanes (bandits) and thieves in Filipino
and American history books. And these
would also include people, like the women of cause-oriented organization
GABRIELA, and communities, like peasant cooperatives in Tarlac and teachers’
cooperatives in Davao, struggling to dismantle structures of exploitation,
marginalization, powerlessness, cultural imperialism, and systemic violence in
all its forms.
Since the late 40s, the jeepneys have been integral to the lives of
many Filipinos who are not full participants in the economic system. Albert
Ravenholt’s case study notes that jeepneys “relate so intimately to the daily
life of Filipinos throughout the archipelago” yet government and financial
institutions do not provide support of any kind to their manufacture and/or
sale.[51] Without establishment support,
manufacturers, which are usually family operations, work on the kumpadre/kumadre
(ritual kinfolk)[52] and seal
deals with a handshake and palabra de honor (word of honor). Young
people who learn how to drive on jeepneys see jeepney driving as the best
option for livelihood, given their very limited opportunities to find work
elsewhere. With no credit schemes available from banks, these young Filipinos
have no choice but to approach private money lenders who eventually, because of
exorbitant interest rates, get to own the jeepneys themselves.
Yet despite all these difficulties the jeepney population in Manila
alone managed to grow 60 percent in 36 years.[53]
There is no accurate account of the number of jeepneys operating in the rest of
the country. It is not uncommon to see Jeepneys carry passengers and cargo to
and from festive occasions such as baptisms and fiestas. Also, the vehicle’s
four-wheel drive enables it to cross dry rice fields with their low dikes and
carry off the harvest. Jeepney drivers are the new “kwentong kutseros” (driver
storytellers) who passed news and gossip to passengers riding to and from work,
school, or marketplace.[54]
Ravenholt notes: “Jeepney drivers are so influential as molders of
public opinion that successive city mayors seeking to bar them from Manila’s
main streets have been thwarted.”[55]
In the twenty years or so that I have been involved in social activism in the
Philippines, I have observed that the only thing that can paralyze the
country’s business and government infrastructure, literally bringing everything
to a halt is a jeepney strike. No.
Actually, there are two: a jeepney strike and a “People Power” uprising from
the masses that ride jeepneys.
Recall the description
of the jeepney with all its lights. No other public vehicle is better equipped
to navigate the Philippines’ narrow and dimly lit streets at night. No other
person is better equipped to drive a jeepney at night than a Filipino. The
people’s revolt that overthrew the US-supported Marcos dictatorship in 1986
began and ended at night. I was there, with about two million other folks who
ride jeepneys. “Some of the greatest revolutions occur in the dark.”[56]
[1] The quote is from the column “Observations of What
We Are,” Philippine Daily Inquirer, 19 April 2001, available at http://www.inq7.net/vwp/2001/apr/19/vwp_3-1.htm,
which discusses the recent EDSA II uprising against Joseph Estrada. The Western
media has described it as mob rule. The author uses the jeepney to argue that
it was not. The missing portion of the
quote follows: “…It [the Western mind]
cannot fathom why a nation must reject the constitutional options even if and
when there are clear signs that these have already been prostituted as in the
case of the sham impeachment trial and the now historic Tuesday, January 16,
2001 vote. Then go viva voce in replacing a crooked president…”
[2] Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures
(Basic Books, 1973), 15.
[3] Gerald Arbuckle, quoted in Eduardo Domingo, “Opium
or Catalyst: The Ambivalence of Religious Symbols in Social Change,” And God
said: Hala, Jaime Belita, ed. (Manila: De La Salle University Press, 1991).
[4] Geertz, 91.
[5] Victor Turner,
The Ritual Process (New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1969), 15.
[6] Victor Turner, The Forest of Symbols (Ithaca and
London: Cornell University Press, 1967), 19.
[7] Geertz, 91.
[8] Geertz, 45.
[9] Turner, 36.
[10] Fernando
Segovia, “Pedagogical Discourse and Practices in Cultural Studies,” Teaching
the Bible: The Discourses and Politics of Biblical Pedagogy, Segovia and
Tolbert, eds. (New York: Orbis, 1998), 158-159.
[11] Geertz, 30.
[12] For the most comprehensive account of the US’
colonial and neocolonial “presence” in the Philippines, please read Daniel
Schirmer and Stephen Rosskamm Shalom’s The Philippines Reader: A History of
Colonialism, Neocolonialism, Dictatorship, and Resistance (Boston: South End
Press, 1987) and Resistance in Paradise: Rethinking 100 Years of US Involvement
in the Caribbean and the Pacific (Philadelphia: American Friends Service
Committee and Office of Curriculum Support, 1998).
[13] Based on Dianne Bergant's "An Anthropological
Approach to Biblical Interpretation: The Passover Supper in Exodus 12:1-20 as a
Case Study," Semeia 67.
[14] Leny Strobel, Coming Full Circle: The Process of
Decolonization among Post-1965 Filipino Americans (Quezon City, Philippines:
Giraffe Books, 2001).
[15] Valerio Nofuente, “Jeepney: King of the Road?” in Rogelio
Santos’ Onli In Da Pilipins, c1998 (available at http://www.jetlink.net/~rogers/jeepney.html).
[16] A jeepney is a mass transport system (blink). It
is a symbol of the decolonizing Filipino (wink). The former is a “thin”
description, the latter a “thick” one. Geertz uses an example from Gilbert Ryle
to shows the difference between a "blink" and a "wink." A
blink is an involuntary twitch (the thin description). A wink is a
conspiratorial signal to a friend (the thick description). Although the
physical movements involved in each are identical, each has a distinct meaning
"as anyone unfortunate enough to have had the first taken for the second
knows" (Geertz, 6). A wink is a special form of communication which is:
deliberate; to someone in particular; to impart a particular message; according
to a socially established code; and without the knowledge of the other members
(if any) of the group of which the winker and winkee are a part. In addition,
the wink can be a parody of someone else's wink or an attempt to lead others to
believe that a conspiracy of sorts is afoot. Each type of wink can be
considered to be a separate cultural category (Geertz, 6-7)
[17] Geertz, 234.
[18] Geertz, 235.
[19] Geertz, 240.
[20] Geertz, 243.
[21] Essentialist and Epochalist definitions adopted
from Matt Steven’s dissertation, The Class Basis of Nationalism, available at http://www.columbia.edu/~mfs10/public/Thesis_Chapter_1.html
[22] Geertz, 240.
[24] E. Arsenio Manuel, et al, Treasury of Stories:
Filipino Myths and Folktales (Manila: Anvil Publishing, 1995).
[25] Howard Harrod, The Animals Came Dancing (Tucson:
The University of Arizona Press, 2000), 43.
[26] Sr. Mary John Mananzan, The Woman Question in the
Philippines (Manila: Institute of Women’s Studies, 1997), 4.
[27] Mananzan, 5.
[28] Mananzan, 11.
[29] Jaime Belita, “The Nono and the Nino,” And God
Said: Hala, ed. Jaime Belita (Manila: De La Salle University Press, 1991) ,
160-161.
[30] Geertz, 252.
[31] Albert Ravenholt reports of such strikes in
“Jeepneys by Sarao: A Case Study of a Self-Made Young Philippine
Industrialist,” Southeast Asia Series, Vol X, No. 10, American Universities
Field Staff, Inc., 1962.
[32]
Revelation Enriquez Velunta, "Ek Pisteos
Es Pistin and the Filipinos' Sense of Indebtedness" in Kent Richards, ed.,
Seminar Papers of the Society of Biblical Literature, 1998 (Atlanta, GA:
Scholars Press, 1998), pp.33-59.
[33] George Marcus and Michael Fisher, Anthropology as
Cultural Critique (Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press, 1986), 47.
[34]This portion is based on Melanio Aoanan's
"Teolohiya ng Bituka at Pagkain: Tungo sa Teolohiyang Pumipiglas," Explorations in Theology, Journal of
Union Theological Seminary, Vol. 1 No. 1, November 1996, 23-44.
[35]Fr. Leonardo Mercado discusses this in his Elements of Filipino Philosophy
(Tacloban Divine Word Publications, 1974).
[36]Aoanan, "Teolohiya ng Bituka," 35.
[37]Daniel Patte in his Discipleship According to the Sermon on the Mount (Valley Forge,
Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1996), 386, comments: "While conversing with
students and colleagues at Union Theological Seminary (Dasmarinas,
Philippines), who cannot think of
themselves apart from the community to which they belong, it became
clear to me that I was looking in the wrong direction. The word of God is never 'for me' by myself;
it is always 'for us.'"
[38]In its most literal sense, the greeting means,
"How are your intestines?," because it is a question prompted by a
situation of kumakalam ang bituka
(hunger pangs).
[39]See Virgilio Enriquez, “Kapwa: A Core Concept in
Filipino Social Psychology, “ Sikolohiyang
Pilipino, Aganon and Ma. Assumpta, eds. (Manila: National Bookstore, 1985).
[40] Arnold Van Gennep, Les Rites de Passage, 1909,
quoted in Turner, Ritual Process, 94-95.
[41] Turner, Ritual Process, 95.
[42] Turner, 96.
[43] Turner, 129.
[44] Turner, 132.
[45] Geertz, 239.
[46] Geertz, 237.
[47] From Rhacel Salazar-Parreńas, Servants of
Globalization: Women, Migration, and Domestic Work (Stanford: Stanford
University Press, 2001).
[48] Eleazar Fernandez, “Exodus-toward-Egypt,” A Dream
Unfinished, Segovia and Fernandez, eds. (New York: Orbis, 2001), 167-184.
[49] Reynaldo Ileto, Pasyon and Revolution (Manila:
Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1979), 4-5.
[50] Ileto, 7.
[51] Ravenholt, 10.
[52] Ravenholt, 9.
[53] Ravenholt has Manila figures at 17,000 in 1962
(3), while Nofuente has 27,000 in 1998.
[54] Ravenholt, 3.
[55] Ravenholt, 3.
[56] Geertz, 238.