GUBAT, Bennet A.

1998-30307 Facere Humanum Est: A reflection on Laborem Excercens

Prof. Battad Labor 1

John Paul II s encyclical, Laborem Exercens, has one basic premise: that the proper subject of work is the person. This springs from two ideas basic to Catholic philosophy. First, that humanity is made in the image of the Creator, and second, that humanity is commanded to exercise dominion over the earth. The first relates to the ontology of a person, while the latter relates to the actualization of that person. To be human is to be capable of rationality and self-actualization. By the application of rational thought and the ascription of purpose [or not] to each activity, a person s activities all serve to realize his humanity. And by working, the subject is confirmed as the one-who-dominates. Work therefore defines, if it is not already the core of, one s existence. We need not look too far from objective reality in order to arrive at examples. The equation of a person with her activities is something that is taken for granted. Everyday grammar gives us examples like My mother is a doctor, or Noynoy is the President of the Philippines. While these are crude illustrations, they are nevertheless informative of the objectification that occurs when we attempt to describe another human being. Transposing this process to the subjective sense, to be a doctor is to do activities that are constitutive of the profession forgetting licensing requirements for the moment like diagnosing illnesses, prescribing medicines, and making rounds. To be the President of the Philippines entails, among others, negotiating treaties, making decrees, and reading optimistic speeches. What is not apparent from the foregoing discussion is that to accept the idea of work as primarily definitive of one s Being is to engage in the process of self-deception, what Sartre calls Bad Faith. Bad Faith, simply put, is the condition of using one s freedom in order to limit one s choices, and then using that state of affairs as justification for one s having no choice. The Self is then restricted and objectified according to its facticity. Facticity is the reality co-constitutive of one s being; better

understood as the events and experiences of one s own past. To live according to this facticity is to become merely what one does. Leonard McCoy s I am a doctor, not a Rephrasing that in this context is a succinct example. is for

I am a doctor, therefore I can only do this or I cannot do that

Sartre, living an inauthentic existence. This way of thinking is anathema to existentialist philosophers such as I, and it explains why I was bothered while reading the entire article. However, this premise is not without purpose. John Paul II uses it to highlight the subject of work, that is, to re-humanize the concept of labour from where it was reduced to a mere commodity by materialistic economism. While I submit that it effectively underlies the idea, I do not think that it was necessary to expand the context to include the existential theme. It would have sufficed to identify the human subject behind labour, or to limit the idea of work as merely co-constitutive of one s Being and not its entirety. Or even, to identify the links between the human subject and its tasks, there being a necessity for a person to work. To my mind this leads to a contradiction when John Paul II talks about the role of women in the family and society at large. His very foundation, that work serves to define one s personhood, is utterly inconsistent with the primary purpose that he ascribes to women to devote herself to taking care of her children and educating them in accordance with their needs. An existential theme cannot be the basis for a deterministic attitude towards any persons roles. The former implies the freedom to create and re-create one s Being at will. This negates any attempt at putting a person into a role specific to them because of their personal circumstances. It would again induce the practice of Bad Faith with its ultimate corollary that one will be able to disavow responsibility for one s actions. Much as I disagree with the encyclical s philosophical undercurrents, I cannot help but see that the intent is good. A lot has been lost to the conflict between capital and labour. The dehumanization that occurs when a price tag is put on a person s abilities and capabilities for work only serves to widen already existing rifts between sectors in society. While classification is inevitable, owing to humanity s

ability to rationalize and categorize, it behooves each of us to remember that there are living, breathing people behind those categories. Having once been employed as a recruiter for foreign construction companies, I was a direct witness to this process of dehumanization. Skilled workers are traded like commodities, given only value for the things that they can do, and very specific things at that. Just compensation was never an issue wages were driven by the forces of supply and demand, as with any other commodity. Living in the Philippines, where almost every person is nominally a carrier of the TB bacterium or has at least been exposed, I found myself having to beg and scrape for every exception so that some of my applicants would be accepted. Of course I had a duty to fulfill the job orders that were sent down, but I considered it my primary duty, as a human being, to allow them to have the means by which they could realize their humanity. I did not see my job as a recruitment officer just to cast the net as wide as possible and bring in the best of the crop. We have our engineers to do that. Being in direct contact with the applicants, I was exposed to their personal circumstances, their families, and even in some cases, their hopes and dreams. As a result of this interaction their personalities were fleshed out, reversing the process of reduction to mere work experience. Sadly, from everything that I saw, I do not believe that this is the case across the board. John Paul II provides a few ideas by which this dehumanization could be reversed, a few of them hinged on the idea that the right to private property must be abolished, or at least re-evaluated, from the perspective of capital. To some sociologists, including those in our university, all rights emanate from this right to private property. I do not wish to delve deeply into that matter as that will only lead to a convoluted discussion on the ideal social structure. I have dabbled in the field myself, leading up to the praxis of social anarchism. It was both educational and short-lived. The viability question remains; and here I do not talk about merely economic viability but also about how to market these radical ideas to society at large.

I would instead propose management based on Rawlsian justice. For John Rawls, policymakers should adopt principles behind a veil of ignorance, a thought construct wherein one does not know what place she will occupy in the new framework. Because of the veil of ignorance, the emerging principles will eventually correspond to: 1) a framework of basic, inalienable rights and liberties, and 2) a framework of equality both of opportunity and choice, where certain inequalities are allowed so long as they are to the advantage of the worst-off. Whether or not actual application would result in a profitshare arrangement is beside the point. So long as the above principles are maintained, social justice will be achieved with the effect of maximizing the liberties and opportunities available to all. This precludes as well the continuing process of dehumanization that John Paul II s encyclical describes. Policymakers in the original position, that is, behind the veil of ignorance, cannot but ensure that this does not happen, as they might find themselves on the wrong end of the stick. Rawls theory of justice is fleshed out by the promulgation of our Labor Code. Article 3 of the code declares it the basic policy of the state to afford protection to labor, promote full employment, and ensure equal work opportunities. Now our business as future lawyers, whether lawyers for capital, labour, government service, or whatnot, is to not lose sight of the fact that our actions help determine the trend of policy in our society. In carrying out our duties, we must remember that whatever the law says, the spirit behind that law can be either mangled or strengthened by its application. It is only befitting, as Iskolars ng Bayan, that in every pleading we submit concerning the rights of those least advantaged in any social relationship, including labour, we are guided not just by the black letter of the law, but also by the principles of social justice and liberty.