Thursday, April 14, 2016

Artifact Analysis (People Power Movement)

Artifact Analysis

            The heart of the People Power Movement in the Philippines lies within Cory Aquino, widow to the beloved, and ultimately assassinated, Senator Ninoy Aquino. When Cory was essentially begged to run for president against incumbent President Ferdinand Marcos, Filipinos everywhere put their faith and loyalty in someone who was only well known because of her murdered husband (Mercado 54). Her campaign for presidency was fraught with attempted sabotage on the part of the Marcos government, especially on the days following the election when suspected voter fraud called into question the legitimacy of a self-reported Marcos’ win (Komisar 100). With this information, tensions began to rise; the effect was augmented by the defection of two high-level military executives within the Marcos government. They intended to expose the voting fraud that the ruling administration orchestrated to keep Marcos in power, risking their lives in the process (Mercado 103). Cory and her mentor Cardinal Sin began to urge their supporters to aid Minister Enrile and General Ramos by contributing food, supplies, and even just a supportive presence to the two men. The effect was beyond what both Cory and Cardinal Sin had imagined, their collective voice drawing millions of people to one of the largest streets in the Philippines’ capital of Manila; this was the essence of people power.
            Cory Aquino served as a symbol to rally behind, uniting the opposition against Marcos and his government cronies. Cory was chosen and ultimately followed by the people thanks to her image being irrevocably intertwined with the Catholic Church. Almost everything Cory said, did, or planned to do revolved around her faith during the highly publicized election. Although Cory was not consciously chosen to be the political symbol for the People Power Movement, her candidacy is nonetheless indicative of how deep faith runs within the Filipino community. It is interesting that the Church initially supported Marcos during his first term in the 1960s, both calling for social and economic reform that would aid poor agriculture workers. Marcos’ failure in tending to the needs of the lower class and his increasingly repressive style of leadership led the Church to be the foremost institution to turn its back on the Marcos government. Indeed, Cory’s sponsorship by the Church and her ultimate success “demonstrated the power and influence of the churches as institutions in Philippine society” (Youngblood, Marcos Against 7-8). Cory as a symbol came to exude ethos, pathos, and logos to her supporters, largely due to the unfailing faith shared by a great majority of Filipinos.
            The devout commitment to Catholicism that Cory was instilled with since childhood was a source of common ground that she could share with many of her supporters. At first glance, Cory does not exhibit ethos strictly as a politician. She was inexperienced, having never held a position in government herself. However, Cory was married to one of the most beloved senators of that time, Ninoy; this did wonders for her image as a green politician. Even more so, she was a “genuinely reluctant candidate” in terms of running for president, which was a breath of fresh air for the Filipinos who were sick of a leader that was power hungry in the most unabashed way (Buss 28). It was clear to her supporters that absolute control was not her goal in attaining the presidency, and her image of “integrity, her strength of character, and her charisma” helped to shape her public persona as the metaphorical saintly angel compared with Marcos’ evil devil (Buss 28). This dichotomy between the two candidates may seem hyperbolic, but in the eyes of the Filipino community, Cory “is herself a religious symbol who engenders respect and sympathy for her courage in standing up to the Marcos regime” (Youngblood, “Corazon Aquino ‘Miracle’” 1240). Her religious identity helped her to gain the confidence and support of her fellow countryman whose trust in her was based partially on her religion alone.
            Just having the support of the Catholic Church, an institution respected and oftentimes even revered for its outstanding morality, was enough for many Filipinos to support Cory’s candidacy. This was enhanced by the fact that she frequently referred to God and her religion publicly during speeches. When speaking about her husband’s incarceration and eventual assassination, Cory stated: “I was able to bear all the Lord’s heavy trials, [therefore] I will be able to face the challenges of our nation’s presidency” (Mercado 55). By implying that God was satisfied with her past reactions to His decisions, Cory is able to prove to other Filipinos that she has a relationship with God that has endured many hardships and yet continued to thrive. She is also implying here that God plays an integral role in her life, demonstrating to her supporters that as hard as the presidency will be, it is nothing compared to the past challenges God has given her. Invoking her religion, demonstrating that she has been and always will be devoutly faithful, resonates with the Filipino public. Essentially, her faith and the support she receives from its leaders during her campaign acts as the foundation for the trust that she builds with her supporters. The bribes and voter fraud that Marcos pursued in the name of reelection meant, arguably, nothing when compared with the tremendous power of common religious ground shared between Cory and the rest of the Filipino voters.
            A key fact that worked in Cory’s favor was her education. Although she did not have any political experience, she was educated at some of the most prestigious schools offered. While her education alone offers some credibility to her presidency, the fact that her education was faith based was that much more compelling to her audience. People knew that Cory had pursued high school and college in the United States, thanks to her aristocratic background, and that these schools were “good convent schools” (Mercado 55). People speculated that “[God] himself [had] shaped her and given her this fine education because she [was] to be a leader of her people” (Mercado 55).  Her education came as a result of her divine destiny, according to her followers, further entrenching their faith in her and in God.
            Concurrently, and almost paradoxically, Cory exuded pathos as the widow of an assassinated Senator. While she seemed strong in her determination to use her relationship with God to win the presidency, she was also pitied for losing a husband that everyone in the Philippines knew and loved. Cory often alluded to her husband in speeches, knowing that his name would galvanize her supporters. At one rally she commented, “my courage and strength will come from Ninoy and from all of you” (Mercado 55). By invoking her husband, she is reminding them that not only did she lose her husband to Marcos, but that all Filipinos collectively lost him as a nation too. Ninoy was Cory’s husband and a Filipino hero, so the tragedy and the pain that accompanied his death served as a way for Cory and her supporters to connect with one another on an emotional level.
Ninoy’s death served as a reminder of Marcos’ blatant disregard for the Filipinos’ faith and their wants/needs as a nation. In contrast, Cory made sure that all Filipinos knew that they were being heard: “The Filipino asked me for so little: freedom, dignity […] I have seen with my eyes what Ninoy saw with faith: that the Filipino is worth dying for” (Mercado 73). With this one statement, Cory is solidifying her persona as the political counterpart to Marcos. She is a politician that is in favor of the nation’s interests and not just in it for the power and prestige. Simultaneously, she is legitimizing the requests of the Filipinos, signaling to them that their demands are not outrageous and can be heard, appealing to them on an emotional level. By showing her true appreciation for the support that she received from all Filipinos, Cory successfully established a relationship with her followers that was symbiotic in nature. Those in the Catholic Church who supported Cory echoed this emotional sentiment; one first hand witness observed, “the nuns had told [Cory] they were ready to die to defend her” (Komisar 115). This complete devotion that not only the Church but also all Filipinos exhibited towards Cory served to solidify her identity as a divine symbol for freedom from the oppressive.
If logic is defined by the religious identity of Filipinos, then logic in this case would be appealing to and relying on God on a spiritual level. Using her religious background, Cory did just that privately and also publicly. Cory’s entire campaign was centered on God’s will for her to run, God’s will for a woman to be president, and God’s will for her to win the election. When discussing the voting fraud enacted by Marcos, Cory states “there comes a point when God’s power has to intervene […] we cannot win this without God’s help” (Mercado 56). Cory’s appeal to God must resonate with her supporters who also feel that ultimately, the success of their protest is in the hands of a higher power. If the purpose of using Cory as a symbol is to unify those who were simultaneously against Marcos and self-identified as Catholic, her invocation of and reliance on God in the name of freedom from oppression would be the best way to logically persuade her target audience.

Although Cory was not purposefully chosen to lead and spur on the People Power Movement, her presence and image as a devout Catholic, whose first goal was always to provide for her country, ended up being the right amount of driving force needed to get many Filipinos involved. With the Catholic Church’s participation and unending support, Cory used her identity as a Catholic to connect with voters on their most basic level. Her innate religious morality, the loss of her husband and the people’s senator, and her unceasing faith in God allowed her to overcome the dirty tactics used by Marcos to eventually win the presidency. Celebration in the streets of Manila erupted after it was announced that Marcos had fled the country to save his life. Arguably, the most interesting part of the entire ordeal actually occurred after Cory assumed the position of President, when the nation discovered that the problems left behind by Marcos ran deeper than anyone could have imagined.       

Works Cited:
Mercado, Monina A., and Francisco S. Tatad. People Power: The Philippine Revolution of 1986: An Eyewitness History. Manila, Philippines: James B. Reuter, S.J., Foundation, 1986. Print.
Youngblood, Robert L. Marcos Against the Church: Economic Development and Political Repression in the Philippines. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1990. Print.

Youngblood, Robert L. "The Corazon Aquino "Miracle" and the Philippine Churches." Asian Survey 27.12 (1987): 1240-255. University of California Press. Web. 2 Apr. 2016.

2 comments:

  1. *** Quick comment: What do you mean by “ultimately assassinated, Senator Ninoy Aquino”?
    The artifact analysis itself:
    1. Is it logically organized?
    I understood your main topic in the first paragraph, I understood that you were addressing the ethos, logos, and pathos of your protest by the second paragraph, and I can clearly see what your points are for each individual rhetorical strategy. In saying that, yes, I do think it is organized.
    2. Does it attend to the artifact’s immediate rhetorical situation?
    I think you hit the nail right on the head. You addressed the rhetorical situation in the first paragraph and expanded in the remaining paragraphs.
    3. Does it address the artifact’s rhetorical strategies?
    Yes, you addressed the Ethos, Logos, and Pathos.
    The artifact analysis with the context sections:
    1. Do the three sections form a more-or-less coherent whole?
    I think that the artifact analysis is coherent, fluent, and clear, the only thing I would say is that if you are going to make a statement, I would just make the statement, if that makes any sense? Like for example you state: “Concurrently, and almost paradoxically…” when I read that I got kind of confused because I’m not sure what you are trying to say or what kind of statement you are trying to make.
    2. Are the connections between the three sections clear? How much does the writer need to work to transitions between sections to make the paper cohere?
    I really don’t have any comments for this, I think your transitions were fluent and it was easy to read and know where I was at and what was being discussed.
    3. Are there contexts for the artifact that aren’t addressed by the context sections that a reader needs in order to understand the protest? To understand the artifact?
    You went over the history briefly and explained why the artifact is relevant to the protest and what she did that impacted the goal of Filipino society.
    Looking forward: what would you expect the conclusion to include?
    A. How would you expect the conclusion to assess the protest?
    An overview of the artifact and its purpose/achievement for the People’s Power Movement and why that artifact is an artifact. (Just basically an overview of what is being assessed in your analysis).
    Explicitly answer any questions the writer has left on his/her paper.
    I did not see any questions, but if you have any feel free to comment or email me!

    ReplyDelete
  2. 1. I think that your first paragraph here serves as a good transition from where you left us in your rhetorical section. I do think it was well organized. I liked that you used a person as your protest article, it is very effective.
    2. I think that you do a great job at explaining the article significance; the only thing I would suggest is making sure that you are not making the Catholic Church seem like another article of focus. Maybe it is how I am interpreting it, if so, disregard my comment :)
    3. I think the best way to conclude your paper would be to discuss the historical, social, and political consequences a little further with looking at what it is like now. In this section and the rhetorical section you have hinted at this, so maybe concluding it this way will tie it all together.
    4. If you need additional comments or suggestions, let us know. Overall, great job!

    ReplyDelete