An Inflated Rant, Some Stream of Consciousness, and Some Uncanny Analogies Struck in Between: A Blog that May not Feel like One

Perhaps, when going through the motions of what one would qualify as a run-of-the-mill day of his/her own, certain other descriptions— aside from but closely identical to the form “run-of-the-mill”— can be used to encapsulate such a ubiquitous “phenomena” experienced by virtually the aggregate pottage of humanity.  Normal.  Unremarkable.  Average (in the most monotonous, monochromatic, and bland sort of way).  Mundane.  Furthermore, let me posit that the run-of-the-mill-day is so-called due to the repetition thereof; the repetition whether desirable or otherwise; the repetition akin to that of overused gags; the repetition that renders the joints arthritic, the arteries hypertensive, the hair to a mottled grey; the repetition as inexorable as sunset, sunrise, sunset, sunrise, sunset, sunrise, sunset, sunrise…; the repetition ad tedium.

The implication with the above is that one becomes numb to these occurrences— like a stabbing and excruciating kind of pain that recedes into the background of sensation as nothing more than a dull ache (albeit, in another sense, excruciating still).  Yet there are instances, as one is in the process of this repetition, wherein he/she is able to shatter the barrier of mundanity and see him/herself and the circumstances as if through a pair of new eyes; to be able to observe him/herself and the surroundings from the point of view of a critical third party.  I’d say these, let’s call them, breaks in the pattern normally stem from surges of emotion and equally by— in my own case at least— surges of extreme calmness as well.  In any case, the “unremarkable” ceases to be so, and one can talk about it with such fervor: how the wind tends to hum a certain tune as it blows over the horizon, how the blades of grass undulate with this tune like a vast sea of green, and how the sky ferries this breeze into the deep blue.  Well, if we want to use the analogy given in the first sentence of this paragraph, then it would be how one would double over, kicking and thrashing to waking agony, to the cacophony of a rekindled kind of pain as it twists and contorts in new, unimaginable ways; as it carves out even more tortuous channels for itself, red and sinewy, very fresh, very raw.

Accordingly so, allow me to share an anecdote of one of my return-trips up over to Katipunan coming from the South where I’d stay over for the weekends.  Nothing special really, nothing new at all, yet, somehow, I was painfully aware of the traffic and its severity that would make a traditional Roman Catholic priest in the Philippines ponder— and ponder deeply— on the notion that the country is overpopulated.

Perhaps there was something in my coffee that morning, or that I had slept in the wrong position, or that had slept very little to begin with, or perhaps just stress in general over the fact that time wasn’t exactly very giving of elbow-room during, and being confined in a car forced to a snail’s pace would have helped only if I were a salt-my-wounds type masochistic.

The whole ordeal was something like this: you’d grind yourself out of the lumbering heap of metal and etiquette-less driving just to get yourself into a new heap to grind yourself out of once more.  Rinse and repeat from point A to point B. More so, like Big Foot and Nessie, traffic emerges from the fray; then, at some point, it just vanishes (sadly and vastly not as quick as the two icons from crypto-zoology).  Oh, and it was everywhere too, like a plague; well, one could say that traffic is a plague in its own right.  From the opposite lanes to all the other forks on the road leading to alternative routes, there was a promise of a long line of vehicles, the sound of your patience straining, and your schedule bidding its farewells.

There really was no understandable reason for these points of congestion: no road nor roadside accidents, no events that required the redirection of existing routes, nothing of the sort.  The only reason (apparently perhaps) was that it was a Monday and that it had rained— mind you, rained— during the earlier hours as well as the fact that there were U-turn slots every now and then.  There was public transportation too.

So as not to belabor the point any further, the net effect was that it took virtually the whole morning just to get to where I had to be.  A trip that would’ve ideally been made in less than an hour, 30 to 40 minutes give or take, was mutilated, left to decompose for a bit, spat on, then stitched back together into a 3-hour long abomination.

Consequent to this fiasco, there came an arm-chair assessment of the country, of the Philippines, on how it fares in facilitating its traffic flow.  The critical individual who has honed his/her reading and intuition to a pair of sharp edges may have already guessed what the gist of that assessment entailed absent any further details divulged.

In any case, with the notion of the country in mind, that of a nation also stemmed forth since, in colloquial conversation, the two concepts— more appropriately, the two words— are used rather interchangeably.  Going on a bit further, there came nationalism.  Now there is indeed many a definition contending to embody the concept of nationalism; really, one can go on volume after volume in discussion of the subject.  However, for my purposes, let me posit this one which is quite basic: that nationalism refers to how individuals acknowledge the existence of a collective and how they attribute themselves as belonging therein; hence, equally so comes their acceptance of the systems and constructs— such as but not limited to laws, norms, and/or structure of government if any— of the collective as that of their own.  More so, we may extend, in order to isolate this definition, that the described acknowledgement of the collective is so widespread to the point of a, well, national scale.  You see, the definition given is quite ambiguous (as it can refer not just to a nation but may very well fit a community or smaller levels of social strata as well), and the qualifier-of-scale is also as hazy if not even more so.  But that’s perfectly fine!  I’ll put it on faith that the general reader would get what I mean, and I’ve rambled like a textbook for too long, so let’s set those ambiguities aside for the arena of the social sciences and its participants to settle.

Moving on, perhaps then we could say that if one would like to find symptoms of Philippine nationalism in the country, looking at the traffic is not a good way to search.  Alternatively— let’s restate that into a more striking form— if one were to use the traffic in the country as reference, Philippine nationalism can be approximated to non-existence.  Let’s look at some common observations that can be made by individuals who have experienced, to a considerable extent, what a drive along the general roadways of Philippines— especially the urban areas— usually entails, i.e. on the average.

For one, U-turn slots.  “Common” intuition for the scheme of usage of these slots would be that vehicles intending to make the U-turn are to occupy the most proximate lane to the particular slot.  That is, in the Philippines, this is the lane leftmost of the drivers’ perspective prior to redirection.  Sometimes, the U-turn slot may be so-made in order to accommodate two lanes.  Nonetheless, the underlying rationale to such protocol is to limit a lane/s for U-turn slots, leaving the other parallel-routed lanes— which would be more than half of the remaining, assumedly— for vehicles intending to go straight ahead, undisturbed.

So, in the case of four parallel lanes, the setup would be the leftmost lane for U-turns and the three remaining for cars continuing on ahead.  In the Philippines (at least within the Metro), however, it’s unsurprising to see this distribution reversed: three lanes for vehicles prime for U-turn and the remaining lane for proceeding ones.  I’ll not dwell on the juxtaposition between the ideal and the reality in the situation after the U-turn is made where the redirected vehicle ought to align itself with the new direction of the route on the according lane nearest the transited slot, but in Philippine reality, well, let’s just continue.

So what is the implication on these kinds happenings that would render the creature that is Philippine nationalism ever so elusive, like a tree hiding in a forest, or like a piece of trash hiding in a dump?  Well, we can interpret it this way: we have an individual so-pressed with his/her schedule— his/her time is more valuable than anyone else’s, you see— and he/she cannot afford the marginal delay imposed by staying in that single lane nearest the U-turn he/she is looking to make.  Hence, he/she would prefer to stay on the other parallel lanes to benefit from the relatively smoother flow of vehicles.  Then slowly, very slowly— like a predator prowling the forest for unsuspecting prey, or like thug skulking about dark alleyways for a victim or for some loose change— he/she veers closer and closer to the U-turn slot; not along the intended lane, of course.  Then— like the silent hunter making itself known only when it was too late, or like an unsuspecting fart muffled just at the last moment— he/she makes the headlong turn into the opposite lane (or lanes, it depends).

Meanwhile, this person is heedless of the inconvenience exacted onto the other drivers behind: the fellow motorists, rather in Philippine context, the fellow motorists that are also members of the same Philippine society, the collective in this case.  As far as this person is concerned, the rest ought to just step aside as he/she goes on his/her merry way.  In that sense, while that individual may boast of his/her nationalism (of the so-called “Pinoy Pride”) his/her manner of conducting transit along the roads collectively used says otherwise, a stark, step-on-everybody-else otherwise.

To make things worse, the adverse effects are cumulative as there’s a considerable number of motorist have that kind of mentality; considerable enough to make it possible to witness three, four, five, up to whatever number of lanes worth of cars pressing themselves into such a relatively narrow U-turn slot, absent any system or courtesy.  Equally considerable is that it would be enough to make you wish to had never needed to leave home in the first place.

To give my point even more leverage— albeit that I shall try to render this briefer than the first illustration, let’s go on to another bane driving down the Philippine roads like it was the only one there: public transportation, usually buses and jeeps.  Needless to say, having to contend with these vehicles as they go about swerving, overtaking, and/or suddenly braking is like trying to argue with an idiot.  In the end, you’ll never win.  Moreover, having to travel aboard public utility vehicles is no bed of roses either.  In the extreme, you could think of it not as a bed at all but as an iron maiden— a confinement of flesh grinding against flesh as your personal space in invaded until you stop caring, where the heat or the rain-drenched grime prick at you so as not to think about hygiene for the duration of the travel.

And so, a particular way to make sense of all this, what could it be?  Well, we could attribute this to the scramble for passengers, more precisely the rat race for fare revenues.  With the boundary system as the normal scheme operating within the public transportation systems, the drivers need to raise their fare revenues up to a specified amount before they get to pocket the excess as take home pay.  Oh, I forgot to include that this excess over the specified amount, the “boundary, would still have to absorb further deductions from gas and oil— after all that, there you go, the take home pay for a day’s labor.

On one hand, sure, there’s the reckless driving from these public vehicles.  And who couldn’t notice the general conditions imposed upon their passengers— ever had to sit, once upon a jeepney ride, on a chair of such fine craftsmanship that its make was entirely out of air before?  The thing is we can view all these idiosyncrasies as a sordid reflection of the rather dismal working conditions faced by the industry of public transportation.  And that’s a valid view, of course.  After all, a person’s got to eat; a person’s got to provide for any dependents.

On the other hand, however, equally as valid is the picture not so pretty to those who love to take the side of the underdog.  In this one, we have individuals who are more concerned with their own gain, and the inconvenience, the disruption, the threats of accident— all those hazards— involuntarily assumed by the rest of the motorists and passengers are merely by-products, a loud and smelly belch after a fit of greedy gorging.

Remember the bus that fell from the skyway on July 26, 2011?  While the surviving operator attributed the strong wind for the incident (what strong wind indeed to be able to cause the bus to careen into a high drop below), other reports say over-speeding; still other reports say that the bus in-question was racing with another bus before it went off-road, so to speak.

So, yes, are we dealing with nationalism, as in considering the collective, or selfishness, as in “What collective?”  Is it nationalism, as in to see beyond the self even through small actions, or negligence, as in to fail to see a bigger picture?

Well, for a while now, it’s been nationalism this, nationalism that; nationalism is nationalism is nationalism is nationalism.  But then doesn’t it seem that such a “high” state of societal operation is rather difficult to realize?  In a way, yes, such a “high” state of societal operation is indeed difficult to realize.

Nonetheless, allow me to share some insight offered by Mr. Raul V. Fabella, currently part of UPD School of Economics, on the issue.  In shorthand, according to Mr. Fabella but in my own interpretation, nationalism may not have been in such form to begin with; that during the initial formation of social framework, social interactions stemmed not from these sentiments.  Rather, social interactions were moved by simpler, more practical motives— motives aimed to better augment the living condition of involved individuals.  So to say, I’d be on good terms with you because it’ll make my life easier, and you with me since it’ll make your life easier.  For people into economics, you can extend this case by getting the horizontal sum (yes, I just had to put it in there somehow) of like interactions in order to get the totality of the particular society (at some level of “equilibrium”, however interpreted).  Eventually this motive goes through what may be described as social evolution and natural selection until it becomes the bonafide form of nationalism we’ve been problematizing in the first place!

And I’ve come to acknowledge the potency of such view.  As a tangential point, by the way and allow me this further vanity, I strike the analogy of this development into nationalism with Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs such that the base needs are to be satisfied first before moving on to more abstract ones just as the base underpinnings of social interactions are to be of initial prevalence before those of more complex operation.

Thus, we may look to Economics.  On the onset, revisiting the monster that is the traffic thrashing about on Philippine roads, it wouldn’t take the Smith nor the Keynes of this era to point out with such surety that the rampant road congestion is equivalent to rampant inefficiency.  However, on the side, the Smith or Keynes of this era ought to point this out to the current president of the Philippines because apparently the traffic (referring to that in EDSA) is a sign of a booming economy.  Readers may opt to turn a blind eye to the previous statement since that’s just me grumbling on a quote from the person from way back.  Though if by “booming” meaning that the economy is imploding in on itself, then the attribute is right on the money, if there were money to be had that is.  A recent study within this year by Japan International Cooperation Agency found that the daily traffic jams in the Philippines costs the country roughly 2.4 billion pesos a day.  That’s just, well, damn.

Furthermore, the issue on traffic flow is but a basic one, meaning one more rooted in practicality and ease.  One can say that it’s as fundamental as the main questions faced in Economics, i.e. what to produce; how to produce; and for whom to produce.  As we can see, how well an economy answers these questions may very well spell the difference between a billion pesos lost or a billion pesos gained.  And who would want to lose a billion pesos (let’s assume the rational, non-masochistic person proverbial in the literature of the discipline)?  Thus, by extension, who would desire such abominable traffic?  Further, let’s assume a closed economy.  No, I’m sorry, scratch that second assumption; I just had to put that in.

In any case, my point is that, in my perception, people are so fervent in pushing for issues such as the Freedom of Information (FOI) Bill, on how taxes ought to levied and how equitable one form of taxation is over another, on whether the governance should be more to the right or more to the left, or if Mindanao be made independent from the rest of the Philippines.  People get so pumped on these relatively, I’ll call them, “lofty” concerns.  And rightfully so, of course— these are issues that should be raised for addressing, issues that ought to be settled in due time and in due process, dire issues, important issues.  Yet, shouldn’t we also hold in primacy, shouldn’t we be as fervent towards those problems as “basic” as the kind of traffic the country has to deal with or the quality of public transportation available to its citizens?  I mean these are things which I’d think to be more readily felt if addressed, really.

I’m no expert in economics; as I write, I’m simply a college student who has only taken the most rudimentary courses on the subject.  I’d still think it valid, nonetheless, for me— even for me— just to ask some questions, hypothetical.  You know, I’d ask just for us to think, hell, even just to speculate.  What if, somehow, the traffic were to be reduced by a quarter— just a quarter for a start and we’ll see what happens from there?  What if the thought of the daily commute weren’t so daunting, that the daily commute could be thought of as sightseeing with a purpose?  What if motorists strictly followed traffic rules and observed road etiquette?  What if the roads in the country were maintained and kept in mint condition?  What if the country were hit by the usual storm and not suffer severe collateral damage and casualties to flooding as well as the like hazards?  What if the country or parts of the country were experiencing said storm— with strength of say signal number 3— and still have electricity, let alone their houses?  What if our electricity was produced relatively cheaply, and not among the most expensively provided in the world?  What if necessities such as potable water could be provided without being bogged down by red tape and/or public as well as private bureaucracy?  What if our infrastructure in general were to be “put on steroids”?  What if the country had a comprehensive system of urban planning?  What if the service of providing internet were to allow for faster internet speeds and were to be made more accessible, more so better quality Information Technology in general while we’re at it?  What if we had more resources aimed at the development of science and technology?  What if the schools could accommodate the students, the hospitals could accommodate the patients, the (domestic) economy to accommodate more of the labor force up to the full extent of their skills and know-how?  What if the images evoked were not just limited to these questions?

Indeed, such is the dream.

Finally, I shall tie this whole self-banter up with a nice little knot that joins both ends together, in particular, to relate the coming concluding sentiment with my initial exposition on the “mundane”, an exposition on the “average”— which, a number if not all readers have noticed, was relatively long (the whole composition was long, actually, and sorry for that).  Just as how Economists concern themselves (assumedly) with concepts such as GDP per capita, welfare and its transference due to policy changes, or all other macro and micro economic concepts and how they trickle down to the average person, Economics as a whole— among other disciplines, yes— does have and should have the duty of bettering what people would call an “average” day.

Perhaps then the Philippines can have its nationalism.

—Miguel Raymundo C. Gutierrez

References:

http://business.inquirer.net/130649/traffic-costs-p2-4b-daily

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/30443/driver-in-skyway-accident-dies%E2%80%94police

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/metro-manila/07/26/11/bus-falls-skyway-4-hurt

http://opinion.inquirer.net/20755/away-with-the-transport-boundary-system

http://getrealphilippines.com/blog/2013/01/high-traffic-volume-a-sign-of-a-booming-economy-noynoy-says/