History and gossip – The Manila Times

YOUNG actor Ella Cruz boldly, if not innocently, stated that history is just like gossip or "tsismis." And social media erupted in derision, with netizens pelting her with insults and unkind words. It did not help that she is coming from a position of playing one of the Marcos children in the upcoming movie "Maid in Malacaang," about the last three days of the Marcoses before they fled to Hawaii in 1986. The public criticism she received ended up being clothed with political color.

Indeed, likening history to gossip is sacrilege to academic historians. Gossip is commonly taken as untrue, even malicious. At a time when historical distortion has become a push-button issue that can easily rile the critics of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. who fear an impending spree of rewriting history, Ella Cruz's comment was taken to unimaginable heights of political trash talk.

It is tempting to scold the poor young actor for being clueless not to know that the movie she is appearing in is already being treated as a harbinger of a vigorous cultural production to distort history, and her alluding to history as mere gossip would be seen as politically incorrect. But I would rather dwell on the fact that likening history to gossip is an interesting subject for theoretical reflection. And I, as one whose economic livelihood rests on political theorizing, wouldn't miss such an opportunity.

It is necessary to recuperate the word "tsismis" and redeem it from the dustbin of being treated as something that is universally derogatory. Simply put, it is a generic word that takes life from "kuwentuhan" or storytelling in ordinary spaces and places, either as a pastime for people or as means to cement their social bonds. We call these venues the "umpukan" that happens in street corners while drinking, near artesian wells or riverbanks as women wash their laundry, or during breaks from the daily grind of economic activity. It is in these social interactions that social meaning is produced, and where people communicate their opinions and derive their information. While it is a fertile ground for distortion and disinformation to thrive, it would simply be foolish for any social researcher to dismiss this avenue as a source of data. In fact, indigenous psychology, or "Sikolohiyang Pilipino," values the "umpukan" and the "kuwentuhan" as valid sources of grounded and authentic information.

Reliance on documents has been the conventional source of historical data in Western historiography. There is this unsaid privileging of the text as written, and not said. Yet, there is much to be learned from oral accounts, many of which were fertilized, nurtured and found meaning in the stories told by people in "kuwentuhan" as they communed in the many "umpukan." It is through these avenues that the "kuwentong bayan," or oral narratives and folklore, have emerged.

Get the latest news delivered to your inbox

Sign up for The Manila Times daily newsletters

The seeming preference for written accounts over oral narratives tells us of a power differential that finds expression in the way information being shared by ordinary people are given lesser legitimacy, and are simply dismissed as unreliable "tsismis" or gossip. It becomes even more pronounced when stories told and written by those who are able to write, because of their wealth and position of power and authority, which include academics, take on the mantle of legitimacy and are now labeled as history, while the stories told by ordinary people are considered as unworthy "tsismis."

Thus, the power to label as lie what is otherwise truth is held by those in power to delegitimize the weak. It becomes a convenient mechanism for the powerful and the well-entrenched to hide their flaws, corruption, illicit affairs and even crimes and to dismiss the circulation of these negative stories as simply pure gossip. It is common for Filipino politicians to label stories about their marital infidelity as mere rumors.

And when it is the strong and powerful who turn lies into truth, it can become part of written history, and may no longer be labeled as gossip. I can only cite the case of Macario Sacay who was written about as a bandit by dominant authority in official documents, even if for all intents and purposes this was later proven to be a lie, and the truth is the one held by ordinary people who celebrated him as a freedom fighter and a hero. Dominant male state power, operating through the official texts of state and church narratives, have delegitimize women seeking knowledge, food and healing by venturing into forests, labeling them as witches and burning them at the stake. Anyone should watch or read the Arthur Miller play "The Crucible," to witness an account of how state and church authority draw on the power of rumor and gossip to their advantage, and propel it as truth.

But in a different sense, the act of telling stories, some of which can be embellished, can in fact be appropriated by the oppressed to get back at their powerful oppressors, by relying on the cloak of anonymity and the displacement of an authoritative source. It is in this context that James Scott wrote about gossip and rumor as effective weapons of the weak. Gossip renders private secrets that would otherwise be hidden into public knowledge, and thus embeds these in public discourse. Aside from acting as a form of social control, gossip also enables the emergence of data that can be useful to social researchers and historians.

Ella Cruz may have pushed sensitive partisan buttons when she likened history to gossip. It may not have been her intention, but she actually did all of us a favor. She forces us to revisit our historical narratives to find out which are those that are actually true but are dismissed by the elites as simply gossip, and which are actually untrue but are celebrated as history because they are convenient to those in power. It is in doing these that we may just clear history of its cobwebs of distortion and lies.

Link:
History and gossip - The Manila Times