On F. Sionil Jose’s Contradicting Views on Politics and Literature
Reference: Felicilda, J. B. & Demeterio III, F. P. (2018). Politika at Panitikan sa Pananaw ni F. Sionil Jose: Isang Pakikipanayam. MALAY, 31(1).
One thing I learned about the politics of a writer like F. Sionil Jose is that even in the upbringing of a private individual throughout historical epochs and eras, contradictions are bound to be visible. As we go through F. Sionil Jose’s transcript of the interview, we must ask ourselves: is the politics of a writer necessary to the politics of the literature he produces? Does these politics bleed through his works, or do they only partly reflect these stances?
Studying an individual’s worldview may overlook the bigger picture that surrounds these views, but at the same time they are also subject to scrutiny in determining how these systems work by defining ideologies that seem less complex and less abstract than they are.
F. Sionil Jose is not new to contradictions — every so often, an opinion of controversy pulses through the nation’s sabi-sabi, filtered and countered by philosophers, writers, and critics alike, with one motive behind: to define Philippine politics by words, and to create meaning behind mindless debates that every so often end up being superficial discourse. Much like those discourse, it is usually difficult to pin down an unfathomable mind like Jose’s.
But by studying Jose you can see every fragment of those contradictions reveal themselves to be symptomatic as his own actions and thinking precede him. For example, self-publishing his novel Mass, his connections with Secretaries of the Marcos Administration allow his work to go through the severe censorship of literature during Martial Law. When asked if his PEN organization was a communist machine, he thinks, “One of my closest friends, hanggang ngayon, I don’t know why he put me there. I can only surmise that he knew I disliked Marcos.” His novel survived through Martial Law, to which many of his fellow authors lacked the privilege of.
This is a point to extract from this part of the interview: several connections with the Marcos administration led him to experience at least a transfer of power over him and his politically relevant works when he got removed from the blacklist. Jose’s novels often focus on stories of several leaders and activists during the Spanish-American war. His account of this experience determines that it is a contradiction in itself. Because what might have been a revolutionary act to Jose have ceased to exist in real life. We may say that literature, at least in his point of view, often withstand oppressive regimes that help to topple the administration that perpetuates this very same oppression; at the same time it places the novel in a docile and passive existence manipulated by the very same power that exhausts the purpose of proletarian literature.
What may be “revolutionary” to Jose might be reductive and inconsistent, his ideologies far more precede him than his writings. There is a reason why he’s a figure of controversy. While other Filipino writers like his fellow peers Bienvenido Lumbera, Amado V. Hernandez, Epifanio San Juan Jr, Alice Guillermo openly subscribe to Marxist views — Jose’s ideology is likely to behave under Hegelian principles, with the belief to defy Power through History. But all seems like the faults of Hegelian thought seem to be visible in the crevices of his thinking. Strict examples include that he believes that revolution “need not to be violent”, and that “it can be done through the ballot”. Most of his perspective in the system ultimately becomes speculative and therefore idealist.
Of course, this doesn’t mean that his works aren’t Marxist, works of an author cannot be specified or pinned down with ease. Jose’s works are great examples of proletarian literature, but sometimes it refuses to be reduced to a single ideology. Oftentimes, it is avoidant to unapologetic and militant proletarian attitude — and this is seen towards his outlook on armed rebellion — “these moro rebels, andaming nasayang.” At the same time, this outlook diminishes the efforts of HUKBALAHAP during the Japanese colonization in 1942, to which he indulges his praises, the very same armed front that led towards the formation of the CPP-NPA-NDF. He also recognizes his idea of revolution within Duterte’s administration, especially after he sees great promise from him. But the very absurd idea of good-bad oligarchs proves his politics to be irreconcilable as he sees good and bad oligarchs to be separate entities instead of choosing to recognize them as people in power that perpetuate oppression over the masses. This perception of irony can be ridiculous and often fatal.
But what lies in the great mind of Jose that he is frequently praised for? His politics are impulsively and surprisingly decadent but some of his social critiques are sharp. There’s a depth in his statements against Marcos — “Marcos is a deliberate man,” and “Marcos knew the Filipinos do not read”, and especially that “Marcos is the best recruiter of NPA.” What we know is that his worldview is concrete and material, but his hopes of a solution for the suffering of Filipino people as a nation are either immaterial and delusionary.
But even so, these political stances demonstrate what is human to F. Sionil Jose: that he is, like many Filipinos born in the masses, is susceptible to ideologies propagandized by the system, even when one is educated or experienced. We must not forget the ludicrous comments of scholars that enable oppression in the system, but we must also recognize that the political ideologies of writers fluctuate being prone to certain social conditions and historical periods, and that they are independent from the author’s work. The author’s work is stagnant: its politics is ever-present and never-changing. However, interpretation might fall into different critical lenses, but ever so often their politics change. With Jose, the Filipino nation might resonate with his ironies and decadent-thinking that have withstood the test of time, and ultimately, history.
