As
the AMALAYER phenomenon, one of the hot trending topics during these couple of
days, gradually slides into collective oblivion, I think it’s a subject worthy
of being given one last look. The collective memory of the netizens (and people
at large) seem to have a very short memory (I’m talking about Filipinos, but
then, it could as well apply to anyone else). Mostly, intelligent conversation
in cyberspace (which at times may only have the appearance of intelligence)
depend on the topics that are trendy, and it seems to me that these don’t last
very long in their respective places on the charts; people prefer to talk about
that which is as the moment the most popular topic, but then with this I
digress.
The phenomenon that has taken society by storm has made me
reflect about certain things. First, there seems to be this phenomenon on the
rise, one that has these elements: an aggressed party who happens just to be
doing his job, not usually a high-paying one but rather humble (a security
guard, a reporter, a traffic enforcer, to mention an example), an apparent
aggressor (usually an educated person, from the higher strata of society or who
pretends to be such, but whose manners belie such high, well-schooled breeding.
They are usually fluent in English, and are of what tagalog slang would call coño, which is just about everything
that I have said earlier).
I must add two other elements: a brash encounter that soon
turns into a heated argument, with its inevitable result (usually a blow, a
shove, a slap or a sharp phrase), and—of course—a recording device, usually a camera.
In many, if not all, of the cases, the story is basically the
same: the humble worker chances upon the “educated” person (or vice-versa),
there is a tussle between human rights and laboral duty and obligation, the
episode becomes ugly and it happens that someone is always there to record the
scene, whether overtly or otherwise. Then the video gets to be uploaded on the
Internet, where it is received by netizens who rain righteous anger on the coño aggressor. Less than an hour or two
later, humorous memes, photos and jokes surface in the social networking sites,
adding fuel to the fire. As a trend in the internet, it may last for 24 hours
or if its good enough, it may even be there for days. The aggressor becomes the
aggressed party, and is subject to public ridicule; the aggressed worker is
hailed as a hero of humble occupation.
In the media limelight, the now aggressed party, tarred and
feathered and chastised, apologizes publicly; everybody is content that “they”
have taught him or her a lesson. The public is appears smug and secure in the
tribunal into which they have established themselves in: as judges of good and
right. The fire having burned out, they move to the next trend, leaving the new
victim’s reputation—and self-confidence—in shreds. The once-proud eagle has
been crushed to the ground; it’s time to move to the next trending topic.
This phenomenon, which is getting repetitive, has shown me two
things. I shall start from the positive side. From the point of view of our
workers in a more humble position—janitors, traffic enforcers, security
guards—at least they’re getting more the respect that they deserve, and the
public is getting more aware of the value of the service that they are doing in
favor of the larger community. Another thing is that nobody is ever above the
law of civility and respect, both based on Christian charity. Nobody could ever
press to have more claims over anybody just because they have received more
education. In fact, the more well-off a person is, whether socially or in terms
of educational attainment, the more the person should be more prudent,
educated, and restrained.
On the negative side, the phenomenon has shown the public to
be more pharisaical than ever, and a pharisaical judge at that. Much as such
arrogance moves us to righteous indignation, such indignation does not give the
public the right to subject the person to public ridicule, with the risk of
committing the same mistake as the offender.
On certain occasions, it would be a merit to let the public
know of an injustice done, but when we divulge an image or a video into the
public domain, we have to be responsible for the consequences that our action
may unleash.
Looking at what had taken place from the positive side, it
shows that we are more sensitive to issues of justice and the respect for the
rights of persons. But on the other hand, the same subject has raised a warning
for us with a specter: the specter of a nation of sensationalist voyeurs, waiting
to pounce on the mistakes of other people other than ourselves, in order to
judge them with the hypocritical pointed finger, and gloat over the public
ridicule that our pharisaical thirst for sensationalist “justice” has provided
as the fitting sentence.
The words of the Gospel, “Let
he who has no sin cast the first stone” (Jn 8:7), ought to serve as
criteria in matters such as these. Safeguarded by these words, correction
becomes based on the understanding that all of us have ugly moments, and that
these need to be addressed in all justice, one that is based on charity. Justice based on charity doesn't mean closing one's eyes to the evil done; it rather means--among other things--passing the sentence that would make the offender grow into a better version of himself. Tearing him to shreds in public obviously doesn't accomplish this. This
is an antidote to the sensationalism and hypocrisy that is one of the ills of
our society today.
JUST A THOUGHT.
No comments:
Post a Comment