The Power of Hope: Stepping Out, Creating Change

In small things, there is greatness. That is true in the universe. All of these things we see now as "reality" actually began 13 billion years ago from a tiny speck of light which burst forth and created everything. In an instant, the universe was born from a collision of atoms.

And when one, obeying the rules of this universe, plays it small, the potentials of greatness comes not by a hefty price but just a sum of all tiny steps leading into a big burst we call change. And change starts with just one small step.

When Andres Bonifacio started the Katipunan, he started by stepping out of his hamlet and gathering his friends. From a small group, the Katipunan eventually became big, bigger than what Andres Bonifacio had in his mind.

When Mahatma Gandhi started his silent resistance movement against the British, he did so by stepping out of his house and started walking. He walked miles and miles until he reached the salt mines, a symbol of Indian slavery. Gandhi's small steps led to the eventual liberation of his Nation.

When Mao Tsetung began his revolution, he started by stepping out of his faculty room. Mao led thousands of Chinese in building the Chinese Communist Party. That party eventually started what we now know as the Long March, a March which consisted of small, tiny steps made by those whose hearts are bigger than their minds.

This is where greatness lies.

When a man comes out of his comfortable house and starts building people, he spurs a liberation movement.

When a man starts taking small steps towards reforming himself and eventually, the ones that surround him, his tiny revolution becomes big, bigger than himself and that guns a revolution which he himself did not really plan.

And when a man, frustrated by what he sees and hears, began writing his small thoughts and distributing these small seeds of inspiring things to his fellow men, he already started a revolution, a revolution without killing or murdering some one.

Revolutions are handiworks of farmers. They are sustained by fishermen and fought for by orphans and widows.

Revolts start small. For greatness lies deep beneath.

Towards an Epistemological Understanding of Filipino Revolts

In his study on revolutions, Sociologist Walter Goldfrank summed up his observations by listing four prerequisites for revolutions to occur: a favorable world context, an administrative and coercive crisis of the state, widespread rural rebellion and dissident elite movement(s). The first three, says Goldfrank, synthesized to form a revolutionary situation. The fourth, given the near-automatic existence of alternate contenders, emerges to effect political and social transformation after military superiority is proved.

Political scientist James Davies meanwhile said that revolutions occur during a short period of sharp reversals; when people are jolted from their seats and realize the imminent threats to their very lives caused by ineffective governance. Various statistics—as on rural uprisings, industrial strikes, unemployment and cost of living—may serve as crude indexes of popular moods. Yet, these are pre-eminent indications of a rising undercurrent of dissent among affected classes.

However, we find in history that such conditions, though existing, did not necessarily lead to a revolution. In the Philippines, such preconditions only ripen to a full-blown revolt only when led by the intellectual classes. Marx theory of the leadership of the proletariat and Theda Scocpol’s agrarian uprisings do not apply in the Philippine context. Our history is replete with pseudo-revolutions or roughly incomplete revolutions that explain why we are still unable to truly progress towards complete state development.

Less I be accused of distorting history, yes, we do find pockets of agrarian-based revolts in our historical experience; but these are aberrations rather than stages in a continuing revolution. Idealists among us are quick to say that such incidents are interlinked. Close study reveals that causes may be the same, but we find no unified agenda among groups who led these incidents. Our failure to grasp this historical realities is the true cause of our failure to launch genuine revolutions of such magnitude as to effect real change in our society.

Towards an Epistemological approach to revolutions

True revolutions, as Clifford Kroeber wrote, need a comprehensive and general theory or strategy. The lack of such a model causes disruptions and failures in effecting strategy. We may launch thousands of rallies against the state but it will not lead to total change. We may organize the Filipino proletariat, yet, this will not lead to their emancipation nor the establishment of a dictatorship of this class.

Our present situation calls for an epistemological examination of our history through what I call the "synthesis of causes." We are caught, as Thomas Kuhn described, in our own individualized world views or “paradigms” that reflect on invididual accumulations of social norms and reward processes that prevents us from considering certain actions for change. We are being held back by our very situation to truly push for a liberating strategy against this parasitic state.

A re-examination of what is Filipino and what is his concepts of change may contribute towards an epistemological solution. However, we need to create social cycles that would lead to a psycho-social evolution marked by the dominance of the intellectual entrepreneur. It is this class that would lead a genuine People's Revolution. A social cycle allows one collective mindset--a class--to emerge, set up and assume a dominant position whenever a former collective mindset or class has been corrupted or has degenerated. The exigency of such a strategy is pre-eminent given the present condition of the Philippine state.