PHILIPPINES AS FRIENDSTER CAPITAL: SOCIAL & SPIRITUAL FACETS

Erle Frayne Argonza

Magandang hapon! Good afternoon!

A gladdening news just filtered out recently about the Philippines having now capped the Top Friendster end-user notch. Accordingly, there are today 30 Million end-users in the Philippines of the top social networking platform, the Friendster, out of a total of 85 Million users worldwide. Just couples of months back, it was at 24 Million Filipino ‘ka-Friendsters’ that represented of 1/3 of the world total.

This development reveals couples of very significant insights about my beloved compatriots, the Filipinos, as well as that of the host network, the Friendster Inc. In Max Weber’s language, there is ‘elective affinity’ between the economic structure’s templates (Friendster as economic service provider) and the Filipino’s ‘superstructural templates’ (values, value-relevance). In Jung’s language, the demands of the world structures have manifested synchronicities with the ‘symbolic structures’ of the Filipinos.

Let me then share some notes to you about what this topnotch end-user behavior of Filipinos exhibit in regard to the world’s top web-based social networking. I will sum up the revealed insights in two (2) categories, namely: (a) social, which refers to the economic and behavioral facts involved; and, (b) spiritual, which refers to those core elements of the human psyche & soul revealed by the behavior.

SOCIAL FACET

·         30 Million is 30 Million, it is awesome and potent a social force to reckon with.

·         Internet Users Up: 30 Million ‘ka-Friendsters’ means that millions of Filipinos now have access to the internet, the minimum of which is 30 M. My estimate is that the figure goes up to 40 Million, which is double the badly underestimated statistics from marketing and state agencies (18-20 Million).

·         Warm, friendly, hospitable traits of Filipinos. These are among the value assets of the Pinoys. They can never be underestimated. They invite as many contacts on the Friendster as possible, regardless of whether they know that contact personally.  

·         Internet Facilities: Telecom infrastructures have now made web accessibility higher among Pinoys. Combined facilities are: (a) New Generation for DSL & related services, in all cities and town centers nationwide; (b) Wireless Broadband, present in commercial hubs; (c) Rural Interconnectivity, platform for countryside, innovation by engineers from the University of the Philippines.

·         Graphics & Writing/Reading Up: Pinoy’s mind is largely attuned to graphical-intuitive, that is why they’d love to view pictures and graphic creatives. However, Pinoys are also developing writing & reading habits, which the content blog spaces offer.

·         Urban Filipinos, which represents 60% of domestic population, lead the locals in propelling the islanders to ‘global citizen’ status, thru web-based platforms. My estimate is that 85% of Pinoys on Friendster are urbanites.

SPIRITUAL FACET

·         ‘Friend’ dominates the word ‘Friendster’, which jibes with the Filipinos deep devotional attitude. Devotion is the cementing force of society, and the first impulse to reach out to the Almighty Providence and Divine Beings.

·         ‘Friend’ in Friendster jibes with the Water element among Pinoys. This element is manifested as love for building social networks, artistic-graphical creatives of Pinoys (Pinoys are Asia’s top musicians), and the healing prowess of the islanders (note our top healers, top nurses/doctors overseas).

·         The letters F-I-R-E (Fire) and F-R-I-E-D (Fried), which signify the Fire element, another powerful element of Pinoys, is also found in Friendster, though is subdued. It is indicative of Pinoy’s conscious efforts today to do everything to tame their Fire element, use this for more beneficial purposes, and permit the Water element’s positive aspects blend with Fire.

·         Public life in the Philippines is mired in Negative Fire: Insurgent groups, politicians, civil society all wanting to overthrow established authority. Pinoys, via platforms such as Friendster, would want to somehow balance this Fiery disposition with the more constructive, creative disposition presented by Water, though they also ride and direct the Fiery caldrons of public life.   

·         Interestingly, the Water element is also shown in the Philippines’ maritime prowess. 28% of international seafarers are Pinoys, while the country is beginning to manufacture ships as huge as 10,000 Tonners, and it won’t be a surprise if in 15 years’ time the Philippines will be a global ship-building power. Almost all Pinoy seafarers surf the web while aboard their ships, and many use patronize Friendster (including my cousin-in-law, a maritime engineer).

To the endeared readers, choose your wilds: social facet, or spiritual facet. I chose both, as I’m both (a) a social scientist and (b) a mystic-healer-Guru of the Teaching.

For the Friendster Inc, it has no other choice than to root itself more in Philippine life. The corporate honchos cannot afford to offend the Filipino end-users, no Sirs, for that would flip the Water side of Pinoys to the Fire side. Fire is the ‘overthrow syndrome’ of my kabayans (compatriots), they’re so good at it, insurgencies here can last as long as nine (9) decades such as Tamblot Revolt.

And, to the Friendster corporate people, please don’t ever offend Filipino women. Let you be reminded that we are the ‘6^th Top Gender Empowerment’ country worldwide as of today. We’re known for Filipina warriorship prowess, and that warriorship is seen in our feminist leaders and advocates reforming policies with Firepower, and overthrowing corrupt regimes with blazing thunder. Inside Filipino homes, the Mother is the Boss, this is a fact of life. No Sirs, I implore you never ever to offend the women of this country.

Let me congratulate both the Filipino ‘ka-Friendsters’ and the Friendster Inc. for the stunning success of the Friendster platform. Mabuhay!

[21 November 2008, Quezon City, MetroManila]

DOMAIN OF WEALTH OF NATIONS: BOTH DOMESTIC & OVERSEAS

Erle Frayne Argonza

 

[Writ 23 March 2008, Quezon City, MetroManila]

 

 

The antiquated debate regarding which domain should be the main source of national wealth—whether domestic or overseas—is still alive today. In the article of New Nationalism, I argued that in the emerging context of post-industrialism, this debate has become futile and unproductive. Instead of stressing a domestic versus international mindset, I argued for a both/and frame.

 

Admittedly, the overseas domain as a source of wealth is as palatable as it used to be during the era yet of the city-states of Northern Italy (Venice, Florence). This has become the backbone of mercantilism, which in turn became the backbone of nationalist economics. Old Nationalism henceforth carried the pro-mercantilist banner of seeking wealth primarily from international operations. But this time around, this position has to be revised in the light of import-substitution success.

 

In the Philippine case, we have been having it both ways. On the one hand, our manufacturing sector’s products are largely consumed 86% of the time for the domestic market, indicating the optimization of the import-substitution aspect of our development efforts. On the other hand, our overseas employment and investments have been churning out a whopping Net Factor Income from Abroad or NFIA worth 11% of the GDP.

 

New Nationalism, to my mind, should rather have it both ways, as culled from this and other parallel experiences in emerging markets. At this time particularly, Foreign Direct Investments or FDIs by Philippine-owned or controlled companies has begun to take off and contribute to our national coffers. Add to this our exports worth 40% of GDP, and remittances from labor export of worth 10% of GDP, and one can see the broad picture of the potency of the overseas domain as source of national income.

 

Below is the entire subsection on the domains of wealth production culled from the New Nationalism article.

 

Generate wealth from both external and domestic markets.

 

Various stakeholders in the past were divided along the question of what should be the driver of growth & development (demand-side discourse): the external, or internal market? The followers of the ‘externalists’ were the ones behind the export-oriented development strategy, whose rationalizations for massive exports were quite poor recycles of the mercantilist contention that wealth should be produced more from out of the external markets (colonies during the time of empires). The ‘internalists’ were the ones behind import-substitution strategies, whose rationalizations were poor photocopies of Keynesian demand-side formulations.

 

In today’s context, it is wiser to view both the external and domestic markets as synergistic spheres for accumulating national wealth and meeting head-on the demands for delivering welfare. The external market discourse can work only in circumstances where a domestic demand has failed to develop, which in our case was the pre-1990s economy. By the late 1990s, it was clear that a significant change had taken place on the demand side of our economy, as folks were buying a lot of articles of commerce at a time of crisis. The middle class population is rising relative to the entire population, whose households’ needs have become more differentiated and have leaped beyond the bounds of ‘rice-and-galunggong’ expenditures. Today, Filipino families purchase around fifty-three percentum (53%) of their household needs from supermarkets, malls and large retail centers, even as the wet markets and sari-sari stores are declining in importance. These changes are real, and we cannot be blind to them by continuing to harp on an export-driven growth.

 

We must then fast-track large-scale redistribution schemes, such as to witness the rise in purchasing powers of our own people. This cannot be done outright during the next three (3) years, as we face a fiscal dilemma of crisis proportions. But beyond 2007 lies new opportunity fields. The fiscal route to stabilization will have been solidly achieved by then, and the nation can embark on more ambitious endeavors aimed at increasing incomes, reducing unemployment and poverty and increasing domestic consumption.

 

As the domestic market catches up in stabilizing the economy and producing national wealth, stakeholders shouldn’t be remiss in improving the competitiveness of our export products. Our great advantage is that we have ample supplies of skilled labor, with wages still relatively low. The power sector is also quite rich in supply of electricity, even as new projects are now being planned to neutralize possible supply problems in the short run. Hopefully, power supply would stabilize and electricity cost would decrease, contributing thus to rendering our exportable articles more competitive enough. Save for capital goods and petroleum, large volumes of which our producers continue to import, the other factors of production are within our hands to control and manipulate, inclusive of rent and interest rate. It is hereby argued that, with such factors controllable enough, we can optimize conditions for rendering our exportable articles maximally competitive and continue to permit the external market to be a source of substantial wealth. What more if we produce all of our essential capital goods, thus further bringing down the cost of production, given that the price of other factor inputs also go down?

 

EVOLVE SOCIAL MARKETS

 

Erle Frayne D. Argonza

 

[Writ 23 March 2008, Quezon City, MetroManila]

 

As already exacerbated in my previous articles, this development expert strongly argues for dirigisme (state intervention). Even in the yogic-mystical terrain, I strongly argue for interventionism in the physical plane, though this paradigm may hold water only here and not necessarily in other dimensions or trans-physical spheres where money economies are absent.

 

Incidentally, we now have emerging models for dirigist paths to sustainable development. For lack of a better term, the model is simply called ‘social market’. It is an integration of state intervention and market-driven economy. Extremes of socialism and laissez faire have both proved as flops. These extreme forms are beyond salvation and are both being junked today. They have become junkshop models.

 

Asia is the best laboratory today for the conscious evolution of ‘social markets’. China, Vietnam, and India are the countries to watch. I just hope that the original ASEAN 6 (Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Brunei) will move towards their respective version of social markets.

 

Maybe before this century will end, the exemplars for the nascent social markets will crystallize all the more. The terminology may change hence. Even the economic context will have mutated. The post-industrial economy or ‘Aquarian economy’ (using mystics’ language) will galvanize all the more though not possibly to its fullest yet.

 

This century may still see the operation of a money economy, hence the operation of a semblance of markets where people will procure the most of information and values in order to fulfill their amenities. The contention of the writer is intended largely for this nascent economy of the current century. The future generations better take on the cudgels for forecasting those that would apply for the future centuries.

 

The essential contention is summarized by the excerpt from the article as shown below.

 

Evolve from ‘capitalist markets’ to ‘social markets’.

 

The ‘capitalist market’ (or simply ‘market’) is the haven of financial predators and market  sharks, while the absence of market is the homestead of the rent-seeker and exclusively-privileged partocrat (single party bureaucrat). As the cases of the ‘mixed economies’ and that of China’s have demonstrated, the market impeccably performs a   pivotal role in stimulating growth & development, and should not be wished away too soon. Rather, we should evolve a market that is not a ‘pure market’ in the classical sense.

 

As experiences world-wide have transparently indicated, leaving everything to the market redounds to: (a) diminished welfare, as indicated by low wages, low accessibility to social services, high unemployment, and massive exploitation of labor; (b) ecological disaster, indicated by environmental degradation, depleted natural resource base, destruction of indigenous communities and their natural habitats; (c) speculation in the capital and realty markets, leading to further instabilities and proneness to shocks, both internal and external; and, (d) lackluster product innovation due to low value given to S&T development, in societies where there is a lack of entrepreneurs, such as the Philippine case demonstrates.

 

The balance lies in developing a ‘social market’, where concern for private initiatives as well as for welfare are harmonized and balanced, while at the same time controlling speculation and optimizing conditions that induce innovations. Within the context of a social market, there should increasingly evolve ‘social enterprises’ or collectively-owned enterprises: cooperatives, people’s corporations, grammin, and other related types that are rising though still at an experimental phase. While private enterprises should continue to prevail, large-scale enterprises should begin to innovate on new physical asset-ownership schemes that would eventually see a large portion of the assets co-owned by ordinary folks and corporate employees. In the long run, the ‘social market’ will be a terrain where both wealth gaining and welfare providing functions will be fused exquisitely, signifying the end of state-induced welfare and the return of welfare functions to communities.

TRI-SECTOR SYNERGY FOR DEVELOPMENT

Erle Frayne D. Argonza

 

[Writ 22 March 2008, Quezon City, MetroManila]

 

Within a nation-state, from micro to macro levels, there better be cooperation among the three main sectors of development: state, market, civil society. I stressed this well in the New Nationalism article.

 

The emerging term for cooperation today is ‘synergy’. In the original sense of the term, it denoted the causal chain of “one thing leading to another.” It had since become a staple term in ecology and cybernetics. Gradually the meaning of the term underwent change.

 

Today the term ‘synergy’ had come closer to the term ‘symbiosis’ of ecology. The neo-Weberians were among the advocates of this largely symbiotic signification, applied to the three sectors. Joel Migdal, Vivienne Shue, Theda Skocpol and Peter Evans are among these chief advocates of synergism as strategy for effecting development.

 

Synergism isn’t really new here in Asia, even here in my country of origin. For centuries now,  we had at the grassroots  level the ‘bayanihan’, practiced by helping each other in times of need. Bayanihan’s closest translation is gemeinschaft (Ferdinand Toennies’ term) or community. It means synergy precisely in today’s context.

 

There is no way that we should go back to the old days of looking at the state and civil society as relating in a perpetual state of clash. The first time that Alinsky was discussed in my sociology classes in the late 70s, I had some goose bumps about his notion of a perpetual clash, almost akin to the ‘permanent revolution thesis’ at the grassroots level. I said to myself that “this won’t work in the Philippines.” If given the chance for grassroots work, I will never apply Alinsky at all.

 

Look at the destructive effects of the ‘clash thesis’ during the 80s and 90s here. There was a time when massive strikes were the in thing most specially after Martial Law, and look at the downgrading effects they had on productivity. It was near to chaos during certain moments than.

 

Contrast that today with a healthy synergy of trade unions and management, which shot up Philippine labor-management relations to being the world’s top (per ILO update). As strikes had decreased, productivity likewise immensely increased. We are now a model of industrial peace here, thanks to the new paradigm of synergism thru the efforts of the University of the Philippines’ School of Labor and Industrial Relations.

 

However, in the past decades, before 1986, civil society players were merely kibitzers of development here. So to a certain extent the attrition caused by civil society on the state earned this sector its right to be recognized as a co-partner in development. For a long time after independence (1946), only the market and state players were in dialogue, leaving marginal groups and sectors out of the development game.

 

Now that civil society had earned its keep, its players should shift in mindset from clash-oriented (Alinsky-inspired) models to synergistic models (inspired by bayanihan, Gandhi, Evans) of development. Even the post-Martial Law constitution recognized this potency of civil society, and thus entitled the colossal sector to rights never before it enjoyed.

 

I hope this synergistic mindset is currently emerging among all the nations of the world. It is among the progenitors of the peace condition, of development with peace and of peace with development.

 

The basic contention is summed up by the excerpts from the article, to wit:

 

Promote synergy with civil society in the development path.

 

In the old formulations, development was an exclusive endeavor of state and market players. That is, the directions of development were largely the handiworks of political, bureaucratic and corporate elites. There should be an admission that this structural formulation was a factor in generating the crisis-level ailments of mass poverty, large-scale unemployment, low wages, sluggish growth and dependence. So why retain a formula that had failed us miserably?

 

The current context, where a dynamic and colossal civil society operates, points to the ever-growing recognition of the potent role of civil society in co-determining the compass of development. At the grassroots level, development efforts will be accelerated to a great extent by involving civil society formations acting as ‘social capital’ base, as studies have positively demonstrated (citations from Peter Evans’ works on ‘state-society synergy’). Insulating the state from grassroots folks, as the same studies have shown, have produced dismal if not tragic effects, e.g. India’s non-involvement of ‘social capital’ in the erection and maintenance of irrigation facilities resulted to program failure in the end.

 

Building and maintaining ecologically sound, clean cities can likewise be effected through the tri-partnership of state, civil society and market, as demonstrated by the Puerto Princesa case. Under the stewardship of the dynamic city mayor (Mr. Hagedorn), the tri-partnership was galvanized. Businesses have since been conscious of operating on clean technologies and environmental responsibilities, city streets sustain hygienic images, traffic is well managed as motorists exude discipline, and civil society groups constantly monitor the initiatives that saw their hands dipped into their (initiatives) making. All we need to do is replicate this same Puerto Princesan trilateral partnering at all level and in all communities to ensure better results for our development efforts.

 

The ‘state-society synergy’ in our country had just recently been appreciated and grasped by many state players. Being at its ‘take-off’ phase, it is understandable that synergy is only a lip-service among many state players, notably the local officials. State players still regard civil society groups with ambivalence, while civil society groups are suspicious of state players whose sincerity can only be as low as their Machiavellian propensities would dictate. Such local state players desire to subordinate civil society groups, and many politicians have constituted ‘government-initiated NGOs’ or GRINGOS as cases of non-authentic subordinated groups. On the other hand, local-level volunteer groups can at best perceive domestic politicians as ‘Santa Claus’ providers, and utilize them largely as gift-giving patrons. Strengthening state-society synergy has a long way to yet, but it is not exactly starting at ground zero in this country. It is, by and large, a core variable in developing citizenry and constituencies, and must be advanced beyond its current take-off phase.