Social Science Qua Science: Feminism in the Era of Populism
Abstract
When even the hard-won triumphs of feminism are threatened by populist narratives, one can only ask, what role does social science play in a continuously evolving society especially in preserving the common good instituted by the collective action of a peoples rising against sexism? This paper begins with an exploration of the philosophical foundations of social science, as being a science, before it proceeds to elucidating the functions it espouses. Set in the frame of Filipino feminist ethos, social science will be challenged to articulate its role as critique to a populist regime. This will expose the tensions and torsions between feminism and populism and hopes to conclude that the only way to preserve the common good is to change the status quo.
Keywords: social science, feminism, populism, common good, status quo
Social Science Qua Science
Social science began formally during the enlightenment period in the 17thand 18thcentury (Campbell, 2018) when the world started putting premium on methods and systems in the process of developing an understanding of the world around us. A rigidly scientific process became the solid foundation in asserting certain sets of assumptions and in forming a theory to explain the natural world. Social sciences took off from this novel approach. The early social scientists were interested in explaining politics, society and the economy. They embarked on a data collection mission to test their theories although using observation rather than experimentation. Among the notable pioneers of social science were Montesquieu, Thomas Robert Malthus, De Tocqueville and Marx (Campbell, 2018).
Today, social science largely relies as well on empirical evidences to prove or disprove a claim. Unlike the early political philosophers who employed morals, norms and ethics in their assertions, social scientists today optimize evidence to describe social phenomena and illustrate theoretical exhortations about people and society.
The scientific study of the social today has become an interdisciplinary field (Jarvie, 2011). It now requires appreciation of other allied disciplines such as philosophy and the natural sciences. Links with other fields of studies provide social science a wider lens in understanding the different social phenomena that continue to shape and reshape the world.
However, social science continues to be criticized as less of a science. On one hand it is doubted on its predictive ability and on the other hand it is accused of its inability to provide objective interpretation of the world because it is value-laden.
To Baringer (2005), predictability is one domain that natural science has which other forms of knowledge do not seem to posses. The ability to predict potential outcomes is a characteristic possessed by natural science because its objects of investigation are fixed and determinate unlike in social sciences where the objects are generally unpredictable for being endowed with free will. Predictability is argued as the only characteristic that draws the line between positivism and constructivism
There are multiple reasons for this difficulty. Some contend that the social sciences have not yet reached a certain maturity as a discipline (Frazer, 1995, citing Mill, 1987). Others argue that it is simply because the social reality is so fluid and therefore more intricate compared to the physical reality. Water behaves similarly anywhere on earth unlike man, whose thinking, actions and behavior vary from culture to culture, from context to context. This makes the two sciences ontologically different as well making the concept of science a divisive polemic.
Meanwhile, the question of objectivity remains a concern in finding the scientific foundations for making public choices. Risjord (2014) spoke of objectivity as “freedom from pre-existing value commitments,” which basically means that social science must be value-free for when value influences the scientific rigor, policy articulation may be impaired. Many scientists have accused social science as a non-science because it is value-laden. But the puzzle is, should social science be value-free to maintain objectivity if making policy decisions? Or its being value-laden lends some credence to strategic public actions?
According to Sharon Crasnow (2006), there are three ways of viewing objectivity. One, it means being devoid of any partiality. If this is the case, social science must function to constrain the biases stemming from political values. Secondly, objectivity may mean being accessible to judicious enquiry by the public. This allows intelligent and rational polemic on the outcomes of any scientific research. Lastly, objectivity necessitates reliability, referring to the methods utilized in the investigations such that it is able to produce what is prospectively true. Social science must therefore use measures in order to be more objective.
Using these three tests of objectivity, social science can be argued as objective when it comes to reliability and intersubjectivity. Challenges are more pronounced in social science when it is juxtaposed with freedom from biases. However, biases may be limited if social science becomes more open to public scrutiny, where diverse voices engage the results and where the public develops a certain sense of stakeholdership of the outcomes. Therefore, debates on social science research is a vital element in rendering its results solidly objective.
Values and theories are intertwined. As Risjord (2014:29) claimed, “when theories are value-laden, values become theory-laden.” When theories are infused with values, they change. Consequently, these changes will also infuse some changes in values as theories are also affected by the emergence of new acceptable epistemic knowledge. Given this formulation, social policies can both be evidence-based and value-laden, the latter referring to values being constitutive elements of any social inquiry.
The values integral to social science are all part of the self-interpreting capacity of human subjects. This is called the principle of “reflexivity” which natural science is devoid of. Social science does not only interpret their subjects, it also contributes to the definition and re-definition of themselves. On account of this, social science brings forth a whole new dimension of its role in the social world.
Functions of Social Science
There appears to be so much that natural science has contributed to the advancement of society. From the discovery of steel came the industrial revolution, with penicillin came breakthroughs in medicine and with telephone came mass communication. However, some of its consequences also caused great destruction like war, disease and climate change. This leaves social science with a huge responsibility to insulate the society from the shocks of scientific developments. Often, social science is called upon to diagnose and if possible prescribe some cure to allay the social wounds arising from an advancing technology (Wirth, 1947:143).
However, Redfield (1950:31) described the role of social science as “ambiguous, precarious and critically important.”This is because the public generally are inept in understanding the society where they belong and from this lack of understanding comes fear of knowing human affairs. Nonetheless, it remains critical because for freedom-loving societies, the life of the mind is often the arena of truth-claiming and social science is the tool that sharpens this form of intellectual engagement.
There is also a mixed notion about social science to many people. For some, it is a reform, a platform to understand other people and how they interact between and among themselves in a society so that improvements can be made towards peaceful co-existence. For others it is a dangerous propaganda, an instrument to shape how people think about how people should think.
But what really is the function of social science, being a science? A more practical answer would be that it helps people understand the ways of doing things better in society. An economist can analyze with keen foresight the effects of price fluctuations of oil in the international market to the trading of basic commodities domestically. A sociologist can identify easily the circumstances that can trigger the criminal propensity of a person who lived in informal settlements. A political scientist can predict how political parties can play out in the outcomes of a national election. These are among the utilities offered by social science on a practical realm. However, there is more to social science than just its utilitarian function.
Although, one difficulty of social science in asserting its claim in problem solving is its inability to convince the public about its distinction from common sense. Since social problems often deal with what ordinary people confront on a day-to-day basis requiring a personal decision or some forms of resolution, then social science is often perceived as nothing more than just personal opinions couched in difficult-to-understand phraseology. Social science must show how its works speak for its words. After all, the object of social science is to understand social life and to discover the means for its control (Wirth, 1947:149). It must discharge its social responsibility to answer important questions of society. As Wirth (1947:151) puts it: “social science has fallen short of its potentialities because after having analyzed a problem and projected the policies that would bring about the desired change, it became painfully obvious that the social scientist lacked the power to persuade or compel others to put his program into operation.”
In the words of Redfield (1950:34), social science elevates itself because of its illuminating function. While its utilitarian function resonates with the natural sciences as immediate solutions are offered to practical problems, its illuminating function mirrors what philosophy does to the human mind by exposing the vicissitudes between the universal and the particulars in human society. Social science allows a sort of revelation to any person of himself or herself, of his or her immediate community, or of any human situation he or she may find himself or herself. Ultimately, this function helps people to understand themselves in relation to the society where they locate themselves to be. Social science is therefore “not seen as an inventor but as a source of light”(1950:35). One can readily recognize this function in the value played by the great works of highly revered social scientists. Machiavelli’s The Prince, Rawls’ Theory of Justice, Marx’s The Communist Manifesto, Tocqueville’s Democracy in America or Sun Tzu’s Art of War, all demonstrate how social science behaves like a lighthouse in the vast expanse of a dark ocean.
This task of social science therefore is to make society understand the impact of all sciences to human relations, empower what is beneficial and forbid what is detrimental. The challenge though is who and what determines as beneficial or detrimental. It seems that social science is compelled therefore to scrutinize traditional institutions, practices and values making the discipline a “dangerous thought” (Wirth, 1947:147). After all, every social problem requires an appreciation of social values.
From understanding the reality as it unfolds comes another function of social science. The new forms of constructions stemming from a better appreciation of the world around can lead to internal shifts in opinion, ethos or world views. This is the value-formation functionof social science. It is one thing to understand racism or sexism, but it is another to form a firm resolve to stand against any form of racist or sexist behavior as result of the values formed with the aid of social science. With this illumination and value formation, humanity is liberated from the bondage of ignorance and prejudice. When values are formed, one develops a ‘weltanshcaüung,’a personal ethic, a world view through which one sees the universe along with its multi-faceted dimensions, mysteries and wonders that require answers from a particular lens.
This function becomes crucial when analyzing social realities because viewing social reality can vary depending on the lens used – whether from the lens of a privileged position or from the lens of the oppressed position. Social scientists must therefore make both positions known to all so that the social world can be understood as completely as possible. This means that instead of being value-free, social science must be value-oriented so that it can be engaged by the public, at least theoretically making the role of social science a little sharper than simply describing the world, but more importantly to “improve the human lot, to work for justice and freedom from oppression” (Risjord, 2014:26).
A tension between conflicting values may strain the real intent of social science because it can also be used, misused and abused to manipulate, deceive and orchestrate social ills if it falls in the wrong minds. To assuage the fear that social science will be used as a weapon to sow discord and conflict, the fourth function of social science becomes vital, that is, to promote social change for the common good. This is the social changefunctionof social science. While freedom is an intrinsic element of social science, this cannot be exploited to conceal the truth and reject the common good from human comprehension and expression. The truth and common good, often existing in precarious conditions should be defended by the same tools of social science if changes are meant to be for the common good and in the name of the truth.
Karl Marx (cited by Marcuse, 1975) for instance viewed social science as an agent to change the world and not simply to understand the world. While there is no default orientation for change, the rigors in understanding society is sometimes viewed as meaningless if the search for truth does not inure to the benefit of all persons. It implies that social science is a form of thinking that requires dialectics in respectful conversation with assertions and counter-assertions laid down – all in the hope of finding the truth. As a field of contestation, facts to become truth need to be argued with critical mindedness until conclusions are made and are accepted
It is in this context that social science is called to emancipate its subjects from many of the modern-day ideologies where power is unevenly and inequitably distributed. But to be able to do this, social science must be able admit its role in creating this condition that oppresses and marginalizes powerless entities in society. Many of those who set the social science agenda are generally those who had access to power. If it is to perform its emancipatory function, this arena of power in scientific inquiry must be expanded and be made more inclusive.
As a tool for understanding the world, social science is required to identify the areas of injustices and oppression and from there commit to its rectification. Justice therefore, becomes a constitutive element of social science. This change function made more concrete by its emancipatory function is in keeping with the most basic criterion for science –falsifiability (Popper, 1972), or epistemic re-ordering (Foucault, 1970) and or paradigm shift (Kuhn, 1990) as indices of what science is.
Feminism is one exemplification of this one great emancipatory role of social science. From centuries of accepting the role of women as second class citizens came a revolution that saw a dramatic shift in how society now treats women. From a homemaker to a state leader, from birthpains to pains in contributing to the production of labor, from kitchenwares to high-powered weapons, women have broken free from various forms of subjugation and have carved their role as partners in nation-building. This paradigm shift continues to be fraught with challenges as patriarchy remains to lurk within the dark corners of society.
Feminist Critique of the State
At the turn of the century, feminism took centerstage as a key development agenda across the globe. The feminist currents have left an indelible mark in contemporary politics challenging states to ferret out the value of women’s marginalized issues in the ever changing society. Central to these problems is the inquiry into the role of the state, either from the point of view of being the cause of social and political decay or as the answer to these crises. Critically too, power relations need to be interrogated amidst the backdrop of poststructuralist discourses on feminism so as to offer a new configuration of a viable state-society relations. A reflection on the normative value of the state becomes imperative in this respect as informed by Johana Kantola’s (2006) assessment of state feminism.
In general, the feminists argue that the state is responsible in perpetuating the status quo where women are marginalized, subordinated, discriminated, and violate, and the feminists are challenging it for being contrary to the agenda that they are advancing – women’s liberation. The subjugation of women therefore is anathema to the goals of feminism.
Kantola (2006) claims that there are different strands of feminism and asserts that there is not only one feminism but several feminisms– all are challenging the state’s current political order. While most of the time, the different traditions of feminism contradict each other, they all agree in the claim that the entire state structure and processes are gendered and patriarchal. She said that the “feminism’smain contribution has been to expose the gendered and patriarchal character of state institutions, practices and policies,”(2006:118).
To most feminists, the status quo or the current political order is one that glorifies the supremacy of male dominance and the subjugation of women. This needs to be challenged so as to reform the order from subjugation to emancipation, from marginalization to liberation and from subordination to equalization of women.
The liberal feminists look at the sate primarily as a male-interest-wielding instrument where male-defined assumptions are fossilized within its institutional structures through policy generation, obliterating in the equation gender-specific interests and needs of women (2006:119). On the other hand, radical feminists believe that the only acceptable social and political arrangement to the state is patriarchy because the state itself is essentially patriarchal and “patriarchy is always about the rule of men, male supremacy”(Kantola citing Millett, 2006:120). This oppresses women not only because the state is captured by male-dominance but also because the state in its most organic form is the embodiment of patriarchy, no matter the form of the state. Patriarchy as the status quoopposed by the feminists found support from Marxist’s capitalist state (Kantola, 2006:122) by establishing that patriarchy and capitalism are mutually reinforcing each other reducing women’s role to reproduction in the family as a way of sustaining capitalism. Moreover, the Nordic model of feminism reaffirms the observation that patriarchy has set itself as the permanent archetype of state rule by mirroring the “private dependency of women on individual men to a public dependency on the state”(2006:124) whenever the welfare states provide everything women need.
Sadly, these differences cause the paralysis in the feminist debates brought about by the divide between the “in” group or those who see integration as key to reforming the state and the “out” group or those who see autonomy from the state as a more effective approach. The former asserts that changing the state must come from within while the latter believes that it has to emanate from the outside to avoid co-optation especially that the state is organically patriarchal. The “out” group represented by the Radical Feminists hints on reclaiming some amount of power from the center by bringing it to the peripheries and use the same to reform the state. Citing Judith Allen, Kantola (2006:125) brings up the deconstruction of the state from the poststructuralist position arguing that the state as a class in itself must be abandoned because it is a notion too homogenized to address the very disparate realities of the feminist question.
Challenging the status quotherefore, requires a strategic probing into the role not only of the state but also of the society represented by the feminists. The vacillating core of power between state and society needs to be re-interrogated in order to formulate a better and more effective approach at negotiating a mutually beneficial arrangement to liberate women. Otherwise, the state with all its powers, may successfully immortalize the status quoof patriarchy.
To the liberal feminists, the state is just “a neutral arbiter between different interest groups (2006:119) including women. As a proposal, liberal feminists assert the maximization of the policy-making arena for it to yield gender-equalizing laws and elevate the status of women at par with men. This is a position of engaging the state from within. There is an assumption here that the women’s cause is just one of the many other equally important causes that the state must carefully account for in managing a society with pluralist interests. This implies therefore that the feminist push for recognition as equals has to compete with other interests like religious tolerance, ethnic representation, LGBT identification, environmentalism among others. Working from within the state structures somehow applies to “Nordic feminists” and ‘femocrats’ (2006:123), or feminists who work within the bureaucratic state structures. The centrality of the role of the state in supporting the enfranchisement of women is key to understanding that the logical approach these group of feminists pursue is one that optimizes their presence within the bureaucratic contraptions of the state as may be found in state feminism or gender mainstreaming (2006:132) initiatives.
Meanwhile, the state is not only an apparatus to oppress women but in itself the oppressor of women according to the radical feminists. Thus, if the state is in itself the oppressor, the whole structure propagating male dominance must be destroyed as suggested by the radical feminists. This comes close to the Marxian foresight of the state where it has to be eventually destroyed if the goal of women’s liberation is to be achieved (2006:121). If it is the state that imprisons women, the state has to be shattered to free women from bondage. This is an admission that the state cannot address women’s concerns because it is essentially patriarchal. Therefore, women must step out of the state because they cannot challenge patriarchy from the inside. It has to turn to an externally organized community to attack patriarchy because the state cannot be trusted to free women since the state and patriarchy are one and the same. The socialist feminists followed this same approach with a more nuanced stance towards the subordination of women in the home as a means to perpetuate the capitalist capture of the state (2006:122).
For poststructuralist feminists, the debate on engaging the state from inside or from outside can be too limiting given the complexity of the state and its practices (2005:126). Instead, feminists, according to them, must contribute in reconstructing the state through and from multi-faceted platforms until the most effective approach is formulated borne of the multi-layered experiences of women with the state.
The density of methodologies in engaging the state from the lens of feminist approaches require a more context-specific analytical tool to unravel the input of the state in both perpetuating and correcting the empowerment or disempowerment of women. The same scrutiny is needed to identify the entry points through which the society may be able to engage not only the state’s “power over” but more importantly its “power to” transform social inequities into a negotiated equilibrium. For poststructuralists, the nexus of state-society relations in reference to the feminist agenda shall be the core of an evolving discourse in the years to come.
This simply proves that to feminists, along with its different traditions, the state fluctuates between the center and the edges and therefore must be appreciated as transcendental of its traditional hypothesis as being the focal point. Instead, it could be understood as well, as shown by the contemporary theorists, from the peripheral point of view especially when, in the language of the poststucturalists, the feminists ‘de-center’ from the state by acknowledging that there is no singular perception of the state. This is a position that criticizes the “enthroning” (Finlayson and Martin, 2006:156) of reason from the structuralist frame. This implies that the power that belongs to the state must be re-captured by the anti-status quofeminism in order to effectively challenge the existing political order both from within and outside the state. Therefore, power needs to be circulated rather than concentrated in the center, that is, the state.
The liberal feminists understand the state as a ‘neutral arbiter’ (Kantola, 2006:119) of interests following their experiences in working with state policy-enacting structures. This is different from the radical feminists’ take on the state as an institutional rule of men, the embodiment of patriarchy (2006:120) stemming from their world view of state-generated oppression against women. For socialist feminism, the state follows a dual mutually-reinforcing structures of capitalism and patriarchy (2006:122) although with special slant towards capitalism as this was advanced by women in the labor force who saw their subjugation as a state-orchestrated mechanism to reinforce the rule of the capital elites. Nordic feminism on the other hand emanates from the immersion of women in the bureaucracy of welfare states that provided women-specific indulgences cultivating an attitude of state dependency (2006:124).
All of these ideation of the state are fragments of a discursive proposition from the poststructuralists who argued that the formulation of a state theory is contingent upon every feminists’ phenomenological encounter with the state. The state must be understood therefore, according to the dynamism of the political processes (Finlayson and Martin, 2006:170). As such, the state of the feminists is an ideation formed from their engagements with the state. For poststructuralists, they all deserve to be honored and respected.
The brief survey on feminism with the help of poststructuralism presents to us conflicting, though not excluding, claims of the state. We have seen that what is more material, is not the question on what the state is but on how the state should be engaged. In a world with intricate social crises, strengthening state-society relations becomes imperative. Given the anti status quobearing of feminism, in a society that questions centrality of reason and celebrates individualism instead, their agenda must be advanced both through inside and outside the state. As such, these clutches of advocates must be empowered to negotiate with the state in a space that recognizes equal power relations, in an arena that honors the powers from the margins and in a context that values connections between the state and the society, “having the ability to have the feet in both camps [the state and the civil society] and the heart in empowerment”(Paterson, et.al. citing Alex Begg, 2006:154).
However, this may be easier said than done in a populist regime where feminism is often dismissed by the center itself, the state and its leader which is perceived as the embodiment of the people. When the prevailing narrative that is enjoying enormous support from the “people” is devoid of any empathy to women, despite claims of support for women, will feminism still work from the inside or is it better from the outside? Will reform still be a wise option or will regime change be the only way to sustain the gains of the feminist movement? Locate these questions in how the feminist movement in the Philippines has been divided under the Dutrete populist leadership
Feminist Divide and Sexism in Duterte’s Populist Regime
Duterte’s rise to presidency was unprecedented. In Philippine politics, it is seldom that a local city mayor is catapulted straight to presidency, in fact he might be the first one. His career in politics has been proven in his 23 years of leading Davao City to its current economic and political stature in Mindanao.
During his more than two decades as mayor of Davao City, Rodrigo R. Duterte transformed the city from a haven of lawlessness into one of the safest cities in Southeast Asiawith lowest crime rates. Duterte’s harsh crime-fighting tactics earned him the nicknames “the Punisher” and “Duterte Harry.” For what Duterte has done to the city of Davao and its people, along with all the developments that his political leadership has brought to the city, Duterte can now be considered as a political institution in Davao
In the 6thCitywide Social Survey (CWSS) conducted by Ateneo de Davao University (AdDU) in October 2016, President Duterte enjoyed a net satisfaction rating of 94.93% from his home turf. A personal support to him spilled over to the support for his national administration with 90.63% net satisfaction rating, one which is incomparable with other government bodies like the Senate (67.14%), House of Representatives (67.14%) and the Supreme Court (63.17%).
Quite alarming though is that the support for PRRD can lead to disregard for rule of law and human rights. Whether the president is right or wrong, quite a sizeable number of his Davao supporters would turn a blind eye on critical legal and ethical issues. For example, the same survey showed that 27.94% of the respondents believed that the Davao Death Squad is essential in solving criminality and that the means the DDS employ is just (11.27%). Only 6.83% believed that it is against human rights.
The pattern how Davaoenos think and behave reflect the overwhelming trust they have for the president. They trust the president’s wisdom and prudence even to a fault with outright disregard to dissent and counter-consciousness. In social media, one is vilified as “dilawan” (yellow) when criticism is hurled at the president, no matter how constructive it can be. There seems to be a difficulty in distinguishing the policy and the policy-maker.
These expressions of support and the resulting polarization is the brand of populist regime Duterte brought with him in his presidency. The divide is even more magnified among known feminist leaders of the country where on one camp are those who continue to serve his his administration with the hope that he is the last chance for genuine reform the Philippines can ever have and on the other camp are those who, while being outside the state structures, continue to fight misogyny and patriarchy that is in Duterte and his pronouncements. This reflects not only the earlier discussion on how feminists engage the state from both within and outside the arrangements of power but also because Duterte himself is the president of many paradoxes including his ambivalent feminism and machismo.
Duterte proudly carried as his flagship exhibits when he campaigned for the 2016 elections, the landmark legislations of Davao. Aside from the firecracker and smoking bans, he presented as an added value to his candidacy, Davao being the first if not among the pioneering LGUs to have legislated a Women’s Development Code (1995), Reproductive Health Care Ordinance (2008) and Anti-Discrimination Ordinance (2012). As mayor, he used to say that Davao had been a trailblazer when it comes to progressive legislation which the rest of the country tries to emulate. In fact in his Second State of the Nation Address, he quite convincingly ordered the full implementation of the Magna Carta of Women’s Rights in the barangay level. Yet, despite these pro-women stance, he finds nothing wrong with catcalling (Mariz Umali case), sexist jokes (VP Leni case) and womanizing (Speaker Alvarez case) at the same time uses homosexuality oftentimes to demean those who dissent (recent Gascon case).
If we are to list the insults hurled by Duterte against women, too many pages would be wasted narrating the litany. But revisiting some of those that made a mark in his almanac of sexist language can be of help in elucidating the general direction of this paper. The compilation of Pia Ranada (2018) of Duterte’s insults comes in very handy.
For instance, referring to the Australian missionary who was held hostage and eventually killed in the 1989 hostage taking in the Davao Penal Colony, Duterte said,
“Tiningnan ko ‘yung mukha, 'tangina parang artista sa Amerika na maganda. putang ina, sayang ito. Ang nagpasok sa isip ko, nirape nila, pinagpilahan nila doon. Nagalit ako kasi nirape, oo isa rin 'yun . Pero napakaganda, dapat ang mayor muna ang mauna. Sayang.”(I looked at her face, son of a bitch, she looks like a beautiful American actress. Son of a bitch, what a waste. What came to mind was, they raped her, they lined up. I was angry because she was raped, that's one thing. But she was so beautiful, the mayor should have been first. What a waste.)
This rape joke unknown to the president perhaps, reinforces the objectification of women. While treated as a joke, feminist literature on sexist language posits that such utterances reflect the patriarchy embedded in culture and language. This triggered some uproar among feminists outside the state structures but the same evoked silence from among those embedded in the state apparatuses and with quiet acceptance that such should not be taken seriously, the rape joke was fossilized as acceptable.
In the same strand of foul language, he ordered to shoot the female members of the New Peoples Army in the vagina to render them useless. In fine print, he said,
Order bag-o ni mayor. Di lang daw mo patyon. Pusilon lang mo sa bisong arong—’ Og wa na ma’y bisong, wa na ma’y silbi.(There’s a new order coming from Mayor. We won’t kill you. We will just shoot your vagina, so that – if there is no vagina, it would be useless.)
Reducing women’s value to her vagina is a manifestation of gender subordination, seeing women as an inferior being, as nothing but a second class true to the ancient sexist belief that a woman is a misbegotten man. Just the same, we had a divided feminists in the country on this.
One of the latest public displays of machismo exhibited by the president was when he kissed a woman before a Filipino audience in South Korea during his recent official state visit. This was justified by many of his supporters as, "pinapakilig lang ng pangulo ang audience," (the president was simply teasing the audience) or "it was just for fun, it should not be taken seriously."
This cannot be dismissed as yet another of his jokes. Instead, this is already a symptom of toxic masculinity rewarded by a society that glorifies the marginalization and subordination of women especially in language. For a president elected to a lofty and noble seat of power, sexism in language should be avoided because its repeated use means reinforcing the apparatuses of male dominance and women's oppression, a principle which he must have espoused when he signed the Women’s Development Code of Davao in 1995.
This incident and many others, reflect that the Filipino society has not yet gone past through the culture that reinforces the idea of, "boys will always be boys," or "that's the way it is, just leave it at that." The president used his power to defile the Filipino feminist ethos.
When the president gives away a limited copy of a book, he creates a space for competition over a property he owns. With that, he controls the landscape according to his wishes, his own rules and regulations, being the one who wields power. His rule was to give the book for a consideration - that precious kiss on the lips dismissing the idea that a kiss on the cheek or forehead is "pang lola" (for a grandmother).
Clearly, the situation he created is not devoid of anything malicious. There was obviously malice. Otherwise, a kiss on the cheek would have been acceptable. The powerplay was manifested in the president taking advantage of his stature as head of state over women who forgot that they have been instrumentalized or objectified to amuse a crowd of people equally struggling to draw the line between sexism and pure fun. The woman who bravely took the challenge and allowed the president to kiss her on the lips, is doubtfully considered an emancipated woman. She might be representing a significant population of women who are still drowned in a bubble believing that they have been empowered but unknowingly submitting themselves to a power so manipulative that they themselves are blinded with.
The message was clear - the woman was used by a powerful leader to gratify the sensual (or prurient) interest of a score of overseas Filipinos. This was clear from the words of the president himself who said, "gusto ko lang sumaya kayo." That was happiness at the expense of a woman intoxicated by the potion of the president's charm and fortified by his power.
Sexism remains in the mainstream. What people say, do or write is a reflection of what they feel and think. If what they show is sexist, then what they have inside their mind and heart must be sexist as well. If the president's words and acts are still sexist, it simply belies the claim that his heart and mind speak of women's empowerment and gender equality. That leaves so much room for many to wonder if the president's so called pro-women posture is genuine or simply for convenience. What was clear was that the kissing president was never a kidding president. The implications were too serious to ignore.
In this saga of presidential sexism, the feminists also struggled in positioning themselves, both as an insider and as an outsider. If they pursue a strategic silence, sexism, which they fought so hard against, hardens once more and it would take centuries again before this can be rectified. If they engage and make noise, the result is vilification as “dilawan” (yellow) casting doubt on their claims’ legitimacy and credibility.
What the strong women of the Philippines labored for in the past centuries are gone down the gutter because there is an apparent tension between feminism and populism and in this friction, the former folds and the latter wins, seemingly. The question is, how should feminism approach populism in order to keep the gains of women’s empowerment? As a social science, how should feminism behave in the light of the looming threats of marginalization and subjugation, all over again?
Feminism and Populism
In the era of rising populism across different states, democratic institutions seem to break apart as they also fall prey to governmental attacks. One of these institutions could be feminism, as shown above. It appears therefore as Kroes (2018) put it, there are two movements representing the opposite side of the spectrum, “one emancipatory, the other exclusionary.” The former being feminism and the latter as populism.
While conceptually, Mudde and Kaltwasser (2015) asserted that there is no specific relationship between populism and feminism, their observations showed that all identities differentiating people including gender and sex, are all secondary if not irrelevant to populist politics. However, populist leaders do not work devoid of any ideology or at least cultural foundations. If this claim is true, then it will be the specific ideology espoused by the populist leader that can determine if feminism is of value or not in their regime narratives. Given the pendulum-like stance of Duterte between feminism and machismo, it is too hard to tell if feminists can consider him an ally or an enemy.
Framing the feminist discourse as a human rights claim, the next possible analytical method is to look at the irreconcilability of women’s rights as human rights with populism. Some thinkers assert that the two are oil and water (Alegre, 2016) since populism capitalizes on particularities while human rights are founded on universalities. Populism can be considered both as a discourse and a regime trait. As a discourse, it is an ideology that successfully divides the society into two identical and highly hostile groups – the “pure people” and the “corrupt elite” – which follow the argument that politics should be the articulation of the will of the people or the volonté générale (Cas Mudde and Kaltwasser, 2015: Abao,2017).
This “us” versus “them” narrative seeks legitimacy from the people’s support thereby towing the line between the people and the perceived elite. This can make the regime a bit fragile with the dichotomy created. This is true with Duterte’s administration whose rise into power is emblematic of the people’s reclamation of power from the elites. Because of this imagination, there is an expectation on his part to not only represent the people, but to deliver the change he promised to the people.
Reliance on the leader in a populist democracy contributes further to the fragility of state governance. As observed in Guayaquil Ecuador by Mudde and Kaltwasser (2015), “one of the dangers of the populist tradition is the ability of its leaders to utilize hegemonic notions of masculinity into a powerful arsenal for popular redemption against the oligarchy or the ruling elites.”
The incompatibility of feminism and populism is further widened by their philosophical landscapes. Feminism is specifically concerned with individualism while populism follows the logic of holism in favor of the people which is manifested through its representation – the leader. If the Filipino feminists’ ethos will also be abandoned in favor of the “leader,” then feminism can be used for convenience due to its relative conception, that is, it can be invoked when favorable to the people through the leader but can be discarded when found to delay the leader’s development agenda owing to the measures imposed by women’s conventions and treaties on state obligations.
The rising wave of populism across the globe has evolved a new reliance on strongman politics. This is evident in Duterte’s leadership. The greater challenge now for feminists in populist regimes is how to negotiate with the government without insulting the imagined dichotomy with the “pure people” recognized as allies and not as enemies. The emancipatory nature of the feminist movement become a daunting task under a very exclusivist regime intended to protect the “pure people.” Like populism, feminism is also founded on representative democracy. The only difference is found the feminists’ direction towards expanding the whole democratic system rather than narrowing it as populism does (Kroes, 2018). Feminism is aimed at representing the cause of women but more inclusive rather than limited in terms of making its causes available to the people.
In this philosophical elucidation of populism, we can say that it can also runs contrary to pluralism, where the latter believes that the state is comprised of diverse groups and that power should be re-distributed from the center to the peripheries through compromises and negotiations. Feminists negotiate with the state both from the inside and the outside. Presently, some known feminist activists are seated in power aiding the Duterte administration while others remain active in using the parliament of the street exerting exogenous pressure upon the government.
However, optimism can be gleaned from populism as a discourse, if it is treated as a form of language. In this case, communication platforms need to be expanded if feminists wish to re-assert the core values that uphold women’s rights and dignity. But this task can be daunting especially in with the growing politics of demonization against feminism in particular and human rights in general.
The seeming dismissive posture of populism towards feminism poses a domestic and global threat to the consolidation of democratic principles. Since populist leaders survive on the support given to them by the people, the danger becomes even more imminent. When the people accept the demonizing and dehumanizing language of the populist leaders, they commit themselves in turn to abandon the normative value of feminism, exposing their persons and effects to possible violations against their individual and collective aspirations, especially the women.
The divisive rhetoric of populism is sometimes used to legitimize the rule of the regime even disregarding women and gender issues by relying on the wide support given to the leader. Hence, if the leader dismisses a sexist joke as nothing serious, popular support follows reifying sexism as a collective norm. As an implication, the people believe that insulting women’s person and dignity is acceptable because it is irrelevant compare to much more superior concerns such as security and development forgetting that they are all underpinned by women’s rights principles. Also, dislike against women’s rights is further inflamed by establishing that human rights is an instrument of the elite that further marginalizes the average citizens, therefore, an anti-thesis to the promotion of national interests. Although as observed, the ethos of the leader in populist regimes to women’s rights becomes crucial in cultivating a national culture that either respects or abuses women.
If we are to treat feminism as one school of thought in social science, feminism has a serious function under the current status quo of populist government – the function to illuminate, form values, to change society and to emancipate the people they represent. The Filipino women’s movement should regroup and evaluate the structures that appear to be restrictive of feminism. Women leaders must correct at every opportune time the misogyny and sexism exhibited by the populist leader, otherwise, insensitivity to gender equality might be fossilized as a cultural norm. This must flow out of the cognitive dimension and must be expressed in a stronger campaign to alter the landscape by asserting that sexism is not acceptable according to feminism. If the leader of the regime cannot be reformed, it looks like the only way to preserve the gains in women’s empowerment and gender equality is to change the regime whether from the inside, from the outside or both. This is the only way the Filipino women can come close to emancipation from modern-day patriarchy and misogyny.
Conclusion
Sexism and misogyny without a doubt still exists in the Philippines. It is even more dangerous because the manifestations of gender oppression are quite manifest through the institutional representation of a populist democracy.
It has been laid down that populism and feminism are two opposing forces in a spectrum of democratic ideologies because the former tends to be exclusivist and the latter is more emancipatory. Populism divides the people in hostile aggregates while feminism unifies strategic agenda with women’s participation as added value. Populist regimes are leader-centric enjoying support from the “pure people” while feminist discourses believe in the politics of plurality where power needs to be distributed through negotiation and compromise.
If these are the fundamental distinction between populism and feminism, will gender reforms be plausible under a populist regime like the Philippines given the ambivalent stance of President Duterte on the respect for women’s rights and dignity?
A review of the function of feminism as a social science and as a movement shows that it has the duty to illuminate, to form values, to change society and to use the gains achieved thus far to emancipate the women from the threats of present-day patriarchy and misogyny. As a discourse, feminism is supposed to liberate the society from the ills it once defeated – machismo.
But how can this function be fulfilled if the problem of patriarchy and misogyny are organically embedded in a populist regime? Following the Filipino feminist ethos, the women leaders and all supporters need to solidify their acts to induce reform either from within, from the outside or from both concurrently. If reforming the the current regime is found to be hopeless, then a more radical option is available and that is to change the regime. After all, this is how feminism as a social science, is expected to behave. It is anti status quo. It is anti patriarchy.
References
Abao, Carmel V. (2017). Engaging Duterte: That Space Between Populism and Pluralism. In Nicole Curato, Ed., Critical Essays on Rodrigo Duterte’s Early Presidency. BUGHAW, Ateneo de Manila University. Pp. 301 – 318
Alegre, Marcelo. (2016). Populism and Human Rights: Oil and Water?College of Law, Yale University. Retrieved from https://law.yale.edu/system/files/area/center/kamel/sela16_alegre_cv_eng.pdf
Ateneo de Davao University, AdDU (2016). City-wide Social Survey Series 6, CWSS6. October 2016. University Research Council, Ateneo de Davao University.
Baringer, Philip S. (2005). “Introduction.”After the Science Wars, Eds. Keith A. Ashman and Philip S. Baringer. Routledge, London and New York, 2005, pp. 1-12.
Campbell, Cameron. (2018). Why Social Science is a Science? Coursera. Retrieved from https://www.coursera.org/lecture/social-science-study-chinese-society/1-2-why-social-science-is-a-science-EvDiQ
Crasnow, Sharon. (2006). “Feminist Contributions to Anthropology and Sociology.” In Philosophy of Anthropology and Sociology, edited by S. Turner and M. Risjord. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Finlayson, Alan and James Martin. “Poststructuralism.” The State: Theories and Issues, edited by Colin Hay, Michael Lister and David Marsh, 155-171. Basingstoke, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.
Foucault, Michel. (1970). “The Order of Things – An Archaeology of the Human Sciences.” Routledge, London and New York, 2002.
Frazer, Elizabeth. (1995). “What’s new in the Philosophy of Social Science?”Oxford Overview of Education, Vol. 21, No. 3 (September, 1995), pp. 267-281.
Herbert Marcuse, "The Relevance of Reality," in The Owl of Minerva, edited by Charles J. Bontempt, and S. Jack Odell, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1975.
Jarvie, Ian C. and Jesús Zamora-Bonilla. (2011). Introduction, Philosophical Problems of the Social Sciences: Paradigms, Methodology and Ontology. The Sage Handbook of the Philosophy of Social Sciences. SAGE Publications, London, 2011. pp 1-36.
Kantola, Johanna. “Feminism.” In The State: Theories and Issues, edited by Colin Hay, Michael Lister and David Marsh, 118-134. Basingstoke, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.
Kroes, Rob. (2018). Populism and Feminism: Odd Bedfellows. Society, Vol. 55, Issue 1, pp 18-21.
Kuhn, Thomas S. (1996). “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rdEd.” The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London, 1996.
Mill, John Stuart. (1987). The Logic Of The Moral Sciences, (London, Duckworth).
Mudde, Cas and Cristobal Rovira Kaltwasser. (2015). Vox populi or vox masculii? Populism and gender in Northern Europe and South America. Patterns of Prejudice, Vol. 49, Nos. 102, pp. 16-36.
Paterson, Matthew, Peter Doran and John Barry. “Green Theory.” The State: Theories and Issues, edited by Colin Hay, Michael Lister and David Marsh, 135-154. Basingstoke, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.
Popper, Karl. (1972). “Objective Knowledge: an evolutionary approach.”Oxford, Oxford
Ranada, Pia. (2018). Duterte’s Insult List. Retrieved from rappler.com.
Redfield, Robert. (1950). “Social Science in our Society.” Phylon (1940-1956), Vol. 11, No. 1 (1stQuarter, 1950), pp. 31-41.
Risjord, Mark. (2014). “Philosophy of Social Science: A Contemporary Introduction.”Routledge, New York and London, 2014, Pp. 34-56.
Wirth, Louis. (1947). “Responsibility of Social Science.”The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 249, Social Implications of Modern Science, January, 1947, pp 143-151.
