I’ve known what it feels like to be given recognition (and to almost be withheld recognition) and I’ve known the bitter taste and heartbreak of recognition being given to someone else other than myself (and by implication, being told that I am not or am less deserving of recognition). I have been asked and continue to be asked to judge who deserves to be given recognition and by implication, to designate others as being less worthy of recognition.
What I have learned from these experiences (and my wife’s experiences) of being given and giving recognition and being withheld and withholding recognition is that awards and recognitions are never to be taken personally. They reflect more about the judges than they do about the person recognized or the person to whom recognition is withheld. Awards are a statement of identity and values on the part of judges (or, rhetorically, the values of the institution they represent). They are a manner by which judges or “institutions” define themselves.
Some seekers of recognition know this very well and so they project what they think the judges want to see (which in the Philippine context almost always involves a tricky combination of appearing not to hunger for the recognition but confidently appearing to deserve the recognition).
I think greatness needs to be understood in the same way as awards and recognition. Greatness is an identity that is socially bestowed (allow me to acknowledge Peter Berger, An Invitation to Sociology, 1963 for the whole idea of socially bestowed identities). This much is clear when commentators started calling the late Pope John Paul II, John Paul the Great. I personally think John Paul I was great in his own right but then again, this only proves the point that greatness is socially bestowed. Society has not deemed it proper to call Albino Luciani great.
Greatness is not only a function of individual characteristics. One can be extremely mediocre or even magnificently incompetent by certain standards and still be considered great. One can be extremely competent by certain standards and not be considered great. That Manny Pacquiao is considered great is partly a function of his individual talent but it is also because someone with great talent in boxing can be considered great. Somebody who is equally or even more talented in something society considers more obscure like logrolling may never be considered great.
Each society (defined in terms of cultural politics) will have its own standards of greatness at particular points in time. These standards are not written down, even in popular forms (partly because to appear to seek to be great is a sure way of not being recognized in Philippine society) but those who are sufficiently socialized in the “right” circles know what these standards are. Most people have given up defining their lives in terms of greatness, content, perhaps, with merely seeking 15 minutes of fame because they know that they will never meet the standard for greatness.
Since greatness is socially bestowed, society frowns upon those who act as if they are great and insist upon their greatness without being affirmed as such by society. Filipinos use the word “feeling” to describe this conceit.
The task of a reflexive sociology, and the job of a reflexive society is to understand these standards of greatness, to clarify for society what its own standards for greatness are and to demonstrate how these standards result in particular ways of ordering societies and creating hierarchies, visibilities and invisibilities and all of those other things post-structuralists are concerned about. This will help individuals and collectivities locate themselves in terms of society’s standards and respond creatively to these standards which we live by.
(An old essay. Posting it again for a student)
No comments:
Post a Comment