Talking Politics - The Komentaryo On Cebu Radio

University of San Carlos Publications
TALKING POLITICS: THE KOMENTARYO ON CEBU RADIO

Author(s): Resil B. Mojares
Source: Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society, Vol. 26, No. 3/4, SPECIAL ISSUE:
CEBUANO LANGUAGE, LITERATURE AND TALK (September/December 1998), pp. 337-362
Published by: University of San Carlos Publications
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/29792426 .
Accessed: 25/06/2014 01:57
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
University of San Carlos Publications is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 185.44.79.179 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:57:12 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Philippine Quarterly of Culture & Society
26 (1998):337-362
TALKING POLITICS: THE KOMENTARYO ON CEBU RADIO
Resil B. Mojares
Introduction
Much of social life is, quite simply, talk- people talking to each other,
among themselves, or to others seen or unseen. Ethnographies of 'simple'
societies frequently highlight this fact, describing a range of events from
acts of naming, riddling, and verbal dueling, to discourse in litigation and
chants of epics and magical spells. In such societies, talk signifies and
shapes much of what we call law, politics, religion, art, and philosophy.
Today, modem technology has greatly transformedforms of talk; yet, the
nature of such transformationremains inadequately explored, particularly
in relation to antecedent and indigenous traditionsof communication.
Here I shall dwell on a form of talk on Philippine radio. It is claimed
thatPhilippine radio is themost 'democratic' medium inwhat has been
called "the freest mass media system in Asia, if not the world" (Lent
1978:176). From the time radio broadcasting in the Philippines began in
1922 and through the period of its expansion after 1949 (when radio re?
ceiver setswere firstmanufactured locally), and particularly in the 1960s
(with the so-called "transistor revolution"), radio has become themost
Resil B. Mojares, Ph.D. is Professor in theDepartment ofGraduate Humanities at the

University of San Carlos, Cebu and is editor of this journal. His e-mail address is that of
the journal, <uscplib@pinya.usc.edu.ph>.
An earlier version of this paper was presented at theConference on Popular Culture,
Ateneo de Manila University, Quezon City, 17-19 November 1988, and published in
Reading Popular Culture, ed. Soledad S. Reyes (Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila Univer?
ver?
sity,Office of Research and Publications, 1991), pp. 124-136. The present expanded
sion, here published for the firsttime,was presented at the conference on "Authoritative
Words: Strategies of Communication in South and Southeast Asia," University ofWis?
consin,Madison, WI, USA, 11-13May 1991, under the sponsorship of the Social Science
Research Council (New York.)

338 PHILIPPINEQUARTERLY OF CULTURE & SOCIETY
popular form ofmodem mass media in the country.As of 1990 therewere

338 radio stations (and around threemillion radio sets in use, twice the
number of television sets) reaching 78 percent of total households in the
country.1
The 'democratic' character of radio is not only a matter of distribution
and scale, it also draws from thenature of themedium itselfrelative to the
othermedia. It ismore accessible to users (speakers and listeners),more
flexible and less structured,and closer to the realms of popular speech.
How, in fact,does radiowork? In thispaper, I shall deal with a type of
radio program (reputed to be themost uninhibited) - thepolitical commen?
taries (komentaryo) or 'talk' programs on radio, using Cebu radio as an ex?
ample (though it should be noted that this type of program is to be found
all over the country).Metropolitan Cebu is one of the centers of thePhilip?
pine radio industry,with 18 radio stations (11 AM, 7 FM stations) having
a power range of from 500 to 15,000 watts and covering thegreater part of
and Mindanao. All stations, except one, are privately-owned, com?
Visayas
mercial stations. The leading stations are on the air for an average of 19
hours daily. Listenership is large: In Cebu Province in 1990, therewere ra?
dio sets in about 75 percent of households. The primary language of local
radio isCebuano.
In Cebu (and, by extension, Cebuano-speaking Visayas and Min?
danao), radio has been used forpolitical purposes (such as thebroadcast of
political rallies) since the establishment of Cebu's firstfully-operatingra?
dio station in 1947. Itwas, however, only after 1981 (with the popular La?
bor Patrol of Station DYLA considered as the trend-setter) that the
political komentaryo rose in importance as a program-type.One aspect of
this shift is the appearance of year-round 'talk programs.' In the past, po?
litical programs were an election-season phenomenon; today, political
commentaries run throughout the year. Another aspect is the rise of
"block-timers," who contract or buy
free-lancing producer-commentators
blocks of radio timefrom station owners and then 'sell' the time (or parts
of it) to commercial advertisers and political sponsors (individuals or
groups with a political agenda to promote). The advent of these 'entrepre?
neurs of the air' is a departurefrom the timewhen political programs (in?
cluding commentaries) were almost invariably contracted by theparties or
candidates themselveswho thenhired commentators to run the show. This
is still practised today but, inCebu and elsewhere, political talk programs

THE CEBUANO KOMENTARYO 339
are dominated by block-timers. Today, thereare around 200 block-timers -

-
mostly political commentators in the country's radio and television in?
dustry.
Industry informantscite as factors for therise of block-timers the large
number of radio stations and the consequent competition for revenues, the
economic advantage station owners get by just selling time instead of pro?
ducing programs themselves, and the liberalmedia policies of the state.2
One can add that themartial-law period (with its stiflingof political dis?
cussion) primed themarket for such programs. It is not coincidental that
such programs became prominent afterPresidentMarcos' 'paper-lifting'of
martial law in 1981 when, on one hand, themood was for thetesting of the
limits of dissent, and, on the other, therewas government encouragement
of conservative dissent for legitimationpurposes.
Political talk shows run throughout theyear and reach a height during
an election campaign season. In the campaign period, political talk crowds
the airwaves. A survey of Cebu's six leading AM stations in the period
leading to the 11May 1987 congressional elections showed thataround 50
percent of the combined daily airtime of these stationswas devoted to par?
tisan political propaganda (broadcasts of partymeetings, jingles and spot
ads, and thekomentaryo). This meant a combined total of 3,600 hours of
political propaganda over a 60-day campaign period. Much of thiswas
taken up by programs in the komentaryo format, run by parties, political
groups, and block-timers.3
The public attitude towards the komentaryo phenomenon has been
somewhat ambivalent. On one hand, there is the sense that it indexes a
'healthy' climate of public argument and debate which is importantfor a
working democracy. On theother hand, there is the concern over excesses
and irresponsibilityin the largelyunregulated use of a public medium like
radio. There are proposals from citizen groups to limit thenumber of hours
for block-timer produced political commentaries and to ban them entirely
during the election period.
Here I shall attempt an analysis of thekomentaryo towards the end of
showing (1) the hegemonic character of this particular form of political
discourse, as well as (2) the limits to thisparticular exercise of hegemony.
Stated simply, the thesis of this paper is that the komentaryo and allied
forms of 'political talk,' for all their seeming freedom and even license,
constructpolitics in conservative termsand thus restrictand limit the scope

and possibilities of dissent. Yet, at the same time, they indicate as well as
foster a power-gap, an area of uncertainty inwhich representations and
acts of resistance are active or possible. In setting this forth,I shall explain
the structureand strategies of the komentaryo, its historical antecedents,
and then,beyond technique, dwell on the social context of itsproduction.
Conjuring theDialogue
The standard komentaryo is a program that runs for an hour (during a

campaign season, some programsmay run for three to five hours). A block
of time is 'owned' by a commentator, a 'media personality,' who under?
takes or anchors a live political commentary on the air. There are variants,
such as regular station-run 'personality' programs that also feature 'non
partisan' political talk combined with music, 'public service' (news reports
and the popular panawagan or airing of personal or person-to-person mes?
sages), and a miscellany of humor, gossip, and general information.Such

is the flexibility of themedium that (particularly in a campaign season)
one may have a party program thatdisguises its sponsor and purports to be
non-partisan, or a regular station program taken over by an interest group
(made possible through payola given to station announcers, a common

practice in the industry)and then slanted to favor a party or candidate. The
komentaryomay also be combined with remote broadcasts of partymeet?
ings, thus integratingthekomentaryowith thepublic rally (miting).
The key figure is thatof the komentarista (commentator)who anchors
the program. Cebuano komentaristas are typicallymiddle-class in back?
ground (lawyers, businessmen, 'media persons'), men endowed with the
gift of gab and an interestin 'politics' (many of them are in fact aspiring,
marginal, or failed politicians). The komentarista (like the newspaper col?
umnist or coffeeshop habitue) is a specialist in the production of political
opinions.
The komentaryo aspires to the form of the dialogue. The komentarista
engages his listeners in an unrehearsed 'conversation' on politics. The lo?
-
cal terms for this conversation pakighinabi (conversation), pakigsulti
-
(talk), hisgust-hisgut (discussion, 'talking') point to an informal, loosely
structureddiscourse. The dialogic mode is not only approximated in rhe?
torical devices but in such program techniques as questions and comments
- the
in phone-ins and lettersfrom listeners (whether real or 'planted')

main ingredients in the 'townhouse of the air,' pulong-pulong, and dial

your-opinion typeof programs.
A popular format involves thepresence of an alalay or sagabay, a co
commentator or assistant who performs back channel or sounding-board
functions: He feeds questions, sounds assent, gives corroboration, and
pitches in his own comments. In this division of labor, the sagabay plays
the role of the imaginary listener,constructed as one interestedand appre?
ciative, though (in relation to the commentator) less-informedand less-ex?
perienced in the 'ways of politics.' He thusmakes the commentator sound
authoritative and 'look good.' Furthermore, it is often his job to engage in
'low' commentary (obscenities, ridicule, coarse jokes, and other forms of
verbal abuse), leaving the commentator (particularlywhen the latterhim?
self is running forpublic office) to adopt a 'high' and elevated tone.
In addition to the solo or duo programs, there are programs featuring
multiple commentators (from three to as many as six or seven).4 Called
karambola or bahug-bahug ('mixing itup'), the 'open,' free-for-alldiscus?
sion creates an illusion of democratic dialogue so necessary for a medium
such as radio that is, in fact,heavily monologic in character.
The radio commentary, despite the use of various techniques and de?
vices to create the illusion of dialogue, is essentially one-sided. This draws
from the nature of radio itselfwith itsbasic division into transmittersand
receivers, producers and consumers, ofmessages andmeanings. This is not
just a matter of technology, however, but of how thekomentaryo is struc?
tured,of who says what, how, towhom, where and under what conditions,
with what effectandfor what purpose.
The basic principle is that speech is action and rhetoric a strategyof
control.5 In the komentaryo, the commentator is essentially engaged in
shaping discourse for a purpose: to 'persuade' the listener to adopt the
commentator's views. To do this,he engages in the following tasks:He as?
sumes a speaking role, organizes the experiences of his listeners,defines
their environment, expands or narrows down their options, and impels
them toward certain courses of action. In doing this,he deploys such pro?
gram techniques as we have alreadymentioned as well as a varied range of
tropes thatboth identifyand hide the gaps and possibilities in his argu?
ments.
How does the commentatordefine himself, his listeners,and theirenvi?
ronment?Embedded in the discourse is the speaker's presentation of self.

The komentarista speaks inhis personal capacity and identifieshimself by

name (the use of a 'radio name' - as is usually the case with disc jockeys -
is exceptional). Towards the end of persuasion, he defines himself as one
whose words reflect the listeners' interests;he is 'one of us,' though 'better
informed,more analytical,more experienced.' To establish affinitieswith
a wide range of listeners,he modifies his self-presentation according to
shifts in the speech context.He calls himself one of thepoor (timawa) and
oppressed (dinaugdaog) and is addressed by a familiarname. On the other
hand, he exhibits his competence, shiftingfrom Cebuano to English as the
context demands, reading a newspaper itemon the air and thenproceeding
to analyze it, citing 'scientific' surveys, and invoking experts and authori?
tative texts.He is plugged into circles of power: He calls public officials
by theirnicknames, cites 'confidential' documents, and is privy to the lat?
est political gossip. His co-commentator addresses him as Attorney orPro?
fessor and alludes to his expertise and credentials. The fact that he is
'speaking to thepublic,' is 'from themedia' (taga-midyd), already endows
him with a certain 'competence' and 'power.'
A 'good' commentator is one with the dexterity to shiftregister as the
context of the discussion itselfchanges. He maintains control as he defines
and redefines his audience by aggregation or disaggregation and then by
various kinds of internalclassification (contrastingor opposing, suggesting
affinities, isolating, or creating overlaps). Addressing a broad, heterogene?
ous audience (allies, enemies, the undecided and the indifferent),he uses
'lowest communication factors' (such as generalities about 'nationalism'
and 'democracy'). Speaking to differentiated sets of listeners,he corre?
spondingly shiftsmode of address and rhetorical style, adopting a reassur?
ing tonewith allies or speakingwith scorn to enemies.
The komentaryo exhibits a varied registerof speech acts, rangingfrom
pakighinabi (to converse), pakighisgut (to discuss), pagpakisayod (to in?
form),paghangyo (to request or plead), pagawhag (to appeal or rouse),
pagtuki (to dissect), pagayag (to 'winnow'), pagpalandong (to reflect),
or
paghatag panahom (to give an opinion), and pagpasumbingay (to hint
as
allude), to such acts pagsumbong (to report),pagpanudya (to call to ac?
count),pagbadlong (to scold), pakiglantugi (to dispute), paghagit (to chal?
lenge), pagbiaybiay (to taunt), or pagbugalbugal (to ridicule). He shifts
mode of address (from formalised to informal,from performative to con

versational) according to the topic or the listeners (whether the 'people,'

friends,or enemies).
The construction of the listenerbegins with forms of address, greeting
formulas, or naming devices. When listeners are addressed Mga kaig
soonan ('Brothers') orMga higala ('Friends'), a certain fraternityis pos?
ited as a frame for the commentator's arguments.When the commentator
uses the plural pronouns kita or ato and saysKitang mga katawhan ('We
the people'), Kitang mga pobre ('We thepoor') or Atong katungod ('Our
rights'), he symbolically participates in his listeners' social condition and
thus lends moral authority to his voice. When he says H?ring Lungsod
('Sovereign Nation'), he reassures his listeners and points tothe source of
theirpower at the same time thathe mystifies conditions of political sub?
jection.
Political speech defines the environment for listeners. It constructs so?
cial reality and sets the limits towhat is relevant in social interaction (the
process called 'legitimation'). To startwith, the komentarista usually be?
gins a program by framing the issue and settingfortha "topic for discus?
sion." Although the flow of discourse is such that there is room for
digressions, it is the komentaristawho controls the discussion. He exer?
cises control in a number of ways. One is the selective deployment of
facts. For example, commentators sympathetic toMarcos edited out details
of theMarcos erawhile pro-Aquino commentators simplified recentpoliti?
cal history as the tale ofMarcos demonology. Another is the deployment
of rhetorical devices tomark the boundaries of thought,definingwhat is
'proper,' 'reasonable,' and 'legal,' and excluding what is 'impractical,'
'unthinkable,' and 'heretical' (cf. Parkin 1984:354, Turton 1984:19-74).
The rhetoric of anti-Communism is a clear example (the leading Ce
buano komentaristas are active leaders in the local anti-Communistmove?
ment). In theCebuano komentaryo, the opposition between 'Democracy'
and 'Communism' is thatbetween Kahayag (Light) andKangitngit (Dark?
ness). With such devices as Aristotelian enthymemes (an abbreviated syl?
logism through which meanings are 'smuggled' in) and metonymy
(focusing on a small part of an issue to deflect the listener's attentionaway
from the greater issue), a classificatory system is built up inwhich Com?
munists are excluded from the realm of civil discourse by being associated
with theperverse and theheretical. An example is thefrequent reference to
godlessness (dili motuo 'gGinoo) and the imaging of a Communist state as

one inwhich people will be 'turned into sardines' (himoong sardinas). A

more subtle taxonomy classifies Communists as 'outsiders' and 'people
not like us'. In the rhetoricof thekomentaryo, they are alluded to as mga
nagsuroysuroy sa bukid ('those who roam themountains'), taga laing
dapit ('from other places'), mga tawong nagtago sa kangitngit ('people
who hide in darkness'), manoktok magabii ('who come knocking in the
night'), or, more bluntly, ungo (ogres) and wakwak (witches). What we
have here is literallya process of 'excommunication' by which Commu?
nism is consigned to the realm of thepolitically unthinkable.
Through such techniques of naming and classification, thekomentaryo
defines the area of 'rational' political action and identifiesor delimits op?
tions and possibilities.
Binding Thought
The conservative character of the komentaryo is furtherillustrated in

theway ithandles the general and the particular. This is partly expressed
in the local classification of the subject of political talk into isyu ('issues')
and thepirsonal ('personal'). Isyu refers to supposedly disinterested con?
cerns, ranging from the abstract, generalized themes of 'democracy' (de
mokrasya), (kauswagan), or 'good government' (maayong
'progress'
panggobyerno), to particularistic projects and plans of action (such as
roads, schoolhouses, or schemes of garbage collection). The pirsonal re?
fers to 'personalities' and matters supposed to be extraneous to the objec?
tive and disinterested analysis of conditions. To talk of isyu is to adopt
either a 'high,' formalised style or a measured, logical presentation. The
pirsonal is low commentary and involves the use of coarse humor, exag?
geration, ridicule, and other formsof verbal abuse (e.g., a commentator de?
scribes a rival's face as "like carabao dung aftera rain," or a lady politician
is accused of having diamonds "big enough to light up her house in a
brownout").
Much of the high oratorical talk and the low verbal abuse (the latter
also called bomba or 'bombshell') can be explained by the performative
functionof political speech. Indeed, there ismuch inpolitics that is theater*
which makes out of political commentators side-show performers,purvey?
ors of irreverenceand wit. Yet, there is something else that ismore impor?
tant. For politicization and mobilization, a generalizing or universalizing

idiom is paramount: There is the need for some to universalize theirpar?

ticular interestsor grasp theuniversality of theirparticular conditions. On
the otherhand, a particularizing idiom has its functions:People have to see
how theuniversal is grounded in theparticulars of human existence. It is in
these terms that Pierre Bourdieu (1984:434) says: "The dialectic of the
general and theparticular is at theheart of all politics." In thekomentaryo,
however, the general and the particular are kept largely separate and the
meaningful connections are not established. The universal idiom of 'de?
mocracy' and 'progress' leavesmuch of reality 'de-realized' by remaining
on an abstract level. On the other hand, a particularizing idiom remains
mired inparticulars and does not connectwith something larger than itself.
On one hand, the komentarista impresses his listenerswith a general, ab?
stractknowledge (speaking, usually in English, of 'foreignpolicy,' 'me?
dium-term development plans,' and the 'World Bank-IMF'). On the other,
he gives his discourse a 'realism' and 'authenticity'by demonstrating his
grasp of the local, concrete, and specific (as in the commentator discours?
ing,now inCebuano, on how he can tell us the exact number of potholes
on a particular 50-kilometer stretchof national road, or how he can de?
ways thepoor have devised formaking a sin?
scribe to us the six different
gle piece of smoked fish tinapa lastbeyond a singlemeal). The levels of
or
the general and theparticular,however, remain ill-joined; between thepot?
holes and tinapa, on one hand, andWorld Bank and 'redemocratization,'
on the other, is a whole ambiguous world one cannot quite imagine or trav?
erse as it is leftunmapped.
In short, the komentaryo is a 'framed' discourse inwhich a speaker
(the komentarista)performs a conversation or discussion for thebenefit of
his listeners.While its code is relatively imstructured,the speech situation
is heavy with themonologic features of radio as a medium. The komenta?
rista role-plays and controls topic and turn-taking. Moreover, there is a
'pre-selection' of participants since radio-booth guests and telephone call?
ers are usually regular listeners already sympathetic to the viewpoints of
the komentarista. Hostile callers can be pre-screened, shunted aside, or
switched off, and the komentarista always has the advantage of the last
word. Even when there are two or threeco-commentators in theprogram,
there is no real conflict of opinion. The komentaryo's monologic character
can be seen in how the co-commentator approximates to thepolonanga in
Subanon epic singing (a figurewith parallels elsewhere in thePhilippines).

The polonanga echoes the chant of the raconteurwith back channel re?
sponses (called tanga) which may be a ritualized uh huh, an assent, sen?
tence completion, request for clarification, brief restatement,or repetition
(Hall 1987).
The monologic character of the komentaryo has yet furthersignifi?
cance. The komentarista principally addresses himself to thosewho are (or
presumed to be) already sympathetic to his views (allies, supporters,party
members). His verbal performance aims not so much to persuade as to
construct a 'public' constituted of fellow-thinkingcitizens who are 'in the
right' and 'in the know,' of otherswho have not yetmade theirpolitical
choices 'butwould be with us once theyknew,' and of enemies who are
eithermisguided or unregenerate. Through acts of inclusion and exclusion,
the komentarista defines for his home listeners 'theworld out there' and
their location in it.
The komentarista enacts a discourse which - in its acts of simplifica?
-
tion, reduction, truncation,or evasion aspires to be authoritative, self
sufficient, and complete, and does not open out into the exchange and
contestation of true dialogue. Ostensibly a free field for the 'democratic
discussion of ideas' and 'political education,' thekomentaryo is clearly an
area where politics is constructed to define and affirm the acceptable
boundaries of political action, stifle oppositional pressures, and restrict
creative participation.
Furthermore, the komentaryo is not a freestanding performance. It is
embedded in a larger event - the drama of factional, electoral politics. As
Philippine elections are presently constituted, the discourse on politics is
largely controlled by conservative, elite-dominated political parties that
construct political change largely in termsof factional differences and the
periodic circulation of elites that takes place in elections.6 This discourse
of 'leaders' and 'parties' claims to exhaust themanifold processes of pub?
lic argument.Radio talk reenforces thediscourse by shaping itat a reactive
level (cf.Williams 1975:53). This is perhaps clearest in radio programs
that combine the komentaryo with the remote broadcast of political-party
meetings. While thepublic meeting (miting) is built around the candidate's
speech or monologue on his philosophy and program of political action,
thekomentaryo (which anchors thebroadcast of themeeting and presents a
re?
running commentary on it) is built around the 'citizens' appreciative
sponse to the candidate's words.7

An analysis of the komentaryo (and, for thatmatter, Philippine elec?

toralpolitics) shows how, instead of expanding political thought,itbinds it
within conservative limits;how, instead of political education, it fosters a
formof political illiteracy.
Talk and Power
Where does the komentaryo stand in relation to native traditions or

forms of talk? In 'traditional'Philippine society,much value is attached to
theword (Cebuano pulong) and to gatheringswhere people talk and listen
(Tagalog pulong). The man skilled in speech is admired as a 'man of learn?
ing.' Oratory, says Renato Rosaldo (1980:146-147) of the Ilongot, is "a
man's ultimate achievement, his most significantway to gain a social con?
firmationofworth." It is something thatgoes beyond a mere giftofwords,
particularlywhen viewed in the context of litigation and peace-pact cere?
monies, events thathighlight values of custom and change, division and
cohesion, in a society. It involves theknowledge ofmen and theirworld
and the ability to articulate such knowledge, with force and tact, to pre?
serve a collective sense of history and tradition,heal the conflicts thatarise
in the course of relations amongmen, and assure social reproduction.
This raises the problem of change. To what extent does the 'good
speaker' functionnot only as a steward of a social order but an agent of
change? It can be said thatall discourse embodies hegemonic aspects, in
the combined sense of shaping and dominating others' wills. Yet, speech
as exchange, as 'dialogue,' points to thepossibilities of a democratic nego?
tiationwhere oppositional voices are not only heard but have a meaningful
part to play in the reconstitutionof an existing order. It is in this sense that
I have made use of the concepts of monologue and dialogue, with the for?
mer indicating the 'single voice' thatexcludes or restrictsother voices and
the latterpointing to 'multiple voices' thatmake possible interplay,crea?
tivity,and change.
One can discern somethingof thisdynamic of voices innative formsof
talk. In native classifications of speech forms and events, themost impor?
tantvariables are who are involved in the event and what thepurpose is
(e.g., to talk about a subject,make plans, settle a dispute, or engage in
sheer play). The question of verbal style ('straight' or 'crooked,' 'hard' or

'soft') is tied to these variables. Three broad categories of speech events

may be constructed.9
1. 'Conversation': an informal exchange between two, or among a few,
participants. This may rangefrom 'idle conversation' or 'gossip' (Cebuano

tabi) which does not have a fixed topic, to various forms of minimally
structured,small-scale dialogues inwhich informationis sought or expla?
nations given (Cebuano hisgut, sulti).
2. 'Discussion,' 'debate': more focused or structured exchange, involv?
ing a greater number of participants. This is characterized by a specific

purpose and may encompass such events as a group or communal assem?
bly (pulong, miting) formaking decisions, laying down plans, or settling

disputes, as well as games and ceremonies where performative exchanges
or verbal dueling can take place. These dialogues or debates may range
from 'open' discussions tomore highly structured,performative events
like theduplo (Cebuano, Tagalog) and other traditionalforms of theverse
debate in thePhilippines.
3. 'Speech': formalmonologue by a speaker (Cebuano pakigpulong)
which is focused and goal-oriented. This may range from formal pro?
nouncements or a 'political speech' to formsof prayers, invocations,magi?
cal spells, and oracular chants.
While the first two categories take the form of a dialogue, the third
category is a monologue (although I recognize that, in Bakhtin's sense,
0
there is no absolute monologue). These categories also suggest distinc?
tions along the gradient of 'formalisation' in termsof the structuringof the
speech situation (setting,participants, purpose) and the code (speech acts,
style, discourse).
Inquiring into the issue of power one may, as Maurice Bloch (1974)
has done, argue that 'formalisation' is a way of social control, "a form of
power or coercion" in theway itblocks and stifles the creativity in "every?
day speech acts." It transforms speech into something closed and
monologic. Yet, themore relevant issue here is not somuch (as inBloch's
formulation) the formalisation of the code itselfas the social position and
attributes of the participants in the speech event. True dialogue can only
take place if there is relative parity among speakers in the social field.
Studies of litigation ceremonies among the Subanon (in the litigation
session called bisala or the 'drinking ceremony' called pangasU which
often involves dispute settlement) and the Ilongot (in peace-pact sessions

involving thepurung, or public oratorical debate) indicate that therecan be

no simple dichotomy between 'formal' and 'informal' or, in analogous
fashion, between 'authoritarian' and 'non-authoritarian.'11
As public ceremonies, both events are structuredor formalised. They
are events bounded and separated from theflow of everyday conversation
and they follow relatively fixed norms and conventions. While they are
open to participants, speaking roles tend to be focussed on thosewho are
able to sustain theflow of talk through theirrhetorical (and drinking, as in
the case of Subanon "jar talk") abilities.While topics can rangewidely and
be diverse, they tend towards thepurpose of the session (whether the con?
clusion of negotiation or settlementof disputes). While the discourse may
seem unstructured, there is a predictable form, a progression through set
stages (as in themovement from the stage of 'tasting' to that of 'game
drinking' among the Subanon). While speech acts can include informal
verbal exchanges, the focal part of the session involves highly elaborated
andmetaphorical styles of speech.
The formalised character of these events, however, does not make
themnon-egalitarian. Anyone can assume the role of 'legal authority' or
orator ifone has the skills.A case is never completely 'closed' but can be
opened again fornegotiation.More important,thedynamic of these events
shows negotiation and exchange actually taking place. This is shown in
Michelle Rosaldo's analysis of the Ilongotpurung or public oratorical de?
bate, which is characterized by real dialogue and negotiations as itmoves
to tame 'anger,' redress grievances, heal an imbalance, and reformulate re?
lations - all throughthe skillful articulationof known grievances as well as
'hidden' thoughts and sentiments- and thus establish thatopponents ulti?
mately are 'equal men' who, throughexchange, may forge a sense of kin?
ship (M. Rosaldo 1980:188-197).
In less explicit terms,Charles Frake (1980:141) says essentially the
same thing of Subanon litigation.The discourse of litigation is not just a
means of social control or a contest of verbal skill.More important, it
nourishes sociality by linking people together and affirming theirbeing
functioningmembers of society. And one may add: To the extent that the
society is, in fact,democratic and egalitarian, such sociality is authentic. It
nourishes all.
In the development of the oratorical debate in the Philippines, how?
ever, there is a sociohistorical shift (with increasing hierarchy, scale, and

centralization in society) to "staged debates" inwhich theverbal exchange

merely plays out or affirms decisions already made or made elsewhere.
The dialogue - as opposed to the 'open' dialogue of the Ilongotpurung -
becomes 'merely ceremonial,' a performance of a script inwhich opposi
tional voices have already been excluded, restricted,or tamed. The speech
event has ceased to be the arena where power-relations are actually
negotiated or contested.
In thehistory of thepoetic debate inPhilippine society, there is a move
towards (1) formswhich merely validate decisions and agreements already
made or made in contexts outside the speech event itself, and (2) forms
thathave degenerated intomere set pieces for the display of verbal skills
for thepurposes of entertainment.
The dissociation between thepurpose of dialogue and its form is to be
seen in the varieties of the duplo. an old form of poetic jousting known
among various Philippine groups. Among Christianized, lowland Philip?
pine groups, theword duplo (also kolilisi inCebuano and karagatan inTa
galog) is associated with a folk game, usually held during a wake,
involving two opposing groups of role-playing performers (male against
female), engaged in an unrehearsed versified debate (in rhymed, 12-sylla
ble quatrains) on a predictable range of topics. It is allied to forms of love
debate (involving a man and a woman, with instrumentalaccompaniment
and dance movements, called ayayi or balitao inCebuano) and the versi?
fied exchanges on the occasion of a formalmarriage negotiation (pama
laye in Cebuano, pamanhikan in Tagalog) between spokespersons for the
party of the groom and that of the bride. That these are allied forms is
shown, for one, by the fact that there is a stock of formulaic quatrains that,
like set counters, can be deployed with littlemodification in any of these
forms.
Embedded in these poetic forms are 'political,' power-laden issues:
a
gender relations, property division, or kin alliances. Yet, there ismerely
miming of negotiation since thevalues of thedominant social order are not
really contested. In the duplo and the balitao, conventional lessons are
cor?
conveyed on marital infidelity,the sin of pride, dignity of labor, the
rupting influence of wealth, the disruptive effects of envy and jealousy,
and thevirtues of rural life.While theydraw attention to sources of tension
in social life, they usually end up by mystifying the nature of such ten?
sions.

THE CEBUANO KOMENT?RYO 351
What has become prominent is the aestheticization of talk, of 'talk

about talk,' of talk pleasing in itself, largely divorced from the social con?
texts inwhich it takes place.
This occasions the later commodification of these forms as 'entertain?
ment.' The Cebuano balitao developed into semi-professional, contracted
performances after 1920 for occasions like carnivals, fiestas, and political
rallies. A furtherdevelopment saw this antiphonal form transformed into
Songs by a solo performer (balitao romansada) as well as into littlemusi?
cal plays (drama-balitao). The balitao also found its as an entertain?
way,
ment feature, intoCebuano movies and radio programs. After 1920, the
duplo also developed into the literaryform called balagtasan (Tagalog),
bukanegan (Ilocano), and crisottan (Kapampangan), which is a contest of
wit between two semi-professional bards on a variety of topics (e.g.,
vs. 'Darkness,' 'Mother' vs. 'Motherland,' or 'Liberty' vs. 'Life').
'Light'
Held on occasions like townfiestas and political meetings, purportedlyun?
rehearsed, this later developed into the set performances of memorized
scripts.
In thisdevelopment (which,writ large, indexes broad social changes in
Philippine society), the purpose of dialogue is dissociated from its form.
Talk turns inwards, absorbed in itself, and does not 'open out.' The du~
plero becomes themere performer,a degraded version of thepracticioner
of thepurung, with diminished power and legitimacy to shape social rela?
tions and political reality.
One can view the komentaryo against this background of shifting
forms of talk. Though structureddifferently,the komentaryo is itself a
miming of dialogue but while the duplo and balagtasan aestheticize and
degrade formalised oratory, the komentaryo appropriates ordinary, non
formalised, everyday speech and organizes it forhegemonic purposes. The
komentaryo is a 'performed'dialogue closer to the formsof theduplo than
to 'ordinaryconversation.' As in theduplo, thedialogue that takes place is
'staged' since the established social values are not negotiated in the
speech-event itselfand the importantpolitical decisions have already been
made 'offstage.'15
Beyond Technique
Modem media technology has facilitated intrusion into themore pri

vate, local realms of speech and thoughtand has made possible the large
scale organization of informal speech events. This process is not merely
technological, it is political. The rise of 'broadcasting' in theWest was, af?
ter all, occasioned by such factors as the centralization of political power
which led to a need for a technology for transmitting messages from the
centermore efficient than the old media of print, schools, churches, and
public assemblies.
We can, however, overemphasize the power ofmedia. Raymond Wil?
liams (1975:130) remindsus:
Determination is a real social process, but never... as a wholly controlling,

wholly predicting set of causes. On the contrary, the reality of determination is
the setting of limits and the exertion of pressures, within which variable social
practices are profoundly affected but never necessarily controlled. We have to
thinkof determination not as a single force, or a single abstraction of forces, but
as a process inwhich real determining factors - the distribution of power or of
capital, social and physical inheritance, relations of scale and size between
- set limits and exert
groups pressures, but neitherwholly control nor wholly pre?
dict the outcome of complex activity within or at these limits, and under or
against these pressures.
Ideological discourse is addressed not to a tabula rasa, the 'unaccom?

modated man,' but to already constitutedpersons. To the extent that these
persons are already socially constituted as a 'subjects' (through education,
work experience, tradition,and law), the komentaryo is authoritative and
persuasive. It reenforces conservative habits and tendencies. To the extent,
however, that these persons are not completely subjected (and total subjec?
tion is always the exception rather than the rule), the interpellationof the
komentaryo is never completely effective.
Cebuano listeners (in so far as their capacity to distance themselves
from the discourse of others is active) recognize the bias built into the
form.As in 'political speeches,' they recognize itas "just talk," and do not
really call the speaker into account forwhat is said. One sees this in thede?
risive names listenershave given to the komentarista: tigpamaba (mouth?
piece, spokesman) or tambolero (drummer). Then there are the
peculiarities of themedium itself.While radio is more ubiquitous than
television as sound can carry fartherthan the image from a box, what Ray?
mond Williams (1975:86-96) calls "flow" ismore discontinuous. Since a
radio listenerdoes not have to stay in one place, he can combine listening

more freely with other activities. This occasions relative freedom for the
listener:he can withdraw, keep distance, or escape.
The listener is not defenseless: He can switch off, switch channels, re?
interpret,or 'talk back.' He has access to sources of oppositional knowl?
edge in his own personal participation in the world. In the dominant
discourse itselfare gaps, openings, unintended effects that the listenercan
turn to his advantage. Words and phrases like 'democracy,' 'justice,' and
'development' can mystify and disguise, yet they also carry information
thatmakes it possible for people to judge whether their environment is
changing in thedirection so posited.
Here Bakhtin's view of the inherentlyand intensely 'dialogized' char?
acter of language is immensely instructive.Even as there are centralizing,
centripetal forces (in both language and politics) thatmove towards 'fix?
ing' language and making it unitary, language is ceaselessly driven by
stratifying,centrifugal, and decentralizing forces. In a speaker's switching
of codes and in and between his words, intendedmeanings can fall through
and new meanings can emerge. Context-and the consciousness of the lis?
tener-can refract,add to, or subtractfrom themeaning of a speaker's utter?
ance. The word, Bakhtin says, does not travel throughuncluttered space, it
is forevercolliding with otherwords and thewords of others (1981:294):
Language is not a neutral medium thatpasses freely and easily into the pri?
vate property of the speaker's intentions; it is populated - overpopulated - with
the intentions of others. Expropriating it,forcing it to submit to one's own inten?
tions and accents, is a difficult and complicated process.
Moreover, one can argue that therise of the komentaryo ismore in?
dicative of instability than control.While we have said that Philippine
komentaryo programs are characterized, beneath thewelter of argument
and counter-argument,by a marked ideological sameness, the surface play
of difference and dissent undoubtedly creates a situationwhere opposi?
tional impulses are not only canalized but kept alive. While the komen?
taryo organizes informal speech processes in the service of a dominant
ideology, it also engenders a climate of continuing instability and uncer?
tainty inpolitical beliefs.
Furthermore, therise of thekomentaryomay indicate a situationwhere
the power of formalised genres and codes has weakened and the formal
of 'law' and 'authority' are no longer compelling. M.
pronouncements

Bloch (1974:64-65) says that formalisation is characteristic of "traditional

authority situations" and that,where traditionalauthority is not absolute, a
non-formalised code is necessary for "thedirtywork," forpractical day-to?
day maneuvering, since the formalised code does not have the suppleness
for these situations.What Bloch does not account for - by slighting the
facts of combination and continuum - is the possibility that the non-for?
malised code itselfcan be 'formalised' (as in thekomentaryo). He isright,
however, in suggesting an importantcorrelation between speech and the
largerquestions of power and authority.
Ultimately, the problem of the komentaryo is not just a problem in
rhetoric,of strategies of speech, or of technology. It raises questions about
a more general problem: theproduction of political discourse inPhilippine
society. The komentaryo is one formof political discourse among others. It
lies in an intermediateposition relative to, on one hand, the 'official' dis?
course of the dominant class (the language of laws, policy statements,ex?
ecutive orders, and presidential speeches), and, on the other, the inchoate,
emergent discourse of oppositional groups in society. The realities of
power in contemporary Philippine society, however, are such that the
komentaryomainly serves the aims of thedominant discourse by blocking
dissident voices, stifling creativity, and keeping dissent within conserva?
tive limitswhile, at the same time, conjuring the fictionof democratic dia?
logue.
All this is not to be explained by a simple theoryof 'media manipula?
tion' (a theory essentially defensive and often idealist since there is no
such thingas an 'unmanipulated' media) (Enzensberger 1970:19-20). Ref?
erence has to be made to the ideological configuration of Philippine soci?
ety itself.The bottom line is that public discourse on politics is largely
produced by thosewho hold power, partake of it,pretend to it,or imagine
theyparticipate in it.Even thephrase "talkingpolitics" itselfhas a concrete
reference.Who, after all, 'talk polities'? Presidents and dictators don't,
theydo it;peasants and housewives don't, theysuffer it.The production of
political talk, the capacity or readiness to have 'political opinions,' in?
volves a certain competence or claim to such competence (educational
access tomedia) which
qualification, experience, leisure, urban residence,
is socially defined.While democracy grants everyone theright and duty to
have an opinion, and draws from thisprinciple its legitimacy (as expressed
in the institutionsof elections, mass media, and opinion poll-taking), the

reality is that theproduction of opinions is not a free and universal activity

(Bourdieu 1984:406).
The komentaryo and komentarista belong to a kind ofmiddle ground.
A "liberal-democratic" society (like the Philippines) requires "democratic
space" (to use a fashionable phrase in thePhilippines today) inwhich op
positional voices can be heard. Such space is occupied by thosewith the
skills tobe able to translateexperience intoexpression, the resources to ac?
cess public channels of communication, and the knowledge (or presump?
tion of it) of how the systemworks or 'how the game is played/ The
interests of the dominant class or power-bloc, however, demand that such
space be restrictedand governed. This is done, in both the long and short
term, through the operation of the administrative, jural, educational, and
military institutionsof the state,but it is also done throughtheworkings of
non-state institutions such as mass media. These are not autonomous but
interlocking institutionsand to the extent that the hegemony of the domi?

nant class remains persuasive and effective, institutionslike radio will be
expressive of the ideas of thedominant ratherthan thedominated.
The power of a dominant language of politics cannot be underesti?
mated. Bourdieu (1984:462) bluntly remarks: "The dominant language dis?
credits and destroys the spontaneous political discourse of the dominated.
It leaves themonly silence or a borrowed language." In theMay 1987 elec?
tions, the left-wingAlliance forNew Politics (ANP) ran its own komen?
taryo program on Cebuano radio and was disadvantaged, in the face of
anti-Communist rhetoric, inhaving to accommodate itself to thedominant
language (e.g., defensively belaboring such abstractions as 'nationalism,'
'justice,' and 'human rights'). The ANP commentators had to 'speak the
language' they sought to revise. (This is in addition to the fact that theyac?
counted for only 4 percent of the total daily airtime devoted by the six
leading Cebu City radio stations to political propaganda.) For itspart, the
Communist Party of thePhilippines (CPP), operating outside state surveil?
lance, can produce itsown systematic,counter-hegemonic discourse, yet it
is also one inwhich only 'competents' can participate. Between one and
the other of these discourses is a vast area of silence and inarticulateness.
Conclusion
There are two sides to radio as a medium, a tension between thefixnc

tion of 'distribution' (centralizing,monopolistic, monologic) and that of

real 'communication' (interactive, creative, dialogic). On one hand, it is
expansive. It enlarges the forms of public argument and discussion; it
feeds on and nourishes theneed forvariety andmobility, fornew forms of
interaction; itgives listenersa sense of participation in a social process on
a scale larger than just thehousehold, village, or even nation (witness the
'mobile patrol' radio program, the national broadcast hookups, and the
transnational satellite feedswith theirdrama of a broad social arena and of
the immediacy, interconnectedness, and simultaneity of events). Yet, on
the other hand, it is restrictivewhere listeners are consumers rather than
producers ofmeaning and messages (an extreme example: the distribution
of single-frequency radio sets either for commercial or political purposes).
In themain, Philippine radio ismore restrictive than expansive. Radio is
not a fixed or staticmedium, however, and neither is thekomentaryo as a
form: both can serve the purposes of empowering negotiation and ex?
change. To consider this,however, we have to look beyond a single speech
event or a single communicative mode.
Raymond Williams (1973:295-296) calls mass media "a formof shared

consciousness" but says that in itsmain uses, "it is a form of unevenly
shared consciousness of persistently external events." It is, he says, "what
appears to happen, in thesepowerfully transmittedandmediated ways, in a

world with which we have no other perceptible connections but which we
feel is at once central and marginal to our lives." The basic explanation,
Williams argues, is to be found in thedominantmode of production of so?
ciety, inwhich somuch of our lives is "defined and determined by external
-
formulations of... thatexternal,willed reality external because itsmeans
are inminority hands - from which, in so much of our lives,we seem to
have no option but to learn."
As early as 1932, Bertolt Brecht (1964:51) saw both the perils and
promise of radio. He argued that radiomust be changed from a means of
distribution to a means of communication. Itmust allow the listenernot
only to hear but to speak. In the end, however, we have to go beyond the
technology to the broad social and political challenge of how people can
be capacitated to speak.

THE CEBUANO KOMENT?RYO 357
ENDNOTES
Radio reached 78 percent of totalhouseholds as against 40 percent for television and

22 percent for newspapers. There were 56 TV stations and around 280 newspapers in the
country. The 338 radio stationswere distributed as follows: 15 percent inMetro Manila,
35 percent inLuzon, 25 percent in theVisayas, and 15 percent inMindanao.
The radio industrywas dominated by a few private corporations (with the leading
ones owning as many as 22 to 29 stations). The Philippine government owned 26 AM/FM
stations and the Catholic Church 24. The industrywas governed by the state's National
Telecommunications Commission (NTC) and an intra-industry monitoring group called
Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster sa Pilipinas (KBP) (see Asian Institute of Journalism
1990).
Interviews with Virginia Vamenta, DYLA program manager, Cebu City, 3 May
1987; Gerardo Abelgas, former radio stationmanager, Cebu City, 4 May 1987; Susan
Perez, DYHP program manager, Cebu City, 8 February 1991.
This surveywas done by the author inApril-May 1987. The six leading AM stations
had a combined daily airtime of 114 hours, broken down as follows: Political programs,
51 hrs.; Music/personality/public service programs, 23 hrs.; Drama, 21 hrs.; News, 11
hrs.; and Religious and educational programs, 8 hrs. This is a breakdown by programs and
does not account for commercial and political ad insertions.Off-election-season, the top
programs (in terms of time and listenership) were, in descending order: Drama, Mu?
sic/personality/public service programs, and Political commentaries.
For a profile of Cebuano radio prior to 1990 see:Media Infrastructure: Region VII,
Philippines (Cebu City: Office of Media Affairs-Region VII, 1985); PSRC Media Re?
search Program 1983: Greater Cebu, Nov. 2-8, 1983 (Manila: Philippine Survey & Re?
search Center, 1983); Media Pulse Final Report: Coincidental Radio Survey '83 inCebu
City (July 24-August 17, 1986) (Manila: Catholic Welfare Organization, 1986).
4Examples have been theprograms Karambola ('Mixing ItUp') and Kapihan sa Ka

hanginan ('Coffeeshop of the Air'), both of Station DYLA, Cebu's leading 'talk' station,
featuring popular Cebuano commentators Miguel ("Migs") Enriquez, Jr., and Vicente
("Vic") Abangan. Discussions in these can become quite uninhibited. Sometime in 1986
complaints were lodged against a local program that had degenerated into a veritable
'drinking session on the air.'
5In the analysis of speech, I draw from such sources as Austin (1975), Bauman
(1975), Bauman and Sherzer (1975), Paine (1981), Parkin (1980, 1984), and Borgstrom
(1982).
6For a profile of Phillippine politics at institutionaland experiental levels, seeW?rfel

(1988) and Kerkvliet (1990), respectively.

This is a simplification. The political rally (miting) itself already incorporates ele?
ments of commentary and dialogue since ithas itself a master-of-ceremonies or two per?
forming the roles of reactors. Furthermore, there is often a battery of lower-order speakers
(representing a cross-section of the electorate) that represents, as itwere, the 'voice' of the
audience. In Cebu City and other large population centers, the political miting is a daily
event during an official campaign period.
The symbolism of Philippine elections (and of themiting as a speech event) is still in?
adequately studied. Another speech event thatmay be studied in relation to the komen
taryo is the pulong-pulong, which refers to a small (neighborhood, village) public
assembly initiated by local leaders or government officials for consultation purposes. The
reduplication of theword pulong (Tagalog for 'public meeting') means that it is a small
scale, informal gathering. Pulong-pulong (both the term and the practice) came into gen?
eral use during themartial-law administration of Ferdinand Marcos when the government
sought to create the image of a "grassroots democracy." To what extent is thepulong-pu?
long a real dialogue or (in another sense of the reduplication of words in Philippine lan?
guages) a 'fake consultation'?
8Also seeM. Rosaldo (1980:197-207), Frake (1980:135-136, 172), and Hall (1987:8,
86). On the importance of the 'go-between' or 'legal authority' in traditional Philippine
society, see the references to the Ifugao monkalun inBarton (1919:87-89) and theTiruray
kefeduwan in Schlegel (1970:67-68).
9See speech classification inFrake (1980:177-183) for theYakan, Schlegel (1970:64

68) for the Tiruray, M. Rosaldo (1980, 1982) for the Ilongot, and Hall (1987) for the
Subanon.
10While communication is always dyadic (two-sided), it is frequently imbalanced and

unequal. The underlying argument in thispaper (focusing as itdoes on thepower relations
between the two sides of the communicative act) is that the speech-event may be 'dyadic'
but not necessarily 'dialogic,' or (if Imay burden the paper with additional terms) 'dis?
tributive' rather than 'communicative.' What is distributive and monologic comes to the
listener distanced, from above or without, and brooks no response; it iswhat Bakhtin calls
"authoritative discourse" (orwhat aspires to it) (Bakhtin 1981:424-425).
11
For an analysis of the discourse of litigation among the Subanon and Ilongot, re?
spectively, see Frake (1980:166-173) andM. Rosaldo (1980:177-220).
12Irvine (1979:773) says that "formality in communicative events can serve not only
the force of traditionor the coercive power of a political establishment, but also creativity
and change." M. Rosaldo (1982) and Frake (1980:189-199) also suggest that a formalised
code is not necessarily ameans of coercion.
Irvine (1979:184) argues thatone has to distinguish among the various aspects of for?
is not
mality as well as consider existing social relations and ideology. Authoritarianism
implicit in the analytical concept of formality itself.

13Poetic debates are to be found all over the Philippines but an integrative,diachronic
study of the available materials has not been done. My sketch of the historical develop?
ment of these forms is to be taken as suggestive.
See Gutierrez (1961), Jose (1978). Also: Demetrio (1975) for a broad, if sketchy, sur?
vey. Other terms for the love-debate or courtship-debate include: bensiranay or banggi
(Hiligaynon, Kiniraya), dallot (Ilocano), sumpungan (Bikol), kandaonga (Maranao), sin
dil (Tausug), sala (Talaandig), inanen (Batak), bayangwe (Ilongot), diwdiwas (Isneg),
dai-eng (Kankanay), tablay (Tagbanua), and siasid (Tiruray). Poetic jousting on a variety
of topics involving two performers or groups of performers is also known as bayok (Ma?
ranao, Subanon, Mansaka). Song-debates associated with marriage negotiations are called,
among others, leelewa (Kankanay) and dasang (Manobo).
l4The balitao was a regularweekly entertainment feature over Station DYRC inCebu
City inmusical programs sponsored by the Philippine Manufacturing Company and San
Miguel Brewery in 1948-50 and 1954-55, respectively (Gutierrez 1961).
15See Irvine's (1979:782) tentativedistinction between "onstage" (the public, formal?

isedmeeting) and "offstage" (the political actualitywhere the 'real' decisions aremade).
I have presented a very summary history of talk.A largermap of the 'verbal-ideologi?
cal world' can be drawn to include not only such speech-events as congressional sessions,
court proceedings, church sermons, classroom lectures, and professional conferences but
other communicative forms as well (print, television, film).
REFERENCES CITED
Asian Instituteof Journalism

1990 Communication for the Common Good: Towards a Framework for a
National Communication Policy. Manila.
Austin, J.L.
1975 How To Do Things With Words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bakhtin, M.M.
1981 The Dialogic Imagination, ed.M. Holquist. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
Barton, R.F.
1969 Ifitgao Law. Berkeley: University of California Press. First publ., 1919.

Bauman, Richard
1975 "Verbal Art as Performance," American Anthropologist 77(2): 290-316.
Bauman, Richard and Joel Sherzer

1975 "The Ethnography of Speaking," Annual Review of Anthropology 4:95
119.
Bloch, Maurice
1974 "Symbols, Song, Dance and Features ofArticulation: Is Religion an Ex?
tremeForm of Traditional Authority?" Archives Europeennes de Socilo
gie 15(1): 55-81.
Borgstrom, Bengt-Erik
1982 "Power Structure and Political Speech," Man (N.S.) 17(2): 313-327.
Bourdieu, Pierre
1984 Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste, tr.R. Nice.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Brecht, Bertolt
1964 "The Radio as an Apparatus forCommunication," inBrecht on Theatre,
ed. J.Willett. New York: Hill andWang. First publ., 1932.
Demetrio, Francisco, S.J., (ed.)

1975 Dialogue for Development. Cagayan de Oro: Xavier University.
Enzensberger, Hans Magnus

1970 "Constituents of a Theory of theMedia," New Left Review 64 (Nov.
Dec).
Frake, Charles O.
1980 Language and Cultural Description. Stanford: Stanford University
Press.
Gutierrez, Maria Colina.

1961 "The Cebuano Balitao and How ItMirrors Visayan Culture and Folk
Life," Folklore Studies 20:15-135.
Hall, William C.
1987 Aspects of Western Subanon Formal Speech. Dallas: Summer Institute
of Linguistics/University of Texas atArlington.

Irvine, JudithT.
1979 "Formality and Informality in Communicative Events," American An?
thropologist 81(4): 773-790.
Jose,Vivencio R.
1978 "The duplo: Verse, Debate and Performance (a Preliminary Study),"
Mindanao Journal 4(1-4): 86-152.
Kerkvliet, Benedict J.Tria

1990 Everyday Politics in thePhilippines. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Lent, JohnA. (ed.)

1978 Broadcasting inAsia and thePacific. Philadelphia: Temple University
Press.
Paine, Robert (ed.)

1981 Politically Speaking: Cross-Cultural Studies of Rhetoric. Philadelphia:
Institute for the Study ofHuman Issues.
Parkin, David
1980 "The Creativity ofAbuse," Man (N.S.) 15(1): 45-64.
1984 "Political Language," Annual Review ofAnthropology 13: 345-365.
Rosaldo, Michelle Z.
1980 Knowledge and Passion: Ilongot Notions of Self and Social Life. Cam?
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
1982 "The Things We Do with Words: Ilongot Speech Acts and Speech Act
Theory inPhilosophy," Language inSociety 11.
Rosaldo, Renato
1980 Ilongot Headhunting, 1883-1974: A Study in Society and History.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Turton, Andrew
1984 "Limits of Ideological Domination and the Formation of Social Con?
sciousness," in Turton, A. and S. Tanabe (eds.), History and Peasant
Consciousness in Southeast Asia, pp. 19-73. Osaka: National Museum
of Ethnology.

Williams, Raymond
1973 The Country and theCity. New York: Oxford University Press.
1975 Television: Technology and Cultural Form. New York: Schocken

Books.
W?rfel, David
1998 Filipino Politics: Development and Decay. Ithaca: Cornell University
Press.


Talking Politics - The Komentaryo On Cebu Radio

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Talking Politics - The Komentaryo On Cebu Radio

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

University of San Carlos Publications

TALKING POLITICS: THE KOMENTARYO ON CEBU RADIO

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.179 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:57:12 AM

TALKING POLITICS: THE KOMENTARYO ON CEBU RADIO

Resil B. Mojares, Ph.D. is Professor in theDepartment ofGraduate Humanities at the

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.179 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:57:12 AM

popular form ofmodem mass media in the country.As of 1990 therewere

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.179 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:57:12 AM

are dominated by block-timers. Today, thereare around 200 block-timers -

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.179 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:57:12 AM

The standard komentaryo is a program that runs for an hour (during a

sages), and a miscellany of humor, gossip, and general information.Such

(made possible through payola given to station announcers, a common

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.179 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:57:12 AM

main ingredients in the 'townhouse of the air,' pulong-pulong, and dial

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.179 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:57:12 AM

The komentarista speaks inhis personal capacity and identifieshimself by

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.179 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:57:12 AM

versational) according to the topic or the listeners (whether the 'people,'

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.179 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:57:12 AM

one inwhich people will be 'turned into sardines' (himoong sardinas). A

The conservative character of the komentaryo is furtherillustrated in

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.179 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:57:12 AM

idiom is paramount: There is the need for some to universalize theirpar?

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.179 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:57:12 AM

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.179 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:57:12 AM

An analysis of the komentaryo (and, for thatmatter, Philippine elec?

Talk and Power

Where does the komentaryo stand in relation to native traditions or

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.179 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:57:12 AM

'soft') is tied to these variables. Three broad categories of speech events

participants. This may rangefrom 'idle conversation' or 'gossip' (Cebuano

ing a greater number of participants. This is characterized by a specific

bly (pulong, miting) formaking decisions, laying down plans, or settling

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.179 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:57:12 AM

involving thepurung, or public oratorical debate) indicate that therecan be

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.179 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:57:12 AM

centralization in society) to "staged debates" inwhich theverbal exchange

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.179 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:57:12 AM

What has become prominent is the aestheticization of talk, of 'talk

Modem media technology has facilitated intrusion into themore pri

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.179 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:57:12 AM

Determination is a real social process, but never... as a wholly controlling,

Ideological discourse is addressed not to a tabula rasa, the 'unaccom?

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.179 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:57:12 AM

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.179 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:57:12 AM

Bloch (1974:64-65) says that formalisation is characteristic of "traditional

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.179 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:57:12 AM

reality is that theproduction of opinions is not a free and universal activity

interlocking institutionsand to the extent that the hegemony of the domi?

There are two sides to radio as a medium, a tension between thefixnc

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.179 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:57:12 AM

tion of 'distribution' (centralizing,monopolistic, monologic) and that of

Raymond Williams (1973:295-296) calls mass media "a formof shared

appears to happen, in thesepowerfully transmittedandmediated ways, in a

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.179 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:57:12 AM

Radio reached 78 percent of totalhouseholds as against 40 percent for television and

4Examples have been theprograms Karambola ('Mixing ItUp') and Kapihan sa Ka

6For a profile of Phillippine politics at institutionaland experiental levels, seeW?rfel

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.179 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:57:12 AM

9See speech classification inFrake (1980:177-183) for theYakan, Schlegel (1970:64

10While communication is always dyadic (two-sided), it is frequently imbalanced and

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.179 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:57:12 AM