The film narrates the story of the Kim family, composed of father Ki-taek, mother Park Chung-sook, elder son Ki-woo, and younger daughter Ki-jung, who live in a semi-basement. The family infiltrates the life of the wealthy Park family who live in a large, modern house in an affluent neighborhood. The infiltration begins with Ki-woo who becomes the tutor of the Parks’ elder daughter, Da-hye, and through a chain of recommendations with deception and lies, the rest of his family become members of the Park household: Ki-jung (or Jessica) as the tutor of the younger child of the Parks, Da-song, Ki-taek as the family chauffeur, and Chung-sook as the housekeeper. The Kim family thus becomes the ‘parasites’ of the wealthier Parks, earning money from their work, eating from the wealthy’s table, and taking advantage of the empty house one night by drinking and eating from the Parks’ kitchen.

However, the relationship is soon threatened this same night when the Park family’s former housekeeper, Moon-gwang, comes to the house, and the Kim family soon discover that she has been keeping her husband, Geun-sae, from loan sharks by letting him hide in a secret basement. The Park family come home, and an unfortunate series of events follow, with the Kim family killing Chung-sook and their semi-basement home flooded due to heavy rain. The next day, during a party, Ki-woo attempts to kill Geun-sae who overpower him and render him unconscious, and then stabs Ki-jung. Chung-sook attacks Geun-sae, while Ki-taek tends to his daughter. However, Mr. Park orders him to drive his son, who fainted at the sight of Geun-sae, to the hospital, ignoring the bleeding Ki-jung. Angry with Mr. Park’s nonchalance and lack of concern for Ki-jung, he stabs him and disappears. Weeks later, Chung-sook and Ki-woo face charges of fraud and sentenced to probation. As Ki-woo spies on the house, he receives a secret message through the blinking of the lights following Morse code, and he discovers that his father is now hiding in the same basement as Geun-sae.

Ambitious and Individualist World-Views

The Marxist approach is guided by dialectical materialism. The dialectic approach views reality as always in flux, driven by internal contradictions, and interconnected, while the materialist approach privileges material reality over ideas in the historical development of society (Walker and Gray 2007). Through this approach, one may analyze the production of films according to the material conditions that make them possible, and examine how a text portrays or depicts change, contradictions, and connections in reality; alternatively, it also allows us to see contradictions between a text and reality. Following this, Lucien Goldmann proposes that texts arise out of social consciousness and behavior, which means that the structure of a text correlates with the ‘mental structure’ of the author’s social class or a world-view (Forgacs 1986). Accordingly, these world-views are crystallized in texts but are always in flux, “perpetually being constructed and dissolved by social groups as they adjust their mental image of the world in response to the changing reality before them” (Selden, Widdowson and Brooker 2005, 96).

Figure 1. Ki-woo and Ki-jung in front of the Park family’s gate.

Applying this to the film, I want to foreground the title, Parasite. In biology, parasitism refers to a relationship between two organisms, a parasite and a host, in which the former benefits from living in the latter’s body. In the film, the title refers to the parasitic relationship between the two families, particularly in how the poor Kim family become parasites of the wealthy Park family. Through portraying the differences between classes, the film becomes a representation of the relationship between the upper class and lower class. In Figure 1, we see siblings Ki-woo and Ki-jung as little specks against the backdrop of the Park family’s towering outside walls and their neighborhood; this shot highlights the social position of the siblings through scale. Both of them were hired as tutors of the Park children, which in turn presents a contradiction because they provide educational services at the level of professionals despite not having gone to college.

Mulhern (1975) further defines Goldmann’s concept of world-view (or world vision) as “the complex of ideas, feelings and aspirations that defines the consciousness of a social class”. Following this, we can surmise that in response to the reality of late-stage capitalism, the film portrays a world-view which I describe as the ambitious vision of those from the lower class. Being part of this class, one naturally aspires for social mobility, something that can be achieved through various means—education, career moves, the lottery perhaps, and, in the film, through manipulation and scams. This ambitious vision is depicted in one scene when the Kim family, while occupying the house’s living room with food and alcohol from the Park family’s refrigerator and cellar, discuss their fantasy of social mobility (Figure 2). In particular, Ki-woo tells his family about his plan of marrying his tutee Da-hye in the future, to which his family responds with derisive laughs. During this same scene, the Kim family also discuss their host, the Park family. Ki-taek calls the family gullible and Mrs. Park naive, describing her as “rich, but still nice,” to which his wife disagrees, saying that Mrs. Park is “nice because she is rich.” This scene is particularly important because it depicts the family in a momentary state of happiness while imagining a state of full happiness that could be achieved with wealth.

Figure 2. The Kim family in the Park family’s living room.

Aside from an ambitious vision, however, the film also depicts an individualist vision as evidenced in how the Kim family pushes out the Park family’s chauffeur and housekeeper. In the same scene, Ki-taek talks about Mr. Yoon, the chauffeur he replaced after his daughter planted her underwear in the Parks’ car. He supposes that Mr. Yoon has found another job, and Ki-woo agrees with him. On the other hand, Ki-jung tells her father, “We’re the ones who need help. Worry about us, okay?” effectively saying that one must worry about oneself and not others. Meanwhile, in the case of Moon-gwang, the Kim family exploits her medical condition, a severe allergy to pears, in order for Chung-sook to take her place; this is a manifestation of individualism that brings to mind the phrases ‘survival of the fittest’ and ‘eat or be eaten.’

This individualist vision becomes more apparent when the Kim family finds out about Geun-sae, the man in the basement. During this scene (Figure 3), Chung-sook looks down at/on Moon-gwang who begs her not to call the police or inform Mrs. Park about Geun-sae. The Kim matriarch even accuses her predecessor of being a parasite who steals food to feed her husband. Consequently, Moon-gwang asks Chung-sook to keep the secret and offers payment in exchange for the current housekeeper leaving food for Geun-sae from time to time. The irony of this can be described as a ‘parasite of a parasite,’ to which Chung-sook refuses, leading to the Moon-gwang’s death later on. Moon-gwang and Geun-sae threaten the Kim family’s newfound comfort. Also, they become a danger because they can become parasites while the Kim family becomes a host.

Figure 3. Moon-gwang on her knees with her hands together in supplication.

At the risk of perverting Goldmann, I want to point out that instead of originating out of the filmmaker’s social class, the ambitious and individualist visions in Parasite are ‘raw materials’ of the narrative, following Pierre Macherey. They figure in the narrative as a response to the in-narrative (fictional) realities of the Kim family who belong to the lower class, effectively the working class, which in turn arises out of the material conditions under capitalism in the real world.

Re-Working Ideology

The Marxist critic Pierre Macherey treats the text as a production “in which disparate materials are worked over and changed in the process” (Selden, Widdowson and Brooker 2005, 98). This production model views the text as products made out of pre-existing conventions, genres, language, and ideology (Forgacs 1986). These ‘raw materials’ that enter the text, however, contend with each other, leading to the transformation of ideology through the text. If we treat ideology as “collective representation of ideas and experience as opposed to the material reality on which experience is based” (168), then we may say that in Parasite the depiction of the stark contrast between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat easily points to an anti-capitalist ideology. This means that the film exposes the experiences of the lower class under late-stage capitalist South Korea, a period characterized by joblessness and poor living conditions for this class.

The two figures below show this stark contrast. Figure 4 shows the window of the Kim family’s home, a strip that looks out onto the streets of metropolitan Seoul—gray and lifeless. Figure 5 shows the floor-to-ceiling glass window of the Park family’s home, overlooking a green landscape—verdant and lush. Especially towards the end, the film becomes more explicit in showing the disparity of the bourgeoisie’s abundance and the proletariat’s scarcity. In one scene, Mrs. Park chooses her clothes from a large walk-in closet (Figure 6), which is immediately followed by a scene where evacuees after a particularly strong rainstorm choose from a pile of likely donated clothes on the floor of the gymnasium that serves as an evacuation area (Figure 7).

Figure 4. The first shot of Parasite, the window of the Kim family’s semi-basement.

Figure 5. The large glass window of the Park family’s home.

Figure 6. Mrs. Park chooses her clothes in her walk-in closet.

Figure 7. The victims of the flooding, including the Kim family, choose clothes from a pile.

Granted however that while the contrasting images allow the viewer to see the realities of life under capitalism, it does not necessarily mean that Parasite is anti-capitalist. To this end, I point out that Macherey also treats the text as incomplete, which prompts the critic to look for “what is unspoken and inevitably repressed” (Selden, Widdowson and Brooker 2005, 98) in the text. Following this, I have two arguments as to why the film can easily be read as anti-capitalist. First, parasitism in the film can be read the other way around. That is, instead of the Kim family as parasites, they serve as the host to the parasitic Park family. For one, the Park family cannot function without their staff and tutors for the children. Their wealth affords them comfort through the labor of the Kim family.

Second, while the Kim family belongs to the proletariat in the narrative, which Marx characterized as a liberating force because of their class-conscious collectivism, they exhibit an individualist world-view in the film. Yet a contradiction arises here, which can be explained by further stratification of the proletariat class between the bourgeois stratum, hereon ‘bourgeois’ proletariat, and the lumpenproletariat stratum, dubbed the proletariat of the proletariat which includes those “without work, education or vocational training” (Bradley and Lee 2018). While Marx sees the lumpenproletariat as devoid of revolutionary potential because they lack class consciousness, Mikhail Bakunin argues that the lumpenproletariat is an “externality to capitalist relations” (Thoburn 2002, 445), which is to say that they exist outside and away from capitalism. As such, they hold “all the germs of the socialism of the future” (in Bradley and Lee 2018, 640).

In the film, the Kim family is part of the ‘bourgeois’ proletariat and the basement couple is part of the lumpenproletariat. The latter, as lumpenproletariat, serves as a threat to the order of capital, indeed to the ‘sanity’ of the bourgeoisie. Suppose we consider the Park family home as a stand-in for society, then we may relate the levels of the houses to the different social classes. There is the ground level which consists of the living room, kitchen, and dining room, and the upper level which consists of the family members’ rooms. There is a basement that serves as a storage room and cellar; in this basement, there is a hidden door to the secret basement where Geun-sae lives. The two upper levels correspond to the bourgeoisie and the elite, while the two lower levels correspond to the proletariat, with the secret basement further correlating with the lumpenproletariat. Since the Kim family work as members of the Park household, it is easy to categorize them under the ‘bourgeois’ proletariat, while the fact that Moon-gwang is hiding Geun-sae from the loan sharks and the law means that they exist outside of the law as lumpenproletariat.

However, it must be noted that both strata threaten the affluent Park family. This is evident in the final scene when Ki-taek kills his own boss and Mrs. Park faints; this threat is physical danger, with a corresponding threat to the psyche, that of fear and trauma. In addition, the shot below (Figure 8), which I realize is one of the more familiar shots of the film, shows a similar psychological and symbolic threat. When Geun-sae peeks out of the basement, Da-song sees him and becomes traumatized, falling into a seizure which Mrs. Park says could have killed him. The psychological trauma inflicted on both Mrs. Park and Da-song corresponds with how the proletariat threatens the supposed ‘sanity’ of the order of capital wherein the wealthy gets wealthier and impoverished becomes poorer.

Figure 8. Geun-sae peeks out of the basement, traumatizing young Da-song.

Class Liberation and the Lumpenproletariat

In Parasite, the matter of class conflict arises out of the relationship between the Kim family, the Park family, and the basement couple. The contradiction I pointed out earlier about the Kim family-as-proletariat exhibiting an individualist world-view means that they lack class solidarity, a characteristic that the lumpenic Geun-sae and Moon-gwang exhibit. In Figure 3, Moon-gwang calls her husband and herself “fellow members of the needy” in relation to Chung-sook, saying that they all belong to the same class. This exhibits class consciousness, a characteristic of the ‘bourgeois’ proletariat rather than the lumpenproletariat, which makes this scene ironic. This also subverts the categorization of the Kim family as bourgeois proletariat and the basement couple as lumpenproletariat; perhaps it is the other way around. Another evidence of the lumpenic affinity of the Kim family is their commission of crimes of fraud, homicide, and attempted murder, all in the name of social mobility.

However, I also hesitate to categorize the Kim family under the lumpenproletariat because they do not exist outside of capital relations. In fact, the Kims are subject to capitalist relations in their vision of social mobility. That is, they also aim to participate in the exchange of capital: they dream of becoming wealthy. These contradictions exhibit the changing realities and aspirations of social classes, and so I call into question the film’s world-view: whose world-view is this?

To answer this, I want to return to Goldmann’s thesis about texts arising from the social consciousness of a certain class. In order to counter the earlier perversion I have made, I now point to a different world-view that characterizes the film: a hopeless vision that arises out of all classes that can see the internal contradictions of late-stage capitalism. Seen through this world-view, ‘escape’ or social mobility remains an impossibility for those on the lower rungs of society. There is no class liberation. Here I recall Macherey’s thesis that the text transforms whatever ideology enters it. In Parasite, the ideology of anti-capitalism which enters the text does not necessarily result in an ideology of class liberation, an internal contradiction that springs from the film's narrative. At the end of the film, it is implied instead that the proletariat cannot be liberated, or that it is nearly impossible. Aside from the lack of class consciousness, the film also implies that the proletariat necessarily possesses lumpenic tendencies, such that the Kim family’s crimes mean that Ki-woo has to be content with viewing the house (Figure 9) and the ‘gorgeous’ upper class (Figure 10) from afar, and that Ki-taek has to hide away in the secret basement for eternity (Figure 11), that is, to become a perpetual parasite.

Figure 9. Ki-woo uses binoculars to see the former Park family’s house.

Figure 10. Ki-woo views the ‘gorgeous’ bourgeoisie in the garden.

Figure 11. Ki-taek steals food from the refrigerator of the new owners of the house.

As a final point, I want to point out that the film engages in what Williams (2015) calls the indicative mode of realism, a mode that shows “what reality is like” for people living in metropolitan Seoul and capitalist South Korea. The film ends with another shot of the Kim family’s semi-basement window, and a shot of Ki-woo staring into the camera, as if to say that this is the end of the story, nothing else follows. In Figure 12, we see another shot of the semi-basement window. Here, it is already winter which Northrop Frye relates to irony and satire: “In the winter myth, what is normal and what is hoped for are inverted. The depicted world is hopeless, fearful, frustrated, even dead. There is no hero to bring salvation, no happy endings to innocent adventures” (Dobie 2012, 67).

Figure 12. A view of a winter night in Seoul from the semi-basement window.

As an alternative, Williams proposes a subjunctive mode of realism, one that imagines “if we did this, what would happen next?” That is, how else might the story have ended so that both the Kim family and the basement couple achieve class liberation? Failing this, how might they have achieved social mobility? Failing this too, how could the film have portrayed class consciousness and class solidarity? Notwithstanding this, however, the coherence of the film as a critique threatens the logic of the capitalist order in spite of its hopelessness. Parasite exposes the internal contradictions of late-stage capitalism wherein inequality reigns, privilege spells success, and class liberation remains elusive.

References

Bong, Joon Ho, director. 2019. Parasite. CJ Entertainment.

Bradley, Joff P.N. and Alex Taek-Gwang Lee. 2018. “On the Lumpen-Precariat-To-Come.” tripleC 16 (2): 639-46.

Dobie, Ann. 2012. Theory Into Practice: An Introduction to Literary Criticism, 3rd ed. Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

Forgacs, David. 1986. “Marxist Literary Theories.” In Modern Literary Theory: A Comparative Introduction, 2nd ed., 166-203. B.T. Basford.

Mulhern, Francis. 1975. “Introduction to Goldmann.” New Left Review 92, July-August 1975. Accessed May 1, 2025. https://newleftreview.org/issues/i92/articles/francis-mulhern-introduction-to-goldmann.

Selden, Raman, Peter Widdowson and Peter Brooker. 2005. A Reader’s Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory, 5th edition. Pearson Longman.

Thoburn, Nicholas. 2002. “Difference in Marx: The Lumpenproletariat and the Proletarian Unnamable.” Economy and Society 31 (3): 434-60. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085140220151882.

Walker, David and Daniel Gray. 2007. Historical Dictionary of Marxism. Scarecrow Press.

Williams, Raymond. 2015. Politics and Letters: Interviews with New Left Review, 3rd ed. Verso.

*malayang salin ng Dear City ni Conchitina Cruz

Umuulan nitong umaga sa aking bansa. Tumutulo ang tubig sa dahon, tulad ng dila sa balat. Dahan-dahan ang tunog ng mga patak, tila hininga sa tainga. Isang karagatan ang ating agwat. Diyan, nagpapalit na ang mga dahon. Aagawin ng gabi ang mga oras mula sa araw, magsasama ang niyebe at hangin. Subalit narito ka, sa aking bansa, sa aking isip, binubura mo ang mga mapa ng lamig sa salamin ng bintana, magkatabi tayo sa higaan habang bumibilis ang pulso ng unan at kumot— pati ang pintig ng ulan.

Mga atleta ang mandirigmang bayan: Umaakyat ng bundok hindi dahil naroon Ito kundi dahil naroon ang masa. Sila ay akrobat: binabalanse ang sarili Sa mga natumbang punong tulay sa ilog At malalaking talon ng tiyak na kamatayan, Tila sumasayaw sa lubid. Ang mandirigmang bayan ay isang aktor: sa tanghalan ng rebolusyon; Isang tapat na aktor dahil ang masa Ay mahuhusay na kritiko, nababasa ang mukha't katawan At alam kung tunay ang iyong salita, o kung Nanlalansi. Oo, ang mandirigmang bayan ay Isang komedyante: ipinapakita sa masa ang kabalintunaan, Ang kakatwâng kondisyon nila—Ang kontradiksiyon Sa pagitan niyang pinamumunuan at nagpapawis At siyang namumuno nang walang pawis sa kanyang Malambot na upuan sa kotse at opisina at marmol na inidoro; Pinasisigla ng mandirigmang bayan ang martsa ng masa Pasulong sa digma, malugod subalit punô ng Determinasyon; nagpapatawa siya upang mapalagay Ang masa sa kanya, siyang mula sa kanila At para sa kanila—sa unang pagkakataon, armado Hindi upang mang-abuso, ang hukbong bayan.

I first met you when I was 17. It was December, the holiday break, and I listened everyday to BOOMBOOM. Yep, everyday Boom Boom!

Then again when I was 18. I remember being obsessed with Pinwheel and Don't Wanna Cry. And Vernon.

Then again when I was 20. I was obsessed with Home, especially the fake drop. You were my home.

And for a final time when I was 21 during a worldwide pandemic. It was comforting listening to Kidult everyday, and re-discovering the SEVENTEEN songs I loved.

I'm 26 now, and I am just proud and happy to be a Carat. I love you, SEVENTEEN. You are my youth.

Sinisiyasat ng pelikulang Ekstra (2013, dir. Jeffrey Jaturian) ang mga negosasyon sa nibel ng institusyon upang bigyang-puna ang pananamantala sa industriya ng telebisyon (at pelikula) sa pamamagitan ng pagsasalaysay ng isang araw sa buhay ni Loida (Vilma Santos) bilang ekstra. Susuriin ang pelikula gamit ang konsepto ng negosasyon ni Gledhill (1988), ang kritisismo ng industriya ng kultura nina Horkheimer at Adorno (2002), at ang pag-iiba ng realismong ‘indicative’ at ‘subjunctive’ ni Williams (2015), kung saan lalabas na samantalang pinupuna ng pelikula ang pananamantala sa mga manggagawang ekstra, ikinukubli rin nito ang sarili bilang tekstong dumaan sa parehong proseso ng produksyon na pinupuna nito. Sa huli, nauuwi pa rin ang pelikula sa realismong ‘indicative’ kung saan hinahamak ang posibilidad na magharaya ng mga bagong hinaharap.

Umiikot ang kuwento ng pelikulang Ekstra sa isang buong araw ng paggawa ni Loida bilang ekstra sa isang palabas sa telebisyon na may pamagat na Una Kang Naging Akin. Natanggap niya ang isang text tungkol sa raket na ito at, gaya ng karaniwang manggagawa, naghanda upang pumunta sa trabaho. Sinundan ng pelikula ang kanyang mga karanasan sa set ng palabas, mula sa pagganap niya bilang katulong matapos ipakita ang kanyang kakayahan sa pag-arte, ang pagganap niya bilang dobol ng isang sikat na artistang umalis sa set, at ang naudlot niyang pagganap bilang abogada sa isang eksena kasama ang kanyang idolong si Amanda.

Tungkol sa mga Negosasyon, Produksyon, at Paggawa

Ipinaliwanag ni Gledhill (1988) ang konsepto ng negosasyon bilang pamamaraan ng pagsusuri sa pagpapakahulugan (meaning production) sa larangan ng kultura, kung saan kinikilala ang pagsasalubong ng (1) mga proseso ng produksyon ng teksto at (2) ang pagtanggap ng konsyumer sa teksto. Aniya, “Sa halip na iginigiit o pasibong natututuhan, umuusbong ang kahulugan mula sa tunggalian o negosasyon sa pagitan ng mga nagpapaligsahang balangkas ng pananaw, pagganyak at karanasan” (68, sariling salin). Kinikilala ng konsepto ng negosasyon ang mga dayalektikal na ugnayan sa tatlong nibel: institusyon, teksto, at tagapanood.

Sa unang nibel ng institusyon, nagtutunggali ang proseso ng kapitalistang produksyon at kagustuhan ng mga tagapanood, at ang mga pagkakaiba sa estetikong praktika ng mga kasangkot sa produksyon. Sa Ekstra, makikita ito sa tunggalian ng direktor at prodyuser: bagaman mayroon nang malikhaing pangitain ang una para sa kalalabasan ng palabas, hindi niya ito matupad dahil sa pagnanais ng huli na bawasan ang gastos sa produksyon. Ilang matining na halimbawa ay ang paggamit ng traysikel dahil sampung libo ang renta kada oras para sa kabayo, ang paggamit ng cake na mock-up imbes na totoong cake para sa isang eksenang kailangang maghiwa nito, at ang kakulangan ng kagamitan gaya ng camera at lapel microphone para sa shooting. Itong unang nibel ang kritikal na tuon ng pelikula bilang tekstong naratibo. Samantala, pahapyaw lamang na makikita ang ikalawang nibel ng teksto at ikatlong nibel ng pagtanggap (reception) sa Ekstra dahil mas sinikap ilarawan ng naratibo ang proseso ng produksyon.

Sa simula ng pelikula, habang papunta sina Loida at ang kanyang mga kapwa-ekstra sa set ng palabas na kanilang sasalihan, pinag-uusapan nila ang pangarap na maging sikat na artista. “Balang araw, itaga niyo sa bato, sisikat din tayo,” sabi ni Loida. Ipinahihiwatig ng eksenang ito ang pag-asang maisasakatuparan nila ang kanilang pangarap, subalit agad masasawata ang ilusyong ito pagdating nila sa set. Hindi kagalang-galang ang mga kalagayan sa paggawa ng mga ekstra, gaya ng kawalan nila ng puwang na maaari sanang pagpahingahan sa set. Nariyan din ang bilis na kinakailangan para sa produksyon dahil ipalalabas na ang soap opera kinagabihan.

Dalawang usapin tungkol sa produksyon ang maaaring pagtuunan ng pansin sa pelikula. Una, ang madaliang pagpapalit sa isang ekstra na para bang isa siyang piyesa sa makina. Maliwanag ito sa agarang pagkakaroon ng kapalit ni Loida para sa huling eksena niya sanang mayroong speaking lines. Gaya ng assembly line sa kalakaran ng kapitalismo, mabilisan ding napapalitan ang mga manggagawang ekstra kung kinakailangan. Kaakibat nito ang ikalawang usapin, ang pananaw ng manggagawa mismo sa kanyang kalagayan. Malay si Loida sa kanyang kahalagahan bilang ekstra sa produksyon ng soap opera: “‘Wag mong nila-lang ang crowd. Crowd is crowd. Aanhin mo ang isang eksena kung puro bida lang?… Crowd ang bumubuo sa eksena.” Subalit malay din naman ang kaibigan niyang si Venus tungkol sa kanilang tunay na papel sa produksyon: “Tao ba tayo dito? Props lang tayo ‘no.” Ipinahihiwatig nito ang alienation na maaaring nararamdaman ng isang manggagawang ekstra, sang-ayon sa naunang saloobin ni Loida: “Crowd din ako dati, pero look at me now. Crowd pa din.”

Ayon kay Horkheimer at Adorno (2002), ang pelikula bilang bahagi ng kultura ng industriya ay bumabansot sa kakayahang mag-isip at magharaya ng mga tagapanood. Makikita ito sa malinaw na pamumuntirya ng bawat linya’t eksena sa pelikula sa bawat isyung kinahaharap ng isang manggagawa. Tila idinuduldol ng pelikula sa manonood ang pagkaapi ng pangunahing tauhan. Halimbawa, sa pagbitaw ng linya ni Venus na “Props lang tayo dito,” hindi na ito sinundan ng dayalogo bilang pagtatangkang mag-iwan ng retorikal na punto. Sa halip, mabilis na nagpalit ng pokus ang eksena. Isa pang halimbawa ang transition mula sa isang eksena kung saan punong-puno ang mesa ng pagkain para sa mga artista, direktor, at prodyuser ng soap opera patungo sa eksena kung saan nakapila ang mga ekstra para sa kakaunting pagkain. Subalit ang pinakamalinaw na retorikal na linya ay ang hayagang paghinakdal ni Direk: “’Yang mga diwa niyong binulag ng kahunghangan niyo sa mga ratings, sa mga budgets, sa mga for airing, sa dapat puno ng commercial, sa dapat may kilig.”

Kritisismo at Realismo sa Kulturang Popular

Malinaw ang kritisismo ng Ekstra—sa sistema ng produksyong pantelebisyon (at pampelikula) inaapi si Loida at ang mga kasama niyang ekstra bilang manggagawa. Malay din ang pelikula sa mga katangian at proseso ng produksyon ng kulturang popular bilang industriya, subalit kailangan ding itanong kung paano maaaring magbago ang pagbasa sa Ekstra bilang tekstong dumaan sa parehong proseso ng produksyon. Ilan ang ekstra sa Ekstra? Paano ang naging tarato sa mga mismong gumanap bilang ekstra sa pelikula? Ano naman ang kabuluhan ng pagganap ni Vilma Santos—na malamang pinili dahil siya ay isang batikang artista sa telebisyon at pelikula na hahatak ng mga tagapanood—bilang si Loida? Bilang teksto, dumaan din ang Ekstra sa parehong sistema ng produksyon na “layuning ilarawan ang mundo ng pang-araw-araw na pag-unawa” (ibid., 99) kung kaya tinitingnan ng manonood ang mundo sa labas ng pelikula bilang ekstensyon ng napanood niyang pelikula. Bunga nito ang “pagtatanggi sa tagapanood ng kahit anong dimensyon kung saan sila malayang maglakbay sa paghaharaya” (ibid., 100) ng mundo. Hindi na binibigyan ng Ekstra ng pagkakataong mag-isip ang tagapanood dahil ipinakikita na nito ang maraming katotohanan tungkol sa kaapihan ng mga manggagawang ekstra.

Mahalaga ring itanong kung anong halaga ng kritisismo ng pelikula samantalang nagtapos pa rin ang naratibo sa kamatayan ng mga pangarap ni Loida: “Heto naman kasing si Loida, hindi pa magkuwento. Sino bang namatay, Mare?” Sa mga huling frame ng pelikula, nililimita ang paningin ng tagapanood sa ekspresyon ni Loida matapos panoorin ang eksenang kanyang hindi nagampanan. Kaakibat nitong eksena sa telebisyon ang isang pangarap na hindi naisakatuparan.

Alinsunod kay Williams (2015), nauwi ang pelikula sa ‘indicative’ na moda ng realismo. Isinalarawan lamang ng pelikula kung ano ang ‘tunay’ na hitsura ng realidad, kung ano ang mga sumulpot na pagkilos at mga pagkilos na pinigil sa isang lipunan kung saan lahat ng pagsusumikap na lagpasan ang mga hangganan ay hindi nagtatagumpay. Sa madaling sabi, sa kabila ng mapanuring tuon sa hindi makataong kalagayan ni Loida bilang manggagawa, talunan pa rin siya sa katapusan ng pelikula. Isa itong hindi maikakailang katotohanan, at sa tradisyon ng panlipunang realismo, kadalasang sa pagkatalong ito tinutuldukan ang kuwento. Hindi nga ba’t sa bandang huli, kumita pa rin si Loida upang maipambayad sa matrikula ng kanyang anak? Samantalang ipinakikita ng modang ‘indicative’ ang tunay na kalagayan ng aping tauhan, hindi rin sinasadyang matuldukan ang kuwento.

Kaya naman iminumungkahi ni Williams ang isang moda ng realismo kung saan “ipinapalagay ang mga susunod na maaaring mangyari” (219, sariling salin) lagpas sa kaapihan ng pangunahing tauhan—‘subjunctive.’ Hinaharaya nito ang mga posibilidad ng pagpapatuloy ng kuwento—sa Ekstra, maaaring tanungin kung ano kayang mangyayari kapag hindi hinayaan ni Loida na mapahiya siya at sumagot siya kay Direk? Malamang ay papalitan pa rin siya nito, subalit lumaban pa rin siya. Ano kayang mangyayari kung pinigilan ng mga kapwa-ekstra niya ang paninigaw sa kanya ni Direk? Marahil ay hindi siya gaanong mapapahiya, o kaya’y lahat sila paaalisin sa set bagaman mangangahulugan ito ng pagtigil ng shooting. Ano kayang mangyayari kung ipinagtanggol siya ng mga batikang artista sa set, o ng katuwang na direktor? Malamang si Direk ang mapapahiya.

Subalit ang pinakamahalagang tanong ay ano kayang mangyayari kung nagtagumpay si Loida sa pagganap bilang abogado sa eksena? Paano kaya kung hindi siya kinabahan at nabigyan niya ng sariling pagkatao, ng buhay, itong side character na babarilin ng isang kontrabida? Hindi kaya hahangaan siya ng direktor, prodyuser, at mga manonood? Hindi kaya mabibigyan pa siya ng marami pang raket? Hindi kaya magkakaroon siya ng ‘big break’ para sa mga susunod pang mga soap opera tungo nga sa pagbili niya ng sariling sasakyan? Kung hindi man, kahit papaano, hindi kaya mas mataas ang kanyang magiging talent fee para sa matrikula ng kanyang anak at pandagdag sa mga gastusin sa bahay? Sa realismong ‘subjunctive,’ mas binibigyan ng pagkakataon ang mga inaaping tauhan na umalpas sa kanilang kalagayan.

Ito marahil ang kabiguan ng pelikula: sinusuhayan nito ang pagtingin sa pananamantala at herarkiya bilang likas na kalagayan ng mga bagay-bagay sa lipunan. Sa halip na hayagang ipanawagan ang pagbabago sa kultura ng produksyon sa industriya ng telebisyon at pelikula para sa mas maayos na pagtarato sa mga ekstra, nagkakasya na lamang ang Ekstra sa simpleng reproduksyon ng katotohanan ng kanilang kalagayan. Wala itong pagtatangkang magsulong ng bagong hinaharap para sa pinapaksa nitong grupo dahil nga bahagi pa rin ito ng industriya ng pelikula, at nakikinabang pa rin ito sa namamayaning sistema ng produksyong pantelebisyon. Alinsunod kay Williams, interesanteng makita kung ano nga bang hinaharap ang mayroon para sa mga ekstra sa industriya ng produksyong kultural.

Mga Sanggunian:

Gledhill, Christine. 1988. “Pleasurable Negotiations.” Sa Female Spectators: Looking at Film and Television, inedit ni E. Deidre Pribram, 64-89. London at New York: Verso.

Horkheimer, Max at Theodor Adorno. 2002. “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception.” Sa Dialectic of Enlightenment: Philosophical Fragments, inedit ni Gunzelin Schmid Noerr, isinalin ni Edmund Jephcott, 94-136. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Jaturian, Jeffrey, direktor. 2013. Ekstra. Metro Manila: Star Cinema. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ye_1wLjcvk.

Williams, Raymond. 2015. Politics and Letters: Interviews with New Left Review, ika-3 edisyon. London at New York: Verso.

*Ipinasa ang papel na ito sa gradwadong kursong MLL 230, Cultural Criticism.

Bontoc Eulogy’s narrative springs from the 1904 Louisiana Purchase Exposition, more popularly known as the St. Louis World’s Fair, told from the perspectives of the narrator and his grandfather, Markod, a Bontoc warrior. The narrator first expresses his interest in the Igorot as someone whose mother is one, then flawlessly slips into his grandfather’s voice, alternating it with his own. Recorded through a phonograph, Markod narrates (in Bontoc, translated into English by the narrator) his experiences as one the Igorots who was displayed during the St. Louis World Fair. The film makes use of both archival footage and photographs and cinematic footage taken by the filmmaker to advance the narrative, as well as non-Western and Western music in telling the story of Markod.

About the indigenous body

The emergence of race during the colonial era, i.e. Europeans coming into contact with people of the Americas, Asia, and Africa, springs from the classification systems which emerged to “categorize the variety of people on the planet…by skin color and facial features, but also by religion, language, and culture” (DeMello 2014, 102). These classification systems legitimized the colonial agenda of the Europeans, allowing them to claim dominion over the islands and continents they reached, naming these new territories after their sovereigns and saints. They also claimed superiority over the peoples they ‘conquered’ (massacred), and overemphasized the difference between white and non-white, thus overemphasizing the similarities and de-emphasizing the differences between the inferior races (ibid.).

The film focuses on the display of Filipino bodies at the St. Louis World’s Fair, in which three treatments of the racialized body are highlighted. First, racialized bodies were displayed in human zoos where “visitors could gawk at native people from colonized nations in reconstructed villages” (ibid., 104). In these fairs, the colonial agenda of claiming the inferiority of non-white races is validated when audiences witness how the non-white peoples behave. In the case of the Igorots in the film, they were made to perform their rituals everyday, such that Markod laments the loss of meaning in these rituals. These banked on stereotypes about the Igorots at the time:

“The Igorots of the Philippines, for example, were both tattooed and were known to eat dogs. Even though they only ate dogs for ceremonial occasions at home, the organizers of the St Louis Expo fed them dogs daily so that Americans could watch the spectacle. Human zoos and other native exhibits like this were contrasted with the highest achievements of Western society to both accentuate the primitiveness of the natives and to emphasize the civilization of the Western world.” (ibid.)

Second, racialized bodies were mapped and measured. The film recounts how the scientists or medical doctors measured the size of the Igorots’ heads and feet, and recorded these measurements. This was done in the name of biology and anthropology, a branch of the social sciences which studies humanity, including human biology, cultures, and species. Lastly, the racialized body is animalized, that is, equated with the animal as other. From displaying the brown bodies in their human zoos to transporting them from their homes to a foreign country like animals, the white colonizer engages in the dehumanization of non-white bodies. Contrasted with the white body, which symbolizes civilization, the brown body remains “wild and untouched by civilization” (Fuentes 1995).

Returning to the text itself, the film contains archival video footage and photographs from the Library of Congress, the National Archives, the Smithsonian Institution, and the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, all institutions based in the United States. This is possible because during that period in Philippine history, the Americans were learning about their brown burdens, the subjects of their empire. This places the film squarely within the discourse of empire, and it uses the language of the empire against itself. Despite the colonial aim to record these footage for their museums and archives, Fuentes stitches them together through a story to depict the dehumanization of the indigenous Igorot body. Thus, the film serves as a site of resistance.

About historicity

However, in the words of Sharpe (1989), “the colonial subject who can answer the colonizers back is the product of the same vast ideological machinery that silences the subaltern” (143). This argument is based on the view that the colonial subject resists through the language, and within the educational, political, and cultural arena of the colonizer. Thus, as Slemon (1990) argues in relation to Sharpe, “literary resistance is necessarily in a place of ambivalence: between systems, between discursive worlds, implicit and complicit in both of them” (37). In this case, Bontoc Eulogy’s resistance is trapped between two systems of meaning. While it acts as a site of resistance against the colonizer’s archival memory, it also falls prey to the colonial signification of the indigene.

Goldie (1989) identifies five ‘commodities’ in the semiotics of the indigene: sexuality, violence, orality, mysticism, and historicity. Among these, the film engages mostly with the prehistoric, or how “the historicity of the text … shapes the indigene into an historical artifact, a remnant of a golden age that seems to have little connection to anything akin to contemporary life” (17). Goldie explains that the semiotic field of the indigene is both historical, because it holds within it a “a sense of the indigene as a historical value” and ahistorical, because it is “usually removed from historical necessity” (48).

In the film, the use of archival footage and photographs from American, i.e. colonizer, institutions is ambivalent. On the one hand, it shows the injustices inflicted upon the indigenous Igorots who were displaced from their homes and displayed in human zoos. On the other, the film also depicts the indigenous Igorot body as a historical artifact, legitimizing the reasons for recording the indigenous Igorots with cameras and rulers—to serve as a reminder of a ‘prehistoric’ past, which in the colonizer’s language means a lack of civilization. This is highlighted with the film interspersing archival footage with footage specifically taken for the film, since the latter contrasts rather clearly with the former.

However, I will not go as far as to say that the film is ahistorical. Obviously, the narrative context of the film and its use of historical archives places the film at a close proximity with history. In fact, an important implication in the film is the effect of human movement during colonialism, i.e. the diaspora, that the film shows how human movement during colonialism in the past affects the present and the future. The narrator says that his mother is of Bontoc descent, and thus his interest in the Igorots stems from this connection. Aside from this, he laments the fact that his children will never know his own country, the Philippines, because they lived in the United States.

As Slemon (1990) says of Sharpe’s article which argues that we must “examine the ways in which resistance in writing must go beyond the mere ‘questioning’ of colonialist authority” (36), I think that texts such as Bontoc Eulogy will benefit from an interrogation of its resistance. He further draws from Sharpe in saying that “resistance itself is therefore never purely resistance, never simply there in the text or the interpretive community, but is always necessarily complicit in the apparatus it seeks to transgress” (37). In any text, literary or media, that resists oppression and participates in decolonizing, it is important to determine the contradictions which makes the text ambivalent as resistive and complicit.

References:

Fuentes, Marlon, dir. 1995. Bontoc Eulogy. n.p.: Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Online video.

Goldie, Terry. 1989. Fear and Temptation: The Image of the Indigene in Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand Literatures. Kingston, Montreal, London: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Sharpe, Jenny. 1989. “Figures in Colonial Resistance.” Modern Fiction Studies 35 (1): 137-55. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26282987.

Slemon, Stephen. 1990. “Unsettling the Empire: Resistance Theory for the Second World.” World Literature Written in English 30 (2): 30-41. doi: 10.1080/17449859008589130.

Mula sa punto-de-bista at sa pamamagitan ng wikang naghihimagsik, tinutunggali ng “Utos ng Hari” ang tradisyunal na edukasyong umiikot sa guro at isinusulong ang isang mas malayang uri ng edukasyon. Gamit ang ilang ideya nina Pierre Macherey, Louis Althusser, at George Lukacs, susuriin dito ang diyalektikal na ugnayan at tunggalian ng malayang (liberal) edukasyon at tradisyunal (konserbatibo) na edukasyon. Lilitaw sa suri na bagaman tinutunggali ang tradisyunal na edukasyong kinakatawan ng mga guro sa kuwento, gumagawa ng maling pagtutumbas ang kuwento sa pagitan ng edukasyon at kalayaan kung kaya hindi sadyang ipinakikita ang ideyalismo at ilusyon ng malayang edukasyon na kinakatawan ni Jojo.

Nagsimula ang kuwento sa isang klase ni Jojo kung saan, matapos niyang tunggaliin ang tinuran ng kanyang guro tungkol sa demokrasya, pinapunta siya ng kanyang guro sa opisina nito. Binanggit niya ang kalagayan niya sa kanyang paaralan, ang pangalan ng paaralan, bilang ‘delinkwente,’ at binanggit din si Minyong, isang ‘minority.’ Sa kanyang pagmumuni tungkol sa sistema ng edukasyong kailangan niyang layagin bilang estudyante, nagbigay siya ng mga prominenteng pangalan sa kasaysayan ng mundo at ginamit silang halimbawa bilang pagtunggali sa mga pinanghahawakang halaga’t prinsipyo ng kanyang mga guro. Dudulo ang kuwento sa mga babala ni Mrs. Moral Character tungkol sa kanyang ‘maling’ asal sa klase at pakikipagrelasyon, na siya namang ilalahad ni Jojo sa kanyang mga kainuman sa Cubao.

Tungkol sa tradisyunal na edukasyon sa paaralan

Nakaugat ang tunggalian ni Jojo at kanyang mga gurong sina Mrs. Gles-ing, Ms. Morality, at iba pa sa pagkakaiba ng kanilang pananaw sa edukasyon. Dinaramdam ni Jojo ang nakikita niyang pagkapit ng kanyang mga guro sa tradisyunal na uri ng edukasyon kung saan ang guro ang may hawak ng kaalaman. Sa mga salita ni Freire (2000), natagtag na ang mga gurong ito sa metodong banking kung saan nagsisilbing sisidlan lamang ang mag-aaral na sinasalinan ng guro ng kaalaman, kung saan “regalo ang turing ng mga taong nakikita ang sarili bilang mas maalam sa kaalamang ibinibigay sa mga taong tinuturing nilang walang alam” (72, sariling salin).

Sa isang himutok ni Jojo, naghihimagsik siya laban sa pagtanggi ng kanyang mga guro sa tunggalian: “Maka-uno lang, kahit lulunin ang sariling dila. Kumontra ka sa kanila, singkong maliwanag. Tumango-tango ka naman para maka-uno, ibig sabihin noo’y sarili mo na ang kailangang lokohin” (Reyes 1981, 75). Dito niya ipinahahayag ang pagtutol sa unang katangian ng tradisyunal na edukasyon: sa loob ng silid-aralan, hindi maaaring magpahayag ng opinyon ang isang estudyante. Halimbawa, matapos niyang tunggaliin ang tinuran ng kanyang guro sa klase, ipinatawag siya ng kanyang guro sa opisina nito upang pagsabihan. Makikita din ito sa kuwento ni Minyong, isang ‘cultural minority’ na pinaalis sa paaralan nang natutong magsalita: “Ayon nang matutong magsalita ang tao, na-shock silang marinig ang katotohanan” (ibid., 78).

Malinaw ang paghihimagsik sa wika ng pangunahing tauhang si Jojo laban sa kanyang mga gurong “Parang mga diyos na sila lamang ang may monopolyo ng tama” (ibid., 76). Magaspang ang wika ng kuwento hindi lamang dahil sa paggamit ng mga mura at sa madamdaming paghihimutok ni Jojo, kundi dahil din sa paggamit ng Taglish. Maituturing din itong paghihimagsik laban sa ‘wastong panulat,’ gaya ng paghihimagsik ni Jojo laban sa edukasyong nakatuon sa ‘wastong’ asal at hitsura, na siyang ikalawang katangiang tinutunggali ni Jojo sa kuwento. Nagbigay siya ng mga makasaysayang taong sa tingin niya’y hindi matutupad ang pamantayan ng kanyang mga guro, gaya nina Einstein, Hemingway, at Kristo, dahil hindi wasto ang kanilang asal, hitsura, o kaisipan.

Tungkol sa malayang edukasyon at tunggalian

Bilang tugon sa ganitong uri ng edukasyon, itinataguyod ni Jojo ang isang mas malayang uri ng edukasyon subalit kataka-takang hindi niya tuwirang inilalahad kung ano ito. Sa halip, kailangang mahinuha ng mambabasa ang mga katangian ng malayang edukasyon bilang kasalungat ng tradisyunal na edukasyon. Gamit ang paraan ng pagbasa ni Althusser na naghahanap sa mga puwang (gaps) ng kuwento (Forgacs 1986), maaaring sabihing nais ni Jojo ang isang uri ng edukasyon kung saan mayroong kalayaang magpahayag ng opinyon, saloobin at damdamin ang mga mag-aaral, at may kalayaan din mula sa panghuhusga ayon sa pamantayan ng wastong asal at hitsura. Tingin ko, ito ang tuwirang kabaligtaran ng mga katangiang kanyang pinaghihimagsikan.

Subalit mahalagang tingnan ang ugnayan ng dalawang magkatunggaling grupo sa kuwento. Si Jojo ay isang estudyante, samantalang ang kanyang katunggali ay mga guro. Malinaw na hindi pantay ang relasyon ng guro at estudyante. Sa herarkiya ng paaralan, mas mataas ang antas ng una na siyang nagpapatakbo sa paaralan at nagtuturo sa huli, samantalang mas mababa ang antas ng huli na kinakailangang sumunod sa mga patakaran at kapritso ng una. Dalawa ang maaaring pag-ugatan ng herarkiyang ito: edukasyong natanggap o gulang. Sa parehong grupo, mas nakatataas ang guro dahil nakapagtapos na ng pag-aaral at mas matanda, samantalang makikita sa kuwento ang kanilang paghamak sa kanilang estudyante bilang hindi pa nakapagtapos at mas nakababata sa kanila.

Kung titingnan naman ang pagsasalungat ng dalawang grupo—guro at estudyante—at ilalapat sa tradisyunal na paghahating Marxista ng lipunan—burgesya at proletaryo—makikitang hindi maaaring ilagay sa burgesya ang mga guro dahil sa kawalan nila ng pagmamay-ari ng materyal na kapital. Sa madaling pakahulugan, hawak ng burgesya ang moda ng produksyong materyal (rekursong likas at tao), samantalang ang proletaryo naman ang nagbibigay ng lakas-paggawa (Dobie 2012). Subalit hindi nagmamay-ari ang guro ng materyal na kapital gaya ng pera, mga kagamitang pamproduksyon, o lupa; sa halip, saganang kultural na kapital ang kanilang hawak, bukod pa sa kanilang gulang, na siyang nagbibigay sa kanila ng mas mataas na antas kaysa estudyante.

Kung susuriin ang tunggalian, makikitang ang primaryang tunggalian sa kuwento ay hindi sa pagitan ng guro at estudyante, kundi sa pagitan ng dalawang uri ng edukasyong isinasalarawan (sa kaso ng tradisyunal na edukasyon) at ipinahihiwatig (sa kaso ng malayang edukasyon) nito. Kinakatawan lamang ng estudyante at guro ang dalawang uri ng edukasyon, at naihahayag ito sa kanilang mga gawi at salita sa kuwento.

Tungkol sa ilusyon ng malayang edukasyon

Nang kausapin siya ni Mrs. Moral Character, nais ni Jojo na sumagot dahil sa ganoong paraan lamang siya makalalaya mula sa kamay ng tradisyunal na edukasyon: “Gusto ko na talagang magwala. Gusto ko siyang balikan. Gusto kong isambulat lahat ng hinanakit ko sa mundo” (Reyes 1981, 81). Hindi niya ito ginawa, at may kaugnayan ito sa dahilan kung bakit siya nananatili sa kanyang paaralan:

“Kung wala akong diploma, sino naman ang maniniwalang may kinabukasan nga ako. Sana’y hindi nauso ang grade, di sana’y hindi ako mahihiyang pumasok kahit Metro Manila Aide. Kung graduate naman ako’t hingan ng experience sa pag-aaplayan ko, dedo pa rin. At kung tapos nga, nakakahiya namang pati trabahong pangmahirap ay pagtiyagaan ko.” (ibid., 75)

Ani Macherey, inuuka ng katha ang ideolohiya kung kaya’t ang ideolohiyang ipinapasok sa katha ay hindi na kagaya ng dati nitong anyo. Sa madaling sabi, nagbabago ang anyo ng ideolohiya sa loob ng kathang nagbibigay-hugis dito, at nagkakaroon ng tunggalian sa loob ng katha at sa pagitan ng katha at ideolohiya (Forgacs 1986). Kadikit ito ng pagbasa ni Althusser na tumutukoy sa mga puwang ng kuwento. Sa siping ito, mababasa ang tila hindi pagpapahalaga ni Jojo sa edukasyon, ngunit kabalintunaan ito dahil ipinahihiwatig din dito ang kahalagahan ng edukasyon para sa indibidwal. Mayroong kabatiran si Jojo na magbabago ang kanyang antas mula sa pagiging hamak na estudyante kung makapagtatapos siya ng pag-aaral. Walang magiging sintesis sa pagtatapos ng kuwento dahil sa huli, kailangan lamang mamili ni Jojo sa dalawang uri ng edukasyon.

Sa isang banda, maaari siyang magpatianod sa agos at sundin ang lahat ng sasabihin ng kanyang mga guro dahil “Pasasaan ba’t mauubusan din iyan ng sasabihin” (Reyes 1981, 80). Makapagtatapos siya’t aangat ang antas sa lipunan, subalit magiging kagaya siya ng kanyang mga guro—hindi kritikal. Maaari rin namang sumalungat siya sa agos, kumawala sa sistema ng edukasyon dahil kailangan niyang magsalita at ayaw niyang mabaliw. Magtatagumpay siyang masawata ang pamamayagpag ng tradisyunal na edukasyon, isusulong niya ang malayang edukasyon at magiging kritikal na mamamayan, subalit mananatili ang kanyang materyal na kondisyon; mananatili siyang bahagi ng kanyang pinanggalingang uri. Gayundin, mananatili siyang bahagi ng sistema ng pang-aapi; kung hindi man bilang estudyante, bilang manggagawa, bilang “Metro Manila Aide,” o bilang job hunter sa isang bansang may mataas na antas ng disempleyo.

Kinakatawan ni Jojo ang malayang edukasyon, at kinakatawan naman ng kanyang mga guro ang tradisyunal na edukasyon, subalit segundaryang tunggalian lamang itong nagaganap sa pagitan ng guro at estudyante. Dahil unang panauhan ang punto-de-bista (first person perspective) ng kuwento, nananatiling indibidwal ang tuon ng kuwento sa halip na uri, grupo o sistema. Sa Marxistang pagsusuri, matagumpay ang kuwento sa paglalahad ng artipisyal na katotohanan ng ilusyon ng malayang edukasyon. Hinahamon nito ang ilusyon sa pamamagitan ng pagbubunyag kung paanong mapapalaya ang kaisipan ni Jojo at maitataas ang kanyang antas, ngunit magpapatuloy ang kanyang kaapihan at mananatili siyang bahagi ng isang herarkiyang panlipunan.

Isang mahalagang bahagi ng teoryang pampanitikan ni Lukacs ang pagtatasa ng halaga ng isang akdang pampanitikan batay sa katangian ng akdang ipakita ang katotohanan at reyalidad ng pisikal na daigdig sa kinathang daigdig: kung reyalistiko o hindi reyalistiko ang kuwento (Forgacs 1986). Sa aking pagtatasa sa “Utos ng Hari,” ipinakikita ng kuwento ang kahalagahan ng ‘malayang edukasyon’ at ang kaakibat nitong kalayaan sa pagpapahayag ng sarili at kritikal na pag-iisip, subalit isinisiwalat ding may hangganan ito dahil kaisipan lamang ang pinapalaya nito. Mahalaga din ang pagpapakita ng kuwento sa masalimuot na katotohanan ng tunggalian sa uri—hindi lamang burgesya at proletaryo ang nagtutunggali, dahil sa loob mismo ng mga paghahating ito, maaaring magkaroon ng hindi pagkakaunawaan.

Bilang isang kuwentong naghihimagsik laban sa tradisyunal na edukasyon, isinusulong ng “Utos ng Hari” ang malayang edukasyon subalit hindi sadyang hinahamon ang mga hangganan nito. Inuuka ng katha ang ilusyon ng malayang edukasyon: kung sa loob ng katha, nagtutunggali ang malaya at tradisyunal na edukasyon, tinutunggali din naman ng katha mismo ang ideolohiyang ipinasok dito, alinsunod kay Macherey. Itinuturo tayo ng kuwento lagpas sa tunggalian ng tradisyunal at malayang edukasyon, lagpas sa tunggalian ng guro at estudyante, tungo sa mapagpalayang edukasyon kung saan magkasamang naghahanap ng kalayaan ang guro’t estudyante mula sa kaapihan.

Mga Sanggunian

Dobie, Ann. 2012. Theory Into Practice: An Introduction to Literary Criticism, ika-3 ed. Boston: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

Forgacs, David. 1986. “Marxist Literary Theories.” Sa Modern Literary Theory: A Comparative Introduction, ika-2 ed, 166-203. London: B.T. Basford.

Freire, Paolo. 2000. Pedagogy of the Oppressed, ika-30 ed., tagasalin Myra Bergman Ramos. New York: Continuum.

Reyes, Jun Cruz. 1981. “Utos ng Hari.” Sa Utos ng Hari at Iba Pang Kuwento, 74-85. Quezon City: New Day Publishers.

*Ipinasa ang papel na ito sa gradwadong kursong MLL 210, Contemporary Literary Theories and Critical Approaches.

• Thought I wouldn't see him, but I did! (Journal #1, 2 August 2013)
• He was really handsome, and he wears glasses! (Journal #3, 26 September 2014)
• Tinulak ko siya pero inside eh kinikilig talaga ako. (Journal #4, 4 December 2014)
• We didn't exactly hold hands; he just held my wrist. (Journal #5, 19 March 2015)
• He said hello, so I said hi. (Journal #6, 8 April 2015)
• He's a bit awkward, but his awkwardness is cute. (Journal #7, 12 August 2015)
• Tapos laging nagmi-meet ang mata namin. (Journal #8, 5 March 2016)
• Mejj ilang araw ko na siyang iniisip kasi. (Journal #9, 28 March 2017)

*Journal #2 was lost because the family laptop broke; Journal #10 is too recent

Throughout the novel, it’s striking how the narrator narrates the story in an objective, clinical manner; they tell the story without commentary or opinion, not unlike a research article. They also augment the story with references to statistics and articles on women’s lives in Korea, (e.g. in 1982, the year Jiyoung was born, the ratio of male to female births was 106.8 to 100, and gradually increased in the succeeding years). The last section, “2016,” reveals that the narrator is Jiyoung’s male psychiatrist which explains the objective manner of narration. To him, Jiyoung is a patient, and it is a case study.

Though it follows the (outdated) binary of male rationality and female emotionality, I find the contrast of a masculine narration and a feminine protagonist satisfying. While the masculine as narrator tells the story, he does not fully overshadow the feminine voice of the subject of his narration. In fact, because the pyschiatrist’s voice doesn’t fully captured the story of Jiyoung, i.e. he isn’t able to relate her confusion, anger and loneliness, I sense these emotions in her silence as she struggled with the social norms and biases surrounding her sex. It is a loaded silence, like a gun filled with bullets ready to shoot.

However, I do acknowledge that there’s also an argument to be made that telling Jiyoung’s story from her psychiatrist’s perspective silences Jiyoung yet again.

Also, an important intimation of the story is how women built Korea. For example, Jiyoung’s mother worked in a factory to send her own brothers to school while she herself hadn’t graduated middle school yet:

“This was a time when people believed it was up to the sons to bring honor and prosperity to the family, and that the family’s wealth and happiness hinged upon male success. The daughters gladly supported the male siblings” (25).

If this was true of all Korean families back in the day, if sisters and mothers worked to send the men to schools, then it only means that these male professionals back then would not have reached their position if not for their female family members. However, in typical patriarchal fashion, a daughter’s “loving family would not be giving them the chance and support to make something of themselves” (26).

Finally, I think that Jiyoung recounting her story in the clinic of a psychiatrist is telling of how women can only tell their stories when someone will listen. Most men would not want to hear about periods, childbirth, childcare, sexual harassment, even if most of these are a result of their privileged birth as men. While women can always express their mind, men still hold the upper hand in modern society. One thinks that after hearing Jiyoung’s story, the psychiatrist-narrator will be more understanding of the woman question; however, his closing statement in the novel proves that liberation for women still has a long way to go*:

“Even the best female employees can cause many problems if they don’t have the childcare issue taken care of. I’ll have to make sure her replacement is unmarried” (163).

Still, the story of Kim Jiyoung, Born 1982 is something worth listening to.

*and that men are shit!