My Mojares Critical Essay

The Risk of Context: A Critical Essay on Resil Mojares’

Theater in Society, Society in Theater: A Social History of a Cebuano Village 1840-1940

Publish Date: January 1985

Format: Paperback

Publisher: Ateneo de Manila University Press

Pages: 200

 

Art historical discourse can take on different masks and subdued ideologies founded in a single system of meaning. It is an important role of art history to unmask these ideologies, recover the humanity in cultural products and invite inquiry and critical analogy in doing so.

This intention is evident in Resil Mojares’ 1985 book Theater in Society, Society in Theater: Social History of a Cebuano Village 1840-1940. This three-part exploration of the complex relationship of the Linambay, an indigenized form of Komedya in Cebu, and the agents that produced it is a gripping narrative that successfully blends the three methodologies of literary criticism, cultural anthropology, and history. The first part relates the processes of integration and dissolution in the structure of the barrio of Valladolid in Carcar, Southern Cebu, from 1500 to 1940. It then analyzes the dynamics of the Linambay tradition and eventually explores the social and economic conditions in the barrio in the early twentieth century revealing the intricacies of such a relationship.

 

Fiesta Complex

Grounding the Linambay form in the fiesta complex, the author impressed on the reader anthropological theories like that of Maurice Godilier’s. Mojares discussed fiestas as a system for redistribution of wealth and how it validated and cemented social relations. This, in turn, created the foundation for the thriving of this theater form. It is interesting how the author investigated on this and how successful he was in discovering the role of the social in an event such as the Linambay. He established social cohesion as integral in the existence of the art form and social diffusion as the reason for its disappearance. He made his point plausible by presenting important historical documents and verbal sources.

The fiesta complex is important in supporting the research’s motive. It is in this context that the author positioned the subject of Linambay as a mode of Valladolid’s to celebrate itself and in the process revealing its structure. He quoted Clifford Geertz saying, “societies, like lives, contain their own interpretations. One has only to learn how to gain access to them.” The author considered Linambay as one such point of access.

 

Peasant Community

Another salient point in his presentation of ideas is the nature of the barrio of Valladolid as a peasant community. One that is torn between two worlds: “on one hand, the larger world of market, state, and urban culture; and on the other, a vanishing tribal world of village autonomy and personalized intra-village relations. The former advances, the latter recedes, and somewhere in the middle ground of these movements, the peasant village exists” (p. 93). This duality in the nature of the peasant society in question creates the unique tension that is important in understanding the art form. The society is never truly in either side of the pole and neither can be said of the Linambay. Persisting in the middle of the polarity, the author recreated the complexity of the lost theater form in an imaginative approach to locate the relevance and meaning of it in the lives of those who lived during the time it persisted and those who lived and continues to live after it.

The patron-client relationship is given premium in the discussion using James Scott’s “vertical solidarity model” which identifies reciprocity between landlords and tenants in such a community. This approach demystifies the unknown type of social relation during that time and reinstates the roles of each player in this multipart spectrum of give-and-take. It solidifies the perspective of the people who created the Linambay as it anchors them between deference and submission. 

Economic Basis

The economic basis of the art form was also discussed in an elaborate manner. The author amply provided the readers of pertinent information in the trade and industry of the society that cradled the art form. In the first chapter of the book, he presented historical facts on land ownership, taxation, and even fluctuations in crop prices to serve as backdrop to the moral order that Valladolid had during the flourishing of the art form.

The author also exposed the social backdrop as economically dependent. He pursued a presentation of the prominent families that dominated the social landscape of the village by revealing just how much these families actually own by means of land and other forces of production like carabaos, mechanical equipments, and even tenants. This discussion is relevant in locating the Linambay tradition in the hands of the elite, and the submission of the tenants as the author recreated the social order of the village. He also revealed by means of kinship analysis how this social order was preserved via affinal and ritual links.

Although the economic was discussed vis-à-vis the art form, the integrity of the art form in the discussion did not entirely rely on it. The economic was considered important but the author found this to be just one of the factors that eventually caused the collapse of the Linambay tradition:

“What happened, in essence was that changes in the technical material or material order of society drained the symbolic force of the Linambay tradition.

There are two aspects in this loss of power. On one hand, the surrounding reality no longer infused meaning and power into the system of symbols that was the Linambay. The context has collapsed. On the other hand, the system itself lost its power to structure and pattern the moral life of the village. The causal connections here are not simple and unilinear. We need to consider that art is not an inert product of social processes but an agent of these processes (p. 126).”

 

 

 

Literary Criticism

 

Having a solid background in literary criticism surely added another layer of interest in the author’s discourse. The Linambay, an indigenized form of Komedya, is a lost theater form, which made just even getting a copy of a script difficult. However, the author was successful in obtaining several and in revealing the complexity of this form. He provided an intricate analysis of the texts and even the manner how these plays were performed. He masterfully dissected important semiotic representations in the texts uncovering that indeed theater is in society, and society in theater.

Another point of interest of the study centered on how the plays were performed. The author revealed that the presentation of these plays were very social events and diffused in nature such that one need not finish the play in one sitting because of the length of the plays itself (with some lasting up to nine days). Aside from this, the plays were more of a reminder to people than an introduction to new concepts. The people knew the plot of the play and what should happen. They were just reinstatements of the existing moral code, not a discovery of new ones.

Relating the social to the manner these plays were performed, it is remarkable how the author presented social stratification based on where the people actually viewed the plays. While the important families had the so-called palcos, a roofed platform extending out of the stage or a separate shed, the rest would diffuse squatting on the ground, eating, cooking a meal, sleeping and even gambling (p. 76).

 

On Methodology

Mojares’ research is a welcome contribution to Philippine cultural studies. Its approach, rather encompassing and outright, attempts to veer away from simplifying aesthetic discourse as purely social nor economic by endeavoring the integration of the fields of history, literary criticism, and cultural anthropology. This integration is effective in bringing out more aspects in the art form than one would have focusing on a single approach.

However effective, this integration of fields proposes the danger of leaving out some important readings and in effect reducing the art form to a certain degree reachable by the study (or the author) itself. The lack of perspective in sexuality and gender, for instance, takes away a vast amount of possibilities that would’ve created a more exact social history that he was aiming for, among others. Conversely, this would’ve thrown the perspective of the general concerns of the fields he was working with out of the way to accommodate the specific concerns of each field.

The problematics of the general versus the specific in historical writing is indeed a value-laiden query that any author must answer in the goal of exacting the effectivity and relevance of their research to the limit-experience of the readers that they are writing for. In the case of Mojares’ work, I can only assume the specific problems (or the ones that I was looking for) in the three fields he chose to work with were not yet that pronounced being it written in 1985. Considering this, it is the reader’s duty to contextualize a work and read within (and between) the lines of this limit as much as it is the author’s responsibility to posit the discourse to meet and create the challenges of its time.

Orosman at Zafira: On Myth and Society (A Review

The intellectualization of cultural products should most importantly be that of underlying political structures and discovering the unconscious foundations of culture.

As part of the Komedya Festival of the University of the Philippines which celebrates the centuries-old tradition of the theatrical form Komedya, Dulaang UP (DUP) presented Francisco Baltazar’s Orosman at Zafira in its 32^nd theatre season. It was directed by Dexter Santos with original music by Carol Bello. The production was of reconfigured form since it utilized “modern” use of theatrical elements such as music, light, and stage craft.

The aim of this paper is to exact the core power relations represented by this play as a cultural product. Also, discuss and resolve the problematics and political implications of an existence of such a product.

The komedya, as a form, has an important albeit bitter role in the history of Philippine theater. It is a theatrical tradition whose plot revolves around the social, political, and religious conflicts between the Muslims and Christian heroes. It is usually presented in festivals with the support and patronage of the communities. This theater form has its origins in the theatrical traditions of Spain and Mexico in the 16th-18th century. It reached the Philippines through the Hispanic Christianization of the Philippines (http://www.upd.edu.ph/~updinfo/whatsup/komedya.html). This form is also a representation of the Hispanic cultural hegemony that, ironically, the University of the Philipines finds amusing and valuable arguing that “The existence of active komedya/moro-moro groups in a number of regions in the Philippines today warrants an intensified effort to assert the significance of this centuries old theater tradition.”(ibid.) The question of the value of persistence of this form over political implications on us as a nation is debatable yet it is this paper’s interest to acknowledge the latter as more important.

Claude Levi-Strauss in his own attempt to “discover the unconscious foundations of the culture of so-called primitive societies,” he investigated different ‘systems’ and one of the major interests of present cultural studies and one that is central to students of popular culture is his analysis of myth. ”He claims that beneath the vast heterogeneity of myths there can be discovered a homogeneous structure” (Storey,77). His claim also asserts that “the purpose of the myth is to make the world explicable, magically to resolve its problems and contradictions“ (Storey,78). This analysis is central in looking at the performance of DUP and komedya in general as a present-day (ironically centuries-old) myth that promises resolution and justification of current (and previous) Philippine social strata.

Interestingly, Roland Barthes in his Mythologies, thought in line with Levi-Strauss when he analyzed popular culture using the same concept of myth. It is clear that “by myth he also means ideology as understood as a body of ideas and practices which defend the prevailing structure of power by actively promoting the values and interest of the dominant groups in society” (Storey,83).

The Orosman and Zafira production was well received by the audience and critics alike. In his column in the Philippine Daily Inquirer on February 25, 2008, Gibbs Cadiz raves the performance with transparent pleasure:

“The language, spoken by a large cast of professional and student actors, is largely leeched of declamatory artifice, its picturesque power emerging with coherence and transparency. 

At its simplest, ‘Orosman’ makes a persuasive case that Balagtas, a figure of bland terror to millions of students required to read his archaic poetry, can be accessible, comprehensible, when spoken right.”( http://www.gibbscadiz.blogspot.com/)

For the most part, the performance was indeed technically marvelous as it is the reputation of DUP to experiment on attack and stage craft. The use of omnipresent props as seen in the several bundles of wooden sticks that the movers strategically move around the stage to establish the spaces just shows how much they have mastered stage craft. The group also utilized Philipppine indigenous musical instruments to use as props such as the Kubing, the Tungatong, and the Bunkaka (http://www.filipinoheritage.com/arts/phil-music). They were critical in the fight scenes although I must admit that I felt for the instruments as they were beaten to death to fulfill that purpose. I wouldn’t think though that they would not be needing those same instruments to be played since they have a live band by the side of the stage playing the original music of Pinikpikan’s very own Carol Bello which was very refreshing to hear. The lights were off a couple of times since they were not perfectly queued and some actors have to adjust their blocking to the light which seemed a little awkward for it took some drama away from some scenes. The choreography was great if not for some misses in synchrony and a little overcrowding of the stage in some parts. Remembering how lengthy the original text is (I had to read it for an undergraduate class), the choreography or using dance as a basis for storytelling took care of a lot of scenes, which was pleasantly utilitarian. Generally, DUP did their thing and they were good at it.

Orosman at Zafira tackles the struggles of three kingdoms bound together by the irony of love and war. A story of love set in the period of social disarray, Orosman at Zafira presents the contradictions of emotions and logical thinking for the welfare of the many and for the benefit of personal satisfaction and happiness. In Marruecos, two pashas (a rank in the sultanate political hierarchy) struggle for power since the assassination of Mahamud, the sultan of Marruecos. Zafira, Mahamud's daughter covets to take vengeance on the death of his father from Boulasem, the grand pasha of Tendst and the newly self proclaimed sultan of Marruecos. Zafira joins forces with Zelim, the pasha of Duquela, who, on the other hand, seeks to gain the sultanate throne. Zafira and Zelim's troops have lost from the army of Boulasem led by his sons, Abdalap and Orosman. Zafira and Zelim are captured. Both Abdalap and Orosman fall for Zafira. Zafira secretly falls in love with Orosman. On the day of Boulasem's triumph over the army of Zafira and Zelim, Abdalap successfully plots a plan to obtain the trust and support of the army just so he can dethrone his father. The resulting strife of the hasty change in Marruecos' leadership has paved the way for Zelim to scheme a new course of action against Abdalap. Zafira becomes trap in choosing whether she pursues her revenge for his father or her love for Orosman. Orosman, on the other hand finds himself in the predicament whether to choose between the love for an enemy or the throne his father has been fighting for. (http://www.upd.edu.ph/~dup/)

 

The main point of interest of this paper is to dissect the relationships of the characters and realize the implicit and explicit meanings of each character vis-à-vis the Philippine society as we know it.  The characters’ main motivation in this play is power. The main conflict is located in Boulasem’s interest to usurp Mahamud as sultan of Marruecos. While the love story of Orosman and Zafira is a major twist in the story as it brings complications to the story itself, it is born out of the political underpinnings of the play. The characters are all part of the upper class. This character of the story provides for interpolation of the subject and puts them inside the mindset of one that is outside this social sphere. This creates for a mystification of this social sphere and as it is mystified it is also untangled within the same play fashioning pleasure in the audience as it understands this complex relations that is as far as the audience can go in their own social placement.

The previously-mentioned analysis is in line with Levi-Strauss’ investigation on the myth as the play provides understanding of this specific social class therefore making acceptable the existence of such. The viewer is then diverted from questioning inequality and learns to appreciate and accept the system blindly. This play implicitly suggests that the upper class resolves its contradictions and so will other conflicts in other classes.

Consequentially, Barthes’ analysis is also true for this play. The values and interest of the dominant group is protected since it generally presents them in a nonchalant manner. Being presented as a “given” in any society, this play makes the values of greed and infidelity thrive as it rationalizes these values even though they are placed outside the morality of the characters. They are not explicitly accepted as traditionally moral yet they are discussed in a logical backdrop again giving rationalization to power grabbing which is a central conflict in the very little number that hold enormous amount of power in the Philippine society.

The importance of this play in Philippine literature and theater is invaluable and it is not in the interest of this paper to say otherwise. However, it is in its interest to provide for a rational basis of aesthetic appreciation. Orozman and Zafira, the play, is a romanticism of political relations that promote inequality and being regarded as one of the greatest written is a testament on how we never really overcame that kind of power relations as a people.

 

Sources:

“Structuralism and Post-Structuralism” in Storey, John. An introduction to Cultural Theory and Popular Culture. London: Prentice Hall,73-100.

http://www.upd.edu.ph/~updinfo/whatsup/komedya.html

http://www.gibbscadiz.blogspot.com/

http://www.filipinoheritage.com/arts/phil-music

http://www.upd.edu.ph/~dup/