Ad-ding Us Up:Advertisements can tell so much about our society

Ad-ding Us Up:
Advertisements can tell so much about our society

F.V. Beup Jr

The thought hit me during my stay in Seoul, Korea. Not having much to do, sometimes I would watch and try catching the alien words on Korean television. For months I struggled to listen, hoping that I would naturally acquire the ear to discern words spoken by “real” Koreans. I made very little progress. I heard little and barely understood the spoken language, save for some words and sentences I learned at Seoul National University. Faced with this problem, it’s amazing how the mind makes up for the handicap by maximizing its potential to generate meanings from what the eyes see. It seemed to me that as my ears lost the ability to hear meaningful utterances, my eyes became keener, supplying my mind with plenty of visual information to process. And because my ear could not make out what I hear, watching TV became a guessing game. The most interesting shows (because they were easier to understand) were the ones with the least talk; the most boring ones were, naturally, the talk shows. When watching sitcoms I laughed at visual cues that seemed funny (to me). In soap operas, I focused on the faces of the actors and actresses: I like the way she turns that pretty head, Korean men are as pretty (sometimes prettier) than the women, My! Where do they get such fine complexion? The director sure knows how to portray sadness here, etc.

After weeks of watching TV, I thought that my effort at understanding Korean language was futile. I made sense of my surroundings visually, all my energy now concentrated on a singular goal: to understand Korean society in visual terms. It was then when I discovered the pleasures of watching television commercials. In Korea, television ads are not plugged in the middle of TV dramas, nor are they shown in breaks during newscasts. Advertisements comprise a whole segment, a major break before or after a show that is shown uninterrupted from beginning to end. The advertisements are quite a spectacle: the latest car from Hyundai, the widest and flattest TV screen from Samsung, Anycall cellular phones, a special refrigerator for kimchi, LG credit cards, Korean Air, Hite beer, cosmetics, computers—everything the mostly middle-class Koreans can buy. I note the near-absence of food commercials; and I was awed by the number of high-ticket items being sold onscreen. Who’s going to buy all these? Koreans must be really rich.

So, there, in front of the television, something dawned upon me, a revelation so obvious I should have known about it ages ago: TV ads speak more about our society than we care to notice. Philippine TV ads are composed mainly of food products and basic necessities—canned sardines, soy sauce, bath soap, detergent soap, toothpaste, shampoo, etc. Our necessities are simple, pointing to an economy that is barely out of subsistence level. Many items such as shampoo are sold in sachets, powder laundry soap in small packets, vinegar in budget packs, instant coffee in “stick” packets. The list goes on. What it says about Filipinos is that they are poor, that they can only afford something to last them for a day. It’s about survival, really. Getting by until the next pay-day.

Try going to Manila bay at the end of a storm and check out the garbage that is dumped on the shore. Plastics of all shapes and sizes, most of them meant to package something that small money can afford. Multiply that by the millions of plastic-throwing households and what you get is 7,107 islands floating on plastic. Manila itself owes much of its floods to plastic clogging the drainage system. If Manilans don’t die for want of food, they will soon drown in floods courtesy of the plastics they throw away.

It does not get any better. Judging by the number of infant milk formula advertisements on Philippine TV, you can be sure that there are still more plastic-throwing Filipinos being born every minute. Why else would they advertise milk formulas if we don’t like making babies? You see, TV ads say something about a country’s demographics, too. I’m not surprised why I did not see such kind of advertisements on Korean TV: Korea has falling birth rates. Either that or they breast-feed. And what do we feed our children? It’s all on TV: corn chips, potato chips, candies, canned sardines, instant noodles, pop soda. Ah, this is our concept of children’s paradise. And it’s all in those ads.

Maybe it’s not survival we Filipinos are really after. Just slow death.

Why We Need to Rewrite Philippine History

Why We Need To Rewrite Philippine History
(First Part)

As a teacher of History, I am perhaps better equipped than many people to have an informed opinion of Philippine society and what ails it. But of course, my analysis is not the only one out there, nor is it the most correct. Historians themselves do not share a common view of things, much less a perfect one; it is simply unlikely given their individualities, personal beliefs and convictions and different range of knowledge. G.R. Elton, a historian-philosopher, pointed this out when he said that history changes depending on how much knowledge and evidence you have at hand. The more you know, the more accurate your history becomes. But add to that your own interpretations of the data and you become—whatever profession you are in—a historian in your own right.

But what kind of historian? Here now lies the problem for it is at this point where ideas diverge, and where the amateur historians are sifted from the professionals. For Elton, at least, history must not be subordinated to one’s ideology or personal politics. One may interpret, but one must not suit history to his or her preconceived answers. Your facts and evidence must reign supreme. Eventually, they will yield the answers to the questions posed. So far, so good.
If only it were that simple.

Philippine history—the type taught in our colleges—provides a very good example of this type of problem where a particular framework is made to explain the flow of history. Take a look at the most popular textbooks that are currently used in Philippine schools. They mostly follow a framework that explains Philippine society in materialist terms, correctly pointing out its social, political and economic ills but sorely failing in its project, whether overt or covert, to change Philippine society hopefully for the better. By a “better” society I mean that the people who comprise it share a common goal of providing everyone the opportunity to realize their utmost potential by putting the interest of the greater majority above anything else. By implication, this means that personal agenda and competing ideologies must take the back seat and surrender to the dominant social and political values that the people freely find most acceptable and beneficial to their well-being.

Why has Philippine history—and the teaching of it—has failed to strengthen Philippine society into a “better” one is an interesting and a highly volatile topic. One has to go over the entire history of the country from pre-colonization to post-colonization in order to have a good grasp of the country’s present problems. One also has to face up to the established historians and their loyal followers who are revered by many as giants in their field, giants who are perhaps to be occasionally questioned but never challenged.

Filipino materialist historians in particular have made the themes of exploitation, oppression and class struggle as the focal points of Philippine history, depicting the foreign colonizers as the first oppressors who handed down their ill practices and ill-gotten privileges to their Filipino “cohorts” who insatiably perpetuated these practices down the line. This is fairly accurate interpretation, but one that is also fraught with dangers. For one, it has the strong tendency to discredit the legitimate efforts of the upper class to push for a free and equitable Philippine society. Secondly, it institutionalizes the victim mentality in the citizenry, making them prone to blaming others for the failures of their society. Not surprisingly, this type of history has left in its wake Filipino heroes divided along class lines, the Jose Rizal versus Andres Bonifacio hoopla being the most prominent example. To this very day, class division permeates nationalist discussions whether in the streets or in universities. Inevitably, it is easy for the themes to be exploited by ideologically-based groups in advancing their own interests to the detriment of the emergence of a united and strong nation. Like any other class-defined histories, this portrayal offers very little room for alternative solutions to social problems other than the final overthrow of the ruling class through violent means. Instead of helping crystallize the shared values that should serve as guide for the emergence of a “better” Philippine society, the present type of historical writing does very little to realize that goal.

(To be continued)