Fran O’Rourke's What Happened in and to Moral Philosophy in the Twentieth Century?

(Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press, 2013. 512 pp. ISBN: 13: 978-0-268-03737-6.)

Fran O’Rourke does a wonderful work for this edition of another excellent anthology to honor the thoughts and person of Alasdair MacIntyre. What Happened in and to Moral Philosophy in the Twentieth Century? presents penetrating and diverse studies on the legacy that Alasdsair MacIntyre has to philosophy. The anthology features eighteen chapters with an introduction composed by the editor and an epilogue penned by MacIntyre himself. The chapters, except for Chapter 1 which features MacIntyre’s own paper, are distributed into three parts: Part I is about ‘Reading Alasdair MacIntyre,’ Part II is on ‘Complementary and Competing Traditions,’ and Part III is about ‘Thematic Analyses.’

Those who ‘read’ Alasdair MacIntyre in Chapters two to six (Part I) are themselves established philosophers of their own right: John Haldane, Joseph Dunne, Kelvin Knight, Arthur Madigan, SJ, and Hans Fink. Their papers have emphasized a variety of directions in MacIntyre's work. Haldane has concentrated on the relevance of MacIntyre's thoughts and the latter’s contribution in keeping philosophy humanistic; Dunne examines more closely one of MacIntyre's most recent work, Dependent Rational Animal; Knight talks about MacIntyre’s ‘revisionary Aristotelianism’; Madigan provides insights on the identity of MacIntyre's projects - particularly his relations with liberal Aristotelians, the Thomists and the Marxists - and the future endeavors that have been inspired by MacIntyre’s thoughts; Fink also speaks of MacIntyre’s connection with a marginalized Danish moral philosopher, Knud Ejler Løgstrup, and how has MacIntyre’s attention to the thoughts of Løgstrup helped us realize that prestige in academic philosophy is oftentimes a matter of having quality commentators to one’s projects.

Chapters seven to twelve (Part II) feature the papers on MacIntyre’s engagements with traditions. James Edwin Mahon talks about MacIntyre’s engagement with emotivism. This topic has already been prominent in MacIntyre’s After Virtue and even earlier works; Stephen Mulhall speaks of MacIntyre’s dialogue with the thoughts of Stevenson and Nietzsche; Raymond Geuss offers some pointers on how Marxism could help us grapple with the ethos of the twentieth century - and down to our present century - which is dominated by a Nietzschean perspective that is characterized by a ‘complex of anarchic beliefs and anomic modes of living.’ In this second part of the book, one can also read the contribution of James McEvoy who speaks about the parallelism in the projects of MacIntyre, and two Dominican authors, Leonard Boyle, OP and Servais Pincaers, OP. Steven Long also offers his thoughts on how the modern attack on metaphysics and the teleology of natural law (those attacks which he describes as the ‘perfect storm’) has provided the impetus to improve reflections on this particular tradition so that its contribution can now hardly be dismissed despite its having been opposed by the children of modernism and postmodernism. The chapter by Richard Kearney concludes Part II, and here Kearney discusses the issue on the limits of forgiveness borrowing largely from the thoughts of Ricoeur and Derrida. Rarely however does Kearney makes explicit reference to MacIntyre and on ho how does this question on forgiveness bear with the ‘MacIntyrean’ project.

Part III is about thematic analyses and presents such penetrating studies as Fran O’Rourke’s engagement with evolutionary theories, specifically on their implications to ethics. Owen Flanagan moreover examines the dominant narrative that governs our conceptions of justice and deserts. Jonathan Ree writes an article on ‘History, Fetishism, and Moral Change.’ Elijah Millgram and William Desmond have respectively authored the articles on ‘Relativism, Coherence, and the Problems of Philosophy’ and ‘Ethics and the Evil of Being.’ The last article for Part III is from Gerard Casey who writes on ‘The Inescapability of Ethics,’ which argues both for the fundamental incoherence of determinism and irrationalism which he believes to be a natural consequence to the fact about the inescapability of ethics.

The opening and closing pieces of this anthology are aptly taken from MacIntyre’s own writings. This anthology has anyway originated from a Conference at University College Dublin in 2009 which is specifically directed to a discussion on MacIntyre’s thoughts and contribution to philosophy. MacIntyre wrote the first chapter of which he gave the title, “On Having Survived the Academic Moral Philosophy of the Twentieth Century.” Here, MacIntyre has described how his Aristotelian position placed him within the ongoing debates in contemporary moral philosophy. He also pointed out that his own conception of moral philosophy has placed him at odds both with the dominant standpoint in contemporary moral philosophy and the established analytic understanding on how a philosophical inquiry should proceed. He particularly laments against the present divide between academic moral philosophy and the actual conduct of moral agents; where he even suggests that relevant experiences in practice, like experience at farms, construction sites, laboratories and studios, and even in political struggles and military engagements, should be required of those who aspire to teach moral philosophy. In assessing the possible directions that a moral philosopher should take, MacIntyre advises one’s keenness on the thoughts of both Marx and Aquinas. He moreover calls for one’s prudent and vigilant immersions in the academic centers who could make one conversant with the ongoing developments in the area of moral philosophy.

The last paper in the collection is MacIntyre’s epilogue. In this piece, he asks the question: What next? MacIntyre has called us to take a look at ourselves, not only as philosophers but also as moral agents, for we need to understand the meaning of having been able to ‘reason well’ or ‘badly’ in our practical lives. Hence, he is inviting his readers to read and reread the insights rendered especially on Aquinas’ account of practical rationality. To do this, he encourages his readers to enter into a particular genre in writing philosophy – one that features the lives and decisions of outstanding moral agents. If moral philosophy finds its locus also in the practical lives of actual moral agents, then philosophical writing could well attend also to the lives of actual moral agents whose relevant life-narratives are meant to tell us a lesson. In his epilogue, he mentions the names of Vasily Grossman, C.L.R. James and Denis Faul. With the limited pages that he has for the concluding part of his epilogue, he paid homage to the lives and works of these three personalities – something which we have already seen him do when he wrote a book on Edith Stein. Perhaps, this is an important invitation that must attract us. The best forms of ethics are perhaps those that have been effectively lived, and a closer attention to such lives can be worthy of our time.

What Happened in and to Moral Philosophy in the Twentieth Century?is a remarkable assembly of insightful minds. This is a work that cannot be ignored by those who wish to learn more on moral philosophy especially for one who is interested with the thoughts of Alasdair MacIntyre. We thank the editor, the authors - especially the honoree, Alasdair MacIntyre - and all those who were instrumental in making this work a reality.

Special Mode of Habitus: Catholicism and the Papal Visits to the Philippines

Note: 

Transcript of the sharing delivered at PUP Sta. Mesa, Manila

Good afternoon. I am thankful for the invitation sent me by Prof. Kristoffer Bolaños last week. I however have hesitated to accept this invitation because I felt that I am not equipped enough to talk about the subject on Pierre Bourdieu. I am a graduate student in Philosophy and an instructor in Theology (Religious studies, strictly speaking), and I have not been initiated yet into the discussions that were inspired by the thinker who has also inspired today’s forum.

Nevertheless, I accepted the invitation because of two reasons: first because Prof. Bolaños coursed the invitation through a very good friend of mine, Dr. Arvin Eballo, the current president of PASR; and also because this forum will give me an opportunity to visit PUP grounds once again. I am also an alumnus of PUP. I have completed my PBTE (Post Baccalaureate Teachers Education) here. I think that was in 2006 or 2007. Hence, since I said yes to the invitation, I had to do research on the subject matter; and I hope for your indulgence and understanding for the things that I have prepared for today’s discussion.

The topic mentioned in Prof. Bolaños’ letter was: Special Mode of Habitus: Catholicism and the Papal Visits to the Philippines; and it added that the discussion will hopefully highlight the concept of Pierre Bourdieu on “habitus” and on how does “habitus” play itself out in the religious practice of the country. With this, please allow me to focus my paper on the concept of “habitus” and the possible contribution of this concept in articulating and realizing the ‘social doctrine of the Church,’ especially those themes that had been highlighted by Pope Francis during his visit to the Philippines.

So, we begin with the concept of papal visitations….

Visitations are quite common in the tradition of the Catholic church. It’s pretty much the same as any head of any organization visiting his people for varied purposes, which are oftentimes primarily intended to assure the people of the continuing good regard and presence of the leader. In the context of the Philippine Catholic Church, the seat of the Roman Pontiff have had already made several visitations to the country. Prior to Pope Francis, the Philippines was already visited by Pope Paul VI in 1970, and Pope John Paul II in 1981 and 1995 (the second was during the occasion of the World Youth Day). Most of these visits are pastoral in nature. The term pastoral has its origins from the context of the shepherd ‘pastoring’ or caring for his sheep; so a pastor is somebody who is in charge for the care of the a certain group – in the same manner as the shepherd is concerned with the well-being of his sheep. That the nature of his visit was pastoral was even declared by Pope Francis when he delivered his speech in Malacanang on January 16. And, even if we would have to trace the visits of the two previous popes, we could also see the pastoral orientation of those visitations: Pope Paul VI’s visit in 1970 highlighted an ordination of priests, his speech on air through Radio Veritas, his visit to the poor of Tondo; and – something which will be common to all three Popes who had come to the Philippines – an encounter with students and the youth (which actually happened at the grounds of the University of Santo Tomas).

Pope (St.) John Paul II’s visits in 1981 and 1995 were also pretty much the same; Marisse Panaligan and Jessica Bartolome of GMA news reported that John Paul II’s 1981 visit to the country was even extended to several places outside Metro Manila. He went to Baguio, to Rizal, to Legaspi, to Iloilo and Bacolod, to Cebu and Davao. During this trip, John Paul II also spoke to many facets of the Philippine society – he reaches out to religious women, to the professionals, to the community of Chinese Catholics, to the Muslims, to laborers, farmers, the urban poor, and the media (see reports of Panaligan and Bartolome; GMA News, January 13, 2015). Then, his second visit in 1995 was on the occasion of the World Youth day celebration, and so was primarily intended as an encounter for the students and the young people. Pope Francis’ visit is no different. In fact, the highlight of that visit was his meeting with the victims of the Yolanda typhoon in Samar and Leyte – a goal which he had to pursue even when there was a threat of another typhoon during that time. In addition to that, he also held meetings with Families at the Mall of Asia arena, and the religious leaders and again the youth at the University of Santo Tomas. So then, if we are to look into the papal visitations that were done in the Country, and even in other countries, these visits were mostly intended to reassure the people, to exhort and the inspire them to pursue certain goals, ends and values that are central to the Catholic faith. The Pope visits the people of God in order to assure us, faithful, of his continuing paternal care.

And so now we ask: what implications do these visits have? What significance do they have for us? It is on this regard that Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of habitus will help us in our reflection.

I have started this sharing with a disclaimer, and I would not really pretend to be knowledgeable of Bourdieu. So, please allow me to base my descriptions of Bourdieu’s concept of habitus from David Swartz article in Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, which he entitled as “The Sociology of Habit: The Perspective of Pierre Bourdieu” (2002). Swartz tells us that Bourdieu’s concept of habitus stems from a theory of action that rejects “all objectivist views that depict moral behavior as a directly determined response to some kind of external condition, be it cultural or material” (p. 625). Bourdieu was careful to avoid a theory of action that falls in either extreme of external constraints or subjective whim. This means then that for Bourdieu, when we do an action, we do not just simply follow norms, laws or codes. In fact, the behaviorists’ stimulus-response schema is not a guaranteed explanation on why ‘we do’ an action. Much less is it possible to reduce the reason for action as merely a product of rational choice of the here and the now. Bourdieu instead believes that most of our actions are products of what he calls as habitus, which others would conveniently equate with habit (although Bourdieu distinguishes the two and would always prefer habitus over habit).

What then is habitus? Bourdieu (1990)[1] defines habitus as a “system of durable, transposable dispositions, structured structures predisposed to function as structuring structures, that is, as principles which generate and organize practices and representations that can be objectively adapted to their outcomes without presupposing a conscious aiming at ends or an express mastery of the operations necessary in order to attain them” (p. 53). For my discussion, please allow me to focus on Bourdieu’s description of habitus as structured structures predisposed to function as structuring structures.

To say then that actions are mostly governed or influenced by habitus is to claim that most of our actions are not really conscious determinations of neutral ends. Our habitus has already pre-disposed us to certain ends so much so that when we make our choice, even if we believe it to be a free and uninfluenced choice, is always somehow colored by the habituation or the habitus where we are in. In other words, our habitus (those habituated dispositions that become almost like second nature for us) incline us toward certain actions over others. Habitus will probably help us understand the varying inclinations of people who have been separately raised in different types of habituation or environment. For, as Swartz observes, Bourdieu even used the concept of habitus to account for the class differences across a broad range of aesthetic tastes and lifestyles. When our grandfathers are fond of listening to songs of Engelbert Humperdinck or Frank Sinatra; we have our young who listen to the rap music of Gloc-9. As the old regard the music of the young as ‘not really music but noise,’ the young will equally detest the melody that is soothing to the ears of the old. These tastes moreover affect their actions. So an answer to the question about “what am I to do on a given Sunday morning?,” even if both would say that they would want to listen to an FM station – they would vary on the choice of radio stations to tune in. It is on this similar account that habitus affects our actions and decisions. On any given day, a person’s response to the question of “what may I do today” is colored highly by the habitus that have formed the tastes and disposition of that person: so while some find joy in watching movies, others are contented with reading books, while others would prefer to jog or play basketball. It is on this regard that one’s habitus may influence one’s actions; and this is perhaps the reason why Bourdieu would call habitus as “structured structures…” Habitus are “structures” because they are dominant in a person’s tastes. Habitus are settled dispositions. They are like structures that cannot be easily taken down. In the classical language of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, they would call habits as those dispositions that have the character of a second nature. Their stability as a disposition allows us to say that they are “structures.” But Bourdieu also tells us that habitus are “structured.” Though they become dominant as a person’s disposition, habitus were also structured, they were actually formed in us. They are not innate in us. They are structured in a sense that our habits are actually also products our individual actions. What come as our habit are actually outcomes of our vigilant initial choices. So, the habitus of a student that disposes him or her to regularly study the lessons are not innate structures. They are rather born after a period of a disciplined action to go through the rigor of studies. I remember one Dominican who told his students that you would have to peg your balls on your chairs if you would want to acquire good study habits (ipako niyo ang inyong mga bayag sa upuan niyo if kung gusto niyong magkaroon ng magandang disposisyon sap ag-aaral). So habits, though they are structures because they are stable dispositions, they are also structured (they are not innate) but are formed through constant vigilance and discipline.

Moreover, habitus function as structuring structures. Our settled dispositions allow us to program our actions. This is perhaps the reason for Aristotle’s over-confidence on a ‘good natured’ or ‘virtuous man’ when he argued that the virtuous man is the measure for the good. Aristotle seems to suggest that the virtue of the virtuous becomes the structuring structures of his actions so much so that we could confidently believe that the virtuous man’s actions will be mostly virtuous. In the field of moral philosophy, especially the brand of a Thomistic-Aristotelian ethics, the emphasis on virtue-formation becomes primary because of the conviction that continuous acts of virtue develops virtuous character, and such virtuous character becomes a settled disposition to do acts of virtue. This suggests that virtues are both products of continuous and repeated actions (and so they are structured); and at the same time, virtues dispose as to do more acts of virtue (and so it is structuring)… It is formed in us as it also forms us…. It’s a cycle, not of vice but of virtues. When we continuously perform honest actions, we become honest; and our honest character now becomes our settled disposition to be always honest in our actions…

We can see here then an important insight from Bourdieu’s emphasis on habitus as structured structures predisposed to function as structuring structures… The aim then is to form good habits so that those good habits become programmatic for more good actions.

This brings us to the next point of this paper. Papal visitations are invitations to create those habits, those practices that will inspire us to be better as a people; especially for the believers who look at themselves as a people of God. We take the case of Pope Francis’ visit as a focal point.

There are two striking points that we could probably highlight from the visit of Pope Francis: the first is the emphasis on forming the people; and the second is the call to resist what Pope Francis has consistently termed as the culture of exclusion.

Formation (forming the people) is, I think, a core project of the present Pontiff of the Catholic Church. In fact, last year (October 5-19, 2014), Pope Francis has convened an extraordinary Synod of bishops (or a global gathering of Catholic bishops) to talk about the Family. That Synod has produced a working paper entitled, “The Pastoral Challenges of the Family in the Context of Evangelization.” The working paper is focused on many aspects of family life ranging from the nature of the family, the threats to family life, and the role of family life in building our contemporary societies. In the life of the Catholic Church, the family is regarded as the first and the most important school for Christian life. Hence, Pope Francis really took it as part of his agenda to speak with the Families, where in their meeting he insisted that “the world ‘needs good and strong families” to overcome threats of poverty, materialism, destructive lifestyles, and those caused by separation due to migration’.” The Catholic Church is convinced that if we are to talk about formation of personal character (especially the formation of virtuous character), the family will have a big role to play. But such promise of a family will be frustrated if the human family, with all the threats that it faces today, will not be aided in the performance of its mission. We could not deny the reality of so many families that have become places of abuse and maltreatment, instead of being places of assurances, care and unconditional love. It has become very difficult to form good individuals in a family, if the family is already dysfunctional. So, for the church, a rather important ministry is to look into our human families, and to defend it from what Pope Francis would call as the ‘ideological colonization.’

This particular stance of the church leads the Church to many unpopular positions. Probably there are those in the present audience who will not agree with the church in some of those positions that the Church would have to take in order to safeguard the human family. Among the issues that the Pope regards as ‘ideological colonization’ are issues related to same sex marriage, the practicality of divorce, the contraceptive mindset, etc. Many would disagree with the church on these issues, but the Church’s guiding principle amidst those discussions is the goal of accompanying the family in the performance of its very important mandate of forming the people, especially the young. The Church believes that a dysfunctional family could hardly provide the habitus (if we are to use Bourdieu’s terminology) to form virtuous people.

Secondly, Pope Francis’ visit to the Philippines is a reiteration of his crusade to fight the culture of exclusion. In his Evangelii Gaudium (his recent Pastoral Exhortation), Pope Francis calls all people of good will to resist any mechanism that excludes the people, especially the poor and the powerless. This culture of exclusion is a constant temptation especially for us who are habituated in the capitalist culture that thrives in competition. As we all know, competition declares winners and losers; and winning in a competition is always premised by one’s strength. In a competition, the strong wins and weak loses. If others are left behind because they have lost in the battle, they would have no one else to blame but themselves. Losing is but part of the game, and to be left behind is but part of the consequence.

Pope Francis has insisted that it is this culture of exclusion that has condemned so many of us to live miserable lives. The poor in the slums and the orphans in the streets are just among the losers in our communities; their weakness cannot allow them to compete, and so they are just left behind; and they are simply excluded.

Pope Francis’ call is for us to think of alternative ways of doing things. When the competitive culture of the modern liberalism develops in us the habitus of looking after only for our needs, sometimes even at the expense of others, Pope Francis is asking us to look for an alternative way of doing things. Hence, he says to those who were present during his encounter with the youth at the University of Santo Tomas, “I want to encourage you, as Christian citizens of this country, to offer yourselves passionately and honestly to the great work of renewing your society and helping to build a better world.” This is an invitation to think of an alternative to the dominant practice that has “structured” our actions to be self-directed and forgetful of others. The pope has invited us to think of alternative structuring structures that could make our society a better place.

I am not sure how many from the audience have witnessed Pope Francis’ encounter with the youth in UST; but in that encounter, Pope Francis has invited the people to be attentive to the tears of the crying child, Glyzelle Palomar, who has represented all the many other forgotten and excluded people in our society. The call is for us to provide alternative structures that could also structure us to be responsive to the conditions of these often-forgotten sectors of our society. As the other street child (Mar Jun) in that encounter testifies, “orphans in the streets are helpless, and they are sometimes even led to do bad things because of lack of guidance.” He was thankful for the people who have helped them, especially the Tulay ng Kabataan Foundation who have nurtured and sheltered them, but he has also noted that there are ONLY FEW PEOPLE who are willing to help them. So, we ask ourselves as a community, what sort of habituation must we adopt in order to encourage us to become more responsive to the conditions of the excluded members of our society?

This is then the area I see where Bourdieu’s concept of habitus may play out itself in religious practice in our country. Religiosity is not just acts of piety or devotions (though they are also important of course). An equally important part in the convictions of a believer is the kind of Christian message that he brings to his people. Christ’s message for the people is nothing other than the LOVE of the Father; and so, it becomes central in the life of a believer to make that love a reality. Our religiosity then must not be plagued with those sometimes scandalous disparities between our devotions and actions.

Inasmuch as Bourdieu is concerned with working on the people’s habitus as structured structures predisposed to function as structuring structures, the Catholic church, as reiterated by the recent visit of Pope Francis I to our nation, calls us to create liberating structures that will proclaim and witness more powerfully the love of God for his people. The invitation is for every believer to form those virtuous habits – by being vigilant in our every action, endeavoring to do acts of love and justice rather than that of malice and abuse – so that those virtuous habits become structuring structures that will later make us imitate Christ more consistently in our lives.

Maraming salamat po.

---

[1] The Logic of Practice (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1990). 

DIVERGENT.....

The movie

Divergent is a March 2014 film adaptation of a novel with the same title. The novel was authored by Veronica Roth and the film was directed by Neil Burger. It was hoped to be the first of The Divergent Series, the second installment of which is scheduled for release in March 2015.

The movie was situated in a ‘futuristic dystopian Chicago’ community where the inhabitants are divided into four factions who were grouped according to their virtues: the selfless Abnegation, the honest Candor, the brave Dauntless, and the intelligent Erudite. The factions are meant to secure the harmony of the community, where the members are expected to behave and contribute according to their strengths and virtues. The Abnegation class is assigned as the leader group precisely because of their selflessness. This is highly reminiscent of the Platonic ‘Republic’ of the classical times where the members of the community are also expected to contribute to their faction based on their strengths; except for Plato’s insistence on the leading role of the intelligent group as opposed to the selfless character of the movie’s Abnegation class. In this movie’s version of the factions, each person is required to affiliate to one of the four groups when he/she reaches 16 years old. Each is tested based on aptitude and is expected to make a lifelong commitment with the chosen group.

The movie’s protagonist, Beatrice Prior, was tested for the factions but was found to possess more than one dominant virtue: she is selfless, brave and intelligent. She was a ‘divergent’ – the type for those who are non-classifiable because of their multi-virtue attribute. Divergents however were seen as threats to the stability of the faction-system, and the government is then set on eliminating them. Despite discovering her multiple-virtues, Beatrice opted to affiliate with the dauntless, and followed the instruction of her examination proctor to keep the results of the exam to herself.

As a neophyte in the Dauntless camp, Beatrice – who shortened her name into Tris – had to go through the rigors of the training, where she struggled if not for the help and support of her mentor, Four. Tris has managed to top her challenges and even forged a special bond with Four, whom she eventually learned to be also a Divergent. Four had to warn Tris to make sure that her being a Divergent never gets discovered throughout the test.

At the culmination of Tris’ test to become a Dauntless, the sinister plot of the Erudite to usurp the ‘leadership role’ from the Abnegation group was discovered. The Erudite tricked the Dauntless group and used them to annihilate the Abnegation group. Two divergents, Tris and Four – along with Tris’ family, were instrumental in arresting the rebellion.

On the issue of virtues and freedom

The movie expresses a strong critique against those who thought that ‘totalitarian communities,’ where clear-cut roles of members are defined, will secure peace and harmony. The divergent class is a reminder that a rather simplistic view of the community, where people are thoroughly classified and each is able to align his/her desire with the expected behavior within his/her class, will not work. The divergent class is both a challenging realism and a hopeful invitation.

A challenging realism. The divergent class allows us to realize that individuals are never bereft of ‘personal’ and even ‘selfish’ inclinations. Yes, there are structures that will elicit our virtuous characters, but there are always those who diverge from expectations because of their personal – and sometimes selfish – motives for action.  The Philippines, for example, is currently rocked by the scandals in our politics mainly brought by the ‘divergent’ behaviors – as they are so accused – of our public servants – both elected and appointed – who are now facing charges on plunder. Should the allegations be proven true, these offenders will have shown us their ‘departure’ from the virtues expected them due to their office. Whereas they were expected to become honest and concerned for the people, they have diverged to become the corrupt individuals as they are now charged. A ‘realistic’ portrayal of the social and political structure can never ignore these deviations. There will always be members of the community – either from the ranks of leaders or from among the ordinary citizens – who will depart from the expected virtues because of personal (and selfish) reasons. This is who we really are – not that we are all sinful -, we are beings who are called to perpetually deal with our desires and inclinations for some of our wishes can pull us away from our main responsibilities in the family, school, organization or society in general. 

A hopeful invitation. Despite the challenge, however, the ‘divergent’ character reminds us of a very important component of the human person – our freedom. It is to this hopeful aspect of the divergent that the movie has centered on. The movie makes us see that the human person is always beyond – and is certainly more than – the structures that define our existence. Most of these structures are undeniable and inescapable. There are conditions that surround – and even define – our existence without our explicit approval and intention. A German philosopher, Martin Heidegger, has once reminded us that ‘we are simply thrown into the world’ where many of the things that we have to deal with are beyond our choices. It is almost beyond our option to use or not to use a computer, a cellphone, an ATM card, or the internet – very few will make the divergent option of foregoing these technologies. For most of us, ‘we simply use these things because they are there’ and they are presented to us as beneficial technologies. More importantly, these technologies define the expected behaviors from their users – facebook users, for example, are supposed to update their accounts every now and then, they are expected to like and comment on the posts of their friends, they are supposed to respond to messages, etc. As in the dystopian Chicago environment depicted in the movie, our society assigns certain behaviors expected of its members. To become a divergent is tantamount to becoming an outcast.

Yet, the movie gave us this hopeful invitation. It reminds us not to allow ourselves to be dictated by the predefined (expected) behaviors within the contemporary system. We are expected to continuously become truthful to ourselves, and such fidelity to who we are as persons will sometimes invite us to become a divergent member of the socialized environment.

The first of the Divergent Series has hinted us about the unfolding of the protagonists’ characters in the sequel of the series. But, we are already reminded that there is nothing wrong with becoming divergent if it is to be an outcome of our truthfulness to ourselves.

Questions to ponder:

1. What are the dominant behaviors (pop culture) in our communities – especially in the social media – that can become unhealthy for us?

2. How much do I know myself? What are the things that I like most about myself?

3. What are those traits that other people like most about me?

A REASON FOR MY PRO-GWYNETH DORADO VOTE at ASIA’S GOT TALENT

A VOTE for GWYNETH JEAREI DORADO at the AGT Finals... I am not really an expert in music. In fact, I could not really sing that well; and you could already argue ad hominem that I am giving a bad argument here. But, there’s a reason why I would cast a vote for this young aspiring girl: POTENTIAL.

The sense of a talent search is to look for potentials; and how do we sense potentials in singing? A potential singer is not just one who has the innate talent to sing – although of course, voice quality is an important factor for a future star; but it’s also largely about one’s malleability, i.e. one’s openness to change and improve… In my opinion, Gwyneth’s best strength in this competition is precisely her openness to work on changes that are necessary for her to improve. This is what she has shown us in this competition. Melanie C’s observation on Gwyneth’s performance in the Finals speaks of this: “I’ve always adored you but tonight I’m in awe of you. When you came out for the auditions you always had this attitude and confidence, but you really have blossomed and tonight you were just incredible.” For a span of more than a month, the transformation has happened. More can still be done if she is given enough time, training and support. Even her critic in the semi-finals acknowledges Gwyneth’s capacity to comply: “You, tonight, obviously took the advice we gave you a few weeks ago. And the true you – that’s who you are, right there, with that piano -- killed it,” David Foster said in affirmation of Gwyneth’s performance. One may simply view the two versions of Gwyneth’s rendition of the song “Titanium” in youtube.com (one in 2013 and the other during the AGT Finals), and the transformation will definitely be obvious.  

Her critics are right, Gwyneth is not yet a star; and she, at this point in time, may even sound as any other talented young singer in her country (Philippines). But, they are wrong in arguing that she’s just an ordinary aspirant in her craft. One thing that separates Gwyneth from the crowd is her discipline, her belief in herself, her capacity to change, her openness to improve. These are the best factors that highlight her potentials. Give her the right opportunity, and surround her with the appropriate resources, and you will definitely find a star in the making.

If I am to talk about the performances of the nine acts in AGT Finals, I may agree that Gwyneth’s act in the Finals may not be the outstanding best (but she is not definitely the least). But, if I am to talk about potential, then this is where Gwyneth could shine the most. Given her age, her present capacities, and her susceptibility to improvement, Gwyneth definitely has the potential of a star, and these would justify her slot in the AGT Finals; and I am confident in my claim that if an opportunity is given her after this competition, it will not be wasted.