Philippine Cultural Disasters

Critic and Analysis of the Chapter 3 of the book
Philippine Cultural Disasters
“Late Capital and the University of the Philippines”
Of Robbie Kwan Laurel
A Term Paper
On Political Science 160 course
Submitted to:
Prof. Tomasito T. Talledo
By:
Jude M. Mangilog
BA Political Science II
October 3, 2013
INTRODUCTION
This is a chapter from the book Philippine Cultural Disasters: In the Age of Hyper Consumption. “The book looks at different issues that surround the dominant culture and the dissent on it. Chapter 3 of the book has tackled on the University of the Philippines in the era of late capitalism, the stage wherein capitalism advanced. The chapter has looked upon the University of the Philippines culture, the influence of postmodernism on UP

Postmodernism is primarily anti-essentialist, it opposes the idea that “people has timeless, universal core that explains their actions” (Ward 2000, p. 123).It refutes “grand narratives” that explain the narrative of humans’ actions. In the context of UP it refuses to promote and hone students who should be essentially equipped with the necessary capability of becoming an individual with a particular line of thinking rather it focuses more on empowering students to choose what they want to contain. This is correct handling of the phenomenon; it has rightly attributed the policies of the university to postmodernism. Under the so-called postmodern policies, the UP’s culture has shifted from a curriculum that moulds students to be critical of the society and to be nationalist to a curriculum that promotes the capitalist ethos of consumerism. Postmodernism was able to attract educators and university administrators because from the words of the author, postmodernism “questions the borders of education and discipline.”And because of this postmodernism’s fluidity, capitalism was able to co-opt it. What is it with postmodernism that we are afraid of and what will be its implications if promoted in the national university? Postmodernism really is harmful threat given the radical and critical stance of UP towards the societal system. Our history tells us that UP was in the

One important aspect of these questions is to further ask if how does society view UP? Former UP President Salvador Lopez has outlined in his inaugural speech some of the roles of UP (Fonacier 1971, p. 190-195); a university that is an agent of change and the idea of UP as a “social critic”. It is also the “default” environment for individuals critical of the status quo, both from students, faculty and employees alike, Nemenzo (2000, p. 115) commented on this by saying that in UP “[t]he emergence of a force of that challenges the status quo is always a test of the skills of the dominant oligarchy”. UP has always been reputed as a home for activism and radicalism, and this same university is regarded to be moulding minds to be critical individuals. Academic freedom is highly recognized by faculty and students, freedom of expression and freedom to choose political persuasion are also respected. Thus we can say