What I Learned from Professor David

Intelligent Citrizenship...

The first time I saw this phrase, it got me thinking about the kind of talk that I would be hearing from Professor Emeritus Randy David. Citizenship is usually defined as being a member of a community or of a nation. Intelligent citizenship might mean being aware of what is happening to your nation. That was my first thought upon hearing it.

He started his talk with what Sociology 10 is basically about - Self, Nation, and Citizenship. Self is the concept wherein we differentiate ourselves with others. We are unique individuals with different thoughts and with different personalities. We always assert individuality even if we find similarities among other people which also brings us unity.

We also strive for freedom. The perfect manifestation of this can be seen among children when they start to stand up for their right to choose their desired path even if their parents oppose them. We simply want autonomy. We want to be the drivers of our own lives. We also strive for self-perfection. We usually have role models that we look upon and try to imitate. We have this constant battle of refining ourselves.

Nation is an imagined community wherein we treat ourselves as one because of the commonality in language, culture, history, etc. This started when we became an independent nation after centuries of colonial servitude. What does it really mean to be a Filipino? Is it knowing who the national heroes are, speaking the national language or just simply eating Filipino delicacies like the balut or adobo? The problem of nation as a source of identity arises. What about those people who are working abroad or those who grew up abroad but has Filipino blood in them? The concept of the modern Filipinos was then created.

Citizen, on the other hand, was defined as an inhabitant of the cite or the city. City is the place we come home to and the place where we find security. It is a stable and peaceful community. It came from the Greek word "polis" which meant city-state. 

How does one become a member of the polis? One becomes a member of the polis when he is free from the necessities of life, when he is able to rule over their household, when he can differentiate himself from the household, and when he has the ability to stay and leave the polis anytime he wants.

In order to enter the agora, a public realm of ideas, one should be a free man, not working, not a slave, and not a hungry person. The agora is a perfect spot to converse with your equals and to share and exchange your opinions and ideas without the fear of being dominated. This is a place where you persuade people to make your ideas preferable over the others. This is also a spot where you become open to persuasions. This simple discourse between the citizens can be referred to as the politics.The Greeks defined politics as any form of activity done by the inhabitants of the polis. Technically, whatever you do in the polis, as long as you are a member of it, is called politics. 

In our world today, the term politics becomes problematic. It is usually equated with ruler ship, which is the exact opposite of politics. Ruler ship discards the opinions of the people. What matters most are the opinions of the leaders. What the citizens can do is to abide by the rules held by the Constitution. People must not try to rule, but instead try to persuade.

Even ordinary citizens can be part of the politics. I realized that this is one of the greatest gift a human being can have. In this political realm, we speak and compare views with other people. There is also an element of persuasion wherein words are carefully chosen to let your audience know that your ideas are worth considering. You try to persuade them into thinking that your ideas are preferable over the others because it is far better than the rest. It's also a time for us to be critical. With so many ideas presented to us, we cannot just say yes to everything. We have to continuously interrogate people, just like what Socrates did, in order to know all the sides of the story and we also need to weight the advantage and disadvantages of things.

The first problem that we can see here is that not everyone is free from life's necessities, which is a pre-condition in becoming a member of the polis. How could people participate in the agora if they are starving? Of course, they would prioritize work over participation in the public realm. They would prioritize how to earn good money for their family. Applying the ideas of the Greeks, the leaders must then strive to better the lives of the people. They must increase the budget for social services and create new jobs in order to sustain their livelihood. In this way, they can allot their free time in joining the public realm. 

The leaders also have the tendency to prioritize their private needs over the common good. They cannot differentiate themselves from their household. As Filipinos, we have this great bond with our families. It is innate in us to always address the needs of our own families before anything else. This is one of the reasons why corruption is rampant in our country. They use their power for private enriching rather than enriching the country.

If you participate in the public realm and bring with you the problems of your household, you cannot expect people to consider only the problems of your household. This is where the concept of the "common good" comes in. The people compromise in order to attain the common good of all the households in the polis. 

Plato, after the death of Socrates, proposed ideocracy, the ruler ship of ideas. The academe or the scholars, because of their ability to study ideas, oftentimes tend to have this line of thinking. "My ideas are superior from the others." Because the university has their own set of rules which is directed in pursuing the truth, the scholars think that if they enter the public realm, their ideas becomes superior than the others. This is where the problem comes in. Because the scholar is also a citizen, he must not be dogmatic. Yes he has the power to assert the truth, but he must also learn to listen to others opinions as well.

Our world is too complex for us to establish absolute truth in everything. What we see or read from the books written by those great minds may not always be applicable or may not always be true. The books may not reflect those experiences that are being felt by the masses in their everyday lives. The scholars must humble down in order for to hear the opinion of the masses. The masses, must also learn to listen to the scholars.

From Prof David's lecture, these following lessons really caught my attention. An intelligent citizen must take politics seriously. The leaders must increase the political rights of the people in order for them to have an equal opportunity and freedom to participate in the public realm. We should not confuse this with the other realms. Keep in mind that civil laws, religion, science, and academe is different from the political realm. Also, we must prioritize common good over self-interest. Learn to adjust your self-interest so that it may coincide with the common good.

Again, I will stress out the importance of letting people hear what you want to say. Each opinion matters. We must also remember that it's not all about the talking. Learn to listen. These could widen our perspective on things and we might generate new ideas from the variety of ideas gathered. But if you believe that your idea is worth considering after careful inspection of the other ideas and after testing the validity of your own idea with the practicality of everyday life, then you must act! Initiate new beginnings. These new beginnings can start with your neighborhood. 

Prof David stressed out on the idea of the greatest challenge being the organization of political parties. In my own opinion, political parties might dominate the public realm. It would be nice if every political party would take into account the needs of the other parties, but self-interest might prevail. These parties have their own set of ideas. If the ideas of the different parties are not directed towards a common goal and if the ideas or what they believe in are way different from each other, these parties might clash. Due to the differences that cannot be settled, they wouldn't be able to work together. There is this chance of neglecting other ideologies if it doesn't cater to what one's ideology needs (which is not the spirit of politics).

But I'm not saying that I totally disagree with the creation of political parties. It is also healthy to have these occasional clashes. This clashing of ideas makes politics alive.As long as the citizens of the state are participative, discussions and debates on which ideas are more beneficial  for the people would certainly be possible. The intelligent citizens must also learn to be humble if they think that the others presented better points. They should take the ideas into consideration.

We cannot recreate the traditional politics of the ancient Greece, but as what Professor David said, we can still use some of the lessons that are still applicable in our world today. I really enjoyed the lecture. I was really amazed with how he came up with such well-organized arguments. I am honored to be part of the first Sociology 7107 lecture and even after my Sociology 10, I would still try my best to attend the future lecture series of the Department.

Word count: 1652