council
Apr 25, 2000, 09:54 PM
"The Ateneo de Manila
is a monastery of emasculated contemplatives,
a snobbish mob that suffers chronically
from a constipation of thought and diarrhea of words."
This bitter and vituperative statement was made by a student in one of the student conferences that I have attended. He made this statement when I pointed out that his organization was far too out in the left and too radical to be rational.
The point is that some people do think this way about the Ateneo. So a relevant question to be asked in this essay is whether this statement has some truth to it. It has been one of the greatest prides of the Ateneo to be called a school for leaders and a training ground for revolutionaries. If we look at history, we might find some reason for this pride. Dr. Jose P. Rizal, our national hero, was a revolutionary, and an Atenean at that. During the Second World War, Fort Santiago was known as the Ateneo de Santiago. This was because of the heavy traffic of Ateneans going in and out of the place.
But all this is history. And history is a two-edged sword. Rizal indeed was a revolutionary, in the sense that he wanted change. However, he would rather have change not brought about by armed conflict and in a sense he did not endorse the revolution of Bonifacio. Other historians point out that Rizal was reacting violently in his writings against the Spanish rule because his own family had been threatened. Here then is a big point: that the Heroes of our revolution came up in arms because their class was threatened. So that even Rizal, who was in the upper class, joined in denouncing the order of his time because he was forced by circumstances.
The big question now is this: do the present Ateneans feel threatened so that they will themselves seek change in our society, or will a change in the order of our society threaten their position?
Take the position of the average Atenean. He has a comfortable allowance, his family has a car and a satisfactory income, his future is assured because of his prestigious education. He is a part of the establishment. It is true that he can write about the ills of the country, the need for a just wage for labor, the need for justice for all, yet he does not personally feel with the people, most of the time his expression of concern is a matter of intellectual exercise. After all, if a change were to occur in the order of things, the position of the Atenean would be less secure. He likes things as they are. And for another thing, it must be admitted that within the lifetime of the Atenean in school, he seldom goes hungry nor does he worry about where his next allowance will come from.
The Atenean has no real experience for the need for change. We get the justice we need, the wage we desire, the social opportunities and the leisure for art and beauty. All these are open to us. It would take a real romantic hero to give up all these and hope that a time when everyone will share his blessings will come.
If a Marxist looks at the Ateneo, he will invariably say that we contemplate reality and that we have not the intention of actually changing it.
The fault is not with our education. It is all a matter of human nature. The Atenean does not feel that his class or family is being threatened at the moment, he will not react until his very status in society is endangered. It is then my contention that the Atenean, because he is part of the establishment, would like to preserve the status quo.
Once in a while, the Atenean feels that he has to involve himself in society. So he goes to the countryside -- to a barrio --- and there builds a church or a few classrooms for the inhabitants. This gives him some satisfaction. The July 1990 earthquake is an example wherein the Atenean would like to feel that society needs him and that he would like to prove his compassion for the people. But the question I would like to ask is this: where is the best place for a Atenean, where he will be most effective in helping the people raise themselves up? I certainly do not believe in doing things for them. They must be taught to help themselves. But where then can the Atenean be most effective?
It is said that a Atenean is trained for leadership. Intellectually he is superior to many of the graduates coming out of other universities around Manila. Socially, he is near the center of influence where he can go to places others cannot. He also has the security and leisure to devote some time to some projects which do not pay as much. His position is at the top for the taking. But does he really assert himself? Do the Ateneans try for the top so that if there is a need for change, he will be around to bring it about?
Driving a truck and delivering goods to stores do not, I think, really bring out the best in his training. I do not look down on the occupation of a driver. However, I do rebel at the idea of an Economics graduate trained in the liberal arts or commerce program wasting his talents or leaving his skills undeveloped in such a job. He can be more effective to society by looking at other jobs or by finding a more challenging occupation.
The Atenean definitely is not threatened by society's ills. He is at the moment having a good time. His studies truly point to the need of his country. An Atenean can talk for hours about what is wrong with the country or about the needs of the poor. But he does not feel with the people, he does not have compassion, he does not really know how it is to be a victim of injustice, starvation and hopelessness. Unless he is threatened, unless his very home is attacked, the Atenean will be content in contemplating society and its ills, at his leisure.
Of course there are exceptions. There are still others who feel with the people. There are some Ateneans, who with their training in the liberal arts, have developed a sensitivity for others, so that they will go out into the world and find the most effective place where they can effect change.
The question which a lot of Jesuits are asking these days is this: Why doesn't our Michael go out and change his society? Why doesn't our Michael feel angry over the whole situation? The answer can never be simplistic. The fact is, Michael doesn't personally see anything wrong with society. He has not had a personal experience of the needs of the people, he has not seen a man starve or a man weep for justice, or a man beg for a job with a salary no more than a pack of cigarettes which a Atenean consumes in a day. He knows of these, but he does not feel or understand personally.
Michael doesn't get angry with the situation because everything's going for him. In fact, he is wary of change. The status quo is satisfying enough.
A Marxist would probably say of the Atenean that he has become engrossed in his little milieu to really realize the situation about him. His class is not threatened, and until it remains safe, he will be content with the status quo.
is a monastery of emasculated contemplatives,
a snobbish mob that suffers chronically
from a constipation of thought and diarrhea of words."
This bitter and vituperative statement was made by a student in one of the student conferences that I have attended. He made this statement when I pointed out that his organization was far too out in the left and too radical to be rational.
The point is that some people do think this way about the Ateneo. So a relevant question to be asked in this essay is whether this statement has some truth to it. It has been one of the greatest prides of the Ateneo to be called a school for leaders and a training ground for revolutionaries. If we look at history, we might find some reason for this pride. Dr. Jose P. Rizal, our national hero, was a revolutionary, and an Atenean at that. During the Second World War, Fort Santiago was known as the Ateneo de Santiago. This was because of the heavy traffic of Ateneans going in and out of the place.
But all this is history. And history is a two-edged sword. Rizal indeed was a revolutionary, in the sense that he wanted change. However, he would rather have change not brought about by armed conflict and in a sense he did not endorse the revolution of Bonifacio. Other historians point out that Rizal was reacting violently in his writings against the Spanish rule because his own family had been threatened. Here then is a big point: that the Heroes of our revolution came up in arms because their class was threatened. So that even Rizal, who was in the upper class, joined in denouncing the order of his time because he was forced by circumstances.
The big question now is this: do the present Ateneans feel threatened so that they will themselves seek change in our society, or will a change in the order of our society threaten their position?
Take the position of the average Atenean. He has a comfortable allowance, his family has a car and a satisfactory income, his future is assured because of his prestigious education. He is a part of the establishment. It is true that he can write about the ills of the country, the need for a just wage for labor, the need for justice for all, yet he does not personally feel with the people, most of the time his expression of concern is a matter of intellectual exercise. After all, if a change were to occur in the order of things, the position of the Atenean would be less secure. He likes things as they are. And for another thing, it must be admitted that within the lifetime of the Atenean in school, he seldom goes hungry nor does he worry about where his next allowance will come from.
The Atenean has no real experience for the need for change. We get the justice we need, the wage we desire, the social opportunities and the leisure for art and beauty. All these are open to us. It would take a real romantic hero to give up all these and hope that a time when everyone will share his blessings will come.
If a Marxist looks at the Ateneo, he will invariably say that we contemplate reality and that we have not the intention of actually changing it.
The fault is not with our education. It is all a matter of human nature. The Atenean does not feel that his class or family is being threatened at the moment, he will not react until his very status in society is endangered. It is then my contention that the Atenean, because he is part of the establishment, would like to preserve the status quo.
Once in a while, the Atenean feels that he has to involve himself in society. So he goes to the countryside -- to a barrio --- and there builds a church or a few classrooms for the inhabitants. This gives him some satisfaction. The July 1990 earthquake is an example wherein the Atenean would like to feel that society needs him and that he would like to prove his compassion for the people. But the question I would like to ask is this: where is the best place for a Atenean, where he will be most effective in helping the people raise themselves up? I certainly do not believe in doing things for them. They must be taught to help themselves. But where then can the Atenean be most effective?
It is said that a Atenean is trained for leadership. Intellectually he is superior to many of the graduates coming out of other universities around Manila. Socially, he is near the center of influence where he can go to places others cannot. He also has the security and leisure to devote some time to some projects which do not pay as much. His position is at the top for the taking. But does he really assert himself? Do the Ateneans try for the top so that if there is a need for change, he will be around to bring it about?
Driving a truck and delivering goods to stores do not, I think, really bring out the best in his training. I do not look down on the occupation of a driver. However, I do rebel at the idea of an Economics graduate trained in the liberal arts or commerce program wasting his talents or leaving his skills undeveloped in such a job. He can be more effective to society by looking at other jobs or by finding a more challenging occupation.
The Atenean definitely is not threatened by society's ills. He is at the moment having a good time. His studies truly point to the need of his country. An Atenean can talk for hours about what is wrong with the country or about the needs of the poor. But he does not feel with the people, he does not have compassion, he does not really know how it is to be a victim of injustice, starvation and hopelessness. Unless he is threatened, unless his very home is attacked, the Atenean will be content in contemplating society and its ills, at his leisure.
Of course there are exceptions. There are still others who feel with the people. There are some Ateneans, who with their training in the liberal arts, have developed a sensitivity for others, so that they will go out into the world and find the most effective place where they can effect change.
The question which a lot of Jesuits are asking these days is this: Why doesn't our Michael go out and change his society? Why doesn't our Michael feel angry over the whole situation? The answer can never be simplistic. The fact is, Michael doesn't personally see anything wrong with society. He has not had a personal experience of the needs of the people, he has not seen a man starve or a man weep for justice, or a man beg for a job with a salary no more than a pack of cigarettes which a Atenean consumes in a day. He knows of these, but he does not feel or understand personally.
Michael doesn't get angry with the situation because everything's going for him. In fact, he is wary of change. The status quo is satisfying enough.
A Marxist would probably say of the Atenean that he has become engrossed in his little milieu to really realize the situation about him. His class is not threatened, and until it remains safe, he will be content with the status quo.