This Is Not a Post About UP 'Hooligans' (or the Marketing of Activism)
I want to clarify that this will not be a piece about Sec. Butch Abad, nor is this a post about DAP - although it is inspired by it. I don't think I am knowledgeable enough on those topics to form strong opinions, and, as any creative writing professor will tell you, you should only "write what you know".
Although I spent a year as part of the Student Council (caveat: in the stereotypically most conyo college in UP), I never really took to the streets to fight for greater state subsidy or affiliated myself with political parties like ALYANSA or Stand UP (disclaimer: although my political views are blue-leaning, I have strong convictions regarding scrapping STFAP, vs. revising it). I typically shied away from the groups that, admittedly, do get a bad rap (unfairly? perhaps. sometimes.) by so-called "mainstream, right-wing, and Pro-Administration propaganda".
#SorryNotSorry
Instead, you could argue that I 'sold out'. I was an active member of a college org more famous for throwing huge parties than rallying on the street. I represented the University's 'photogenic' side, joining business competitions, getting immersed in the world of marketing, advertising campaigns, and PR, and getting a job in corporate after graduation.
But I've always been unapologetic about that. Like the recent statement by Stand UP says, #SorryNotSorry because I've never considered myself apathetic, though I'm sure a lot of people from that party would disagree.
I'm an advocate of 'inclusive activism' - the idea that, while rallies have their place in a healthy democracy, they are not the only nor are they the 'highest' or 'best' form of advocacy.
"Perception Is Reality" &The Rules of the Game
In my course, whenever we'd talk about brands and marketing, the phrase "perception is reality" always pops up. The thinking is that, by shaping consumer perceptions via advertising, you change their realities and their behaviors in subtle but tangible ways.
And the thing is, for better or for worse, most people are like me. Most people don't have strong opinions about DAP. They'll be sympathetic, maybe 'like' a few photos on Facebook, but they won't 'walk with the masses' and chant. They're what I call and consider the 'moderates'. Not apathetic to a fault, but just not 'tired' enough to do something about it. If you want to be scientific about it, I guess it's the Law of Inertia at work on a societal level.
Not until the dissent of the general populace hits a point of critical mass can 'revolution' and social upheaval take place. As the pareto principle (80/20 rule) states: it's only when the 20% - the outliers, authorities, activists, and key influencers of society - hits a boiling point and strikes a nerve that society reaches the proverbial 'Tipping Point' where the moderates take a side.
Unfortunately, just like the world of marketing, you'll have brands like Pond's saying that they're 'better' than Olay and vice-versa. They're engaged in an endless war of perception - a push-and-pull attempt to sway the sentiments and sympathies of the moderates to their side. You will NEVER convince a loyal, irrational iPhone user to switch to Android to or vice-versa. It'll always a battle to convince those on the fence. People who 'don't proclaim their love for Samsung on the streets' but represent the bulk of all their users.
So, yes, of course, there is right-wing propaganda. They have scale and mainstream media on their side - and that is their advantage as the ruling administration. So I find it absolutely ridiculous that the 'leftist agenda' is still so backwards and playing the victim. I say, if you want change, you need to take a page from their books and play by the rules of the game.
The Medium Is the Message (and what activists can learn from the world of marketing)
In many Media/Communication Theory or Sociology classes, you'll run into a quote by Michael McLuhan that goes, "the medium is the message". And the way I've always looked at it is that every message can be broken down into its form (manner and medium of delivery) and its substance (the actual message).
And, the thing is: both are important, although I don't think (correct me if I'm wrong) traditional Mass Organizations like Stand UP are on-board with this thinking, I feel that groups like CMC's ISA do.
The fact that you have to tell people to 'not judge books by their cover' (and yet authors and musicians hire artists to create cover art) says a lot. Perceptions, typically, are formed quickly and instinctively, emotionally - not rationally. So we do our best to dress up the 'form' of our messages in the hope that, by grabbing a good first impression, engagement and understanding of the 'substance' can follow afterwards.
In the instance of UP students allegedly throwing coins at Sec. Butch Abad, the statement was certainly bold and provocative. The substance was there, but the form, arguably, left much to be desired. The 'moderates' were unconvinced and unmoved because, despite the quality of their message, the manner was perceived to be distasteful by common sensibilities and the 'cringe factor' was leveraged by right-wing PR teams.
Ganun talaga. That's how it works. It's a push and pull battle for the hearts and minds of the 80%. And, regardless of how you spin it, "hindi talaga bebenta sa majority ng tao ang idea na 'deserve nila ang violence kasi oppressed kami'". Gandhi and Martial Law victims had their human rights violated, but what allowed their message to ring loud and clear was their non-violence in the midst of abuse - the form first, before the substance.
What these groups did wrong, I feel, was to refuse to backtrack and apologize - instead insisting that 'the substance of the message justifies its form' in a way that polarized rather than recruited the 'moderates' to their side. It was a very 'you're either with us or a supporter of DAP/dog of P-Noy' rhetoric.
They tend to forget is that People Power was a single-handed victory by protesters and big personalities like Cory Aquino - it was won when the 'small activist' finally swayed enough to moderates to dissent and spark revolution against the oppressive regime.
Activism 2.0
So what do I recommend instead? I think old-school student activists need to take a page out of the advertiser's playbook and explore the world of integrated communications or IMC. The old-school thinking of 'shouting our message louder' is simply not the way to engage and win the bulk of the population to your cause.
Shouting and getting violent will not, and never will, get your point across because that was an inappropriate form for an otherwise substantial message. It's a one way monologue rather than a discourse, even if you argue that Q&A during the forum was censured or *insert reason here*. Perception is reality, and the perception is that an otherwise intelligent group of UP students look like children throwing tantrums versus a missed opportunity to respectfully express distaste at the censorship that took place in the appropriate avenue and form. All they accomplished was polarizing the masses and adding fuel to the right-wing rhetoric.
My advice: stop shoving dogma down people's throats and listen, engage. After all, you claim to be student representatives, so represent them. If you think 'you know better what students need than they themselves do', fine, but get them on the same page rather than calling them out of their 'stupidity' or 'apathy'. You say, that 'real UP students' are taught to speak out - not speak 'professionally' and 'respectfully', but it's common sense (not to mention good manners) to realize that a spoonful of sugar goes a long way.
Rather than proclaim that one form of activism is 'superior' to another, the next-generation of activists needs to realize that each media channel serves its own unique role in satisfying different aspects of the singular objective to 'create social impact'.
In the same way that airing a TV Commercial for 'awareness' is never enough, 'liking' or 'sharing' a photo to 'show solidarity with a cause' is never enough. Conversely, it's not nearly as potent to exclusively rely on what advertisers call 'below-the-line' activities (e.g. events, in-store activities, RALLIES), especially if your goal is reach the masses on a large scale. It's an integrated mix of marketing elements (high reach, low engagement; low reach, high engagement) to hit different aspects of complex issues.
That means is doing the unthinkable - organizations like Stand UP partnering - rather than vilifying - organizations like UP JMA and their "ADHOC party-for-a-cause" and recognizing that, at the end o the day, everyone in UP wants Philippine society to get better in the way they know how to do best. No one wants to society to get worse. Like the different channels of a good ad campaign, activism takes many forms, with each expression serving its own purpose - with, ideally, one, singular underlying message.
Here in UP, we're a microcosm of Philippine society. Educated, articulate, and massive. However 'oppressed' we claim to be, we're the only university that gets these kinds of news headlines. Not even better-funded Ateneo or La Salle. Don't waste that privilege. Together, as a Diliman Republic, we made waves, helped topple governments, and earn spots in history books. Fragmented, we're just another set of noisy, albeit well-intentioned, students barking 10 different messages that just goes over everyone's head.
UP needs a single, unifying voice - and throwing coins did not help us reach that singularity one bit.
