Jejemons. Not my work....
A ‘WORLD’ ‘WORLD’ WITHIN THE THE WORLD: WORLD: THE JEJEMONS JEJEMONS AS THE ‘OTHER’ ‘OTHER’ CULTURE CULTURE
JOSEPH RICK CRUZ CATAAN
Submitted to the COLLEGE OF MASS COMMUNICATION University of the Philippines Diliman In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
BACHELOR BACHELOR OF ARTS IN BROADCAST BROADCAST COMMUNICATION COMMUNICATION
Marc March h 2011 2011
A ‘WORLD’ WITHIN THE WORLD: THE JEJEMONS AS THE ‘OTHER’ CULTURE
by JOSEPH RICK CRUZ CATAAN
has been approved for the degree of Bachelor of Arts in Broadcast Communication and for the University University of the Philippines College of Mass Communication Communication by
Eulalio R. Guieb Guieb III, Ph. D.
Professor Professor Rolando B. B. Tolentino, Tolentino, Ph. D. Dean, College of Mass Communication
BIOGRAPHICAL BIOGRAPHICAL DATA
PERSONAL DATA Name
Joseph Rick Cruz Cataan
Permanent Address
P5 B10 L3 Sta. Barbara Villas 1, Brgy. Silangan, San Mateo, Rizal
Mobile Number
(+63) 91687616567
Date & Place of Birth
16 August 1989, Quezon City
EDUCATION Secondary Level
Graduated with distinction, National Christian Life College, Marikina City
Primary Level
A1 student, Sto. Nino Elementary School, Marikina City
ORGANIZATIONS Campaign Campaign and Strategies Strategies Head, Student Allian Alliance ce for the Advancement of Democratic Rights in UP-CMC (STAND UP-CMC) Member, UP Mass Communicators Organization WORK EXPERIENCE Senior reporter, Kabataan News Network, 2005-2010 Radio & TV internship: internship: DZUP 1602 KHz, UNTV UNTV 37 ACHIEVEMENTS st
University scholar: AY 2007-2008, 1 semester. College scholar: AY 2007-2008, 2 2009, 2
nd
nd
semester, AY 2008st
semester, AY 2009-2010 2009-2010,, 1 semester
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to extend my deepest gratitude to Jejemaster Aris Bonifacio for his patience in many re-scheduling and late-night calls and text messages. Thank you so much, Prof. Eli Guieb III for the lessons about the research to learning of life. Thank you for the confusions, without which there is no clarity. No one else comes close to you. To Prof. Data Tolentino-Canlas, thank you for being my pseudo-adviser. You are beautiful. Thank you UP Centennial Dormitory, for my exemptions to the curfew. I am also grateful to myself. You are the best research partner ever! To all my blockmates, especially “Badets and Friends”, for the unending care and love. Salamat. Thank you Mom, for the hot pandesals and coffee every day and night. Thank you for the prayers. I love you. Thank you Dad, for the hot pancit with litson and the words of wisdom all the time. Thank you for the life, and the love, and for believing in me. To you, who see me in a very special way amidst the sea of faces, thank you. This research is dedicated to all the Loves that bring us to life (The Love of Siam, 2006).
DEDICATION From You, to You.
ABSTRACT Cataan, J. C. (2011). A ‘World’ Within the World: The Jejemons as the ‘Other’ Culture, Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis, University of the Philippines College of Mass Communication. This research entitled A ‘World’ Within the World: The Jejemons as the ‘Other’ Culture gives a basic picture of the Jejemon phenomenon. I start with criticizing the concept of ‘subculture’ and establish its difference with ‘sub-culture’. I consistently use the latter throughout the research. This study explores beyond the empowerment-resistance model of many previous studies, as it coins an original concept of ‘Jejemony’ or Jejemons’ alternative hegemony. It also raises a relevant research problem on how Jejemons apply ‘Jejemony’ in their everyday life as a form of resistance and style. To ground this research, the review of related literature traces the roots of the concept ‘subculture’. As the years progress, the concept suffers some relevant critiques such as extreme empiricism, its liberal application to any phenomenon, and the neglect and failure to always relate to class and ethnicity. At the end of the review, it directs the research to coin a new term that is more fitting with the emerging sub-cultures in the Philippines and in the world. In the Philippine popular culture scene, the most interesting ‘subculture’ to date is the Jejemonsters or simply Jejemons. In a short span of time, they have proven the strength of a subordinate culture to fit into the nation’s state of affairs and the mainstream media as evident with GMA Network’s show, Jejemom. I use participant observation as the primary method in studying the phenomenon. I spent five weeks researching in the field, living with the Jejemons and as a Jejemon. This research is written in two languages, English and Jejenese, the Jejemons’ language. The former serves as the main text.
Keywords: culture, class, ideology, Jejemons, subculture, sub-culture, media
ABSTRAKT Cataan, J. C. (2011). Ang ‘Mundo’ sa Loob ng Mundo: Ang mga Jejemon bilang ‘Ibang’ Kultura, Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis, Unibersidad ng Pilipinas Kolehiyo ng
Pangmadlang Komunikasyon.
Ang pananaliksik na ito na pinamagatang Ang ‘Mundo’ sa Loob ng Mundo: Ang mga Jejemon bilang ‘Ibang’ Kultura ay nagbibigay ng paunang larawan sa subkulturang Jejemon.
Inumpisahan ko ang pananaliksik sa pagkritik sa konsepto ng ‘subkultura’, at ipinaliwanag ang kaibahan nito sa ‘sub-kultura’. Ang huli ay ang gagamiting konsepto sa buong pananaliksik. Ang pananaliksik na ito ay mas malalim kumpara sa modelong ‘pag-igpaw-paglaban’ ng maraming mga nakaraang pag-aaral, kasabay nito ang pagbibigay ng bagong terminolohiya na tatawaging ‘Jejemony’ o alternatibong hegemonya o gahum ng mga Jejemon. Itinatanong rin ng pananaliksik kung paano ginagamit ng mga Jejemon ang konsepto ng ‘Jejemony’ sa kanilang pang-araw-araw na buhay bilang porma ng pagtutol at estilo. Upang pagtibayin ang pananaliksik, binalikan ng nag-aaral ang ugat ng konsepto ng subkultura na sa paglaon ay nagtamo ng ilang kritisismo tulad ng lubos na pagiging praktikal, ang maluwag na paggamit ng teorya sa anumang isyu, at ang paglimot at kamalian sa paguugnay nito sa mga uri sa lipunan at kultura. Sa katapusan ng pananaliksik, nananawagan ito na humanap o lumikha ng bagong salitang maaaring ipalit sa salitang ‘subkultura’. Sa usapin ng kulturang popular sa Pilipinas, ang pinakasikat na ‘subkultura’ sa kasalukuyan ay ang mga Jejemonster o mga Jejemon. Sa maikling panahon, napatunayan nila ang lakas ng ‘subkultura’ upang maimpluwensiyahan ang mga pambansang usapin at media gaya ng makikita sa palabas ng GMA Network na pinamagatang Jejemom. Sa pagpapatuloy ng pananaliksik, ginamit ko ang participant observation upang pagaralan ang ‘subkultura’. Sa loob ng limang linggo, nakipamuhay ako, sumama at naging isang Jejemon. Ang pananaliksik na ito ay isinulat sa wikang Ingles at Jejenese, ang wika ng mga Jejemon. Ang wikang Ingles ang siyang pangunahing teksto.
Keywords: kultura, uri, ideyolohiya, Jejemon, subkutura, sub-kultura, media
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Title Page
i
Approval Sheet
ii
Biographical Data
iii
Acknowledgment
iv
Dedication
v
Abstract
vi
Abstrakt
vii
Table of Contents
viii
Lists of Tables and Pictures
x
CHAPTER 1: Here comes the tollgate: An introduction
2
CHAPTER 2: Entering the subway: the ‘subculture’ theory,
8
its status and critiques
The Chicago made a bull’s eye: the origins of the ‘subculture’ theory
9
Can Mr. Webster do this?: defining the term ‘subculture’
11
Detour ahead: a critique of the concept of subculture
11
Under construction: sorry for the inconvenience: The Birmingham School Tradition and ‘subculture’ study
14
‘Subcultures’ in the Philippines
15
Not so far: the alternatives to ‘subculture’
17
‘Subculture’ vis-à-vis sub-culture
18
CHAPTER 3: No swerving: the rise of Jejemons
22
Defining a Jejemon
22
Origin of the term Jejemon
22
Jeje + webmaster = Jejemaster
24
The Jejefriends
25
CHAPTER 4: Entering a ‘world’ within the world: The Jejeworld
30
The new Jejemon in town
32
Jejemons’ codes and ‘style’
32
The Jejetext
35
The Jejelevels: the measure of a true Jejemon
36
Eow pFhOwzH: textmates to remember
37
The Jejefashion
39
The Jejemons’ ideology and alternative hegemony
41
CHAPTER 5: The Jejebusters and other forms of jejebusting
45
Institutions of jejebusting
45
Other forms of jejebusting
48
Jejemons and representation on TV
51
CHAPTER 6: From subway to the main road: The Jejemons’ ambivalent returns
55
The Jejemons are here to stay
55
The Jejemons’ ambivalent returns
57
It’s a joyride!: a ‘journey’ to remember
59
References
61
Appendices Photo credits
65
Interview guide questions for Jejemaster
66
Interview guide questions for Jejemons
67
Consent forms
68
Version 1: The thesis in English
List of tables and photos
Tables
Table 1 - Alphabet vis-à-vis Jejebet
35
Table 2: Levels of Jejetext
36
Photographs
Photo 1: I am with Jejemaster Aris Bonifacio during my interview with him in The Old Spaghetti House, Walter Mart Pasong Tamo, December 28, 2010
24
Photo 2: Sherwin and Ryan, during our snacks in Greenwich SM Fairview
26
Photo 3: Kath, Princess and Nina, during our snacks in Greenwich SM Fairview
27
Photo 4: Jejefriends and me
28
Photo 5: My Jejefriends, Ryan, Kath, Nina, Princess and Sherwin, in their Jejeposes
33
Photo 6: Screen shots of Jejetext (from left: A, B and C). D: Screen shot of my reply to C 38 Photo 7: The Jejecap (Photo by Boy Banat, 2010)
39
Photo 8: Screen shot of Jejemon in Jejeform (from the show Saksi, GMANews.tv, 2010) 40 Photo 9: Screenshot of Jing Gaddi’s status on Facebook as he coins the term ‘Jejemony’ 42 Photo 10: A newspaper headline on DepEd’s campaign against Jejemons (Photo by Boy Banat, 2010)
46
Photo 11: Jejeresume (Photo by BoyBanat.com, 2010)
48
Photo 12: Jejesuicide letter (Photo courtesy of BoyBanat.com)
50
J. C Cataan
Field note entry dated October 5, 2010 Location: Alva Photocopying and Printing Stall, Shopping Center, UP Diliman Joseph:
Ate, pa-print po. Inabot ko na ang USB ko.
Ate:
Anong filename?
Joseph:
Ito po. Itinuro ko ang filename na JejeProposal-FINAL.docx.
Ate:
Binuksan ni Ate ang file.
Ganito ba talaga ‘to? Sabay turo sa Jejenese version ng aking title page
Joseph: Ate:
Opo. Jejenese po ‘yan, language ng mga Jejemon. Natawa.
Ah! Akala ko virus eh. Tumawa ulit.
1
J. C Cataan
2
CHAPTER 1 Here comes the tollgate: An introduction Like imperfect clay in potter’s hands, this research breaks me into pieces. Through this, I walked through ‘places’ and ‘spaces’ I never knew before. I experience confusions, theoretical and ideological dilemma, and eventually, I leave behind and pick up some pieces of me that make a new, and perhaps better ‘Joseph Cataan’. Let me begin with setting the objectives, rationale, scopes and limitations of this research. Alongside is my dissent on the issue that this research is not a broadcast study. We study and do research not to please others, but to unearth the most possible truth and break the bonds of ignorance and falsity. Based on what I have observed in the archives of the U.P. College of Mass Communication library, it is very evident that theses and dissertations in the Broadcast Department tackled on analyses and critiques to either television or radio programs, with a little number on the internet as a communication tool. Thus, when this research is being proposed, it 1
suffered unfair reviews and criticisms which led to saying that this is not a broadcast study. But the initial question that I ask, what does it really mean to have a broadcast study? The theses and dissertations made by previous Broadcast majors in the College are similar in two things. First, the medium is critiqued from the outsider’s point of view. Second, the medium is the central text of the research. These observations led me to the second inquiry: would it still be a broadcast study if the medium is not the central text anymore? In my research, media is not the central text or the producers of the meaning of texts, but rather the receivers and reactors. This study deviates from many ‘template’ broadcast studies mentioned above. The focal point here is a group of people: a so-called ‘subculture’ or sub2
culture that was able to counter the dominant culture in the society. They have been able also to occupy small ‘spaces’ in the mainstream media.
1 2
Sources are withheld. The difference of subculture and sub-culture (with a hyphen) is discussed in the succeeding chapter.
J. C Cataan
3
This research may be different from previous studies mentioned earlier but this surely contributes to the Department’s establishment of its distinct school of thought for others to follow. I see and read Jejemons as a text, a communication text, and I try to capture their message. This research aims to study the Jejemon sub-culture as a related-media and anthropological phenomenon, to update the record of existing sub-cultures that evolve and vanish through time, and to study the interplay of classes involved in the phenomenon. It is also the first of its kind to critically study the Jejemon phenomenon and write the final research output in Jejenese, the language of the ‘researched’. I believe that the Jejemons must be the first to understand the studies about them. I use the ‘Jejetranslator’ of Jejemaster Aries Bonifacio for the version 2 of this research, the thesis is Jejenese. The back-to-back design of this thesis is an assertion of the language as well. It shows the opposition between the mainstream and the sub-culture’s language. This physical design necessitates the reader to choose between the two languages. He or she experiences a simultaneous accommodation and resistance to either language, since the other language is in its inverted position, when the other one is being read. My research engages a key intersection in studies of media and culture. Using the ‘subculture’ theory distinctly formulated by the Schools of Chicago and Birmingham, I problematize the crisis that hounds the concept of ‘subculture’. The lax usage of the term (see Chapter 2) led to confusions and many critique of social scientists along the way. Based on the traditional definitions of ‘subculture’ that I discuss in the next chapter, the Jejemons are undeniably a ‘subculture’, especially when Gordon (1947) provides the ‘indicators’ of such, namely, clothes and speech. However, this study proves that the Jejemons are beyond a ‘subculture’ in its truest sense. This further recommends a re-shaping of the term that would solve the terminology crisis and eventually calls to coin a better term in the future that will fit into the emerging ‘subcultures’. In an ethnographic lens, this research looks and studies the socially stratified struggle, Jejemons’ distinct culture as a social process and their ideology as a ‘subculture’ outlook. Third, this explores the so-called ‘Jejemony’ (J. Gaddi, personal communication, 2010) or Jejemons’ alternative hegemony. Through ‘Jejemony’, it answers how the Jejemon phenomenon provides representation and identity to many Filipino youth nowadays
J. C Cataan
4
in the midst of a strong demand for conformity in society. Jejemons, though a sub-culture is also a hegemony, an alternative hegemony for that matter and at the same time a ‘revolutionary activity’ (Gramci, in Williams, 1992). Fourth, as it continues the ethnographic approach through participant observation, this probes the Jejemons’ internal symbols, meanings and styles, as defined by Dick Hebdige (1979). Fifth, this research answers the question, are there really Jejemons? If there are, how are the actual Jejemons different from media-represented ones? Lastly, why does this sub-culture exist in this period of our time? This study is significant because it studies how Jejemons, through their use of style, culture and ideology, counter and alter the current social order and perceive themselves and the world. Also, this study works in an unexplored area of ethnographic studies called by Das and Poole (2004) as ‘anthropology of the state’. This study particularizes on ‘state margins’ which says that the ethnographic study of the ‘primitives’ should include the ‘state’ in the study and its order-making function simply because the state has a lot of influence in the existence and reactions of sub-cultures. The ‘primitives’, when they do not cooperate are ‘othered’ by the state, and cast to its margins. The state, beyond geographic margins, has social margins as well. In these margins, the role of an anthropologist is to find these ‘margins’, dig beyond the surface and unearth sites of disorder where the state has been unable to impose its order (p. 6). In the outskirts of social margin, we can find a sub-culture. This research, all the same, admits some limitations on its methods and analysis. Due to subculture’s rapid development brought about by the demand to maintain their existence, there are geographic and cultural divisions within the Jejemon sub-culture. This study places its focus on one particular group of Jejemons and does not at large represent the entire Jejemon subculture members and perspectives in the Philippines. This research recognizes the factions within the sub-culture. As a ‘world’ within the world but is indeed a ‘world’ by and in itself (Gordon, 1947), I try to comprehend the basic picture of this ‘world’ while making a clear distinction between separate ‘subcultures’ and separate units of the same ‘subculture’. There are a lot more facets of this ‘world’ that need to be explored but I opted to focus on power relations within and outside this ‘world’, the
J. C Cataan
5
‘reproduction’, ‘living’ and ‘fatality’ of its ‘citizens’, and the possible extinction of the ‘world’ itself (p. 41, 42). The use of English, on the other hand, as the primary language of this research, even in its Jejenese translation is my personal preference. Though it is odd because the Jejemons do not communicate in English-Jejenese, I believe that I am more comfortable in expressing myself, my viewpoints and arguments in English. Perhaps, in the future, I can provide a Filipino translation of this research. My status as an intellectual from a renowned university in the Philippines makes my access to the Jejemon ‘subculture’ difficult. During observations and interviews, there were resistance from the Jejemons such as withholding answers or not answering at all. However, this resistance was understandable because five weeks is insufficient to remove their perceived difference from me. There is also a question of sincerity on why I am studying their ‘subculture’. By contrast, contrast, I believe that this is the usual reaction reaction of any group, group, whether ‘subculture ‘subculture’’ or not, when others seek to represent represent their lifestyle or lives in general. general. I spent five weeks, from December 20, 2010 to January 21, 2011 researching in the field. The choice choice of date is due due to the thesis thesis phasing phasing and at the same same time the the Christmas Christmas break. I carried out one informal and semi-structured interview with Jejemaster Aris Bonifacio, as well as five informal, unstructured unstructured interviews interviews with the Jejemons who volunteered volunteered to be interviewed. interviewed. The general themes discussed in interviews consisted of the general information about their ‘world’, and how joining the Jejemon ‘subculture’ ‘subculture’ changed their everyday everyday lives. In the data analysis, I primarily utilize my ethnographic ethnographic field notes during my several several visits and participant participant observation observation with the Jejemon. My assumptions and arguments are mainly based on interactions, observations and questions that arise in my mind during the said immersion period. The research data, such as transcripts and field notes that I have gathered during the immersion period are stored in a vault that can be accessed by me and my adviser. Anyone who wishes to have access access to it must ask permission from me and my adviser, adviser, or any authorized professor of the Department of Broadcast Communication of the University of the Philippines Diliman. Proper university procedures must also be followed to gain access to the data. This research is inspired by a classic book Learning to Labour by Paul Willis (1977). He worked ethnographically with the middle-class youth students of Hammertown School in West
J. C Cataan
6
Midlands. He discovers discovers that the School is divided into two factions, the so-called ‘earoles’ ‘earoles’ or the conformists and the ‘lads’ or the non-conformists. The ‘earoles’ follow the School and undergo ‘counselling’ ‘counselling’ on careers that they would get get in the future, while while the ‘lads’ opt opt to disobey the School by not following the proper dress code and getting ‘menial’ (rather than mental) jobs, during their apprenticeship. apprenticeship. He furthermore furthermore presents his paper in the ‘words’ of the ‘lads’. My critique, however, on Willis’s paper can be found in the next chapter. Finally, before the common theories that we study in the Department, we must realize that media, in the first place, is cultural (Sturken and Cartwright, 2001). We would fail to reach the crux of our studies if we do not acknowledge this fact. I contend that it is only through cultural studies can the Broadcast Department establish its own school of thought. If the Journalism Department has its investigative journalism, we, in the Broadcast Department, must have cultural studies—not studies—not only mere cultural studies following following the ‘dead white males’ of western schools of thought, but a Philippine cultural and critical studies that will enrich our own literature and will be followed by the future intellectuals in the country. It is the changing times that call us out from those former former types of studies into cultural and critical studies. To block the floodways of knowledge is the gravest transgression one can commit in a free academic community. For decades, we have been scratching the surface of media studies and we must now go deeper. This research, research, as it is bound today, expresses expresses that a sub-cultural and cultural cultural study has a rightful place in media media studies, if not one of the most important but neglected facet. facet. This research attempts to re-present re-present the ‘mass’ ‘mass’ in mass communication-communication-- to immerse ourselves ourselves with with the masses and to offer this small piece of knowledge for them to whom we owe its very existence. In the next chapter, I synthesize the broad literary tradition related to culture and ‘subculture’. ‘subculture’. I maximize maximize archival archival works such as defining the terms, terms, tracing the historical historical and ideological ideological foundations foundations of the concepts, concepts, and considering considering the literatures, literatures, their critiques, critiques, that have been done with regard regard to ‘subculture’ and the Jejemons. It is important to equip myself before entering a ‘world’ that is ‘miles’ away from my ‘world’.
J. C Cataan
“Mula dito sa bus na sinasakyan ko papunta sa tambayan ng mga Jejemon sa Fairview, tanaw ko ang maraming tao. Marami silang ginagawa. Iba’t iba ang galaw ng mga katawan. Iba’t iba ang kumpas ng mga kamay. Hindi ko namamalayan, binabasa ko na pala sila bilang mga teksto.” –Field note, Jan. 7, 2011
7
J. C Cataan
8
CHAPTER 2 Entering the subway: the ‘subculture’ theory and its critiques The following review of related literature contains diverse definitions of the term ‘subculture’, as well as different studies and researches applying the concept, mainly from Chicago and Birmingham Schools. The Chicago School is a collective term which refers to several generations of sociologists who shared certain concerns and perspectives about society and culture, many of whom either taught or were trained in the Sociology department of the University of Chicago. The School’s contribution to the rich theory is its kind of ‘urban micro-sociology’ which pays “attention to the interaction of people’s perceptions of themselves with others’ view of them” (Gelder and Thornton, p. 11). On the other hand, the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies at Birmingham University (CCCS), or widely known as the Birmingham School, was established in the mid1970s and closed in the year 2002 (Gelder, 2005, p. 81). The two schools have distinct ways of looking at ‘subcultures’. While Chicago sees the ‘subculture’ phenomenon at a broader context, the Birmingham School decides to focus on ‘youth subcultures’ and relate them to the broader context of society. If the Chicago School starts the pursuit on knowledge about ‘subculture’, the Birmingham School ends it by paving the way for the era of so-called ‘post-subculture’.
3
The
latter School argues that times are changing, and the concept of ‘subculture’ cannot accommodate the diversity of social ‘groups’ anymore. But even before the two Schools have been able to establish their own schools of thought, the so-called ‘precursor of subculture’ has been laid down first by many social scientists (Gelder, 2005). These ‘precursors’ eventually play a big role for the stronger foundation of the ‘subculture’ theory. Bourdieu, for instance, discusses the concept of ‘field’. It refers to “the various spheres of life, art, science, religion, the economy, the law, politics, etc., that tend to form distinct
3
Ken Gelder (2005) labels them as ‘post-structuralist’, or those who depart from the Birmingham School.
J. C Cataan
microcosms endowed with their own rules, regularities, and forms of authority” (in Wacquant, 2006, p. 7). A ‘field’ is an arena of struggle through which agents and institutions seek to preserve or overturn the existing distribution of capital. It is also a ‘battlefield’ wherein the bases of identity and hierarchy are endlessly disputed over (Bourdieu, in Wacquant, 2006). The ‘fields’ are shortlived, however. These are historical constellations that arise, grow, change shape, and sometimes wane or perish, over time (p. 8). Turner (1969) also influentially talks about ‘communitas’. He defines it as “against 4
‘structure’, an expression of liminality , of social marginality, and difference; a site of unmediated contact between people at the edges of society, unregulated by it, and free from its orderly gaze, a realm of full and ‘total’ experience” (in Gelder, 2005, p. 10). But Park, et al. (1915) dissent to the concept of ‘community’ because they believe that a community is not only a collection of people, but it is a collection of institution… Every single community is always a part of some larger and more inclusive one… The ultimate community is the wide world (in Gelder, 2005, p. 8). Long before the term ‘subculture’ was available for us to freely use, the term was considered hallow in the pillars of the so-called ‘American sociology’ (Smith in Thornton, 1997), which I discuss below.
The Chicago made a bull’s eye: the origins of the ‘subculture’ theory The Chicago School of Sociology officially coins the term ‘subculture’ in the 1940s (Thornton, p. 11), but even before the term was coined, Robert Park (1915) calls it ‘social groups’. He explains that these groups compose our ‘city’. We mold our own societal standards and norms (p. 16). Through interactions, we create discourses. In these meaningful discourses, we create the world where we are now (p. 17). Park, even so, neglects to see the power relations and class struggle in society.
4
The concept of ‘liminality’ is used again in the latter part of this research.
9
J. C Cataan
10
Paul Cressey (1932), on the other hand, thought of ‘deviant groups’. His study on 5
‘deviance’ refers to the ‘taxi-dancers’ in American cities in the early 1930s. He believes that these groups that transgress the norm do not necessarily experience a moral decline but rather go through a downward social and cultural mobility (p. 28). He contends that a departure to the so6
called ‘parent culture’ in search of one’s own identity and expression does not equate to losing the values, morals and virtues imparted by the said culture. Such ‘delinquency’ instead is temporary and just a spur of social conditions of the times. The School seems to have a problem with the term ‘deviant’ and ‘delinquent’, since ‘groupings’ in society do not just happen as a form of delinquency. The School turns to Cohen’s (1955) explanation that “all human actions…” including 7
delinquency and deviance, are “an on-going series of efforts to solve problems.” These problems ask for an ‘action’. When an ‘action’ becomes unsuccessful and generates another ‘problem’, this problem demands and “presses for novel solutions” (p. 44). Cohen (1955) convinces the Chicago School. They incorporate Cressey’s (1932) concept of ‘downward mobility’, that ‘taxi-dancers’ live ‘dual lives’ without detection since they are in the ‘underground’ employment and in the ‘subway’ of economy. Finally, the School conceive the term ‘subculture’. For the Chicago School, ‘subcultures’ are always in the underground, digging down their own world. They always perceive them as ‘deviants’ who rejects the current order of society to which they belong. After tracing the roots of the term ‘subculture’, let us dig deeper by probing the diverse definitions of the word.
5
Taxi-dancers were girls who dance with any man who is willing to pay for her charges. The girls were called ‘taxidancers’ because like the taxi driver and his cab, they were for hire and paid in proportion to the time spent and the services rendered (Cressey, 1932, p. 28). 6 Parent culture, according to Phil Cohen (1972), is the ‘original’ culture that one deviates from when he or she moves to a ‘subculture’. 7 Cohen said that ‘problems’ are tensions, disequilibrium and challenges that people face in the society.
J. C Cataan
11
Can Mr. Webster do this?: defining the term ‘subculture’ Cressey’s (1932) concept of being ‘underground’ is just one of many definitions given by the Chicago School to the flourishing concept of ‘subculture’. Together with Park (1915) and Cohen (1955), they have established a stronger ‘precursor’ for the concept of ‘subculture’. Becker (1963) ascribes his analysis on the ‘jazz musicians’. His theory is an intersection of the culture of ‘deviance’ (see Cressey, 1932), and the problem-solving function of ‘subcultures’ (see Cohen, 1955). He argues that a ‘subculture’ is a way of life (p. 55). It is stable and long-lasting. When these ‘deviant people’ interact, they develop a culture that solves their ‘problem’. He culminates in telling us that since “these (developed) cultures operate within, and in distinction to, the culture of the larger society, they are often called subcultures” (p. 56). Indeed, the Chicago School has a huge role in the early days of ‘subculture’ studies. We can see from their analyses that ‘subcultures’ are in the most hidden, dark, and unnoticed spaces of society. The School’s strength in theorizing and studying ‘subcultures’ first hand through ethnography paves way for the eventual growth of the Birmingham School, which I will discuss in succeeding subjects of this chapter. Before that, let me first elaborate on the critique encountered by the Chicago School that dilutes the sternness of the concept of ‘subculture’. This also helps us to make sense of the vast understanding about ‘subculture’.
Detour ahead: a critique of the concept of subculture The Chicago School is indeed rigorous in developing the ‘subculture’ theory. This positive outlook on the new concept led to diverse definitions that only the broadest and most basic of definitions would accommodate the rich range of theory and research (Thornton, 1997). All would probably agree that subcultures are groups of people that have something in common with each other (i.e., they share the same problem, an interest, a practice) which distinguishes them in a significant way from the members of other social groups. But this description holds true equally for many other kinds of group (Thornton, 1997, p. 1). What is distinct, however, in the term ‘subculture’ is its very prefix ‘sub’, which
J. C Cataan
12
…ascribes a lower or secondary rank to the entity it modifies. This gives us a clue to one of the main assumptions of this tradition of scholarship—namely, that the social groups investigated in the name of subcultures are subordinate, subaltern or subterranean (Thornton, 1997, p. 4). The liberal use of the term ‘subculture’ is critiqued by Irwin (1970) whom I discuss further in the coming paragraphs. He affirms that not every ‘group’ in society is a ‘subculture’. It is only the social scientists and researchers who give them this category. Another problem is the theorists’ ‘empowerment-resistance’ template in the use of ‘subculture’ theory. Break (1985) studies and compares different youth culture and subcultures in America, Britain and Canada. His works are one of the cornerstones of these studies in the West. His works, however, revolve only in studying the prejudices, resistance and how these subcultures counter the dominant culture. Willis (1977) studies the Hammertown School and the emerging ‘class culture’ in the capitalist setting, and finds out that this ‘subculture’, at the end of the day, only replicates the dominant social structure. His pessimistic view on ‘subcultures’ convinces many that the “subcultural empowerment is empowerment without a future” (in Gelder, 2005, p. 87). Young (1971) feels tired of the ‘empowerment-resistance’ models of the previous studies on ‘subcultures’. He states that ‘subculture’ or, in his words, the ‘subterranean world’, “does not exist in a vacuum, they are a product of or a reaction to social forces in the world outside” (p. 71). He asserts that ‘subcultures’ cannot be understood in isolation to its social milieu. They have “to be sought in the context of the group’s values and world view” (in Gelder and Thornton, 1997, p. 71). As the time progresses, the ‘subculture’ theory in its empowerment-resistance model of studies are criticized in more considerable points. John Irwin (1970), also from the Chicago School, debates to “re-examine our notions of subcultures” because “there have been significant shifts in the phenomenon to which ‘subculture’ refers” (p. 66). The rapid development of cultures and ‘subcultures’ almost made the word ‘subculture’ obsolete. He starts with the definition of ‘subculture’.
J. C Cataan
13
8
He contends that a ‘subculture’ is not just the group but also the patterns carried by the group. Second, he questions the ‘cognitive’ status of the concept in the minds of its carriers that the School neglects to raise for years. Third, he goes on in saying that society “cannot be divided into cultural units because it is arbitrary and variables applied do not necessarily relate to other subsystems” (p.66). Therefore, one must not mistakenly point any random division in society as automatically a ‘subculture’. These are not necessarily ‘subcultures’ except the social scientist applying these variables (Irwin, in Gelder and Thornton, 1997, p. 67). His critique lies in the social scientists’ judgment and taste. He adds that our hasty generalization is dangerous. Because of the vagueness of the term ‘subculture’, Tamatsu Shibutani (1955) do not use the term in his studies, but he suggests that groups “should be viewed as reference worlds or social worlds which are not tied to any particular collectivity or territory”. He also points out that “persons could simultaneously or alternately identify with more than one social world” (Irwin, in Gelder and Thornton, 1997, p. 68). He asserts that to associate a person within only one group, in this matter, as a part of only one ‘subculture’, would be problematic. In the masteral dissertation of Burgess (2004), he argues that the extent of methodologies and conceptual frameworks used to understand popular culture can also be used to understand contemporary high culture. He concludes that although Brisbane’s music scene is not as intense or pervasive as in the case with the most researched street-based youth ‘subcultures’, it is, nevertheless a ‘subculture’. He also debunks the notion of prior studies that the ‘subculture’ theory is always for the subordinate and those who are in the ‘subway’ and ‘underground’. He shows that the theories and methodologies are also applicable even to high culture. The elite culture, therefore, can also be a ‘subculture’. It can be understood that through the creation of ‘subcultures’, whether ‘low’ or ‘high’, seemingly creates ‘social’ layers of different ‘subcultures’ that simultaneously submerge and counter each other. Burgess’s study is a crucial point in the ‘subculture’ theory since it proves that regardless of class, ethnicity, age, among others, people can create and be part of a ‘subculture’. ‘Subcultures’, in this regard, are not just for the subordinates and the oppressed.
8
Though not explicitly explained by Irwin, ‘patterns’ here, I believe, refer to cultural patterns carried out by the ‘subculture’ that are unique and apart from its ‘parent culture’. Examples are speech and clothing that is reaffirmed by Gordon (1947) as the main indicators of a ‘subculture’.
J. C Cataan
14
In the turnings of knowledge, it also shows that while the term ‘subculture’ is accommodating, it is also confusing. This leads the call to eventually coin a new term, a more neutral and fitting term that can cope with the fast development of the concept of ‘world’ according to Gordon (1947), the ‘social world or collectivity’ of Shibutani (1955) and Young’s (1971) ‘subterranean world’. This hope lives on in the rise of another School, namely, the Birmingham School that promises a more in-depth, culture-specific and narrowed-down analyses on ‘subcultures’. The School continues to use the term, but restores it conservative usage, and relate it to youth ‘subcultures’ and class.
Under construction: sorry for the inconvenience: The Birmingham School Tradition and ‘subculture’ study After we tackle the critiques received by the Chicago School on the concept of ‘subculture’, it is important to look at other schools of thought on ‘subculture’. The researchers of the Birmingham School focus particularly on the category of ‘youth subcultures’. Using some of Marx’s lens of analyses, they see the link between ‘ideology and form’. Ideology refers to ‘subculture’s’ outlook while form pertains to the physical spectacle of the ‘subculture’ members. These concepts are located in connection with the dominant culture 9
and class subordination of the ‘working class’ (Gelder and Thornton, 1997, p. 83). In the early days of the School, the researchers continued and contributed to the ‘subculture’ work of the Chicago School. Cohen (1972) studies the youth ‘subculture’ related to middle working-class in East End London. He argues that youth ‘subcultures’ are a kind of symptom of a class in decline. He adds that when this class undergoes changes, and the ‘parent culture’ is no longer cohesive, the working-class youth responds by becoming ‘subcultural’”. As a form of expression (such as the 10
look of the skinhead ), a ‘subculture’ resolves the crisis of class, since the youth, through their looks, are no longer identifiable as working class. Cohen, in his obvious sceptic remark on middle working-class ‘subculture’, believes that although they ‘win space’ for themselves, they 9
In their times, working class was called the ‘parent culture’ of many youth, and the dominant culture are those who were economically and politically ‘above’ the working class. 10 A study about ‘skinheads’ by P angilinan (2001) will be discussed in the section about Philippine ‘subcultures’, also in this chapter.
J. C Cataan
15
still have no future because they identify their resistance in the leisure world more than the work place (in Gelder, 1997, p. 84, 85). Clarke, et al., (1975) emphasize ‘resistance’, giving ‘subcultures’ a sense of agency. However, reaffirming Cohen (1972), they point out that ‘subcultures’ are fated to fail, because their struggle and resistance are only limited to the ‘symbolic’ level. They have no ‘political’ solutions to the problems they are trying to solve (p. 104). Garber and McRobbie (1975) propose a very different perspective with regard to ‘subculture’. They observe that youth ‘subculture’ studies tend to lean with boys, and neglects the role of girls. Their work finds out the ‘subculture’ spaces for girls. Here, the authors do not lead us to class analysis, but how ‘subcultures’ affect gender, and vice versa. Two years after Clarke, et al. (1975), Willis (1977) enters and writes his famous classic Learning to Labour , which I have mentioned a while ago. His ethnographic research echoes the
analysis of Clarke, et al. (1975) that ‘subcultures’ have no future (Gelder, 1997). Setting his analysis apart from the others, Hebdige (1979) analyses the punks in Britain in the late 1970s. He looks at them through ethnicity more than class. He coins the term ‘style’ and uses it to refer to something that “stands apart—a visible construction, a loaded choice. It directs attention to itself; it gives itself to be read” (p. 134). It is a type of ‘intentional communication’ that sets the ‘subculture’ apart from the rest. His concept of ‘style’, moreover, is relevant because despite the crisis in the definition of ‘subculture’, he clearly distinguishes how a ‘group’ becomes a ‘subculture’ or not. The five works that I mention above are the most relevant and famous works of the Birmingham School. It is good to point out here that the School has a consensus that ‘subcultures’ have their limitations, that they can only do so much to change the course of their lives. However, the light is seen again when the School culminates in saying that youth ‘subcultures’ are just representations of a larger aspect of society (Gelder, p. 89). I now turn to scholarship about ‘subcultures’ in the Philippines.
‘Subcultures’ in the Philippines There are a lot of Western researches, articles and journals that tackle and use the concept of ‘subculture’ in discussing social phenomena. Just like any academic work, I acknowledge that
J. C Cataan
16
many Western literatures have been written relative to the social, economic and political set up of their respective societies when they were written. Therefore, it is helpful to carry on with the current literature about ‘subcultures’ and Jejemons in the Philippine setting. There is a very limited literature that deals with Jejemons since it is a new ‘subculture’. Also, few have been known about the Philippine subcultures, except perhaps for Pangilinan (2001). In the undergraduate thesis of Pangilinan (2001), he studies the skinheads
11
in the
Philippines in comparison to those in Britain. Using ethnography, he narrates the selected stories of skinheads in the Philippines and how they curve their own everyday experiences within the skinhead ‘subculture’. He proves that ‘subculture’ is a lifestyle. However, the empowerment that Pangilinan gives to the Filipino skinheads is overwhelming. Through traditional class analysis, he sees that these skinheads aim for changes in society, but he neglects to see that this ‘subculture’ does not reflect on its own class consciousness. Karl Marx calls them ‘lumpenproletariats’ (in Gelder, 2005, p. 3). These skinheads, as evident in their daily narratives, are only interested to their own well-being. They are vulnerable to be easily swayed by other ideologies and movements of the middle class, which Pangilinan similarly asserts. There are no formal and in-depth researches about Jejemons to date. This research is a first of its kind. The available literature about Jejemons is limited only to online news and opinion articles in the internet. All agrees that Jejemons are a ‘subculture’, since they counter the dominant culture as seen with the following researchers below. Tolentino (2010), in his online article in Bulatlat.com, tells us the existence of Jejemons in a Marxist’s perspective. He calls the ‘subculture’ an ‘underclass’. He stresses that the Jejemons are uneducated and the JejeText is not an intentional and ‘stylish’ modification of the spelling but a manifestation of their ignorance in the correct spelling of those words. He emphasizes that Jejemons are in a ‘cultural battle’. He shows his cynicism in this method of resistance since “it is only through direct political struggle that the ‘marginalized’ would have an access to political citizenship” (par. 15, translation mine).
11
Pangilinan (2001) see the skinheads as the residual ‘subculture’ of punks in the West.
J. C Cataan
17
Arao (2010), also on his online article, seems to follow the stance of Tolentino (2010), but differs only in the ‘empowerment’ of such ‘subculture’. He is more positive on the Jejemon ‘subculture’. He calls the JejeText a ‘sociolect’ or ‘social dialect’. The creation of this unique code unites the members of the ‘subculture’ to communicate internally. He also highlights the struggle of this ‘subculture’ and those who are in the position of power. The state advocates against the practice of JejeText, but Arao contends that the “‘outsiders’ have no right to intervene with the internal form of communication of the ‘subculture’”. He finishes by questioning the state, primarily the Department of Education in its policies in prioritizing English over Filipino and the degradation of the quality of education in the country. He argues, moreover, that the existence of Jejemons is an outright manifestation of such problems (par. 12, 15, translation mine). Both Arao (2010) and Tolentino (2010) consider the Jejemons as a ‘subculture’. They are like many theorists who become ‘loyalists’ of the concept of ‘subculture’. Some decide to unpick the term. Others, meanwhile, deviate from its traditional view and try to make sense through their distinct analyses. Like them, as a researcher, I must choose. I have decided to find an alternative to ‘subculture’, and I found one. This alternative that I use in this study is not far from its roots. In fact, it is suggested few years after ‘subculture’ was first coined.
Not so far: the alternatives to ‘subculture’ When all have been said and done, the next thing that we must do is to look for alternatives. I want to make it clear that unlike the believers of ‘post-subcultures’. This approach started when the theorists depart from British cultural studies (Birmingham School). It denies the earlier links between ‘subcultures’ and the working class (Gelder, 2005, p. 3). I will not place the ‘subculture’ theory in the ‘trash bin’ of history. ‘Post-subculture’ theorists call ‘subculture’ the thing of the past. They also believe that the works of ‘subculture’ theorists from Birmingham and Chicago are ‘heroic’, yet, can now be rejected. Indeed, life is more complex now, and social organizations cannot be seen anymore in a linear perspective, but I believe that “it is much too soon to relegate this term to the dustbins of cultural history” (Gelder, 2005, p. 12).
J. C Cataan
18
My total placing of the term ‘subculture’ within semi-colons every time mentioned in this research is not a form of rejection, but to set my point and establish a clear delineation of the term that I use consistently throughout the manuscript. There are two things why I am in search for a new term to label the Jejemons. First, the ‘subculture’ theory suffers a crisis in definition. This is proven with the vast number of studies mentioned above. This crisis would compromise my case study since the Jejemon ‘subculture’ does not have everything that a ‘subculture’ must have, and it is not everything a ‘subculture’ must be. Second, in connection with the first one, I contend that the Jejemon phenomenon in itself is beyond a ‘subculture’. With all due respect to the theorists who use and will still be using the word ‘subculture’ in their works, below, I examine the concept of ‘sub-culture’ (with a hyphen) by Gordon (1947). His passage is one of the early critiques of the term ‘subculture’. Gordon comes from the Chicago School as well.
‘Subculture’ vis-à-vis sub-culture Gordon (1947) warns us about the flourishing concept of ‘subculture’, saying that a researcher should transcend from a linear type of ‘subcultural’ inquiry to avoid generalizations and broad grouping in society. This is the very first problem that he sees when theorists apply the concept. This is where my first contention about ‘subculture’ lies. My inquiry on the Jejemon ‘sub-culture’ does not revolve only in their social class, but includes their age group and social relations among others. Without a doubt, it is unimaginable for a researcher to analyse a phenomenon in just one category, without relating it to other categories. I accept Gordon’s definition of ‘sub-culture’, which is “a sub-division of a national culture composed of combination of 12 factorable social situations such as class status, ethnic background, regional and rural or urban residence, and religious affiliations, but forming in their combination a functioning unity which has an integrated impact on the participating individual” (Gordon, 1947, p. 41). While it is true that a ‘subculture’ is also a ‘division of a national culture’, Gordon (1947) tells us that this kind of reference becomes ‘comfortable hiding places’ for American 12
Or independent variables, if applied in modern research
J. C Cataan
19
sociologists. He calls this “‘sporadic resting places of semantic convenience’, rather than any systematic application of the term to well-defined social conditions” (p. 40). I definitely agree with Gordon, because when a person enters into a sub-culture, he feels these ‘social situations’ as one influential factor altogether. This person does not experience these categories simultaneously, but separated from each other. Gordon believes that he or she “is a person whose environmental background is an interwoven and variegated combination of all these factors” (p. 41). Gordon adds that the concept of sub-culture “gives us a keen and incisive tool which… prevents us from making too broad groupings where such inclusiveness is not warranted” (p. 41). This further enables us to discern closely the “cohesive systems of social organizations which currently we tend to analyze separately with our more conventional tools of ‘class’ and ‘ethnic group’ (p. 41). It is clear that sub-culture occupies a larger scope of analysis. It offers diverse variables, yet connecting and establishing a unity among them. He challenges all the ethnographers and theorists to go beyond a linear type of inquiry. But a worse problem still happens nowadays in almost all academic communities. This is when theorists apply and use the concept of ‘subculture’ to just any ‘group’, without tracing the root of the concept and its limitations. His concept does not flourish. As we see, other theorists succeeding him do not acknowledge or consider his position. His fellows from the Chicago School continue to use ‘subculture’. The Birmingham School does not depart from the term. But for the Jejemon phenomenon, I see a huge point of using the sub-culture concept instead of ‘subculture’. I argue that the Jejemon phenomenon is initially a ‘subculture’, but the term does not suffice the complexity of this sub-culture, which necessitates the need to use a more fitting term. I believe that Jejemons as a contemporary sub-culture cannot be analyzed in a linear viewpoint. Its existence does not happen because of ‘class’ or ‘ethnicity’ alone. The ‘social conditions’ that affect and compose Jejemons are interrelated and diverse. They make up a highly organized and cohesive sub-culture.
J. C Cataan
20
In the next chapter, I define who the Jejemons are, and their distinct marks and identity. I further break down the Jejemon phenomenon as a sub-culture.
J. C Cataan
21
“Binanggit ang ‘subculture’ sa True Stories sa QTV 11. Tinawag nilang ‘subculture’ ang body modification enthusiasts. Siguro nga ‘subculture’ sila, baka rin hindi. Gamit lang kasi nang gamit
eh. Wala namang basehan at malalim na pananaliksik na naganap.” -Field note, December 26, 2010
J. C Cataan
22
CHAPTER 3 No swerving: the rise of Jejemons As we look at the entire picture of Jejemon as a sub-culture, let me first define the point of this research, a group of youth called collectively as ‘Jejemonsters’.
Defining a Jejemon The most contemporary group or phenomenon in the Philippine popular culture scene to date is the ‘Jejemonsters’ or ‘Jejemons’. The country began focusing its attention to them in early 2010, but long before that, the Jejemons have already existed, however, without label and stereotypes. According to the website www.urbandictionary.com (2010), a Jejemon is “basically anyone with a low tolerance in correct punctuation, syntax and grammar”. The ‘Jejemonsters’ is the collective term for the members of the sub-culture, and the word ‘Jejemon’ is the shortened term associated with them. It is also the most popular label for them. This website is the first to define ‘Jejemons’ and is followed by many websites. The moderator and its source are contentious, nevertheless. The website www.jejemon.com adapted the definition by www.urbandictionary.com. This website is owned by Mr. Aris Bonifacio. Let me introduce him briefly at this point, but I give ample space about him in the succeeding chapters. Mr. Bonifacio a 29-year old computer programmer by a real-estate company based in Makati. He is the so-called ‘Jejemaster’. Many followers on Facebook and the website acknowledge him as the Jejemaster. I have to advance the introduction since he has a lot to say on the history and etymology of the word ‘Jejemon’.
Origin of the term Jejemon An account of the supposed group of Jejemons named ‘Team Jejemon’ on Facebook posted a note entitled History ng mga Tunay na Jejemons (History of True Jejemons) dated April 27, 2010. They state that the word Jejemon is the combination of ‘Jeje’, because of the way they laugh in the virtual world, or probably from ‘JJ’ which means ‘Jumping Jologs’, or the youth ‘group’
13
13
distinguished as those who stay outside the concert grounds, wear black shirt, black
I call them ‘group’ since there is no study that proves that the JJs or ‘Jumping Jologs’ are indeed a subculture.
J. C Cataan
23
faded jeans, and a cap covering one-sided hair, with bangs shown at the side of the face, while ‘mon’ means ‘monster’, from the famous Japanese cartoon show Pokemon or Pocket Monsters. Jejemaster, in our several meetings, affirms this definition. He says that ‘Jeje-’ traces its origins in the Spanish written expression of laughter. He proves this by narrating his first encounter with the word, ‘Jeje’.
14
He shares that way back in 2003, their family in Tondo had a computer café. During his free time, he would go there and play online computer games. These games had players from all over the world, and according to him, Spanish youth often visit gaming rooms of Filipinos. This was where he first saw the Spanish word, ‘Jeje’. In his opinion, because of the vigorous growth of computer cafes and online games in the Philippines in this decade, youth are more exposed to foreign words that they encounter over the internet. Since then, he has started to express his laughter in that way. But the birth of the word did not happen yet. Jejemaster continues to explain the latter portion of the word, ‘-mon’. It comes from the famous cartoon show, Pokemon or Pocket Monsters. He associates the Jejemons’ colorful outfits to the Pokemons’ colorful look and accessories. He clears that the word ‘Jejemon’ originates from the internet, and not from cellular phones. It is only when the telecommunication networks start to offer unlimited text services that the practice is transferred to the cellular phones. He cannot trace, nevertheless, who combined the two concepts and formed the word, ‘Jejemon’. He said that it is the media who labels them as Jejemons. Tolentino (2010) agrees with this, since the “Jejemon phenomenon is packaged and produced by the ruling class for its own interests, and let the inferior classes to consume” (par. 13, 14). Jejemaster, however, attributes the creation of the word to the Filipino youth who are very creative. They are the ones, he believes, who coined the term, Jejemon.
14
This happened during my one-on-one interview with Jej emaster.
J. C Cataan
Photo 1: I am with Jejemaster A is Bonifacio, during my interview with him in Spaghetti House, Walter Mart P song Tamo, December 28, 2010
24
he Old
Jeje + webmaster = Jejemaste
Bonifacio shares that alth ough he has been chatting and texting using ex essive letters, defying capitalizations and gram mar, the term ‘Jejemon’ has not been coined, u til a certain news organization, which he doe s not name, labels the practice as ‘Jejemon’ in t heir news item sometime in April 2010. He pick s up the word given by the said organization. N ot long after, he sees an episode of Kapuso Mo, J essica Soho that features these youth called ‘Jej mons’. On the same month, he b ys the domain name, www.jejemon.com, for t ree hundred Philippine pesos. Since designin websites is his hobby and career, he formats t e site, and places a chat box in it. He is the
oderator of the new site, thus he is called a ‘w ebmaster’. Since
the site is a ‘Jejesite’ (designed f or the emerging youth sub-culture called Jejem n), he tagged himself as the ‘Jejemaster’. The term ‘Jejemaster’ do s not mean that he is the supreme leader of the Jejemons. Jejemons need not follow his co mandments. The name is simply a combinatio of the words ‘Jeje’ and ‘webmaster’ that mak s him the ’Jejemaster’. Based on my observati ns, however, the Jejemons, due to Jejemaster’s hi torical ascendancy, look up to and respect him as the ‘founder’ of the sub-culture.
J. C Cataan
25
Jejemaster finished his undergraduate course in business administration at the Philippine School of Business Administration. He also took up a certificate program in computer programming at Systems Technology Institute (STI). Jejemaster also introduced me to the members of Jejemon chapter in Fairview. This is where the participant observation took place, details of which I discuss below, and in the succeeding chapters.
The Jejefriends Part of this participant observation was exchanging text messages with Jejemons. I got to know almost thirty Jejemons in the course of this research. I never had the chance to meet the others, but there were also Jejefriends that I had met to share their daily narratives as Jejemons. I introduce below five Jejefriends from Fairview who selflessly shared their stories that gave ‘faces’ to the theoretical assumptions of this research.
The Jejeleader: Ryan Ryan Galang is 17 years old (Photo 2). He may be the youngest but he leads the Jejemon chapter of Fairview branch. He is a cousin of Jejemaster Aris Bonifacio. He is a jolly but a formal Jejemon. He is at times rhetorical and preachy to his fellows. He is fond of wearing black and gray shirts with colorful prints on them. He wears huge shoes. He works as a part-time office assistant at ACCESS-Fairview.
15
It is also his school. He guided me very well in the entire
course of field work. His never-ending stories and jokes helped me survive my adjustment period and made me feel at ease with other Jejemons.
The heartthrob: Sherwin Sherwin Eleccion is 18 years old (Photo 2). He is a shy-type Jejemon. His clothes are always in earth tone. His hair covers the portion of his right eye. The first time I saw him, he wore an unzipped brown jacket, except the hooks, that revealed his plain white shirt inside. Among the Jejefriends, he rarely opened up when the group is discussing. He just listened or his eyes were locked to passing people whenever we were in public places. He dreams to be a ship captain or pilot soon, but his course now relates to hotel service. He is actually the heartthrob of the group, but I noticed that he hardly ever laughed with the girls’ jokes. 15
ACCESS is a vocational computer school with several branches in Luzon. It offers 2-year certificate courses.
J. C Cataan
26
Photo 2: (from left) Sherwin and Ryan, during our snacks at Greenwich SM Fair view
The ‘daldalera’: Nina
Nina Alcasaren feels like she is the ‘ate’ (older sister) in the group but sh e is actually the youngest (Photo 3). Other Jejefri ends call her ‘daldalera’ because she speaks all the time. Her favorite cap is a checkered yello
and black that usually blends with her shirts a nd belts. Her
shiny, long hair, she said, is her est asset. I always saw her with her boyfriend
ho is also a
Jejemon. She is always comforta ble in expressing her thoughts. She speaks very profound. She is very opinionated. The fashionista: Kath
Kath Hernandez is 20 ye rs old (Photo 3). She said she feels forever you ng. She usually gave the first smile whenever we saw each other. Her light aura makes the grou easy. She was touchy with me and the rest of th e group, but I understand that it was her way of endearment as our younger sister. She calls her elf a ‘fashionista’. He wears a lot of fancy acce ssories that fill her neck, ears and arms. Her hai style is innovative, with the pigtail only on one side. Her supposedly long pants are folded up to the knees. She has the most creative and ‘experimental’ way of dressing in the group. Sh is always appreciative. She sees small yet bea tiful things,
J. C Cataan
such as my haircut. She calls me ‘Baby James’.
16
27
She once apologized for not m aking it to our
last scheduled hang out because she was ‘grounded’ by her parents. She did not ell the reason but I guess, it had something to o with her late-night meets with her boyfriend. The adviser: Princess
Princess Inlia is 20 years old (Photo 3). She is the group’s adviser when i t comes to love and life. I often saw her serious, but she has an approachable appearance. She w re colorful but simple shirts and jeans. She alwa ys holds her cell phone, relative to other Jejem ns. When I ask why, she said that her boyfriend wants to keep in touch with her often through te xt. She once tried a part-time work as a store ttendant but returned to schooling this year. Sh e dreams to be a broadcaster, but she now attends a computer-related course. During my field wo rk, she was always the one who often offere a helping hand. I did not choose these fiv e JejeFriends. They voluntarily participated in t e research. Among the twenty members in airview chapter, they were the only ones who
ere willing to
sign the consent forms. The five are dancers in their school, and they commonly gather together after their dance rehearsals. The all study in ACCESS-Fairview.
Photo 3: (from left) Kath, Princess and Nina, during our snacks in Greenwich Fa irview
16
Baby James is the son of actress Kris Aquino and James Yap.
J. C Cataan
28
These Jejefriends compo e the Jejemons’ world called the ‘Jejeworld’. T his was where the interactions happened. This i s what I am referring to as the ‘other world’. Th is was where my journey as a new Jejemon happe ed. This was where I learned the coded comm nication of Jejemons, and the use of ‘style’ s a form of resistance.
Photo 4: Jejefriends and me
J. C Cataan
29
“Bumili ako ng Talk N’ Text na SIM, tsaka isang cell phone sa Cubao bago ako umuwi. Ang bago kong number ay 09487744954. Bakit ba kailangang magpalit ng number para lang makatext ang mga Jejemon? Wala bang Globe user na Jejemon?” -Field note, November 19, 2010
J. C Cataan
30
CHAPTER 4 Entering a ‘world’ within the the world’: The Jejeworld Jejeworld My journey in pursuit of knowledge about Jejemons is like a rebirth. My rebirths in this lifetime, time and time again, are cultural. Cultural study is a vast area of study, but we can trace its historical historical development development when Hebdige (1979) (1979) provides a clear historicity historicity in his book Subculture: The Meaning of Style. He points out that the roots of cultural study was when English intellectuals intellectuals and literary figures at the end of the eighteenth century focused on a whole range of controversial issues relating to culture. They defined culture as the ‘quality of life’ (p. 6-7). This broad definition led to two trajectories. First, they perceive culture as a “standard of aesthetic excellence” derived from classical appreciations appreciations of opera, ballet, drama, drama, and other literature literature and art. This paves way for the socalled ‘high art’. Second, some understand its anthropological root from Raymond Williams in 1965 (as cited in Hebdige, 1979, pages 6-8) who referred to ‘culture’ as “a particular way of life which expresses certain meanings and values…in institution and ordinary behaviour”. This ‘whole way of life’ pertained to the so-called ‘popular art’ or ‘popular culture’. The Chicago School enters the discourse and fuses the two sides through its belief that the tradition of ‘subculture’ studies effectively conflates society and culture. In other words, culture, as a pattern of beliefs and values or even ideologies, cannot be separated from action and social organization. Culture and society are both ways of life (Gelder & Thornton, 1997, p. 5). In this School’s stance lies the study of popular culture. In the 1970s, the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies or commonly known as the Birmingham Birmingham School re-examined re-examined the subcultures subcultures in terms of class, ethnicity, ethnicity, gender and their broad function function in society. Since then, the theory has flourished flourished and opened opened up diverse perspectives (Gelder & Thornton, 1997, p. i). Pierre Bourdieu calls those in the sub-culture sub-culture ‘subordinates’ ‘subordinates’ (2006, p. 5). Karl Marx (1867, 1972) labels them as the ‘proletarians’, and Guieb (1991) refers to the ordinary as ‘latak ng lipunan’ or ‘deposits ‘deposits of society’ (translation (translation mine), mine), but have a capability to counter counter the mainstream (p. 32). The School further believes that in a society with a dominating culture,
J. C Cataan
31
internal boundaries are stratified and “is within these strata or as a consequence of them that we might discover discover a ‘subculture’” (Thornton, (Thornton, 1997, p. 3). The Jejemon sub-culture, sub-culture, beyond being a ‘subculture’, ‘subculture’, is a ‘caught-between’ ‘caught-between’ sub-culture sub-culture because the early ‘subcultures’ can be found on streets, in schools and in other geographic places to practice their ‘codes’, but the Jejemons occupy occupy the virtual and telecommunication telecommunication’s ’s world. I call it a unique sub-culture because it does not depart from the theory’s conventional definitions and analyses, but at the same time, it also bids them ‘goodbye’ as it takes new platforms as a means of expression. It is conventional in concept, but contemporary contemporary in practice. The Jejemons’ unique form of expression, as a sub-culture, challenges the early notions on ‘subculture’. Theorists now raise relevant points with regard to sub-cultures in the emergence of ‘virtual’, ‘mediated’, ‘mediated’, and ‘globalized’ forms of communications communications (Gelder, 2005, p. 513). For instance, Bell (2000) perceives the use of the internet, in his study on the so-called ‘cyberpunks’ as an escape and freedom freedom from constraints constraints,, as they inhabit the the online worlds. worlds. However, they diffuse the traditional traditional binds of a ‘subculture’ ‘subculture’ (p. 514). 514). On the other hand, hand, Rheingold Rheingold (2004) contends that the Net is an alternative space where connection and a sense of community are being restored, instead instead of the other way around, in this very individualistic individualistic world (p. 519). There is indeed a huge shift from the conventional ways of seeing sub-culture. People join sub-cultures sub-cultures “more “more by choice choice now than by circumstances—o circumstances—off alternatives alternatives to the dominant dominant modes of living offered offered by Western modernity” modernity” (p. 516). Unlike other sub-cultures in the past, the Jejemons’ struggle is not a class struggle, but a socially stratified stratified struggle struggle one (Matza and Sykes, Sykes, 1961). It is not a resistance resistance by a lower class against the upper class per se, although I concede that class struggle cannot be removed from societal resistance. It is not the primary struggle here, however. It is a battle between those who do the act of ‘other-ing’ and those those who are ‘othered’. It is the state and the intellectuals intellectuals versus the Jejemons. Because dispersed by some to the outskirts outskirts of cultural cultural scene, scene, the Jejeworld Jejeworld has its own ‘headquarters’, ‘headquarters’, the website www.jejemon.com www.jejemon.com.. This is where Jejemons Jejemons can submit their application to be a ‘citizen’ of the ‘world’. This is where cultural migration happens. In these applications, applications, Jejemaster sorts them according according to cities and municipalities municipalities that make up a so-
J. C Cataan
32
called ‘chapter’. Through ‘GM system’ or ‘group messaging’, the Jejemons in a chapter elect their president, president, and start to organize Jejemon activities activities in the chapter.
The new Jejemo Jejemon n in town I am a duly-registered duly-registered Jejemon Jejemon through www.jejemo www.jejemon.com. n.com. I belong to the Fairview chapter. I never thought thought that this pursuit of knowledge knowledge led me to experiences that I never had before, which challenged challenged my perspective perspective about culture and life in general. My interest to study cultures first started when I met my professor and thesis adviser Eli Guieb III. He unconsciously unconsciously led me to ‘google’ a lot of cultural concepts and theories theories and read many books that capture that cultural process in society. This curiosity was more stimulated when I took Anthropology Anthropology 181 with Prof. Hector Hector Guazon of the U.P. Department Department of Anthropology. Anthropology. He introduced various readings readings that never failed to make my nights sleepless because of ‘intellectual indigestion’. There, I encountered a lot of discussions about ‘subcultures’ in the west and I realized that we do not have a lot of literature in the emerging Philippine ‘subcultures’. ‘subcultures’. This compelled compelled me to look at the Jejemon Jejemon phenomenon phenomenon and explore the said said ‘subculture’. That was the beginning of this journey. I am surprised that the entry into the Jejemon sub-culture sub-culture was was relatively easy, easy, but to stay in it was difficult. difficult. I bought a new cell phone and and a Talk N’ Text
17
SIM card to start
communicating communicating with the Jejemons. I bought the said SIM brand because it is the ‘economy’ ‘economy’ version of SMART. SMART. Almost all the the Jejemons whom whom I know are subscribin subscribing g to either Talk N’ Text or SMART. Jejemons Jejemons said that the choice of network network is based on its rates. Some Jejemons Jejemons even call SMART SMART Telecommunicatio Telecommunications ns as the ‘Jejenetwork’. ‘Jejenetwork’. I also bought bought a ‘Jejecap’ which I wore whenever whenever I was with them. I also bought shirts shirts with colorful prints on them. them. These are the tools tools and styles styles that that I discuss discuss below. below.
Jejemons’ codes and ‘style’ ‘style’ Some sub-cultures are covert while some are open through their clothes, language, music and traits. traits. Jejemons Jejemons fall in the latter category. category. The primary primary use of the ‘code’ ‘code’ is for internal communication within the ‘world’. It also protects the ‘world’ from external influences that might ruin or alter their sub-culture.
17
Talk N’ Text is a subsidiary company of SMART Telecommunications. Telecommunications.
J. C Cataan
In one of our final meeti gs, right after after they signed their consent consent forms, and I had time to take pictures.
33
y Jejefriends
uriously, I asked what their hand gestures gestures mea t during picture-
takings. Their so-called ‘Jejepos s’, as seen in the pictures pictures below, may appear appear a ordinary gestures for laypersons, laypersons, but with in the sub-culture, these contain internal meanin gs that portray their ideology, attitudes, norms, aiths and hopes for their lives.
Photo 5: (from left) My Jejefrien ds, Ryan, Kath, Nina, Princess and Sherwin, in their their Jejepose Jejeposess
My Jejefriends explained to me the meanings of their Jejeposes. His stri ing Jejepose, Ryan (extreme left) said, means, “accept me for who I am”. Sherwin (extreme ri ght), on the other hands, conveys, peace, with his esture. While Kath (second from left), says, his Jejepose is simply ‘pa-cute’, since she want to show her real personality that is cute and ad orable. At the center, Nina mimics two people alking closely closely with each other, other, which, she she said, depicts ‘true friendship’. Lastly, Princess (rig t of center), appears to show a letter ‘V’ forma ion, which, she said, is a symbol of being a wom an. It also exhibits ‘victory’ in their lives as Jej mons.
J. C Cataan
34
Evidently from the Jejeposes, the Jejemons’ Jejemons’ struggle and use of styles and symbols do not happen anymore under the ‘subway’, but in the ‘topsoil’ of Philippine landscape. Chicago School (as (as discussed discussed in the the first chapter) chapter) defines defines ‘subculture ‘subcultures’ s’ through their mode of of existence existence that is ‘subterranean’. They are always associated with the ‘dark side’, always the ‘unseen’ and the ‘subordinate’. This is applicable to the Jejemons, but only to a certain extent, because they are now seen and being read by those those within and outside the sub-culture, sub-culture, but the meaning meaning is provided to the the former only. Jejeposes, Jejeposes, according to my Jejefriends, Jejefriends, change depending depending on their their mood and feeling. They are distinguished, isolated and ‘othered’ because there are so-called ‘indicators’ that set the sub-culture apart from the others. Gordon (1947) discusses the most indicative indices of participation in a particular ‘subculture’. He said that if anyone had to be singled out, he would offer speech patterns (particularly (particularly pronunciation pronunciation and inflection) as the easiest to observe and the most revealing. Clothes would probably rank next in indicativeness and ease of discernability (p. 42). Speech, including Jejemons’ pronunciation and inflection (the Jejenese), and their fashion are truly the most prominent and distinguishable distinguishable traits of Jejemons. This is what Hebdige (1979) generally calls as ‘style’ that is ‘made up of mundane objects which have a double meaning’, meaning’, and these “objects “objects are made to mean mean and mean again” again” (p. 3). Their cellular phones for example are their literal tool for belongingness and resistance. It is their sign of triumph. Texting contributes to the “construction of style, in a gesture of defiance and contempt… it signals Refusal” Refusal” (Hebdige, 1979, capitalization capitalization original). Through this, Jejemons are seen to more expressive than other sub-cultures since they explore communicati communication on as a form of expression. expression. Aside from coded coded gestures, gestures, they also carry out out coded communication communication through Jejetext. Jejetext. They use a very unique medium of expression, expression, the virtual and telecommunication’s world. Within the sub-culture of the ‘others’, in order to be truly organized, there have to be coded communication and internal codes. In the case of Jejemons, it is called Jejetext.
J. C Cataan
35
Jejetext The identity of Jejemons can be seen in their unique and liberal way of texting. They make it by adding random and unwanted letters in between the other letters of a word, defying punctuation marks and rules in capitalization, and replacing letters with letter-looking numbers. They defy the rules of correct spelling and pronunciation. An example is the sentence, “Hello po, kamusta ka na?” (Hello! How are you?). Jejemons spell it as “eOw pFoWzH, kh4mU5t4H k4h nAhH pF0w5zH?” Jejemons call their alphabet ‘Jejebet’ with letters as seen below.
Table 1: Alphabet vis-à-vis the Jejebet
Alphabet
Jejebet
Alphabet
Jejebet
Aa
4
Nn
nN
Bb
b, 6, 8
Oo
0
Cc
c, (
Pp
pP
Dd
dD
Qq
qQ
Ee
3
Rr
rR
Ff
fF
Ss
5
Gg
9
Tt
tT
Hh
hH
Uu
uU
Ii
1
Vv
vV
Jj
jJ
Ww
wW
Kk
X, kK
Xx
xX
Ll
7
Yy
yY
Mm
mM
Zz
zZ
Canlas (2010) tries to make a quantitative approach in studying Jejetext. He calls it ‘Jejenomics’. In ordinary cellular phone keypads, he assigned so-called ‘letter weights’, following the logic that the more times a person presses his or her keypad, the higher the ‘letter weights’. His argument rests on the fact that Jejemons want to conserve on letters and words. Thus, the existence of Jejetext and Jejebet. This quantitative study on Jejetext, nevertheless, is vague because there are no ‘standard’ spellings of Jejewords. Spellings, spaces, punctuation
J. C Cataan
36
marks and capitalizations lie on the Jejemon’s creativity in expressing himself or herself. In addition, conservation on letters and words, I believe, is not what really is in the mind of Jejemons. I will prove below why Jejemons employ a form of communication hidden to many, and only easily understandable within the sub-culture. The Jejebet, according to Jejemaster, existed subconsciously in the minds of the Filipino youth, and has no particular creator. He says that it is ‘subconscious’ in the minds of the Filipino youth. All of a sudden, the youth know how to write and communicate using Jejebet (Bonifacio, personal correspondence, 2010).
Jejelevels: the measure of a true Jejemon In the course of participation observation, a song is usually sung by my Jejefriends. It is entitled Jejemon by a band named Blank Tape. There is a portion in the song that classifies the levels of being a Jejemon. The song goes, Alamin mo muna tsong / kung anong klase kang Jejemon / Mild ka ba o moderate /well alin ka ba doon / Baka naman ay severe ka / o baka ay terminal / Jejemon pa rin ang tawag / kasi text mo'y di normal / pero unique maikli man o siniksik The song mentions four levels of Jejemon, or in a more proper term, the levels of capacity in Jejetexting. It has four levels, namely, mild, moderate, severe and terminal. The levels with a sample text are illustrated below.
Table 2: Levels of Jejetext
LEVELS Mild Moderate Severe Terminal
SAMPLE TEXT: “Hello!” eLoW pOh! eOw fOwZ! 3oWh fPoWzH! h3oWhZ fPoWzHh!
Jejemaster owes the Jejebet and Jejenese to the creativity expressed by the Filipino youth. He said that without the Filipino youth, Jejemon, as well as Jejenese, will not flourish.
J. C Cataan
37
While some youth are aware that they are starting to use Jejenese and Jejetext, many were and are still unaware that they are Jejemons in practice. They do not know that they are actually practising the fashion and texting styles of Jejemons. Turner (1969), after his concept of ‘communitas’, which is one of the precursors of ‘subculture’, discusses the phenomenon of ‘liminality’. He says that when a person enters a particular group, culture or practice, he or she experiences ambiguity. The person is stripped off of his or her prior attributes and properties, and status and rank disappear or are homogenized (p. 94). After ‘liminality’ and the rites of passage, the person is now associated and acknowledged with a society, organization or culture. There is no turning back from the new ‘world’, however. I argue that Jejemons also experience the ‘liminal phase’, but only as a form of entry into the sub-culture. Unlike Turner’s definition that there is no return back after the process of ‘liminality’, Jejemons have a way of going back to their ‘parent culture’. The site and the process that allow Jejemons to go back to their ‘parent culture’ is a space which I call ‘transcultural 18
circuit’ . To elaborate the nature of Jejetexting and justify its use for internal communication more than mere ‘conservation’, I provide a series of text messages that I received from Jejefriends.
Eow pFhOwzH: Textmates to remember The choices of screen shots are in random order, and I use my own judgement to fully exhibit this coded communication. This exhibits the fluidity and diversity of the Jejetext.
18
The concept of ‘transcultural migrant circuit’ will be discussed in Chapter 6 .
J. C Cataan
38
Photo 6: Screen shots of Jejetext (from left: A, B and C), Photo D: Screen shot o f my reply to C
For clarity, here is the tra nslation of these Jejetexts in Filipino. a. Magandang g bi. b. Wait lang ha? Magpapaload muna ako. Haha! c. Ah, nasa wor kasi ako eh. Jejetext A is a ‘mild’ Jeje text. The texter greets “Magandang gabi” follo ed by a ‘smiley’ icon. This text does not use excessive letters but alters the very spelling and pronunciation of the words. On ne hand, Jejetext B is classified as ‘severe’ Jeje text, because of the texter’s excessive use of the l etter ‘H’ and letter replacements. There are als inevitable moments when I have to ask my Jejefriends the translation of their Jejetexts. Fo example, Jejetext C, because I am new to t he Jejemon sub-culture, and the Jejetext is ‘ter
inal’ level. I
cannot read it anymore. Mitzele, the Jejetexter said, “Wait lang. Magpapaload m una ako, haha!” I needed to ask to repeat her mes sage in plain Filipino or in a ‘mild’ level which is my level as a Jejemon. The Jejefriends, particula rly Nina and Princess, use this coded communi ation primarily to hide their conversations from heir parents. with their boyfriends to be read
19
They do not want their exchang of messages
y their parents and other friends who are not Je emons
(meaning, not their circle of frie ds). On the contrary, based on what I have obs rved, the stories of their relationships and their w here abouts are open to other Jejefriends. In so e occasions, 19
Based on field notes, December 28, 010.
J. C Cataan
they are very ‘showy’ to others.
39
thers utilize Jejetext because of its form. Kath said that it is her
way of being creative. It shows ow happy she is. The more complicated the Jej text is, the more happy she is. Aside from Jejetext, anot her form of ‘style’ of the Jejemons is through J jefashion, which I discuss below. Jejefashion
Part of the concept of Jej mon comes from the colorful Pokemons. Ther fore, Jejemons are also characterized by colorfu l clothes and accessories, primary of which is th e Jejecap, the one with vertical rainbow colors at the back portion, as shown below.
Photo 7: The Jejecap (Photo by
oy Banat, 2010)
Also, during school says, Jejemons wear the so-called Jejeform, or Jejem on uniform, as a form of resistance to school auth orities. This is identified as either a tightly or lo osely fit white polo, sometimes unbuttoned, an school pants. A Jejemon wears a Jejecap also, and carries a shoulder bag. His hands are, mo t of the time, in her pockets.
J. C Cataan
40
Photo 8: Screen shot of Jejemon in Jejeform (Video by Saksi in GMANews.tv, 010)
In one of my visits in theiir rehearsal place in Fairview, we talked about J ejefashion. Kath calls herself a ‘kikay’ or being m eticulous in style and fashion. She is a ‘fashioni sta’. Unlike other fashion trends, she only fol lows those who are associated with Jejefashion, such as colorful clothes and accessories. She fou d herself in the Jejeworld through Jejefashion. Meanwhile, Princess see Jejefashion as her way of escape from her real emotions. She likes wearing colorful clothes be cause it makes her happy, even if there are prob lems in her family, for example. Like Kath, Nina likes to as ‘smelly’
20
or ‘baduy’.
21
ear Jejefashion, despite the negative remarks t
Jejemons, such
She s es empowerment through it. It is her way for ot hers to respect
her. Through Jejefashion, she do es not wear obscene and revealing clothes. The Jejetext vary in its le vels, and the Jejefashion in its usage. The Jejem ons do these for two reasons. First is to resist the ‘parent culture’, and second, to circumvent aro nd the ‘dominant culture’. Like the ‘lad s’ in the time of Willis (1977) who alter their sp eech, and come to school in dirty clothes, to resi t the lessons being thought in the Hammertown School, it is their form of resistance. They ha ve formed their own set of beliefs and shared id entity.
20 21
This is based on field notes. A Jejem n mentioned this in one occasion. ‘Baduy’ refers to people who do not ave ‘taste’ in choosing proper clothes d esign and color.
J. C Cataan
41
Jejemons have the advantage because of their ‘oneness’ in many ways, such as speech and clothing. These practices, being exercised together, form their own ideology, or their outlook as a sub-culture, how they make sense of the world, and perceive themselves (Gramsci, in Williams, 1992).
The Jejemons’ ideology and alternative hegemony Jejemon sub-culture is “condemned to, and or enjoy a consciousness of other-ness or difference” (Thornton, 1997, p. 5), precisely the point why this research calls them the ‘other’ culture. The Jejemons are alienated through the use of ‘stereotypes’. Jejemons are pictured as those “usually clad in multi-color outfits while fiddling with… cellphone and wearing a rainbowcolored cap” (Starmometer, 2010). While stereotyping, according to Herzfeld (2005, p. 182), is used to “serve the interests of power, they carry the possibility of subversion”. The values that the state imparts can be circumvented by the sub-culture. Gordon (1947) calls this the “refraction of the national culture”. The usage, practice and direction of what has been imparted become different (p. 42). Thus, through sub-culture, they offer an alternative to what is the dominant and ‘hegemonic’ culture (Clarke, et al., 1975, p. 101). The Jejemon sub-culture put forwards an ‘alternative hegemony’. I call it ‘Jejemony’, which I discuss below. This is the first time that the word ‘Jejemony’ is used in any academic paper. This means the ‘hegemony of Jejemons’, particularly an alternative one, depicting their whole body of practices and expectations, their senses and perception of themselves and the world, as Gramsci (in Williams, 1992), following Marx (in Williams, 1992), define the term ‘hegemony’. This sub-culture, as we now see it, does not just resist for mere survival. There is an element of potential domination. They want to unleash their struggle in the mainstream and it happens in small steps. Gramsci is right when he said that these ‘countercultures’ are hegemonic and at the same time a ‘revolutionary activity’ (p. 110).
J. C Cataan
The term ‘Jejemony’ is n ot my original idea. I owe the term to Mr. Jing bassist from the U.P. College of Music. He is a friend of Professor Data Canlas
42
addi, a band 2
who shared the
word with me. ‘Jejemony’ is a n wly coined term posted as a part of Jing Gaddi s status in Facebook after the word ‘Jejemo n’ won as the Word of the Year in U.P. Sentro g Wikang Pilipino. He posted, “Now that t e U.P. Sentro ng Wikang Pilipino has dubbed ‘ Jejemon’ as 2010’s Word of the Year, prepar e to usher in an era of literary Jejemony.”
Photo 9: Screenshot of Jing Gad i’s status on Facebook as he coins the term ‘Jej emony’.
In this status, he means t at the recognition on Jejemons will make way or their wider cultural acceptance. Gramci (1992) defines ‘h egemony’ as relations between social classes, e pecially to definitions of a ruling class over its subordinates. He extends its definition by sa ing that “it is a whole body of practices and exp ctations, over the whole of living: our senses a d assignments of energy, our shaping perceptio s of ourselves and our world” (in Williams, p. 110).
22
Professor Data Canlas is a full-time f aculty member of the University of the Philippines-Diliman. She teaches courses related to ‘new media’ in the Department of Broadcast Communication of the College o Mass Communication. She is also my BC 19 (TV internship) adviser.
J. C Cataan
43
Jejemon sub-culture is an ‘alternative hegemony’. It counters the ruling hegemony. It is, furthermore, a potentially ‘revolutionary activity’. Revolutionary, in this sense, does not necessarily mean engaging in armed struggle against the state. They are revolutionary because they are in a ‘cultural’ or ‘symbolic’ battle against the hegemonic culture. For early theorists, such as the Chicago and Birmingham Schools, those in the ‘subculture’ are members of the working class. For Gramsci, on the contrary, they were working people becoming a class. They are “a potentially hegemonic class, against the pressures and limits of an existing and powerful hegemony” (in Williams, p. 111). Gramsci reminds us that while a hegemony is “always dominant, it is never either total or exclusive…but their presence is decisive” (in Williams, p. 113). The Jejemons now find small spaces in mainstream media to get into and advance their sub-culture, but there are negations are well. This led me to study those who are against Jejemons. They identify themselves as ‘Jejebusters’, which is the topic I discuss in the next chapter. As partly an ethical and factual practice, chapters 5 and 6 sketch the implications of current study in terms of theory. These are portions where I theorize on the raw data that I have gathered during the participant observation. Some points that I raise are assumptions, and have yet to be sufficiently supported by empirical data. The succeeding chapters challenge future social scientists who aspire to study themes that are related to this research to enrich these hypotheses, critique, challenge, and test these assumptions by empirically grounded research.
J. C Cataan
“Bakit mga Jejemon ang pinag-aaralan mo? Maraming mas okay.” -
Sabi ng mommy ko sa akin habang naghahapunan, Pebrero 20, 2011
44
J. C Cataan
45
CHAPTER 5 The Jejebusters and other forms of jejebusting In the course of this research, I experienced to be ‘busted’ by Jejebusters, in different forms. My friends teased me that I am a ‘Jejemon defender’. My parents questioned my interest in this study, and convinced me that there are many other topics which are more interesting. The leaders of a local church congregation, where I am attending, told my fellow youth not to follow Jejetexting, and never make friends with Jejemons. But beyond these, there are other forms of jejebusting, most of them are stealth and enjoy national attention.
Institutions of jejebusting Resistance is always two-way. When Jejemons resist as a sub-culture, they are also being resisted. They encounter oppositions from the so-called ‘Jejebusters’. According to Teodoro (2010), a Jejebuster is “a grammar vigilante, typically Filipino, dedicating his Internet life toward the eradication of jejetyping and Jejemon existence” (par. 4). Tolentino (2010) identifies the class position of Jejebusters. He says that Jejebusters are “the middle class who suddenly works together with the elites to fight the growing underclass of Jejemon sub-culture” (par. 13, 14). But I argue that a Jejebuster is someone who is against the Jejemons’ ideology,
23
regardless of his or her social class. As I point out in this chapter,
Jejebusters are composed of intellectuals and professionals who conform to conventional social standards of learning and discipline. As I have said earlier, the Jejemon struggle is a socially stratified one. Matza and Sykes (1961) agree with this because “society was not only split horizontally into strata, it was divided vertically within each group” (p. 72). Thus, we can find resistance to the Jejemons from different institutions. Althusser (1992) calls these institutions as ‘Ideological State Apparatus’. He believes that these institutions work to preserve the status quo (p. 54). One of these institutions is the family. The Jejemons’ parents, for instance, find it difficult to understand why their child has turned into a Jejemon. Parents may find it problematic that their children are subscribing to a culture not within the comforts of their homes, but rather in the rugged embrace of the streets. It is more street-based than domestic. Thornton (1997) says 23
The Jejemons’ ideology, through Jejemony will be discussed in the next chapter.
J. C Cataan
46
that “the youth attempt to define their culture against the parental home. Subcult ures deviate from the normative ideals of adu lt communities (p. 2). They are called ‘street cu tures’, because they do not find their identity ins ide the homes, but outside. The government is the se ond Jejebuster. Through the Department of Ed cation (DepEd), it calls for the ‘re-education’ of J ejemons. It blames them for the deterioration o the Philippine education system (GMANews.T , 2010).
Photo 10: A newspaper headline on DepEd’s campaign against Jejemons
Photo 10 shows a tabloid headline that highlights the call of the Departm ent of Education to ‘kill’ the ‘Jejemon fever’. It is noticeable that the headline is alongside seriou crimes like 24
jueteng, kidnapping and drugs hat need to be stopped. The state considers Jeje mon as a contagious ‘disease’ acquired by many Filipino youth. The ‘Team Jejemon’ def nds its side through a Facebook note. They sai that ‘reeducation’ is not the problem bu the education system itself. They even asked h ow DepEd can make Jejemons go back to schoo l when they never experienced to study in the fi rst place (par. 5). Jejemons, moreover, fou d support from their very own place—the cybe rspace. Hernan Melencio (2010), the administrat ion blogger of www.philippinehistory.ph, said in his article 24
Jueteng is an illegal small-town lotte y.
J. C Cataan
47
entitled Jeje Vonel, that the DepEd should not hover with these youth’s preference and selfexpression because suppressing them may lead to more rebellion that might cause larger damage to society. He is optimistic that the Jejenese, just like ‘gay lingo’
25
will eventually contribute to
the nation’s rich language (par. 7, 9). Teodoro (2010), according to Melencio (2010), challenges Jejebusters and ‘grammar Nazis’. He insists that instead of busting Jejemons in the cyberspace, they have to act on more worthwhile things …like looking for permanent solutions to the perennial problems of classroom and textbook shortage, the absence of clean toilets, not to mention the overall decline in the quality of public education. Forget the jejemons n jhUSt dO ur jOb huweLL! (par. 20)
‘Team Jejemon’ raises another strong argument in the same note. They ask “Why is it that the ‘konyo’
26
phenomenon is also grammatically incorrect yet receives minimal attention
and criticism from the state and the intellectuals? Is it because it is on their side?” (par. 7). Jejemons play antagonistically with other interests in Philippine society, not necessarily a class struggle. Bourdieu (2006) refers to this struggle as the ‘heads’ vis-a-vis the ‘subordinates’. In the Jejemon struggle, it is between them and the state. It is a struggle based on how one identifies himself or herself. Each person has to choose whether he or she is a Jejemon, or a Jejebuster. There is no middle ground. People have to know if they share the ideology with the state, or they defend the Jejemon sub-culture. Jejemons are a subordinate culture in the Philippine society, and they experience a stratified repression and ‘otherness’. Das and Poole (2004) believe that the state intentionally placed some people on the outskirts of the social margin, perhaps those who seem to be not productive and beneficial for the interests of the state. On the outskirts of the social margin, we can find a sub-culture (p. 6). Though displaced, alienated and disenfranchised, Jejemons have been capable of informing the mainstream media, the nation’s state of affairs and society at large. They made it 25
‘Gay lingo’ refers to the ‘gay language’ or the coded language used by gays to communicate with fellow gays. ‘Konyo’ is a label for rich peoples’ (and those pretending to be rich) way of speaking. The overuse of words like ‘like’, ‘you know’, ‘uhm’, and ‘wait’, among others, is very evident in their sentences. 26
J. C Cataan
48
through the use of styles, tools and ideology, thus, strengthening and preserving their existence and non-conformity.
Other forms of jejebusting This portion contains other forms of annihilation against the Jejemons over the internet. The state and its intellectuals, which Guieb (1991) identifies as the ‘molders of ideas’, have their own ‘styles’ and ‘tools’ to show anti-Jejemon sentiments. They associate Jejemons in themes of hopelessness, or death, which pose a negative impression to the sub-culture. I show this below by analyzing a jejeresume and a jejesuicide letter. In addition, media’s representations of Jejemon sub-culture are also forms of stealth jejebusting. In www.BoyBanat.com (2010), someone posted a ‘Jejeresume’, or a Jejemon’s resume, which is a prerequisite for getting jobs. Photo 11: Jejeresume (Photo by BoyBanat.com, 2010)
For clarity, below is the Filipino translation of the Jejeresume.
J. C Cataan
49
Resume ng isang Jeje Position desired: …kahit ano Name: …Don Sutil Address: …Sa tabi-tabi lang po. Educational Background: …bidyohan, text, dampa (elementary) …cutting classes, yosi, kupet Projects (HS) …Dotahan, bilyaran, KTV, mall (college) Special Skills: 27
…Magtext, mag-FS, mag-inom kapag weekdays, tambay sa 28 Starbucks, Emba. …Literates in MS Office… (MS Word, MS Powerpoint, Excel and Adobe Photoshop
This Jejeresume, at first, seems to empower the Jejemons because they are given the chance for employment, but the contents say otherwise. In the ‘position desired’, Jejemons cannot choose, but should accept whatever job is given to them, no matter how ‘mean’ it is. In ‘name’, instead of giving them an identity, the Jejemons are characterized as ‘sutil’ or disobedient. The ‘address’ all the more pushes them to the ‘outskirts of social margins’, because they live ‘anywhere’. The ‘education background’, moreover, describes the Jejemons’ vices, such as addiction to computer games, smoking, and hanging out in billiard places and malls. Lastly, instead of highlighting the abilities of Jejemons that qualify them to the job desired, the Jejemons’ supposed special skills are texting, surfing social networking sites, such as Friendster , drinking liquor on weekdays, staying in coffee shops like Starbucks, and bars like “Emba” or “Embassy Bar”. The Jejeresume connotes that Jejemons should never be hired. This Jejeresume implies that being a Jejemon as an identity ‘says it all’, and should not be hired for a job, no matter how qualified the Jejemon is. This particular example of Jejebusting confirms Willis’s (1977) stance on sub-cultures as “empowerment without a future” (in Gelder, p. 87).
27 28
FS means Friendster.com, a social networking site. Emba is a shortened term for Embassy Bar. It is a known hang out place of rich youth.
J. C Cataan
The Jejemons are portrayed as a group of youth, without a future. They are bound to get ‘mean’ jobs. They are doomed to their own damnation. Jejemons are also indentified by Jejebusters as ‘emotional’, and ‘almost dying’ in this world. This is seen in BoyBanat.com’s Jejesuicide letter to his boyfriend.
Photo 12: Jejesuicide letter (Photo courtesy of BoyBanat.com)
For clarity, the Jejesuicide letter says, Sorry kasi iiwan na kita sa mundo. Mahal naman kita eh, kaso, hindi ko kaya na laging pangalawa na lang ako sa puso mo. At least, sa langit, nakikita kita sa lahat ng oras. Salamat sa time mo. Bhie. Mahal kita kahit laging ako ang nagpaparaya, ako ang nasasaktan, kasi, ganito ako magmahal eh. Hindi bale, magkikita pa rin naman tayong dalawa.
50
J. C Cataan
51
29
Masakit noong mas pinili mo ang dota sa akin. Mas masaya ka kapag kasama mo ang friends mo. Masakit sa lahat, dineny mo ko sa harap nila. So it’s better to say goodbye to you na lang. I love you. (sabay inom ng panlinis ng silver) This Jejesuicide letter describes a girl being taken for granted by her boyfriend. The boy prioritizes online games and his friends, rather than paying attention to her. Although there is no claim that this letter is accurate, her letter reveals the emotional affinity of Jejemons to people who still value them, even after they become Jejemons. This Jejebusting ‘tool’ means that Jejemons are not meant to be accepted as a partner in life, or a family member because they do not live a ‘normal’ life. They do not know how to handle and take care of relationships.
Jejemons and representations on TV Media have a huge role to play in the growth, or death perhaps, of the Jejemon subculture. As seen above, the internet has been the ‘virtual battlefield’ of Jejemons and Jejebusters. Jejemons are also represented on television. I see this as the capability of Jejemons to fit into the mainstream and the ‘dominant culture’. The sub-culture influences the content of television. In some negotiations, Jejemons found victories such as the attention that the mainstream media gives them. They continue to flourish in mainstream media evidently with GMA Network’s situational comedy which first aired last August 15, 2010 entitled Jejemom. The program, however, only aired briefly. Its final episode was aired November 13, 2010. Contrary to the notion that the Jejemon sub-culture is strictly for the youth, the show presents an exception through Eugene Domingo’s role as Gigi dela Cruz, a Jejemon mother (Starmometer, 2010). The stereotypes are the same with my JejeFriends. Gigi wears a Jejecap, and colorful clothes and accessories, but she does not have the values and ideology of the Jejemons. Matza and Sykes (1961) provide a good explanation regarding my assertion above. The Network attempts to gain financially in creating Jejemom. It is the chance of every ‘subculture’
29
An online RPG or role-playing game.
J. C Cataan
52
to intervene since “society tends to provide institutionalized periods in which these subterranean values are allowed to emerge and take precedence” ( p. 72). This ‘breathing space’ however for subordinate culture is measured and is regulated. Portrayals in mass media, for example the Jejemon is still fictitious, and does not represent the true Jejemon sub-culture, which I illustrate below. Personally, as written on my field notes while watching Jejemom, I believe that the GMA Network fails to capture the being of a Jejemon. Gigi’s role as a Jejemon mother has no empirical basis. While I may agree on the attempt of the show to provide a new image of the Jejemon, I find the rendition of the image questionable, mainly because the characterization of the Jejemon persona is shallow and devoid of humanity. Gigi’s Jejemon role, moreover, was not sustained until its last episode. She evolved from a Jejemon to a barangay secretary loved by her family, her love interest who is a policeman, and the rest of her barangay constituents. In reality, there are no ‘Jejemon mothers’ because a sub-culture sprouts from the youth’s ability to establish their own identity apart from their households and other institutions (Clarke, et al., 1975, p. 104).
At first, it seems like a favorable venue for Jejemons to let people understand their own culture. But in the end, I realize that the sub-culture was ‘used’, exploited and tainted by false representation. One must remember the context in which the character was created. That context is the market appropriation of the sub-culture itself. This process of appropriation by capital, I argue, is a form of Jejebusting. Aside from a ‘Jejemon mother’, a movie was released in 2010 entitled Father Jejemon, which was one of the entries in the annual Metro Manila Film Festival. As the title suggests, it is about a Jejemon priest played by Dolphy.
30
Though I was not able to watch the said movie,
based on my observation in its trailer, ‘father Jejemon’ is loved by his fellow priests, church congregation and the rest of the community. He is the adviser of everyone. I contend that the ‘Jejemon priest’ is a contrary rendition of what my empirical data suggest. The church is a Jejebuster, and to represent the Jejemon sub-culture in this regard, is also flawed.
30
Dolphy is a prominent artist. He is called the Comedy King of the Philippines.
J. C Cataan
53
In addition, it is interesting to point out that those who are Jejebusters in real life, such as the parents and the church, were represented on the visual medium as Jejemons. More than being flawed, I argue that media representations on Jejemons are ‘intentionally’ misleading. In other words, there is a reversal of roles in the way media represents the Jejemon sub-culture. In media, the Jejebusters, clothed in the character of a Jejemon, become the loved protagonists. In real life, however, and as supported by my data, these Jejebusters are the antagonists of the Jejemons. It is evident that media ‘ride’ not just on the fame of the sub-culture, but to acts of Jejebusting. These acts by the media are a form of ‘cultural sarcasm’ to the Jejemon sub-culture. These are witty and funny representations, yet an insult to the sub-culture. I contend that this strategy by media to ‘aromatize’ the image of the Jejebusters is a way of ‘watering down’ the rage of the Jejemons against the Jejebusters. One can surmise that the media attempt to use the Jejemon sub-culture for its business interest. The Jejemons, nevertheless, consider the effort by media to represent them as a triumph, albeit in limited and limiting ways. As Jejemaster says in one interview: “At least, nasa TV [kami]”. Although the representations are flawed and misleading, these prove one thing, that the national culture time and again refracts, and is refracted in turn, by a sub-culture, even after the ‘glorious days’ of this sub-culture (Gordon, 1947, p. 42).
J. C Cataan
54
“Kapag binenta ko ang website sa kanila, parang binenta ko na rin ang kultura ng Pilipinas.”
-
Sabi ni Jejemaster sa akin sa isyu ng planong pagbili ng isang malaking telecommunication company sa website
na www.jejemon.com. Disyembre, 28, 2010
J. C Cataan
55
CHAPTER 6 From subway to the main road: the Jejemons’ ambivalent returns If Bourdieu (in Wacquant, 2006) believes that sub-cultures are cultural constellations that appear and dissolve eventually, and Clarke, et al. (1975, p. 105) say that “subcultures appear only at particular historical moments then disappear or widely diffused afterwards”, I now ask: what is the purpose of the existence of sub-cultures? And under what conditions do they exist?
The Jejemons are here to stay Hebdige (1979) asks this same question. He argues that what lacks in many ‘subculture’ studies is the idea of ‘historical specificity’, or an explanation why these particular forms occur at a particular time. This paper therefore culminates in asking, what transpired in the Philippine political, economic and social landscape that brought about Jejemons? I believe that the Jejemon sub-culture does not exist in a vacuum but is caused by preexisting social dilemmas such as the deterioration of education and poverty. Teodoro (2010) agrees with this when he says that since Jejebusters are those who are intellectual and often have more access to politics and economy, they should think of more ‘permanent solutions’ to educational problems, which, he believes is the reason of Jejemons’ existence (par. 15). Thus, a creation of sub-culture is a matter of collective problem-solving (Cohen, 1955). In general, Cohen (1955) believes that “problems exist in different variants and are dispersed in society through categories equipped by their society with frames of references such as sex, age, racial, economic stratum and social class.” In solving these problems, one considers his or her surroundings and affiliations. “We seek, if possible, solutions which will settle old problems and not create new ones.” Therefore, one will use template solutions and conventional norms as remedy. “This immediately imposes sharp limits on the range of creativity and innovation,” Cohen adds (p. 46-47). Jejemons do otherwise. If and when they realize that there is a need to change the system of education in the country, they do not join street protests, or engage in other forms of protest such as lobbying, signature campaign, and noise barrage among others, which are commonly the strategies engaged by traditional activists. Jejemons, however, enter a cultural and symbolic
J. C Cataan
56
battle by forming their own sub-culture. I contend that the Jejemons are aware of the battle that they are waging, but only partly. I argue that they are unaware of the complexity of such battle. There are pressures toward conformity and there are instant rewards for doing so, such as acceptance, recognition and respect, but the other way around when one transgresses. Cohen (1955) concludes that “he who dissents in matters the group considers important, inevitably alienates himself to some extent from the group and from satisfying social relations” (p. 46-47). Their existence may be symbolic. Their resistance is symbolic, and their solution, a creation of sub-culture, is even more symbolic. Clarke, et al. (1975) deny the power of this symbolic resistance, because “a resolution…pitched largely at the symbolic level, was fated to fail” (p. 104). They call it an imaginary way of problem solving which lead nowhere. Gramsci (1992) supports Clarke, et al. (1975), and is brave in saying that “‘men’ define and shape their whole lives is true only in abstraction. In any actual society, there are specific inequalities and therefore in capacity to realize this process” (p. 108). Willis (1977) suggests that sub-cultures get it wrong when they opt to deviate and resist from the dominant culture, because, like the ‘lads’, they only contribute to their own damnation. It does not follow that the ‘dominant culture’ chooses them to be damned. They do, because their ‘cultural’ resistance does not equate to political and economic reforms in their society (p. 114). Therefore, the Jejemon sub-culture lives on as a constant reminder for three things. First, the ruling social structure is not absolute and all powerful. Jejemons sub-culture can also be an alternative ‘hegemony’. Second, the sub-culture is an outright reflection of the nation’s basic services. Clarke, et al., (1975) believe that sub-cultures “command the stage of public attention for a time” because they have something to say, or remind (p. 100, 101). Third and the last, in my opinion, that the Filipino youth cultural and sub-culture movement is creative and active in shaping society, and they are in search for a brighter future. Many are sceptic that the Jejemon sub-culture, just like any other sub-cultures, will die a natural death. But Jejemaster, the Jejefriends and I beg to disagree. Jejemaster, as a proof that the sub-culture is growing, told me
31
about the offer by a telecommunication network that he refuses
to name, to buy the domain www.jejemon.com, for about three million Philippine pesos (He
31
During my sit-down interview with him on December 28, 2010.
J. C Cataan
57
purchased the domain in year 2010 for three hundred Philippine pesos). “’Di ba, buster din naman ‘yan?”, he says. I read this statement by Jejemaster as another attempt by capital to appropriate the sub-culture, and possibly deny its existence. As of this writing, he consistently refuses the offer. He closes this topic by saying that selling the domain is like selling the culture of the Philippines. He adds that ‘MyPhone’, a Filipino-owned cellular phone and appliance company, in addition, bought the ‘Jejetranslation’
32
from him. The company puts the Jejetranslator in every
MyPhone cellular phone unit starting year 2011. This marks another year of ‘Jejemony’, and the sub-culture will definitely transform in ways that we do not know yet. Ryan, the leader of Jejefriends, told me during our last meeting in January 2010, that they are creating a new brand of Jejemon, called ‘Harharmon’. Harharmon is a ‘level-up’ form of Jejemon, which includes the overuse of ‘smiley’ icons such as “:))))))))” or “:’’’’’(“, measuring the emotions of a Jejetexter.
The Jejemons’ ambivalent returns At this point, I want to introduce and schematically outline, the notion of return albeit, tentatively, as it relates to the Jejemons’ migrant circuits. Nicole Constable (1999), in her studies about Filipino migrants’ uncertain return to the Philippines, points out the interesting concept of ‘transnational migrant circuit’ (p. 214). She suggests that migrants try to link two or more places, such as the place of migration, the native land, and other places of belongingness into one life. I infer that this concept can be applied not just geographically, but also socially and culturally. The Jejemons also attempt to link two cultures into ‘one life’. I suggest to call that space or link as ‘transcultural migrant circuit’. Jejemons are indeed ‘cultural migrants’. There will always be a point of return to the original culture where they first belonged prior to being Jejemons. It is an unending ‘circuit’. Based on my personal experience, I had a hard time going back to my ‘parent culture’. People see me as ‘deviant’ also. My friends and school mates continue to tease me and label me as Jejemon defender’ or ‘JejeJoseph’. They are of the opinion that I have the impression that I will always carry with me my Jejemon identity, even in the event that I decide to undress myself
32
A Filipino-Jejenese translator created and operated by Jejemaster.
J. C Cataan
58
of the identity. My Jejefriends, likewise, experience ambivalence in their own ‘circuits’, which I narrate below.
Ryan: the uncommitted leader Ryan has impressed on me that he loves and values this Jejemon sub-culture because he is always active in meetings. He texts often as well. His part-time work as a school staff, where he also studies, however, hinders him to fully commit to the sub-culture. Most of the time, although he wants to wear a Jejeform, he is hindered by the thought that he might lose his parttime job. Her parents continue to reject him because he is a Jejemon, but I sense something happy on his face. Through this sub-culture, he finds his identity.
Sherwin: still a silent listener Sherwin, until the end of my immersion in their sub-culture, is still a silent Jejemon. He still wants to be a pilot or a ship captain in the future. I cracked a joke that if that happens, we will have our first Jejepilot and Jejeplane, or Jejeship and Jejecaptain. But one striking statement that surprised me is his optimism about their sub-culture. He said: Sa tingin ko, ‘di na mawawala ang Jejemon. Hangga’t may nageexist na isa, may mahahawa at mahahawa, ‘di ba? Iyon na rin ang nakasanayan kaya di na rin mawawala. Proud ako maging Jejemon kasi iyon ang uso, ‘yon ang ‘in’. Sabay sa agos ng buhay, tsaka sa kabataan (Field notes, January 22, 2011). This, I believe, is the longest statement that I had ever heard from him. Though a silent listener, he is a determined Jejemon. Although the ambivalence is less because his parents have no reactions to his Jejemon style, he continues to struggle to let go of his timidity, and fully embrace the sub-culture’s expressive identity.
Kath: I see a colorful future Kath states something randomly when we informally assessed my ‘performance’ and participation into their sub-culture. She said that her mother was once a Jejemon before. I asked how it happened. We argued and eventually, it turned out that her mother was part of the ‘retro’ era, which was also associated with colorful clothes and accessories. It is her parents who taught her to be colorful in clothes. She said that if the present is as colorful as her mother’s past, she is confident about a colorful future. She said that she will continue to be a Jejemon even when she gets older.
J. C Cataan
59
Nina and Princess Nina and Princess were not around during my last visit, but we stay in touch. Our separate geographic spaces are linked by text messages. They tell me that they are still in their own respective relationships. It is comforting to know that relationships inside the sub-culture, no matter how ‘othered’, still continue to grow.
It’s a joyride: a ‘journey’ worth remembering My literature review sketched the turbulent itinerary of the concept of ‘subculture’. The provision of a seemingly stable theoretical space of ‘subculture’ became the ‘resting place’ of social scientists who wanted to make their researches comfortable. The Chicago and Birmingham Schools played a big role in shaping this colorful, yet sometimes dark concept. Theorists after theorists challenged the concept and phenomenon, steering debates into opposing directions. This research is one of those that opted to drive the ‘steer’ of ‘subculture’ studies to another direction. Some sub-cultures did not flourish, while others continue to occupy crevices in the cracks of the dominant culture. I am confident that the Jejemon sub-culture, with the growth of the internet, will be challenged time and again by scholars. The Jejemons and my ‘journey’ to their ‘world’ proved one thing: their ‘world’ is not far from us, their ‘world’ is not somewhere ‘out there’, but ‘somewhere in here’, somewhere ‘in’ us, ‘within’ us. The Jejemons are ordinary youth who yearn to curve something meaningful into their experiences. They want to impart indelibly these experiences into their lifetime, differently. ‘Tools’ such as Jejeposes, Jejetext and Jejeclothes are their significations of belongingness. They are the meaningful signifiers of the sub-culture’s shared identity that is constantly barraged by society’s restrictions. Jejemons are real. They love. They resist. They become sad. They feel insulted. They cry. They breathe, and live. Some Jejemons leave, and no matter how ambivalent their returns are, the Jejemons are here to stay. As long as there are problems in the ‘mantle’ of Philippine society, sub-cultures will continue to exist, not in its margins, not elsewhere or somewhere, but inside the dominant culture’s cores.
J. C Cataan
60
The ‘transcultural circuit’ remains, and Jejemons continue to be ‘cultural migrants’ of their ‘world’. Although they depart from the norms and culture to which they are accustomed, they have ways to return. ‘Transcultural circuit’ enables them to connect, and re-connect to their former culture whenever it is necessary. It is essential, I believe, for any sub-culture to do so as a tool for their continuous existence. I contend that no one completely departs from its ‘mother’ culture. There is and will still be a point of departure from and return to the ‘world’. This research recognizes its limitations and constraints, both in theory and in practice. I thus challenge and recommend that this ‘Jejethesis’ be critiqued and updated to make this small piece of knowledge flourish. Some urgent and important themes related to this research can be the ‘production of space’ by Jejemons. Henri Lefevre (2001) says that no space disappears completely. Something always survives or endures (p. 403). Therefore, in the fast dynamics of sub-cultures, it is important to figure out how they shift and exchange spaces in society. Is transformation a part of its expansion, or a defence mechanism should death appear imminent? Another unexplored idea with regard to the study of sub-culture is the issue of ‘the transcultural vis-a-vis the sub-cultural’. These are mentioned in this research but are given little attention. Do these two concepts happen at the same time? Are all sub-cultures transcultural? Are all transcultural sub-cultural? Last point before the curtain call, it is vital to look at Jejemons’ ambivalent returns. This idea is inspired by the book Anthropology of Removal by Nathalie Peutz (2006). It should be asked, when the time comes that they have to return to their former culture, do they have a sense of difficulty conforming again to the local norm? Especially when they are seen as polluted and polluting the former culture (p. 223). I tend to believe that their return is not a homecoming, but only another arrival in their created ‘transcultural circuit’. I believe that my departure from the Jejemon sub-culture and my return to my ‘parent culture’ is a journey in a ‘trancultural circuit’ of moments and identities.
J. C Cataan
61
References Althusser, L. (1992, 1971). Ideological state apparatuses, excerpt from ideology and the state. In R. Phillip & Waugh P. (Eds.). Modern Literary Theory: A Reader (pp. 54-62). London and New York: Edward Arnold. Arao, Danilo. (2010). Ano ngayon kung jejemon? Retrived June 20, 2010 from www.bulatlat.com Becker, Howard S. (1963). The culture of a deviant group: The ‘jazz’ musician. Gelder st
K. & Thornton S. (Eds.). (1997). The subcultures reader (1 ed) (pp. 55-65). London: Routledge. Bell, David. (2000). Cybercultures reader: A user’s guide. In Gelder, Ken (Ed). (2005). ( nd
The subcultures reader 2
ed). London: Routledge.
Blank Tape. (2010). Jejemon lyrics. Retrieved July 29, 2010 from http://www.lyricsreg.com/lyrics/blanktape/Jejemon/ Bonifacio, A. (2010). Jejemon. Retrieved August 3, 2010from http://www.jejemon.com Boy Banat. (2010). Retrieved December 27, 2010 from www.boybanat.com Burgess, Jean. (2004). High culture as subculture: Brisbane’s contemporary chamber music scene. (Masteral dissertation, University of Queensland, 2004)
Canlas, Ruben. (2010). Jejenomics (a Quantitative Attempt to Explain Cellphone Spelling). Retrieved November 15, 2010 through Facebook note posted November 13, 2010 in http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=462998602479&comments&ref=notif¬if_t=not e_reply
Cartwright, L. & Sturken, M. (2001). Practices of looking: An introduction to visual culture. USA: Oxford University Press.
Clarke, John., Hall, Stuart., Jefferson, Tony., & Roberts, Brian. (1975). Subcultures, st
cultures and class. In Gelder K. & Thornton S. (Eds.). (1997). The subcultures reader (1 ed). London: Routledge.
J. C Cataan
Cohen, Albert. (1955). A general theory of subcultures. In Gelder K. & Thornton S. st (Eds.). (1997). The subcultures reader (1 ed) (pp. 44-54). London: Routledge.
Cohen, Phil. (1972). Subcultural conflict and working-class community. In Gelder K. & st
Thornton S. (Eds.). (1997). The subcultures reader (1 ed). London: Routledge. Constable, Nicole. (1999). At home but not at home: Filipina narratives of ambivalent return. In Cultural cntrhopology. UK: Blackwell Publishing. Cressey, Paul G. (1932). The life-cycle of the taxi-dancer. Gelder K. & Thornton S. st
(Eds.). (1997). The subcultures reader (1 ed (pp. 28-39 ). London: Routledge. Gaddi, J. (2010). Jejemony.Retrieved December 16, 2010 from www.facebook.com Garber, Jenny & McRobbie, Angela. (1975). Girls and subcultures. In Gelder K. & st Thornton S. (Eds.). (1997). The subcultures reader (1 ed). London: Routledge. st
Gelder K. & Thornton S. (Eds.). (1997). The subcultures reader (1 ed). London: Routledge. Gelder, Ken. (2005). The subcultures reader (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Gordon, Milton. (1947). The concept of the sub-culture and its application. Gelder K. & st
Thornton S. (Eds.). (1997). The subcultures reader (1 ed) (pp. 40-43). London: Routledge. Guieb III, Eulalio R. (1991). Ilang konseptwal na balangkas sa pagsusuri ng kulturang popular. Lundayan, 2(3). 32-37 Hebdige, D. (1979). Subculture, the meaning of style (pp. 1-19). London: Routledge. Herzfeld, M. (2005). Structural nostalgia. In Cultural Intimacy (2nd ed) (pp. 147-182 ). London: Routledge. Irwin, John. (1970). Notes on the status of the concept subculture. In Gelder K. & st Thornton S. (Eds.). (1997). The subcultures reader (1 ed) (pp. 66-70). London: Routledge.
Marcoleta, Harvey. (2010). Jejemons: The new ‘jolog’. Retrieved July 10, 2010 from www.inquirer.net
62
J. C Cataan
63
Marx, K. & Engels F. (1967, 1872). The class struggle, excerpt from The Communist Manifesto. In Laski H. J. (Eds.). On the Communist Manifesto: An Introduction Together with the Original Text and Prefaces by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. New York: New American.
Melencio, H. (2010). Jeje vonel. Retrieved July 29, 2010 from http://philippinehistory.ph/tag/jejemon/ Moore, H. & Sanders T. (Eds.). (2006). Claude Levi-Strauss: social structure. Anthropology in Theory. 136-145.
Pangilinan, John Carlo. (2001). Paglublob at paglusong: Isang pagtanaw sa mga skinhead sa Filipinas. (Undergraduate thesis, University of the Philippines Diliman)
Park, Robert E. (1915). The city: Suggestions for the investigation of human behaviour. London: University of Chicago Press. Gelder K. & Thornton S. (Eds.). (1997). The subcultures st
reader (1 ed) (pp. 16-27) . London: Routledge.
Peutz, Nathalie. (2006). Embarking on an anthropology of removal. In Current anthropology. UK: Blackwell Publishing.
Pilkington, H. (1994). Russia’s youth and its culture, A nation’s constructors and constructed . London: Routledge.
Rheingold, Howard. (1994). In Gelder, Ken. (2005). The subcultures reader (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Starmometer. (2010). The jejemon kicks off on GMA network. Retrieved August 30, 2010 from http://www.starmometer.com/2010/08/09/the-jejemom-invasion-kicks-off-on-gmanetwork/ Scheper-Hughes, Nancy. (1994). Death without weeping. Retrieved July 10, 2010 from in http://www.newint.org/issue254/mother/htm accessed Shibutani, Tamotsu. (1955). Reference groups as perspectives. In Gelder K. & Thornton st
S. (Eds.). (1997). The subcultures reader (1 ed) (pp. 66-70). London: Routledge.
J. C Cataan
64
Team Jejemon. (2010). History ng mga tunay na jejemon’s. Retrieved August 8, 2010 from http://www.facebook.com/notes/team-jejemon/history-ng-mga-tunay-na jejemons/114769245221912 Teodoro, J. (2010). We are all Jejemons. Retrieved June 10, 2010 from www.gmanews.tv Tolentino, R. (2010). Jejemon. Retrieved June 10, 2010 from http://www.bulatlat.com/main/2010/05/03/jejemon/ Turner, V. (1969). Liminality and communitas. The ritual process (94-130) . London: Routledge. UnbanDictionary.com. (2010). What is the meaning of Jejemon. Retrieved November 22, 2010 from www.unbandictionary.com Wacquant, L. (2006). Pierre Bourdieu. Retrieved August 3, 2010 from http://www.citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.120...pdf Wacquant, L. (2006). The social logic of sparring. In Body and Soul (pp. 77-149). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Williams, R. (Eds.). (1992, 1977). Hegemony. In marxism and literature (pp. 108-114). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Willis, P. (1977). Learning to labor. New York: Columbia University Press. Young, Jock. (1971). The subterranean world of play. In Gelder K. & Thornton S. (Eds.). st
(1997). The subcultures reader (1 ed) (pp. 71-80) . London: Routledge.
J. C Cataan
65
Photo credits Photo 1. (2010). ‘I am with Jejemaster Aris Bonifacio during my interview with him in The Old Spaghetti House, Walter Mart Pasong Tamo’ taken December 28, 2010. Photo by Aries Bonifacio. p. 24. Photo 2. (2011) . ‘Sherwin and Ryan, during our snacks at Greenwich SM Fairview’. Photo by Joseph Cataan. p. 26. Photo 3. (2011). Kath, Princess and Princess, during our snacks in Greenwich SM Fairview. Photo by Joseph Cataan. p. 26. Photo 4. (2011). Jejefriends and me. Photo by Joseph Cataan. p. 28. Photo 5. (2010). ‘My Jejefriends, Ryan, Kath, Nina, Princess and Sherwin, in their Jejeposes’. Photo by Joseph Cataan. p. 33. Photo 6. (2011). ‘Screen shots of Jejetexts, and my reply to C. Photos by Joseph Cataan. p. 38. Photo 7. (2010). ‘The Jejecap’. Photo by Boy Banat, in www.boybanat.com. p. 39. Photo 8. (2010). ‘Screen shot of Jejemon in Jejeform’. Photo by Boy Banat, in www.boybanat.com, taken from the show Saksi, GMANews.tv, 2010). p. 40. Photo 9. (2010). ‘A newspaper headline on DepEd’s campaign against Jejemons’. Photo by Boy Banat, in www.boybanat.com. p. 43. Photo 10. (2010). ‘Screen shot of Jing Gaddi’s status on Facebook as he coins the term ‘Jejemony’. Photo by Data Tolentino-Canlas. p. 46. Photo 11. (2010). ‘Jejeresume’. Photo by Boy Banat, in www.boybanat.com . p .48. Photo 12. (2010). ‘Jejesuicide letter’. Photo by Boy Banat, in www.boybanat.com. p. 49.
J. C Cataan
66
APPENDIX 1 Interview guide questions for Jejemaster Aris Bonifacio, 29 years old 1. What is a Jejemaster? 2. Did you go through membership before you become the Jejemaster? 3. What is its role? 4. What are the traits and characteristics of a Jejemaster? 5. Who gave you an authority to be the Jejemaster? 6. What is the feeling to be the Jejemaster? 7. Why did you decide to be the Jejemaster? 8. What do you gain from being the Jejemaster? 9. What is the impression of your family, relative and friends upon knowing that you are the Jejemaster? 10. How does being a Jejemaster affect you as a youth? As a son? As a student/worker? As a Filipino? As a person in general? 11. How do you invite members to join you? 12. Who is the real jejemon? How do you show it? (to be observed also) 13. How, when and where do you convene your Jejemons? 14. Do you love them? 15. How long will you be the Jejemonster? 16. How will you be replaced? 17. What is your contribution so far to the Jejemon “community”? 18. What is your goal as a Jejemaster? 19. Do you believe that Jejemons will die a natural death? 20. What can you say to the Jejebusters? 21. What is your dream for your community? 22. Are you proud to be a jejemaster?
J. C Cataan
67
APPENDIX 2 Interview guide questions for Jejemons 1. What is a Jejemon? 2. What are the unique characteristics of a Jejemon? 3. Do you really want to be a Jejemon? Why? 4. What do you get from being a Jejemon? 5. What is the role of a Jejemon? 6. What is the monster in the Jejemon? 7. What is the feeling of being a Jejemon? 8. What is the impression of your family, relative and friends upon knowing that you are the Jejemon? 9. How does being a Jejemon affect you as a youth? As a son/daughter? As a student/worker? As a Filipino? As a person in general? 10. How do you invite members to join you? 11. How do you show that you are a Jejemon? Fashion? Identities? Styles? (to be observed also) 12. Where and how do you get your load for texting? 13. How long will you be a Jejemon? 14. What is your contribution so far to the Jejemon “community”? 15. What is your goal as a Jejemon? 16. Do you believe that Jejemons will die a natural death? 17. What can you say to the Jejebusters? 18. What is your dream for your community? 19. Are you proud to be a jejemon? 20. What is a Jejemon ten years from now?
J. C Cataan
68
uN1v3rs1tY oF tH3 pH1L1Pp1n35 d1L1m4n
w0rK1n6 t1tL3: j3j3mOn5: tH3 “oTh3r wOrLd” w1tH1n tH3 wOrLd r3534rCh3r: j3j3jo53pH r1cK cRuZ c4t44n, uNd3rGr4dU4t3 j3j3sTuD3nT, cOLL393 oF m455 cOmMuN1c4t1oN pHoN3: (+63) 9168761567, (+63) 9322479434 3m4iL:
[email protected],
[email protected] 5uP3rV15oR: 3m4iL:
jejePrOf. 3uL4L1o gU13b III pH. d33
[email protected]
D1s 1sH 2 1nV1t3 U 2 p4rt1c1p4t3 1n 4 r3534rCh 3nt1tL3d j3j3mOn5: tH3 “oTh3r wOrLd” w1tH1n tH3 wOrLd 4 mY uNd3rGr4dU4t3 j3j3tH351s r3534rCh N d’ d3p4rTm3nT of bRo4dc45t cOmMuN1c4t1oN, cOLL393 oF m455 cOmMuN1c4t1oN oF uN1v3rs1tY oF tH3 pH1L1Pp1n35 d1L1m4n. D gO4L oF d’ 5TuD33 i5 2 d33pLy uNd3r5T4nD d’ j3j3mOn pH3nOm3nOn 4s 4 “sUb-cUlTur3” 3n“cOuNt3r cUlTur3”. uR p4rt1c1p4t1oN 1n D 5tudY w1LL 3nT4iL 4 5hOrt f4c3-tO-f4c3 iNt3rv13w w/ m3 4s D r3534rCh3r. u w1LL V 45k3d kW35t1oNz r394rD1n9 uR xP3r13nC3s 4z 4 j3j3mOn, h0w U cOnTr1BuT3 ‘n D cUlTuR3 3n hOw d1s cH4n93d uR LyF. pH0toz 3n/0r v1d3os w1LL 4lzO b3 t4K3n w1d uR p3Rm1zz1oN 2 zUpPl3m3nT ‘d r3534rCh. tH3 1nt3rV1eW w1LL l4zT 4 4n hOuR, 4LtHou9H w3 c4n zToP d1z 1nT3rV13w 4nYtyM u w4nT, 3n U cN w1tHdr4a fRoM d1z r3s34rCh 1fU dO nOt f1L cOm4t4bL3 w/0 n394t1v3 cOns3qU3ncEz oN u. uR s19n4tUr3 b3LoW s3rV35 2 s19n1fY d4t U a9r33 2 p4rT1c1p8 ‘n d1z zTuDy. uR p4rt1c1p4t1oN 1z 3nT1r3Ly vOLuNt4rY 3n U c4n cHuZ 2 d3cL1n3 2 4nZw3r 4nY qU3zT1oN, oR 3v3n w1tHdR4w 4t 4Ny p1oNt fR0m d’ r3z34rCh w/0 4nY p3n4lTy. 4nYt1n9 U s3y w1LL oNLi b3 4ttR1bUt3d 2 u w/ uR p3rM1zz1oN. mY pL3d93 2 cOnF1d3nT14L1tY 3n 3tH1cZ s 4L5o m34n5 d4T nO p3r5oN oR oR94n1z4t1oN oTh3r d4n mY 4dV153r w1LL h4v3 aCc355 2 4nY 1n4m4t1oN uNL3zz r3qU3zt3d bY dULy-r3cO9n1z3d 4uThOr1t1z 3n oFF1z3z oF d’ uN1v3rZty. oL 4m5 3n 1nt3rV13w tR4nZcR1pT1oNz 4r3 s4v3d 1n 4 p455wOrDprOt3ct3d d191t4L-v4uLt. pL1z dO nT h3z1t8 2 cOnT4cT m3 F u n1d mOr3 1nfOrM4t1oN oR 1f U w15h 2 4dd sOm3th1n9. 1f U h4v3 qU3zT1oNz oR cOnz3rNz, pL1z f1L fR33 2 cOnT4cT m3 4t 4nY tYm @ (+63) 9168761567, (+63) 9322479434 or at
[email protected].
c0n53nT: p4rT1c1p4nT’z s19n4tUr3 oV3r pR1nT3d n4M3: __________________ r3534rCh3r’5 s19n4tUr3 oV3r pR1nT3d n4M3: __________________ d8: _______________
J. C Cataan
69
C0n53nT fOrM FoR 1nT3rV13w (1nT3rV13w33’5 cOpEe) uN1v3rs1tY oF tH3 pH1L1Pp1n35 d1L1m4n
w0rK1n6 t1tL3: j3j3mOn5: tH3 “oTh3r wOrLd” w1tH1n tH3 wOrLd r3534rCh3r: pHoN3: 3m4iL: 5uP3rV15oR: 3m4iL:
j3j3jo53pH r1cK cRuZ c4t44n, uNd3rGr4dU4t3 j3j3sTuD3nT, cOLL393 oF m455 cOmMuN1c4t1oN (+63) 9168761567, (+63) 9322479434
[email protected],
[email protected] jejePrOf. 3uL4L1o gU13b III pH. d33
[email protected]
D1s 1sH 2 1nV1t3 U 2 p4rt1c1p4t3 1n 4 r3534rCh 3nt1tL3d j3j3mOn5: tH3 “oTh3r wOrLd” w1tH1n tH3 wOrLd 4 mY uNd3rGr4dU4t3 j3j3tH351s r3534rCh N d’ d3p4rTm3nT of bRo4dc45t cOmMuN1c4t1oN, cOLL393 oF m455 cOmMuN1c4t1oN oF uN1v3rs1tY oF tH3 pH1L1Pp1n35 d1L1m4n. D gO4L oF d’ 5TuD33 i5 2 d33pLy uNd3r5T4nD d’ j3j3mOn pH3nOm3nOn 4s 4 “sUb-cUlTur3” 3n“cOuNt3r cUlTur3”. uR p4rt1c1p4t1oN 1n D 5tudY w1LL 3nT4iL 4 5hOrt f4c3-tO-f4c3 iNt3rv13w w/ m3 4s D r3534rCh3r. u w1LL V 45k3d kW35t1oNz r394rD1n9 uR xP3r13nC3s 4z 4 j3j3mOn, h0w U cOnTr1BuT3 ‘n D cUlTuR3 3n hOw d1s cH4n93d uR LyF. pH0toz 3n/0r v1d3os w1LL 4lzO b3 t4K3n w1d uR p3Rm1zz1oN 2 zUpPl3m3nT ‘d r3534rCh. tH3 1nt3rV1eW w1LL l4zT 4 4n hOuR, 4LtHou9H w3 c4n zToP d1z 1nT3rV13w 4nYtyM u w4nT, 3n U cN w1tHdr4w fRoM d1z r3s34rCh 1fU dO nOt f1L cOm4t4bL3 w/0 n394t1v3 cOns3qU3ncEz oN u. uR s19n4tUr3 b3LoW s3rV35 2 s19n1fY d4t U a9r33 2 p4rT1c1p8 ‘n d1z zTuDy. uR p4rt1c1p4t1oN 1z 3nT1r3Ly vOLuNt4rY 3n U c4n cHuZ 2 d3cL1n3 2 4nZw3r 4nY qU3zT1oN, oR 3v3n w1tHdR4w 4t 4Ny p1oNt fR0m d’ r3z34rCh w/0 4nY p3n4lTy. 4nYt1n9 U s3y w1LL oNLi b3 4ttR1bUt3d 2 u w/ uR p3rM1zz1oN. mY pL3d93 2 cOnF1d3nT14L1tY 3n 3tH1cZ s 4L5o m34n5 d4T nO p3r5oN oR oR94n1z4t1oN oTh3r d4n mY 4dV153r w1LL h4v3 aCc355 2 4nY 1n4m4t1oN uNL3zz r3qU3zt3d bY dULy-r3cO9n1z3d 4uThOr1t1z 3n oFF1z3z oF d’ uN1v3rZty. oL 4m5 3n 1nt3rV13w tR4nZcR1pT1oNz 4r3 s4v3d 1n 4 p455wOrDprOt3ct3d d191t4L-v4uLt. pL1z dO nT h3z1t8 2 cOnT4cT m3 F u n1d mOr3 1nfOrM4t1oN oR 1f U w15h 2 4dd sOm3th1n9. 1f U h4v3 qU3zT1oNz oR cOnz3rNz, pL1z f1L fR33 2 cOnT4cT m3 4t 4nY tYm @ (+63) 9168761567, (+63) 9322479434 or at
[email protected].
c0n53nT: p4rT1c1p4nT’z s19n4tUr3 oV3r pR1nT3d n4M3: __________________ r3534rCh3r’5 s19n4tUr3 oV3r pR1nT3d n4M3: __________________ d8: _______________
J. C Cataan
70
C0n53nT fOrM FoR p4rT1c1p4nT oBs3rV4t1oN (r3534rCh3r’5 cOpEe) uN1v3rs1tY oF tH3 pH1L1Pp1n35 d1L1m4n
w0rK1n6 t1tL3: j3j3mOn5: tH3 “oTh3r wOrLd” w1tH1n tH3 wOrLd r3534rCh3r: j3j3jo53pH r1cK cRuZ c4t44n, uNd3rGr4dU4t3 j3j3sTuD3nT, cOLL393 oF m455 cOmMuN1c4t1oN pHoN3: (+63) 9168761567, (+63) 9322479434 3m4iL:
[email protected],
[email protected] 5uP3rV15oR: 3m4iL:
jejePrOf. 3uL4L1o gU13b III pH. d33
[email protected]
D1s 1sH 2 1nV1t3 U 2 p4rt1c1p4t3 1n 4 r3534rCh 3nt1tL3d j3j3mOn5: tH3 “oTh3r wOrLd” w1tH1n tH3 wOrLd 4 mY uNd3rGr4dU4t3 j3j3tH351s r3534rCh N d’ d3p4rTm3nT of bRo4dc45t cOmMuN1c4t1oN, cOLL393 oF m455 cOmMuN1c4t1oN oF uN1v3rs1tY oF tH3 pH1L1Pp1n35 d1L1m4n. D gO4L oF d’ 5TuD33 i5 2 d33pLy uNd3r5T4nD d’ j3j3mOn pH3nOm3nOn 4s 4 “sUb-cUlTur3” 3n“cOuNt3r cUlTur3”. uR p4rt1c1p4t1oN 1n D 5tudY w1LL 3nT4iL 4 m0ntH-loN9 oF j3j3mOn pR4t1c3z w/ d r3z34rCh3r. u w1LL V gU1d1n9 eN t34cH2n9 d r3z34rCh3r w/ uR xP3r13nZ3z 4z 4 j3j3mOn 41m1n9 d4t d r3z34rCh3r w1LL h4v 4 f1rZt-h4nD xP3r13nZ3 oF d r34L j3j3mOn wOrLd. pH0toz 3n/0r v1d3os w1LL 4lzO b3 t4K3n w1d uR p3Rm1zz1oN 2 zUpPl3m3nT ‘d r3534rCh. u w1LL 4lzO xCh4n93 t3xT m3zz493z 3n oD3r m34nZ oF coMmuN1c4t1oN w/ d r3z34rCh3r 4LtHou9H w3 c4n zToP uR p4t1c1p4t1oN 4nYtyM u w4nT, 3n U cN w1tHdr4w fRoM d1z r3s34rCh 1fU dO nOt f1L cOm4t4bL3 w/0 n394t1v3 cOns3qU3ncEz oN u. uR s19n4tUr3 b3LoW s3rV35 2 s19n1fY d4t U a9r33 2 p4rT1c1p8 ‘n d1z zTuDy. uR p4rt1c1p4t1oN 1z 3nT1r3Ly vOLuNt4rY 3n U c4n cHuZ 2 d3cL1n3 2 4nZw3r 4nY qU3zT1oN, oR 3v3n w1tHdR4w 4t 4Ny p1oNt fR0m d’ r3z34rCh w/0 4nY p3n4lTy. 4nYt1n9 U s3y w1LL oNLi b3 4ttR1bUt3d 2 u w/ uR p3rM1zz1oN. mY pL3d93 2 cOnF1d3nT14L1tY 3n 3tH1cZ s 4L5o m34n5 d4T nO p3r5oN oR oR94n1z4t1oN oTh3r d4n mY 4dV153r w1LL h4v3 aCc355 2 4nY 1n4m4t1oN uNL3zz r3qU3zt3d bY dULy-r3cO9n1z3d 4uThOr1t1z 3n oFF1z3z oF d’ uN1v3rZty. oL 4m5 3n 1nt3rV13w tR4nZcR1pT1oNz 4r3 s4v3d 1n 4 p455wOrDprOt3ct3d d191t4L-v4uLt. pL1z dO nT h3z1t8 2 cOnT4cT m3 F u n1d mOr3 1nfOrM4t1oN oR 1f U w15h 2 4dd sOm3th1n9. 1f U h4v3 qU3zT1oNz oR cOnz3rNz, pL1z f1L fR33 2 cOnT4cT m3 4t 4nY tYm @ (+63) 9168761567, (+63) 9322479434 or at
[email protected].
c0n53nT: p4rT1c1p4nT’z s19n4tUr3 oV3r pR1nT3d n4M3: __________________ r3534rCh3r’5 s19n4tUr3 oV3r pR1nT3d n4M3: __________________ d8: _______________
J. C Cataan
71
C0n53nT fOrM FoR p4rT1c1p4nT oBs3rV4t1oN (p4rT1c1p4nT’5 cOpEe) uN1v3rs1tY oF tH3 pH1L1Pp1n35 d1L1m4n w0rK1n6 t1tL3: j3j3mOn5: tH3 “oTh3r wOrLd” w1tH1n tH3 wOrLd r3534rCh3r: j3j3jo53pH r1cK cRuZ c4t44n, uNd3rGr4dU4t3 j3j3sTuD3nT, cOLL393 oF m455 cOmMuN1c4t1oN pHoN3: (+63) 9168761567, (+63) 9322479434 3m4iL:
[email protected],
[email protected] 5uP3rV15oR: 3m4iL:
jejePrOf. 3uL4L1o gU13b III pH. d33
[email protected]
D1s 1sH 2 1nV1t3 U 2 p4rt1c1p4t3 1n 4 r3534rCh 3nt1tL3d j3j3mOn5: tH3 “oTh3r wOrLd” w1tH1n tH3 wOrLd 4 mY uNd3rGr4dU4t3 j3j3tH351s r3534rCh N d’ d3p4rTm3nT of bRo4dc45t cOmMuN1c4t1oN, cOLL393 oF m455 cOmMuN1c4t1oN oF uN1v3rs1tY oF tH3 pH1L1Pp1n35 d1L1m4n. D gO4L oF d’ 5TuD33 i5 2 d33pLy uNd3r5T4nD d’ j3j3mOn pH3nOm3nOn 4s 4 “sUb-cUlTur3” 3n“cOuNt3r cUlTur3”. uR p4rt1c1p4t1oN 1n D 5tudY w1LL 3nT4iL 4 m0ntH-loN9 oF j3j3mOn pR4t1c3z w/ d r3z34rCh3r. u w1LL V gU1d1n9 eN t34cH2n9 d r3z34rCh3r w/ uR xP3r13nZ3z 4z 4 j3j3mOn 41m1n9 d4t d r3z34rCh3r w1LL h4v 4 f1rZt-h4nD xP3r13nZ3 oF d r34L j3j3mOn wOrLd. pH0toz 3n/0r v1d3os w1LL 4lzO b3 t4K3n w1d uR p3Rm1zz1oN 2 zUpPl3m3nT ‘d r3534rCh. u w1LL 4lzO xCh4n93 t3xT m3zz493z 3n oD3r m34nZ oF coMmuN1c4t1oN w/ d r3z34rCh3r 4LtHou9H w3 c4n zToP uR p4t1c1p4t1oN 4nYtyM u w4nT, 3n U cN w1tHdr4w fRoM d1z r3s34rCh 1fU dO nOt f1L cOm4t4bL3 w/0 n394t1v3 cOns3qU3ncEz oN u. uR s19n4tUr3 b3LoW s3rV35 2 s19n1fY d4t U a9r33 2 p4rT1c1p8 ‘n d1z zTuDy. uR p4rt1c1p4t1oN 1z 3nT1r3Ly vOLuNt4rY 3n U c4n cHuZ 2 d3cL1n3 2 4nZw3r 4nY qU3zT1oN, oR 3v3n w1tHdR4w 4t 4Ny p1oNt fR0m d’ r3z34rCh w/0 4nY p3n4lTy. 4nYt1n9 U s3y w1LL oNLi b3 4ttR1bUt3d 2 u w/ uR p3rM1zz1oN. mY pL3d93 2 cOnF1d3nT14L1tY 3n 3tH1cZ s 4L5o m34n5 d4T nO p3r5oN oR oR94n1z4t1oN oTh3r d4n mY 4dV153r w1LL h4v3 aCc355 2 4nY 1n4m4t1oN uNL3zz r3qU3zt3d bY dULy-r3cO9n1z3d 4uThOr1t1z 3n oFF1z3z oF d’ uN1v3rZty. oL 4m5 3n 1nt3rV13w tR4nZcR1pT1oNz 4r3 s4v3d 1n 4 p455wOrDprOt3ct3d d191t4L-v4uLt. pL1z dO nT h3z1t8 2 cOnT4cT m3 F u n1d mOr3 1nfOrM4t1oN oR 1f U w15h 2 4dd sOm3th1n9. 1f U h4v3 qU3zT1oNz oR cOnz3rNz, pL1z f1L fR33 2 cOnT4cT m3 4t 4nY tYm @ (+63) 9168761567, (+63) 9322479434 or at
[email protected].
c0n53nT: p4rT1c1p4nT’z s19n4tUr3 oV3r pR1nT3d n4M3: __________________ r3534rCh3r’5 s19n4tUr3 oV3r pR1nT3d n4M3: __________________ d8: _______________
4 ‘w0r7D’ w1+h1n D4 w0r7D: D4 j3j3m0n$ 4$ D4 ‘0D4r’ cU7+Ur3
j0$3ph r1ck crUz c4+44n
$Ubm1++3D +0 D4 c077363 0f m4$$ c0mmUn1c4+10n Un1v3r$1+y 0f D4 ph171pp1n3$ D171m4n 1n p'r+147 fU7f177m3n+ 0f D4 r3qU1r3m3n+$ 4 D4 D36r33 0f
bch370r 0f 4r+$ 1n br04Dc4$+ c0mmUn1c4+10n
m4rch 2011
4 ‘w0r7D’ w1+h1n D4 w0r7D: D4 j3j3m0n$ 4$ D4 ‘0D4r’ cU7+Ur3
By j0$3ph r1ck crUz c4+44n
h4$ b33n 4ppr0v3D 4 D4 D36r33 0f bch370r 0f 4r+$ 1n br04Dc4$+ c0mmUn1c4+10n 4nD 4 D4 Un1v3r$1+y 0f D4 ph171pp1n3$ c077363 0f m4$$ c0mmUn1c4+10n bY
EU74710 R. GU13b III, ph. D.
pr0f3$$0r r074nD0 b. +073n+1n0, ph. D. D34n, c077363 0f m4$$ c0mmUn1c4+10n
b106r4ph1c47 D4+4
p3r$0n7 D4+4 N4m3
J0$3ph R1ck CrUz C4+44n
P3rm4n3n+ ADDr3$$
P5 B10 L3 S+4. B4rbr4 V1774$ 1, Br6y. S174n64n, S4n M4+30, R1z47
M0b173 NUmb3r
(+63) 91687616567
D4+3 & P74c3 0f B1r+h
16 AU6U$+ 1989, QU3z0n C1+y
3DUc4+10n S3c0nD4ry L3v37
Gr4DU4+3D w1+h D1$+1nc+10n, N4+10n7 Chr1$+14n L1f3 C077363, M4r1k1n C1+y
Pr1m4ry L3v37
A1 $+UD3n+, S+0. N1n0 E73m3n+4ry Sch007, M4r1k1n C1+y
0r64n1z4+10n$ C4mp'16n 4nD S+r4+3613$ H34D, S+UD3n+ A7714nc3 4 D4 ADv4nc3m3n+ 0f D3m0cr4+1c R16h+$ 1n UP-CMC (St4Nd uP-cMc) M3mb3r, UP M4$$ C0mmUn1c4+0r$ Or64n1z4+10n w0rk 3xp3r13nc3 S3n10r r3p0r+3r, K4b+44n N3w$ N3+w0rk, 2005-2010 r4D10 & +v 1n+3rn$h1p: DzUp 1602 khz, Un+v 37 4ch13v3m3n+$ Un1v3r$1+y $ch074r: AY 2007-2008, 1$+ $3m3$+3r C077363 $ch074r: AY 2007-2008, 2nD $3m3$+3r, AY 2008-2009, 2nD $3m3$+3r, AY 2009-2010, 1$+ $3m3$+3r
4ckn0w73D6m3n+$
I wUD 77yk +0 3x+3nD my D33p3$+ 6r4+1+UD3 +0 J3j3m4$+3r Ar1$ B0n1f4c10 4 h1$ p'+13nc3 1n m4ny r3-$ch3DU71n6 4nD 74+3-n16h+ c477$ 4nD +3x+ m3$$463$. Th4nk U' $0 mUch, Pr0f. E71 GU13b III 4 D4 73$$0n$ 4b0U+ D4 r3$34rch +0 734rn1n6 0f 71f3. Th4nk U' 4 D4 c0nfU$10n$, w1+h0U+ wh1ch Dr 1$ n0 c74r1+y. N0 0n3 37$3 c0m3$ c70$3 +0 U'. T0 Pr0f. D4+4 T073n+1n0-C4n74$, T3nchU 4 b31n6 my p$3UD0-4Dv1$3r. Y0U r b34U+1fU7 Th4nk U' UP C3n+3nn147 D0rm1+0ry, 4 my 3x3mp+10n$ +0 D4 cUrf3w. I 4m 47$0 6r4+3fU7 +0 my$37f. Y0U r D4 b3$+ r3$34rch p'r+n3r 3v3r! T0 477 my b70ckm4+3$, 3$p3c1477y “B4D3+$ 4nD Fr13nD$”, 4 D4 Un3nD1n6 cr 4nD y4b'$. S474m4+. Th4nk U' M0m, 4 D4 h0+ p'nD3$47$ 4nD c0ff33 3v3ry D4y 4nD n16h+. Th4nk U' 4 D4 pr4y3r$. I y4b'$ U'. Th4nk U' D4D, 4 D4 h0+ p'nc1+ w1+h 71+$0n 4nD D4 w0rD$ 0f w1$D0m 477 D4 +1m3. Th4nk U' 4 D4 71f3, 4nD D4 y4b'$, 4nD 4 b3713v1n6 1n m3. T0 U', wh0 $33 m3 1n 4 v3ry $p3c147 w4y 4m1D$+ D4 $34 0f f4c3$, T3nchU. Th1$ r3$34rch 1$ D3D1c4+3D +0 477 D4 L0v3$ +h4+ br1n6 U$ +0 71f3 (Th3 L0v3 0f S14m, 2006).
D3D1c4+10n Fr0m Y0U, +0 Y0U.
4b$+r4c+ C4+44n, J. C. (2011). A ‘W0r7D’ W1+h1n D4 W0r7D: Th3 J3j3m0n$ 4$ D4 ‘OD4r’ CU7+Ur3, UnpUb71$h3D UnD3r6r4DU4+3 Th3$1$, Un1v3r$1+y 0f D4 Ph171pp1n3$
C077363 0f M4$$ C0mmUn1c4+10n. Th1$ r3$34rch 3n+1+73D A ‘W0r7D’ W1+h1n D4 W0r7D: Th3 J3j3m0n$ 4$ D4 ‘OD4r’ CU7+Ur3 61v3$ 4 b$1c p1c+Ur3 0f D4 J3j3m0n ph3n0m3n0n. I $+4r+ w1+h cr1+1c1z1n6 D4 c0nc3p+ 0f ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ 4nD 3$+4b71$h 1+$ D1ff3r3nc3 w1+h ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’. I c0n$1$+3n+7y U$3 D4 74++3r +hr0U6h0U+ D4 r3$34rch. +h1$ $+UDy 3xp70r3$ b3y0nD D4 3mp0w3rm3n+-r3$1$+4nc3 mUhD37 0f m4ny pr3v10U$ $+UD13$, 4$ 1+ c01n$ 4n 0r161n7 c0nc3p+ 0f ‘j3j3m0ny’ 0r j3j3m0n$’ 47+3rn+1v3 h363m0ny. 1+ 47$0 r41$3$ 4 r373v4n+ r3$34rch pr0b73m 0n h0w j3j3m0n$ 4pp7y ‘j3j3m0ny’ 1n D41r 3v3ryD4y 71f3 4$ 4 4m 0f r3$1$+4nc3 4nD $+y73. T0 6r0UnD +h1$ r3$34rch, D4 r3v13w 0f r374+3D 71+3r4+Ur3 +r4c3$ D4 r00+$ 0f D4 c0nc3p+ ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’. A$ D4 y34r$ pr06r3$$, D4 c0nc3p+ $Uff3r$ $0m3 r373v4n+ cr1+1qU3$ $Uch 4$ 3x+r3m3 3mp1r1c1$m, 1+$ 71b3r47 4pp71c4+10n +0 4ny ph3n0m3n0n, 4nD D4 n3673c+ 4nD f417Ur3 +0 47w4y$ r374+3 +0 c74$$ 4nD 3+hn1c1+y. A+ D4 3nD 0f D4 r3v13w, 1+ D1r3c+$ D4 r3$34rch +0 c01n 4 n3w +3rm +h4+ 1$ mUhr3 f1++1n6 w1+h D4 3m3r61n6 $Ub-cU7+Ur3$ 1n D4 Ph171pp1n3$ 4nD 1n D4 w0r7D. In D4 Ph171pp1n3 ph0w$zzZZpU74r cU7+Ur3 $c3n3, D4 mUh$+ 1n+3r3$+1n6 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ +0 D4+3 1$ D4 J3j3m0n$+3r$ 0r $1mp7y J3j3m0n$. In 4 $h0r+ $p'n 0f +1m3, D4y h4v3 pr0v3n D4 $+r3n6+h 0f 4 $Ub0rD1n+3 cU7+Ur3 +0 f1+ 1n+0 D4 n+10n’$ $+4+3 0f 4ff41r$ 4nD D4 m41n$+r34m m3D14 4$ 3v1D3n+ w1+h GMA N3+w0rk’$ $h0w, J3j3m0m. I U$3 p'r+1c1p'n+ 0b$3rv4+10n 4$ D4 pr1m4ry m3+h0D 1n $+UDy1n6 D4 ph3n0m3n0n. I $p3n+ f1v3 w33k$ r3$34rch1n6 1n D4 f137D, 71v1n6 w1+h D4 J3j3m0n$ 4nD 4$ 4 J3j3m0n. Th1$ r3$34rch 1$ wr1++3n 1n +w0 74n6U463$, En671$h 4nD J3j3n3$3, D4 J3j3m0n$’ 74n6U463. Th3 4m3r $3rv3$ 4$ D4 m41n +3x+.
K3yw0rD$: cU7+Ur3, c74$$, 1D30706y, J3j3m0n$, $UbcU7+Ur3, $Ub-cU7+Ur3, m3D14
4b$+r4K+ C4+44n, J. C. (2011). An6 ‘MUnD0’ $4 L00b n6 MUnD0: An6 m64 J3j3m0n b174n6 ‘Ibn6’ KU7+Ur4, UnpUb71$h3D UnD3r6r4DU4+3 Th3$1$, Un1b3r$1D4D n6 P171p1n$ K073h1y0 n6 P4n6m4D74n6 K0mUn1k~$y0n. An6 p'nn71k$1k n 1+0 n p1nm464+4n6 An6 ‘MUnD0’ $4 L00b n6 MUnD0: An6 m64 J3j3m0n b174n6 ‘Ibn6’ KU7+Ur4 4y n6b1b164y n6 p'Unn6 74r4w4n $4 $UbkU7+Ur4n6 J3j3m0n. InUmp1$4h4n qU0h 4n6 p'nn71k$1k $4 p'6kr1+1k $4 qU0hn$3p+0 n6 ‘$UbkU7+Ur4’, 4+ 1p1n71w4n6 4n6 k~1bh4n n1+0 $4 ‘$Ub-kU7+Ur4’. An6 jU71 4y 4n6 6464m1+1n6 qU0hn$3p+0 $4 bU0n6 p'nn71k$1k. An6 p'nn71k$1k n 1+0 4y m4$ m47471m kUmp'r4 $4 mUhD370n6 ‘p'6-16p'w-p'674bn’ n6 m4r4m1n6 m64 nk~r44n6 p'6-44r47, k~$4by n1+0 4n6 p'6b1b164y n6 b60n6 +3rm1n070h1y4 n +4+4w461n6 ‘J3j3m0ny’ 0 47+3rn+1b0n6 h363m0ny4 0 64jUm n6 m64 J3j3m0n. I+1n+nU'n6 r1n n6 p'nn71k$1k kUn6 p'nU' 61n64m1+ n6 m64 J3j3m0n 4n6 qU0hn$3p+0 n6 ‘J3j3m0ny’ $4 k~n174n6 p'n6-4r4w-4r4w n bUh4y b174n6 ph0w$zzZZrm4 n6 p'6+U+07 4+ 3$+170. Up'n6 p'6+1by1n 4n6 p'nn71k$1k, b1n71k~n n6 n6-44r47 4n6 U64+ n6 qU0hn$3p+0 n6 $UbkU7+Ur4 n $4 p'6740n 4y n6+4m0 n6 174n6 kr1+1$1$m0 +U74D n6 7Ub0$ n p'6161n6 pr4k+1k~7, 4n6 m47Uw46 n p'664m1+ n6 +30ry4 $4 4nUm4n6 1$yU, 4+ 4n6 p'671m0+ 4+ k~m4714n $4 p'6-UU6ny n1+0 $4 m64 Ur1 $4 71pUnn 4+ kU7+Ur4. $4 k~+4pU$4n n6 p'nn71k$1k, nnnw464n 1+0 n jUm4np 0 7Um1kh4 n6 b60n6 $471+4n6 m444r1n6 1p'71+ $4 $471+4n6 ‘$UbkU7+Ur4’. S4 U$4p1n n6 kU7+Ur4n6 ph0w$zzZZpU74r $4 P171p1n$, 4n6 p1nx3'k~+ n ‘$UbkU7+Ur4’ $4 k~$47UkUy4n 4y 4n6 m64 J3j3m0n$+3r 0 m64 J3j3m0n. S4 m41k71n6 p'nh0n, np'+Uny4n n174 4n6 74k~$ n6 ‘$UbkU7+Ur4’ Up'n6 m41mp7Uw3n$1y4h4n 4n6 m64 p'mbn$4n6 U$4p1n 4+ m3D14 64y4 n6 m4k1kT4 $4 p'74b$ n6 GMA N3+w0rk n p1nm464+4n6 J3j3m0m. S4 p'6p'p'+U70y n6 p'nn71k$1k, 61nm1+ qU0h 4n6 p'r+1c1p'n+ 0b$3rv4+10n Up'n6 p'64r474n 4n6 ‘$UbkU7+Ur4’. S4 700b n6 71m4n6 71n660, nk1p'mUh4y 4q, $Um4m4 4+ n61n6 1$4n6 J3j3m0n. An6 p'nn71k$1k n 1+0 4y 1$1nU74+ $4 w1k~n6 In673$ 4+ J3j3n3$3, 4n6 w1k~ n6 m64 J3j3m0n. An6 w1k~n6 In673$ 4n6 $1y4n6 p'n6Unh1n6 +3k$+0.
K3yw0rD$: kU7+Ur4, Ur1, 1D3y070h1y4, J3j3m0n, $UbkU+Ur4, $Ub-kU7+Ur4, m3D14
+4b73 0f c0n+3n+$ P463 T1+73 P463
i
4ppr0v47 $h33+
ii
B106r4ph1c47 D4+4
iii
Ackn0w73D6m3n+
iv
D3D1c4+10n
v
4b$+r4c+
vi
Ab$+r4k+
vii
+4b73 0f c0n+3n+$
viii
L1$+$ 0f T4b73$ 4nD P1c+Ur3$
x
ch4p+3r 1: H3r3 c0m3$ D4 +07764+3: An 1n+r0DUc+10n
2
ch4p+3r 2: En+3r1n6 D4 $Ubw4y: D4 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ D40ry,
9
1+$ $+4+U$ 4nD cr1+1qU3$ Th3 Ch1c460 m4D3 4 bU77’$ 3y3: D4 0r161n$ 0f D4 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ D40ry
10
C4n Mr. W3b$+3r D0 +h1$?'': D3f1n1n6 D4 +3rm ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’
12
D3+0Ur 4h34D: 4 cr1+1qU3 0f D4 c0nc3p+ 0f $UbcU7+Ur3
12
UnD3r c0n$+rUc+10n: chUR1-cHUr1'x 4 D4 1nc0nv3n13nc3: Th3 B1rm1n6h4m Sch007 Tr4D1+10n 4nD ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ $+UDy
15
‘SUbcU7+Ur3$’ 1n D4 Ph171pp1n3$
17
N0+ $0 f4r: D4 47+3rn+1v3$ +0 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’
19
‘SUbcU7+Ur3’ v1$-à-v1$ $Ub-cU7+Ur3
20
ch4p+3r 3: n0 $w3rv1n6: D4 r1$3 0f j3j3m0n$
24
D3f1n1n6 4 J3j3m0n
24
0r161n 0f D4 +3rm j3j3m0n
24
J3j3 + w3bm4$+3r = J3j3m4$+3r
26
+h3 j3j3fr13nD$
27
ch4p+3r 4: 3n+3r1n6 4 ‘w0r7D’ w1+h1n D4 w0r7D: D4 j3j3w0r7D
32
Th3 n3w J3j3m0n 1n +0wn
34
J3j3m0n$’ c0D3$ 4nD ‘$+y73’
35
Th3 J3j3+3x+
38
Th3 J3j373v37$: D4 m34xUr! 0f 4 +rU3 J3j3m0n
39
E0w pFhOwzH: +3x+m4+3$ +0 r3m3mb3r
41
Th3 J3j3f4$h10n
42
Th3 J3j3m0n$’ 1D30706y 4nD 47+3rn+1v3 h363m0ny
44
ch4p+3r 5: +h3 j3j3bU$+3r$ 4nD 0D4r 4m$ 0f j3j3bU$+1n6
49
iN5t1tuTi0nZ oF J3j3bU$+1n6
49
OD4r 4m$ 0f j3j3bU$+1n6
52
J3j3m0n$ 4nD r3pr3$3n+4+10n 0n TV
56
ch4p+3r 6: fr0m $Ubw4y +0 D4 m41n r04D: +h3 j3j3m0n$’ 4mb1v473n+ r3+Urn$ 60 Th3 J3j3m0n$ r h3r3 +0 $+4y 60 Th3 J3j3m0n$’ 4mb1v473n+ r3+Urn$
62
I+’$ 4 j0yr1D3!: 4 ‘j0Urn3y’ +0 r3m3mb3r
64
R3f3r3nc3$
67
App3nD1c3$ Ph0+0 cr3D1+$
71
In+3rv13w 6U1D3 qU3$+10n$ 4 J3j3m4$+3r
72
In+3rv13w 6U1D3 qU3$+10n$ 4 J3j3m0n$
73
C0n$3n+ 4m$
74
V3r$10n 2: Th3 tH3$1$ 1n J3j3n3$3
L1$+ 0f +4b73$ 4nD ph0+0$
+4b73$ T4b73 1 - A7ph4b3+ v1$-à-v1$ J3j3b3+
35
T4b73 2: L3v37$ 0f J3j3+3x+
36
Ph0+06r4ph$ Ph0+0 1: I 4m w1+h J3j3m4$+3r Ar1$ B0n1f4c10 DUr1n6 my 1n+3rv13w w1+h h1m 24 1n Th3 O7D Sp'6h3++1 H0U$3, W47+3r M4r+ P4$0n6 T4m0, D3c3mb3r 28, 2010 Ph0+0 2: Sh3rw1n 4nD Ry4n, DUr1n6 0Ur $nck$ 1n Gr33nw1ch SM F41rv13w
26
Ph0+0 3: K4+h, Pr1nc3$$ 4nD N1n, DUr1n6 0Ur $nck$ 1n Gr33nw1ch SM F41rv13w 27 Ph0+0 4: J3j3fr13nD$ 4nD m3
28
Ph0+0 5: My J3j3fr13nD$, Ry4n, K4+h, N1n, Pr1nc3$$ 4nD Sh3rw1n, 1n D41r J3j3p0$3$
33
Ph0+0 6: Scr33n $h0+$ 0f J3j3+3x+ (fr0m 73f+: A, B 4nD C). D: Scr33n $h0+ 0f my r3p7y +0 C
38
Ph0+0 7: Th3 J3j3c4p (Ph0+0 by B0y B4n+, 2010)
39
Ph0+0 8: Scr33n $h0+ 0f J3j3m0n 1n J3j34m (fr0m D4 $h0w S4k$1, GMAN3w$.+v, 2010)
40
Ph0+0 9: Scr33n$h0+ 0f J1n6 G4DD1’$ $+4+U$ 0n F4c3b00k 4$ h3 c01n$ D4 +3rm ‘J3j3m0ny’
43
Ph0+0 10: A n3w$p'p3r h34D71n3 0n D3pED’$ c4mp'16n 4641n$+ J3j3m0n$ (Ph0+0 by B0y B4n+, 2010) ph0+0 11: j3j3r3$Um3 (ph0+0 by b0ybn+.c0m, 2010)
46 48
Ph0+0 12: J3j3$U1c1D3 73++3r (Ph0+0 c0Ur+3$y 0f B0yB4n+.c0m)
49
J. C C4+44n
f!eLd nOte entREh D8T3d octoWveR 5 Jej3jej3zzssZZ, 2010 l0c@T!owN: Alvah pHot0c0PY1Ng anD Prin+!nG z+@Ll PoWz ♥♥♥♥♥, Zh0wpP!N6 ceN+er jejeJ3j3 ♥♥♥♥♥, up d!lim@n JOzEPH:
8sZzszz, P@H-priNt p0wh.
iN@bot ME nUah Ang UZB m3. 8+E:
U@n0wng fIlenuaM3?
J0ZEph:
ItOh powh.
itInuR0w m3 aNg f!lEnAME nah ♥ xD ♥ j3j3prOpOSAL-FInAl.doCX P0Wz. 8Te:
b1NuksAN n! A+e @nG fil3.
GAN!t0Wh vAh t@l@g@H ‘ToH? ZUabu@Y turoh z@h j3j3n3z3 VErs!OWn nG @k1N6 t!tL3 pag3 joWs3Ph: 8t3:
0p0H. JejEnEse p0wh ‘y@n jejEjejeSsSzzZ, l@n6UAg3 N6 m6@h j3jeM0Wn. naTuaWah. @h JejejejE ♥♥♥♥♥! @kalu@h me virus eH. tumAwaH ♥ xD ♥ ulit.
1
J. C C4+44n
2
CHAPTER 1 H3r3 c0m3$ D4 +07764+3: An 1n+r0DUc+10n L1k3 1mp3rf3c+ c74y 1n ph0w$zzZZ++3r’$ h4nD$, +h1$ r3$34rch br34k$ m3 1n+0 p13c3$. Thr0U6h +h1$, I w47k3D +hr0U6h ‘p74c3$’ 4nD ‘$p'c3$’ I n3v3r kn3w b343. I 3xp3r13nc3 c0nfU$10n$, D40r3+1c47 4nD 1D307061c47 D173mm4, 4nD 3v3n+U477y, I 734v3 b3h1nD 4nD p1ck Up $0m3 p13c3$ 0f m3 +h4+ m4k3 4 n3w, 4nD p3rh4p$ b3++3r ‘J0$3ph C4+44n’. L3+ m3 b361n w1+h $3++1n6 D4 0bj3c+1v3$, r4+10n73, $c0p3$ 4nD 71m1+4+10n$ 0f +h1$ r3$34rch. A70n6$1D3 1$ my D1$$3n+ 0n D4 1$$U3 +h4+ +h1$ r3$34rch 1$ n0+ 4 br04Dc4$+ $+UDy. W3 $+UDy 4nD D0 r3$34rch n0+ +0 p734$3 0D4r$, bU+ +0 Un34r+h D4 mUh$+ ph0w$zzZZ$$1b73 +rU+h 4nD br34k D4 b0nD$ 0f 16n0r4nc3 4nD f47$1+y. B4$3D 0n w4+ I h4v3 0b$3rv3D 1n D4 4rch1v3$ 0f D4 U.P. C077363 0f M4$$ C0mmUn1c4+10n 71br4ry, 1+ 1$ v3ry 3v1D3n+ +h4+ D4$3$ 4nD D1$$3r+4+10n$ 1n D4 Br04Dc4$+ D3p'r+m3n+ +4ck73D 0n 4n7y$3$ 4nD cr1+1qU3$ +0 31D4r +373v1$10n 0r r4D10 pr06r4m$, w1+h 4 71++73 nUmb3r 0n D4 1n+3rn3+ 4$ 4 c0mmUn1c4+10n +007. TjU$, wh3n +h1$ r3$34rch 1$ b31n6 pr0p0$3D, 1+ $Uff3r3D Unf41r r3v13w$ 4nD cr1+1c1$m$1 wh1ch 73D +0 $4y1n6 +h4+ +h1$ 1$ n0+ 4 br04Dc4$+ $+UDy. BU+ D4 1n1+147 qU3$+10n +h4+ I 4$k, w4+ D03$ 1+ r3477y m34n +0 h4v3 4 br04Dc4$+ $+UDy?'' Th3 D4$3$ 4nD D1$$3r+4+10n$ m4D3 by pr3v10U$ Br04Dc4$+ m4j0r$ 1n D4 C077363 r $1m174r 1n +w0 +h1n6$. F1r$+, D4 m3D1Um 1$ cr1+1qU3D fr0m D4 0U+$1D3r’$ ph0w$zzZZ1n+ 0f v13w. S3c0nD, D4 m3D1Um 1$ D4 c3n+r47 +3x+ 0f D4 r3$34rch. Th3$3 0b$3rv4+10n$ 73D m3 +0 D4 $3c0nD 1nqU1ry: wUD 1+ $+177 b3 4 br04Dc4$+ $+UDy 1f D4 m3D1Um 1$ n0+ D4 c3n+r47 +3x+ 4nym0r3?'' 1n my r3$34rch, m3D14 1$ n0+ D4 c3n+r47 +3x+ 0r D4 pr0DUc3r$ 0f D4 m34n1n6 0f +3x+$, bU+ r4D4r D4 r3c31v3r$ 4nD r34c+0r$. +h1$ $+UDy D3v14+3$ fr0m m4ny ‘+3mp74+3’ br04Dc4$+ $+UD13$ m3n+10n3D 4b0v3. D4 f0c47 ph0w$zzZZ1n+ h3r3 1$ 4
1
$0Urc3$ r w1+hh37D.
J. C C4+44n
3
6r0Up 0f p30p73: 4 $0-c4773D ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ 0r $Ub-cU7+Ur32 +h4+ w4$ 4b73 +0 c0Un+3r D4 D0m1nn+ cU7+Ur3 1n D4 $0c13+y. D4y h4v3 b33n 4b73 47$0 +0 0ccUpy $m477 ‘$p'c3$’ 1n D4 m41n$+r34m m3D14. Th1$ r3$34rch m4y b3 D1ff3r3n+ fr0m pr3v10U$ $+UD13$ m3n+10n3D 34r713r bU+ +h1$ xUr!7y c0n+r1bU+3$ +0 D4 D3p'r+m3n+’$ 3$+4b71$hm3n+ 0f 1+$ D1$+1nc+ $ch007 0f +h0U6h+ 4 0D4r$ +0 f0770w. I $33 4nD r34D J3j3m0n$ 4$ 4 +3x+, 4 c0mmUn1c4+10n +3x+, 4nD I +ry +0 c4p+Ur3 D41r m3$$463. Th1$ r3$34rch 41m$ +0 $+UDy D4 J3j3m0n $Ub-cU7+Ur3 4$ 4 r374+3Dm3D14 4nD 4n+hr0p07061c47 ph3n0m3n0n, +0 UpD4+3 D4 r3c0rD 0f 3x1$+1n6 $UbcU7+Ur3$ +h4+ 3v07v3 4nD v4n1$h +hr0U6h +1m3, 4nD +0 $+UDy D4 1n+3rp74y 0f c74$$3$ 1nv07v3D 1n D4 ph3n0m3n0n. I+ 1$ 47$0 D4 f1r$+ 0f 1+$ k1nD +0 cr1+1c477y $+UDy D4 J3j3m0n ph3n0m3n0n 4nD wr1+3 D4 f1n7 r3$34rch 0U+pU+ 1n J3j3n3$3, D4 74n6U463 0f D4 ‘r3$34rch3D’. I b3713v3 +h4+ D4 J3j3m0n$ mU$+ b3 D4 f1r$+ +0 UnD3r$+4nD D4 $+UD13$ 4b0U+ D4m. I U$3 D4 ‘J3j3+R4nzL4+0r’ 0f J3j3m4$+3r Ar13$ B0n1f4c10 4 D4 v3r$10n 2 0f +h1$ r3$34rch, D4 D4$1$ 1$ J3j3n3$3. Th3 bck-+0-bck D3$16n 0f +h1$ D4$1$ 1$ 4n 4$$3r+10n 0f D4 74n6U463 4$ w377. I+ $h0w$ D4 0pp0$1+10n b3+w33n D4 m41n$+r34m 4nD D4 $Ub-cU7+Ur3’$ 74n6U463. Th1$ phy$1c47 D3$16n n3c3$$1+4+3$ D4 r34D3r +0 ch00$3 b3+w33n D4 +w0 74n6U463$. H3 0r $h3 3xp3r13nc3$ 4 $1mU7+4n30U$ 4cc0mm0D4+10n 4nD r3$1$+4nc3 +0 31D4r 74n6U463, $1nc3 D4 0D4r 74n6U463 1$ 1n 1+$ 1nv3r+3D ph0w$zzZZ$1+10n, wh3n D4 0D4r 0n3 1$ b31n6 r34D. my r3$34rch 3n6463$ 4 k3y 1n+3r$3c+10n 1n $+UD13$ 0f m3D14 4nD cU7+Ur3. U$1n6 D4 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ D40ry D1$+1nc+7y 4mU74+3D by D4 $ch007$ 0f ch1c460 4nD b1rm1n6h4m, 1 pr0b73m4+1z3 D4 cr1$1$ +h4+ h0UnD$ D4 c0nc3p+ 0f ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’. D4 74x U$463 0f D4 +3rm ($33 ch4p+3r 2) 73D +0 c0nfU$10n$ 4nD m4ny cr1+1qU3 0f $0c147 $c13n+1$+$ 470n6 D4 w4y. b$3D 0n D4 +r4D1+10n7 D3f1n1+10n$ 0f ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ +h4+ 1 D1$cU$$ 1n D4 n3x+ ch4p+3r, D4 j3j3m0n$ r UnD3n14b7y 4 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’, 3$p3c1477y wh3n 60rD0n (1947) pr0v1D3$ D4 ‘1nD1c4+0r$’ 0f $Uch, nm37y, c70D4$ 4nD $p33ch.
2
D4 D1ff3r3nc3 0f $UbcU7+Ur3 4nD $Ub-cU7+Ur3 (w1+h 4 hyph3n) 1$ D1$ cU$$3D 1n D4 $Ucc33D1n6 ch4p+3r.
J. C C4+44n
4
h0w3v3r, +h1$ $+UDy pr0v3$ +h4+ D4 j3j3m0n$ r b3y0nD 4 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ 1n 1+$ +rU3$+ $3n$3. +h1$ fUrD4r r3c0mm3nD$ 4 r3-$h4p1n6 0f D4 +3rm +h4+ wUD $07v3 D4 +3rm1n0706y cr1$1$ 4nD 3v3n+U477y c477$ +0 c01n 4 b3++3r +3rm 1n D4 fU+Ur3 +h4+ w177 f1+ 1n+0 D4 3m3r61n6 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3$’. 1n 4n 3+hn06r4ph1c 73n$, +h1$ r3$34rch 700k$ 4nD $+UD13$ D4 $0c1477y $+r4+1f13D $+rU6673, j3j3m0n$’ D1$+1nc+ cU7+Ur3 4$ 4 $0c147 pr0c3$$ 4nD D41r 1D30706y 4$ 4 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ 0U+700k. +h1rD, +h1$ 3xp70r3$ D4 $0-c4773D ‘j3j3m0ny’ (j. 64DD1, p3r$0n7 c0mmUn1c4+10n, 2010) 0r j3j3m0n$’ 47+3rn+1v3 h363m0ny. +hr0U6h ‘j3j3m0ny’, 1+ 4n$w3r$ h0w D4 j3j3m0n ph3n0m3n0n pr0v1D3$ r3pr3$3n+4+10n 4nD 1D3n+1+y +0 m4ny f171p1n0 U'+h n0w4D4y$ 1n D4 m1D$+ 0f 4 $+r0n6 D3m4nD 4 c0n4m1+y 1n $0c13+y. j3j3m0n$, +h0U6h 4 $Ub-cU7+Ur3 1$ 47$0 4 h363m0ny, 4n 47+3rn+1v3 h363m0ny 4 +h4+ m4++3r 4nD 4+ D4 $4m3 +1m3 4 ‘r3v07U+10nry 4c+1v1+y’ (6r4mc1, 1n w17714m$, 1992). f0Ur+h, 4$ 1+ c0n+1nU3$ D4 3+hn06r4ph1c 4ppr04ch +hr0U6h p'r+1c1p'n+ 0b$3rv4+10n, +h1$ pr0b3$ D4 j3j3m0n$’ 1n+3rn7 $ymb07$, m34n1n6$ 4nD $+y73$, 4$ D3f1n3D by D1ck h3bD163 (1979). f1f+h, +h1$ r3$34rch 4n$w3r$ D4 qU3$+10n, r Dr r3477y j3j3m0n$?'' 1f Dr r, h0w r D4 4c+U47 j3j3m0n$ D1ff3r3n+ fr0m m3D14-r3pr3$3n+3D 0n3$?'' 74$+7y, y?'' >.< D03$ +h1$ $Ub-cU7+Ur3 3x1$+ 1n +h1$ p3r10D 0f 0Ur +1m3?'' Th1$ $+UDy 1$ $16n1f1c4n+ b3c4U$3 1+ $+UD13$ h0w J3j3m0n$, +hr0U6h D41r U$3 0f $+y73, cU7+Ur3 4nD 1D30706y, c0Un+3r 4nD 47+3r D4 cUrr3n+ $0c147 0rD3r 4nD p3rc31v3 D4m$37v3$ 4nD D4 w0r7D. A7$0, +h1$ $+UDy w0rk$ 1n 4n Un3xp70r3D r4 0f 3+hn06r4ph1c $+UD13$ c4773D by D4$ 4nD P0073 (2004) 4$ ‘4n+hr0p0706y 0f D4 $+4+3’. Th1$ $+UDy p'r+1cU74r1z3$ 0n ‘$+4+3 m4r61n$’ wh1ch $4y$ +h4+ D4 3+hn06r4ph1c $+UDy 0f D4 ‘pr1m1+1v3$’ $h0U7D 1nc7UD3 D4 ‘$+4+3’ 1n D4 $+UDy 4nD 1+$ 0rD3r-m4k1n6 fUnc+10n $1mp7y b3c4U$3 D4 $+4+3 h4$ 4 70+ 0f 1nf7U3nc3 1n D4 3x1$+3nc3 4nD r34c+10n$ 0f $Ub-cU7+Ur3$. Th3 ‘pr1m1+1v3$’, wh3n D4y D0 n0+ c00p3r4+3 r ‘0DrD’ by D4 $+4+3, 4nD c4$+ +0 1+$ m4r61n$. Th3 $+4+3, b3y0nD 6306r4ph1c m4r61n$, h4$ $0c147 m4r61n$ 4$ w377. In D4$3 m4r61n$, D4 r073 0f 4n 4n+hr0p07061$+ 1$ +0 f1nD D4$3 ‘m4r61n$’, D16 b3y0nD D4 $Urf4c3 4nD Un34r+h $1+3$ 0f D1$0rD3r w3r D4 $+4+3 h4$ b33n Unb73 +0 1mp0$3 1+$ 0rD3r (p. 6). In D4 0U+$k1r+$ 0f $0c147 m4r61n, w3 c4n f1nD 4 $Ub-cU7+Ur3.
J. C C4+44n
5
+h1$ r3$34rch, 477 D4 $4m3, 4Dm1+$ $0m3 71m1+4+10n$ 0n 1+$ m3+h0D$ 4nD 4n7y$1$. DU3 +0 $UbcU7+Ur3’$ r4p1D D3v370pm3n+ br0U6h+ 4b0U+ by D4 D3m4nD +0 m41n+41n D41r 3x1$+3nc3, Dr r 6306r4ph1c 4nD cU7+Ur47 D1v1$10n$ w1+h1n D4 j3j3m0n $Ub-cU7+Ur3. +h1$ $+UDy p74c3$ 1+$ f0cU$ 0n 0n3 p'r+1cU74r 6r0Up 0f j3j3m0n$ 4nD D03$ n0+ 4+ 74r63 r3pr3$3n+ D4 3n+1r3 j3j3m0n $Ub-cU7+Ur3 m3mb3r$ 4nD p3r$p3c+1v3$ 1n D4 ph171pp1n3$. +h1$ r3$34rch r3c06n1z3$ D4 f4c+10n$ w1+h1n D4 $Ub-cU7+Ur3. 4$ 4 ‘w0r7D’ w1+h1n D4 w0r7D bU+ 1$ 1nD33D 4 ‘w0r7D’ by 4nD 1n 1+$37f (60rD0n, 1947), 1 +ry +0 c0mpr3h3nD D4 b$1c p1c+Ur3 0f +h1$ ‘w0r7D’ wh173 m4k1n6 4 c734r D1$+1nc+10n b3+w33n $3p'r4+3 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3$’ 4nD $3p'r4+3 Un1+$ 0f D4 $4m3 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’. Dr r 4 70+ mUhr3 f4c3+$ 0f +h1$ ‘w0r7D’ +h4+ n33D +0 b3 3xp70r3D bU+ 1 0p+3D +0 f0cU$ 0n ph0w$zzZZw3r r374+10n$ w1+h1n 4nD 0U+$1D3 +h1$ ‘w0r7D’, D4 ‘r3pr0DUc+10n’, ‘71v1n6’ 4nD ‘f4+471+y’ 0f 1+$ ‘c1+1z3n$’, 4nD D4 ph0w$zzZZ$$1b73 3x+1nc+10n 0f D4 ‘w0r7D’ 1+$37f (p. 41, 42). Th3 U$3 0f En671$h, 0n D4 0D4r h4nD, 4$ D4 pr1m4ry 74n6U463 0f +h1$ r3$34rch, 3v3n 1n 1+$ J3j3n3$3 +r4n$74+10n 1$ my p3r$0n7 pr3f3r3nc3. Th0U6h 1+ 1$ 0DD b3c4U$3 D4 J3j3m0n$ D0 n0+ c0mmUn1c4+3 1n En671$h-J3j3n3$3, I b3713v3 +h4+ I 4m mUhr3 c0m4+4b73 1n 3xpr3$$1n6 my$37f, my v13wp01n+$ 4nD 4r6Um3n+$ 1n En671$h. P3rh4p$, 1n D4 fU+Ur3, I c4n pr0v1D3 4 F171p1n0 +r4n$74+10n 0f +h1$ r3$34rch. my $+4+U$ 4$ 4n 1n+3773c+U47 fr0m 4 r3n0wn3D Un1v3r$1+y 1n D4 ph171pp1n3$ m4k3$ my 4cc3$$ +0 D4 j3j3m0n ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ D1ff1cU7+. DUr1n6 0b$3rv4+10n$ 4nD 1n+3rv13w$, Dr w3r3 r3$1$+4nc3 fr0m D4 j3j3m0n$ $Uch 4$ w1+hh07D1n6 4n$w3r$ 0r n0+ 4n$w3r1n6 4+ 477. h0w3v3r, +h1$ r3$1$+4nc3 w4$ UnD3r$+4nD4b73 b3c4U$3 f1v3 w33k$ 1$ 1n$Uff1c13n+ +0 r3m0v3 D41r p3rc31v3D D1ff3r3nc3 fr0m m3. Dr 1$ 47$0 4 qU3$+10n 0f $1nc3r1+y 0n y?'' >.< 1 4m $+UDy1n6 D41r ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’. by c0n+r4$+, 1 b3713v3 +h4+ +h1$ 1$ D4 U$U47 r34c+10n 0f 4ny 6r0Up, wh3D4r ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ 0r n0+, wh3n 0D4r$ $33k +0 r3pr3$3n+ D41r 71f3$+y73 0r 71v3$ 1n 63n3r47. I $p3n+ f1v3 w33k$, fr0m D3c3mb3r 20, 2010 +0 J4nU4ry 21, 2011 r3$34rch1n6 1n D4 f137D. Th3 ch01c3 0f D4+3 1$ DU3 +0 D4 D4$1$ ph4$1n6 4nD 4+ D4 $4m3 +1m3 D4 Chr1$+m4$ br34k. I c4rr13D 0U+ 0n3 1n4m47 4nD $3m1-$+rUc+Ur3D 1n+3rv13w w1+h J3j3m4$+3r
J. C C4+44n
6
Ar1$ B0n1f4c10, 4$ w377 4$ f1v3 1n4m47, Un$+rUc+Ur3D 1n+3rv13w$ w1+h D4 J3j3m0n$ wh0 v07Un+33r3D +0 b3 1n+3rv13w3D. Th3 63n3r47 D4m3$ D1$cU$$3D 1n 1n+3rv13w$ c0n$1$+3D 0f D4 63n3r47 1n4m4+10n 4b0U+ D41r ‘w0r7D’, 4nD h0w j01n1n6 D4 J3j3m0n ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ ch4n63D D41r 3v3ryD4y 71v3$. In D4 D4+4 4n7y$1$, I pr1m4r17y U+171z3 my 3+hn06r4ph1c f137D n0+3$ DUr1n6 my $3v3r47 v1$1+$ 4nD p'r+1c1p'n+ 0b$3rv4+10n w1+h D4 J3j3m0n. My 4$$Ump+10n$ 4nD 4r6Um3n+$ r m41n7y b$3D 0n 1n+3r4c+10n$, 0b$3rv4+10n$ 4nD qU3$+10n$ +h4+ 4r1$3 1n my m1nD DUr1n6 D4 $41D 1mm3r$10n p3r10D. Th3 r3$34rch D4+4, $Uch 4$ +r4n$cr1p+$ 4nD f137D n0+3$ +h4+ I h4v3 64DrD DUr1n6 D4 1mm3r$10n p3r10D r $+0r3D 1n 4 v4U7+ +h4+ c4n b3 4cc3$$3D by m3 4nD my 4Dv1$3r. Any0n3 wh0 w1$h3$ +0 h4v3 4cc3$$ +0 1+ mU$+ 4$k p3rm1$$10n fr0m m3 4nD my 4Dv1$3r, 0r 4ny 4U+h0r1z3D pr0f3$$0r 0f D4 D3p'r+m3n+ 0f Br04Dc4$+ C0mmUn1c4+10n 0f D4 Un1v3r$1+y 0f D4 Ph171pp1n3$ D171m4n. Pr0p3r Un1v3r$1+y pr0c3DUr3$ mU$+ 47$0 b3 f0770w3D +0 641n 4cc3$$ +0 D4 D4+4. +h1$ r3$34rch 1$ 1n$p1r3D by 4 c74$$1c b00k 734rn1n6 +0 74b0Ur by p'U7 w1771$ (1977). h3 w0rk3D 3+hn06r4ph1c477y w1+h D4 m1DD73-c74$$ U'+h $+UD3n+$ 0f h4mm3r+0wn $ch007 1n w3$+ m1D74nD$. h3 D1$c0v3r$ +h4+ D4 $ch007 1$ D1v1D3D 1n+0 +w0 f4c+10n$, D4 $0-c4773D ‘34r073$’ 0r D4 c0n4m1$+$ 4nD D4 ‘74D$’ 0r D4 n0nc0n4m1$+$. D4 ‘34r073$’ f0770w D4 $ch007 4nD UnD3r60 ‘c0Un$3771n6’ 0n cr3r$ +h4+ D4y wUD 63+ 1n D4 fU+Ur3, wh173 D4 ‘74D$’ 0p+ +0 D1$0b3y D4 $ch007 by n0+ f0770w1n6 D4 pr0p3r Dr3$$ c0D3 4nD 63++1n6 ‘m3n147’ (r4D4r +h4n m3n+47) j0b$, DUr1n6 D41r 4ppr3n+1c3$h1p. h3 fUrD4rm0r3 pr3$3n+$ h1$ p'p3r 1n D4 ‘w0rD$’ 0f D4 ‘74D$’. my cr1+1qU3, h0w3v3r, 0n w1771$’$ p'p3r c4n b3 f0UnD 1n D4 n3x+ ch4p+3r. F1n77y, b343 D4 c0mm0n D40r13$ +h4+ w3 $+UDy 1n D4 D3p'r+m3n+, w3 mU$+ r3471z3 +h4+ m3D14, 1n D4 f1r$+ p74c3, 1$ cU7+Ur47 (S+Urk3n 4nD C4r+wr16h+, 2001). W3 wUD f417 +0 r34ch D4 crUx 0f 0Ur $+UD13$ 1f w3 D0 n0+ 4ckn0w73D63 +h1$ f4c+. I c0n+3nD +h4+ 1+ 1$ 0n7y +hr0U6h cU7+Ur47 $+UD13$ c4n D4 Br04Dc4$+ D3p'r+m3n+ 3$+4b71$h 1+$ 0wn $ch007 0f +h0U6h+. If D4 J0Urn71$m D3p'r+m3n+ h4$ 1+$ 1nv3$+164+1v3 j0Urn71$m, w3, 1n D4 Br04Dc4$+ D3p'r+m3n+, mU$+ h4v3 cU7+Ur47 $+UD13$—n0+ 0n7y m3r3 cU7+Ur47 $+UD13$ f0770w1n6 D4 ‘D34D wh1+3 m473$’ 0f
J. C C4+44n
7
w3$+3rn $ch007$ 0f +h0U6h+, bU+ 4 Ph171pp1n3 cU7+Ur47 4nD cr1+1c47 $+UD13$ +h4+ w177 3nr1ch 0Ur 0wn 71+3r4+Ur3 4nD w177 b3 f0770w3D by D4 fU+Ur3 1n+3773c+U47$ 1n D4 c0Un+ry. I+ 1$ D4 ch4n61n6 +1m3$ +h4+ c477 U$ 0U+ fr0m +h0$3 4m3r +yp3$ 0f $+UD13$ 1n+0 cU7+Ur47 4nD cr1+1c47 $+UD13$. T0 b70ck D4 f700Dw4y$ 0f kn0w73D63 1$ D4 6r4v3$+ +r4n$6r3$$10n 0n3 c4n c0mm1+ 1n 4 fr33 4c4D3m1c c0mmUn1+y. D3c4D3$, w3 h4v3 b33n $cr4+ch1n6 D4 $Urf4c3 0f m3D14 $+UD13$ 4nD w3 mU$+ n0w 60 D33p3r. +h1$ r3$34rch, 4$ 1+ 1$ b0UnD +0D4y, 3xpr3$$3$ +h4+ 4 $Ub-cU7+Ur47 4nD cU7+Ur47 $+UDy h4$ 4 r16h+fU7 p74c3 1n m3D14 $+UD13$, 1f n0+ 0n3 0f D4 mUh$+ 1mp0r+4n+ bU+ n3673c+3D f4c3+. +h1$ r3$34rch 4++3mp+$ +0 r3-pr3$3n+ D4 ‘m4$$’ 1n m4$$ c0mmUn1c4+10n-- +0 1mm3r$3 0Ur$37v3$ w1+h D4 m4$$3$ 4nD +0 0ff3r +h1$ $m477 p13c3 0f kn0w73D63 4 D4m +0 wh0m w3 0w3 1+$ v3ry 3x1$+3nc3. In D4 n3x+ ch4p+3r, I $ynD4$1z3 D4 br04D 71+3r4ry +r4D1+10n r374+3D +0 cU7+Ur3 4nD ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’. I m4x1m1z3 4rch1v47 w0rk$ $Uch 4$ D3f1n1n6 D4 +3rm$, +r4c1n6 D4 h1$+0r1c47 4nD 1D307061c47 f0UnD4+10n$ 0f D4 c0nc3p+$, 4nD c0n$1D3r1n6 D4 71+3r4+Ur3$, D41r cr1+1qU3$, +h4+ h4v3 b33n D0n3 w1+h r364rD +0 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ 4nD D4 J3j3m0n$. 1+ 1$ 1mp0r+4n+ +0 3qU1p my$37f b343 3n+3r1n6 4 ‘w0r7D’ +h4+ 1$ ‘m173$’ 4w4y fr0m my ‘w0r7D’.
J. C C4+44n
“MU74 D2 $4 bU$ n $1n$4ky4n qU0h p'pUn+4 $4 +4mby4n n6 m64 J3j3m0n $4 F41rv13w, +4nw qU0h 4n6 m4r4m1n6 +40. M4r4m1 $174n6 61n6w4. Ib’+ 1b 4n6 6474w n6 m64 k~+4w4n. Ib’+ 1b 4n6 kUmp'$ n6 m64 k~m4y. H1nD1 qU0h nm4m474y4n, b1nb$4 qU0h n p'74 $174 b174n6 m64 +3k$+0.” –F137D n0+3, J4n. 7, 2011
8
J. C C4+44n
9
ch4p+3r 2 En+3r1n6 D4 $Ubw4y: D4 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ D40ry 4nD 1+$ cr1+1qU3$ Th3 f0770w1n6 r3v13w 0f r374+3D 71+3r4+Ur3 c0n+41n$ D1v3r$3 D3f1n1+10n$ 0f D4 +3rm ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’, 4$ w377 4$ D1ff3r3n+ $+UD13$ 4nD r3$34rch3$ 4pp7y1n6 D4 c0nc3p+, m41n7y fr0m Ch1c460 4nD B1rm1n6h4m Sch007$. Th3 Ch1c460 Sch007 1$ 4 c0773c+1v3 +3rm wh1ch r3f3r$ +0 “$3v3r47 63n3r4+10n$ 0f $0c107061$+$ wh0 $hrD c3r+41n c0nc3rn$ 4nD p3r$p3c+1v3$ 4b0U+ $0c13+y 4nD cU7+Ur3, m4ny 0f wh0m 31D4r +4U6h+ 0r w3r3 +r41n3D 1n D4 S0c10706y D3p'r+m3n+ 0f D4 Un1v3r$1+y 0f Ch1c460”. Th3 Sch007’$ c0n+r1bU+10n +0 D4 r1ch D40ry 1$ 1+$ k1nD 0f ‘Urbn m1cr0-$0c10706y’ wh1ch p'y$ “4++3n+10n +0 D4 1n+3r4c+10n 0f p30p73’$ p3rc3p+10n$ 0f D4m$37v3$ w1+h 0D4r$’ v13w 0f D4m” (G37D3r 4nD Th0rn+0n, p. 11). 0n D4 0D4r h4nD, D4 c3n+r3 4 c0n+3mp0r4ry cU7+Ur47 $+UD13$ 4+ b1rm1n6h4m Un1v3r$1+y (ccc$), 0r w1D37y kn0wn 4$ D4 b1rm1n6h4m $ch007, w4$ 3$+4b71$h3D 1n D4 m1D-1970$ 4nD c70$3D 1n D4 y34r 2002 (637D3r, 2005, p. 81). D4 +w0 $ch007$ h4v3 D1$+1nc+ w4y$ 0f 700k1n6 4+ ‘$UbcU7+Ur3$’. wh173 ch1c460 $33$ D4 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ ph3n0m3n0n 4+ 4 br04D3r c0n+3x+, D4 b1rm1n6h4m $ch007 D3c1D3$ +0 f0cU$ 0n ‘U'+h $UbcU7+Ur3$’ 4nD r374+3 D4m +0 D4 br04D3r c0n+3x+ 0f $0c13+y. If D4 Ch1c460 Sch007 $+4r+$ D4 pUr$U1+ 0n kn0w73D63 4b0U+ ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’, D4 B1rm1n6h4m Sch007 3nD$ 1+ by p'v1n6 D4 w4y 4 D4 3r4 0f $0-c4773D ‘p0$+$UbcU7+Ur3’.3 Th3 74++3r Sch007 4r6U3$ +h4+ +1m3$ r ch4n61n6, 4nD D4 c0nc3p+ 0f ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ c4nn0+ 4cc0mm0D4+3 D4 D1v3r$1+y 0f $0c147 ‘6r0Up$’ 4nym0r3. BU+ 3v3n b343 D4 +w0 Sch007$ h4v3 b33n 4b73 +0 3$+4b71$h D41r 0wn $ch007$ 0f +h0U6h+, D4 $0-c4773D ‘pr3cUr$0r 0f $UbcU7+Ur3’ h4$ b33n 741D D0wn f1r$+ by m4ny $0c147 $c13n+1$+$ (G37D3r, 2005). Th3$3 ‘pr3cUr$0r$’ 3v3n+U477y p74y 4 b16 r073 4 D4 $+r0n63r f0UnD4+10n 0f D4 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ D40ry.
3
k3n 637D3r (2005) 74b37$ D4m 4$ ‘p0$+-$UbcU7+Ur471$+’, 0r +h0$3 wh0 D3p'r+ fr0m D4 b1rm1n6h4m $ch007.
J. C C4+44n
10
B0UrD13U, 4 1n$+4nc3, D1$cU$$3$ D4 c0nc3p+ 0f ‘f137D’. I+ r3f3r$ +0 “D4 v4r10U$ $ph3r3$ 0f 71f3, 4r+, $c13nc3, r371610n, D4 3c0n0my, D4 74w, ph0w$zzZZ71+1c$, 3+c., +h4+ +3nD +0 4m D1$+1nc+ m1cr0c0$m$ 3nD0w3D w1+h D41r 0wn rU73$, r36U74r1+13$, 4nD 4m$ 0f 4U+h0r1+y” (1n W4cqU4n+, 2006, p. 7). A ‘f137D’ 1$ 4n rn 0f $+rU6673 +hr0U6h wh1ch 463n+$ 4nD 1n$+1+U+10n$ $33k +0 pr3$3rv3 0r 0v3r+Urn D4 3x1$+1n6 D1$+r1bU+10n 0f c4p1+47. I+ 1$ 47$0 4 ‘b++73f137D’ w3r1n D4 b$3$ 0f 1D3n+1+y 4nD h13r4rchy r 3nD73$$7y D1$pU+3D 0v3r (B0UrD13U, 1n W4cqU4n+, 2006). Th3 ‘f137D$’ r $h0r+-71v3D, h0w3v3r. Th3$3 r h1$+0r1c47 c0n$+3774+10n$ +h4+ 4r1$3, 6r0w, ch4n63 $h4p3, 4nD $0m3+1m3$ w4n3 0r p3r1$h, 0v3r +1m3 (p. 8). TUrn3r (1969) 47$0 1nf7U3n+1477y +47k$ 4b0U+ ‘c0mmUn1+4$’. H3 D3f1n3$ 1+ 4$ “4641n$+ ‘$+rUc+Ur3’, 4n 3xpr3$$10n 0f 71m1n71+y ,4 0f $0c147 m4r61n71+y, 4nD D1ff3r3nc3; 4 $1+3 0f Unm3D14+3D c0n+4c+ b3+w33n p30p73 4+ D4 3D63$ 0f $0c13+y, Unr36U74+3D by 1+, 4nD fr33 fr0m 1+$ 0rD3r7y 64z3, 4 r347m 0f fU77 4nD ‘+0+47’ 3xp3r13nc3” (1n G37D3r, 2005, p. 10). BU+ P4rk, 3+ 47. (1915) D1$$3n+ +0 D4 c0nc3p+ 0f ‘c0mmUn1+y’ b3c4U$3 D4y b3713v3 +h4+ 4 c0mmUn1+y 1$ n0+ 0n7y 4 c0773c+10n 0f p30p73, bU+ 1+ 1$ 4 c0773c+10n 0f 1n$+1+U+10n… Ev3ry $1n673 c0mmUn1+y 1$ 47w4y$ 4 p'r+ 0f $0m3 74r63r 4nD mUhr3 1nc7U$1v3 0n3… Th3 U7+1m4+3 c0mmUn1+y 1$ D4 w1D3 w0r7D (1n G37D3r, 2005, p. 8). L0n6 b343 D4 +3rm ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ w4$ 4v4174b73 4 U$ +0 fr337y U$3, D4 +3rm w4$ c0n$1D3r3D h4770w 1n D4 p1774r$ 0f D4 $0-c4773D ‘Am3r1c4n $0c10706y’ (Sm1+h 1n Th0rn+0n, 1997), wh1ch I D1$cU$$ b370w.
Th3 Ch1c460 m4D3 4 bU77’$ 3y3: D4 0r161n$ 0f D4 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ D40ry Th3 Ch1c460 Sch007 0f S0c10706y 0ff1c1477y c01n$ D4 +3rm ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ 1n D4 1940$ (Th0rn+0n, p. 11), bU+ 3v3n b343 D4 +3rm w4$ c01n3D, R0b3r+ P4rk (1915) c477$ 1+ ‘$0c147 6r0Up$’. H3 3xp741n$ +h4+ D4$3 6r0Up$ c0mp0$3 0Ur ‘c1+y’. W3 mUh7D 0Ur 0wn 4
D4 c0nc3p+ 0f ‘71m1n71+y’ 1$ U$3D 4641n 1n D4 74++3r p'r+ 0f +h1$ r3$34rch.
J. C C4+44n
11
$0c13+47 $+4nD4rD$ 4nD n0rm$ (p. 16). Thr0U6h 1n+3r4c+10n$, w3 cr34+3 D1$c0Ur$3$. In D4$3 m34n1n6fU7 D1$c0Ur$3$, w3 cr34+3 D4 w0r7D w3r w3 r n0w (p. 17). P4rk, 3v3n $0, n3673c+$ +0 $33 D4 ph0w$zzZZw3r r374+10n$ 4nD c74$$ $+rU6673 1n $0c13+y. 4U7 Cr3$$3y (1932), 0n D4 0D4r h4nD, +h0U6h+ 0f ‘D3v14n+ 6r0Up$’. H1$ $+UDy 0n ‘D3v14nc3’ r3f3r$ +0 D4 ‘+4x1-D4nc3r$’5 1n Am3r1c4n c1+13$ 1n D4 34r7y 1930$. H3 b3713v3$ +h4+ D4$3 6r0Up$ +h4+ +r4n$6r3$$ D4 n0rm D0 n0+ n3c3$$4r17y 3xp3r13nc3 4 mUhr47 D3c71n3 bU+ r4D4r 60 +hr0U6h 4 D0wnw4rD $0c147 4nD cU7+Ur47 mUhb171+y (p. 28). H3 c0n+3nD$ +h4+ 4 D3p'r+Ur3 +0 D4 $0-c4773D ‘prn+ cU7+Ur3’6 1n $34rch 0f 0n3’$ 0wn 1D3n+1+y 4nD 3xpr3$$10n D03$ n0+ 3qU4+3 +0 70$1n6 D4 v47U3$, mUhr47$ 4nD v1r+U3$ 1mp'r+3D by D4 $41D cU7+Ur3. SUch ‘D371nqU3ncy’ 1n$+34D 1$ +3mp0r4ry 4nD jU$+ 4 $pUr 0f $0c147 c0nD1+10n$ 0f D4 +1m3$. Th3 Sch007 $33m$ +0 h4v3 4 pr0b73m w1+h D4 +3rm ‘D3v14n+’ 4nD ‘D371nqU3n+’, $1nc3 ‘6r0Up1n6$’ 1n $0c13+y D0 n0+ jU$+ h4pp3n 4$ 4 4m 0f D371nqU3ncy. Th3 Sch007 +Urn$ +0 C0h3n’$ (1955) 3xp74n+10n +h4+ “477 jUm4n 4c+10n$…” 1nc7UD1n6 D371nqU3ncy 4nD D3v14nc3, r “4n 0n-601n6 $3r13$ 0f 3f4+$ +0 $07v3 pr0b73m$.”7 Th3$3 pr0b73m$ 4$k 4 4n ‘4c+10n’. Wh3n 4n ‘4c+10n’ b3c0m3$ Un$Ucc3$$fU7 4nD 63n3r4+3$ nU'D4r ‘pr0b73m’, +h1$ pr0b73m D3m4nD$ 4nD “pr3$$3$ 4 n0v37 $07U+10n$” (p. 44). C0h3n (1955) c0nv1nc3$ D4 Ch1c460 Sch007. Th3y 1nc0rp0r4+3 Cr3$$3y’$ (1932) c0nc3p+ 0f ‘D0wnw4rD mUhb171+y’, +h4+ ‘+4x1-D4nc3r$’ 71v3 ‘DU47 71v3$’ w1+h0U+ D3+3c+10n $1nc3 D4y r 1n D4 ‘UnD3r6r0UnD’ 3mp70ym3n+ 4nD 1n D4 ‘$Ubw4y’ 0f 3c0n0my. F1n77y, D4 Sch007 c0nc31v3 D4 +3rm ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’. F0r D4 Ch1c460 Sch007, ‘$UbcU7+Ur3$’ r 47w4y$ 1n D4 UnD3r6r0UnD, D1661n6 D0wn D41r 0wn w0r7D. Th3y 47w4y$ p3rc31v3 D4m 4$ ‘D3v14n+$’ wh0 r3j3c+$ D4 cUrr3n+ 0rD3r 0f $0c13+y +0 wh1ch D4y b370n6.
5
+4x1-D4nc3r$ w3r3 61r7$ wh0 D4nc3 w1+h 4ny m4n wh0 1$ w1771n6 +0 p'y 4 h3r ch4r63$. D4 61r7$ w3r3 c4773D ‘+4x1-D4nc3r$’ b3c4U$3 77yk D4 +4x1 Dr1v3r 4nD h1$ c4b, D4y w3r3 4 h1r3 4nD p'1D 1n pr0p0r+10n +0 D4 +1m3 $p3n+ 4nD D4 $3rv1c3$ r3nD3r3D (cr3$$3y, 1932, p. 28). 6 prn+ cU7+Ur3, 4cc0rD1n6 +0 ph17 c0h3n (1972), 1$ D4 ‘0r161n7’ cU7+Ur3 +h4+ 0n3 D3v14+3$ fr0m wh3n h3 0r $h3 mUhv3$ +0 4 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’. 7 c0h3n $41D +h4+ ‘pr0b73m$’ r +3n$10n$, D1$3qU171br1Um 4nD ch4773n63$ +h4+ p30p73 f4c3 1n D4 $0c13+y.
J. C C4+44n
12
Af+3r +r4c1n6 D4 r00+$ 0f D4 +3rm ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’, 73+ U$ D16 D33p3r by pr0b1n6 D4 D1v3r$3 D3f1n1+10n$ 0f D4 w0rD.
C4n Mr. W3b$+3r D0 +h1$?'': D3f1n1n6 D4 +3rm ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ Cr3$$3y’$ (1932) c0nc3p+ 0f b31n6 ‘UnD3r6r0UnD’ 1$ jU$+ 0n3 0f m4ny D3f1n1+10n$ 61v3n by D4 Ch1c460 Sch007 +0 D4 f70Ur1$h1n6 c0nc3p+ 0f ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’. T063D4r w1+h P4rk (1915) 4nD C0h3n (1955), D4y h4v3 3$+4b71$h3D 4 $+r0n63r ‘pr3cUr$0r’ 4 D4 c0nc3p+ 0f ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’. B3ck3r (1963) 4$cr1b3$ h1$ 4n7y$1$ 0n D4 ‘j4zz mU$1c14n$’. H1$ D40ry 1$ 4n 1n+3r$3c+10n 0f D4 cU7+Ur3 0f ‘D3v14nc3’ ($33 Cr3$$3y, 1932), 4nD D4 pr0b73m-$07v1n6 fUnc+10n 0f ‘$UbcU7+Ur3$’ ($33 C0h3n, 1955). H3 4r6U3$ +h4+ 4 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ 1$ 4 w4y 0f 71f3 (p. 55). I+ 1$ $+4b73 4nD 70n6-74$+1n6. Wh3n D4$3 ‘D3v14n+ p30p73’ 1n+3r4c+, D4y D3v370p 4 cU7+Ur3 +h4+ $07v3$ D41r ‘pr0b73m’. H3 cU7m1n+3$ 1n +3771n6 U$ +h4+ $1nc3 “D4$3 (D3v370p3D) cU7+Ur3$ 0p3r4+3 w1+h1n, 4nD 1n D1$+1nc+10n +0, D4 cU7+Ur3 0f D4 74r63r $0c13+y, D4y r 0f+3n c4773D $UbcU7+Ur3$” (p. 56). InD33D, D4 Ch1c460 Sch007 h4$ 4 jU63 r073 1n D4 34r7y D4y$ 0f ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ $+UD13$. W3 c4n $33 fr0m D41r 4n7y$3$ +h4+ ‘$UbcU7+Ur3$’ r 1n D4 mUh$+ h1DD3n, D4rk, 4nD Unn0+1c3D $p'c3$ 0f $0c13+y. Th3 Sch007’$ $+r3n6+h 1n D40r1z1n6 4nD $+UDy1n6 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3$’ f1r$+ h4nD +hr0U6h 3+hn06r4phy p'v3$ w4y 4 D4 3v3n+U47 6r0w+h 0f D4 B1rm1n6h4m Sch007, wh1ch I w177 D1$cU$$ 1n $Ucc33D1n6 $Ubj3c+$ 0f +h1$ ch4p+3r. B343 +h4+, 73+ m3 f1r$+ 374b0r4+3 0n D4 cr1+1qU3 3nc0Un+3r3D by D4 Ch1c460 Sch007 +h4+ D17U+3$ D4 $+3rnn3$$ 0f D4 c0nc3p+ 0f ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’. Th1$ 47$0 h37p$ U$ +0 m4k3 $3n$3 0f D4 v4$+ UnD3r$+4nD1n6 4b0U+ ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’.
D3+0Ur 4h34D: 4 cr1+1qU3 0f D4 c0nc3p+ 0f $UbcU7+Ur3 Th3 Ch1c460 Sch007 1$ 1nD33D r160r0U$ 1n D3v370p1n6 D4 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ D40ry. Th1$ ph0w$zzZZ$1+1v3 0U+700k 0n D4 n3w c0nc3p+ 73D +0 D1v3r$3 D3f1n1+10n$ +h4+ 0n7y D4 br04D3$+ 4nD mUh$+ b$1c 0f D3f1n1+10n$ wUD 4cc0mm0D4+3 D4 r1ch r4n63 0f D40ry 4nD r3$34rch (Th0rn+0n, 1997).
J. C C4+44n
13
A77 wUD pr0bb7y 46r33 +h4+ $UbcU7+Ur3$ r 6r0Up$ 0f p30p73 +h4+ h4v3 $0m3+h1n6 1n c0mm0n w1+h 34ch 0D4r (1.3., D4y $hr D4 $4m3 pr0b73m, 4n 1n+3r3$+, 4 pr4c+1c3) wh1ch D1$+1n6U1$h3$ D4m 1n 4 $16n1f1c4n+ w4y fr0m D4 m3mb3r$ 0f 0D4r $0c147 6r0Up$. BU+ +h1$ D3$cr1p+10n h07D$ +rU3 3qU477y 4 m4ny 0D4r k1nD$ 0f 6r0Up (Th0rn+0n, 1997, p. 1). Wh4+ 1$ D1$+1nc+, h0w3v3r, 1n D4 +3rm ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ 1$ 1+$ v3ry pr3f1x ‘$Ub’, wh1ch …4$cr1b3$ 4 70w3r 0r $3c0nD4ry r4nk +0 D4 3n+1+y 1+ mUhD1f13$. Th1$ 61v3$ U$ 4 c7U3 +0 0n3 0f D4 m41n 4$$Ump+10n$ 0f +h1$ +r4D1+10n 0f $ch074r$h1p—nm37y, +h4+ D4 $0c147 6r0Up$ 1nv3$+164+3D 1n D4 nm3 0f $UbcU7+Ur3$ r $Ub0rD1n+3, $Ub7+3rn 0r $Ub+3rr4n34n (Th0rn+0n, 1997, p. 4). Th3 71b3r47 U$3 0f D4 +3rm ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ 1$ cr1+1qU3D by Irw1n (1970) wh0m I D1$cU$$ fUrD4r 1n D4 c0m1n6 p'r46r4ph$. H3 4ff1rm$ +h4+ n0+ 3v3ry ‘6r0Up’ 1n $0c13+y 1$ 4 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’. I+ 1$ 0n7y D4 $0c147 $c13n+1$+$ 4nD r3$34rch3r$ wh0 61v3 D4m +h1$ c4+360ry. An0D4r pr0b73m 1$ D4 D40r1$+$’ ‘3mp0w3rm3n+-r3$1$+4nc3’ +3mp74+3 1n D4 U$3 0f ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ D40ry. Br34k (1985) $+UD13$ 4nD c0mpr$ D1ff3r3n+ U'+h cU7+Ur3 4nD $UbcU7+Ur3$ 1n Am3r1c4, Br1+41n 4nD C4nD4. H1$ w0rk$ r 0n3 0f D4 c0rn3r$+0n3$ 0f D4$3 $+UD13$ 1n D4 W3$+. H1$ w0rk$, h0w3v3r, r3v07v3 0n7y 1n $+UDy1n6 D4 pr3jUD1c3$, r3$1$+4nc3 4nD h0w D4$3 $UbcU7+Ur3$ c0Un+3r D4 D0m1nn+ cU7+Ur3. W1771$ (1977) $+UD13$ D4 H4mm3r+0wn Sch007 4nD D4 3m3r61n6 ‘c74$$ cU7+Ur3’ 1n D4 c4p1+471$+ $3++1n6, 4nD f1nD$ 0U+ +h4+ +h1$ ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’, 4+ D4 3nD 0f D4 D4y, 0n7y r3p71c4+3$ D4 D0m1nn+ $0c147 $+rUc+Ur3. H1$ p3$$1m1$+1c v13w 0n ‘$UbcU7+Ur3$’ c0nv1nc3$ m4ny +h4+ D4 “$UbcU7+Ur47 3mp0w3rm3n+ 1$ 3mp0w3rm3n+ w1+h0U+ 4 fU+Ur3” (1n G37D3r, 2005, p. 87). Y0Un6 (1971) f337$ +1r3D 0f D4 ‘3mp0w3rm3n+-r3$1$+4nc3’ mUhD37$ 0f D4 pr3v10U$ $+UD13$ 0n ‘$UbcU7+Ur3$’. H3 $+4+3$ +h4+ ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ 0r, 1n h1$ w0rD$, D4 ‘$Ub+3rr4n34n w0r7D’, “D03$ n0+ 3x1$+ 1n 4 v4cUUm, D4y r 4 pr0DUc+ 0f 0r 4 r34c+10n +0 $0c147 4c3$ 1n D4 w0r7D 0U+$1D3” (p. 71). H3 4$$3r+$ +h4+ ‘$UbcU7+Ur3$’
J. C C4+44n
14
c4nn0+ b3 UnD3r$+00D 1n 1$074+10n +0 1+$ $0c147 m1713U. Th3y h4v3 “+0 b3 $0U6h+ 1n D4 c0n+3x+ 0f D4 6r0Up’$ v47U3$ 4nD w0r7D v13w” (1n G37D3r 4nD Th0rn+0n, 1997, p. 71). A$ D4 +1m3 pr06r3$$3$, D4 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ D40ry 1n 1+$ 3mp0w3rm3n+-r3$1$+4nc3 mUhD37 0f $+UD13$ r cr1+1c1z3D 1n mUhr3 c0n$1D3r4b73 ph0w$zzZZ1n+$. J0hn Irw1n (1970), 47$0 fr0m D4 Ch1c460 Sch007, D3b+3$ +0 “r3-3x4m1n3 0Ur n0+10n$ 0f $UbcU7+Ur3$” b3c4U$3 “Dr h4v3 b33n $16n1f1c4n+ $h1f+$ 1n D4 ph3n0m3n0n +0 wh1ch ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ r3f3r$” (p. 66). Th3 r4p1D D3v370pm3n+ 0f cU7+Ur3$ 4nD ‘$UbcU7+Ur3$’ 47m0$+ m4D3 D4 w0rD ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ 0b$073+3. H3 $+4r+$ w1+h D4 D3f1n1+10n 0f ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’. H3 c0n+3nD$ +h4+ 4 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ 1$ n0+ jU$+ D4 6r0Up bU+ 47$0 D4 p'++3rn$8 c4rr13D by D4 6r0Up. S3c0nD, h3 qU3$+10n$ D4 ‘c06n1+1v3’ $+4+U$ 0f D4 c0nc3p+ 1n D4 m1nD$ 0f 1+$ c4rr13r$ +h4+ D4 Sch007 n3673c+$ +0 r41$3 4 y34r$. Th1rD, h3 603$ 0n 1n $4y1n6 +h4+ $0c13+y “c4nn0+ b3 D1v1D3D 1n+0 cU7+Ur47 Un1+$ b3c4U$3 1+ 1$ 4rb1+r4ry 4nD v4r14b73$ 4pp713D D0 n0+ n3c3$$4r17y r374+3 +0 0D4r $Ub$y$+3m$” (p.66). Th3r343, 0n3 mU$+ n0+ m1$+4k3n7y ph0w$zzZZ1n+ 4ny r4nD0m D1v1$10n 1n $0c13+y 4$ 4U+0m4+1c477y 4 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’. Th3$3 r n0+ n3c3$$4r17y ‘$UbcU7+Ur3$’ 3xc3p+ D4 $0c147 $c13n+1$+ 4pp7y1n6 D4$3 v4r14b73$ (Irw1n, 1n G37D3r 4nD Th0rn+0n, 1997, p. 67). H1$ cr1+1qU3 713$ 1n D4 $0c147 $c13n+1$+$’ jUD6m3n+ 4nD +4$+3. H3 4DD$ +h4+ 0Ur h4$+y 63n3r471z4+10n 1$ D4n63r0U$. B3c4U$3 0f D4 v46U3n3$$ 0f D4 +3rm ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’, T4m4+$U Sh1bU+4n1 (1955) D0 n0+ U$3 D4 +3rm 1n h1$ $+UD13$, bU+ h3 $U663$+$ +h4+ 6r0Up$ “$h0U7D b3 v13w3D 4$ r3f3r3nc3 w0r7D$ 0r $0c147 w0r7D$ wh1ch r n0+ +13D +0 4ny p'r+1cU74r c0773c+1v1+y 0r +3rr1+0ry”. H3 47$0 ph0w$zzZZ1n+$ 0U+ +h4+ “p3r$0n$ c0U7D $1mU7+4n30U$7y 0r 47+3rn+37y 1D3n+1fy w1+h mUhr3 +h4n 0n3 $0c147 w0r7D” (Irw1n, 1n G37D3r 4nD Th0rn+0n, 1997, p. 68). H3 4$$3r+$ +h4+ +0 4$$0c14+3 4 p3r$0n w1+h1n 0n7y 0n3 6r0Up, 1n +h1$ m4++3r, 4$ 4 p'r+ 0f 0n7y 0n3 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’, wUD b3 pr0b73m4+1c. 8
+h0U6h n0+ 3xp71c1+7y 3xp741n3D by 1rw1n, ‘p'++3rn$’ h3r3, 1 b3713v3, r3f3r +0 cU7+Ur47 p'++3rn$ c4rr13D 0U+ by D4 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ +h4+ r Un1qU3 4 nD 4p'r+ fr0m 1+$ ‘prn+ cU7+Ur3’. 3x4mp73$ r $p33ch 4nD c70+h1n6 +h4+ 1$ r34ff1rm3D by 60rD0n (1947) 4$ D4 m41n 1nD1c4+0r$ 0f 4 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’.
J. C C4+44n
15
In D4 m4$+3r47 D1$$3r+4+10n 0f BUr63$$ (2004), h3 4r6U3$ +h4+ D4 3x+3n+ 0f m3+h0D070613$ 4nD c0nc3p+U47 fr4m3w0rk$ U$3D +0 UnD3r$+4nD ph0w$zzZZpU74r cU7+Ur3 c4n 47$0 b3 U$3D +0 UnD3r$+4nD c0n+3mp0r4ry h16h cU7+Ur3. H3 c0nc7UD3$ +h4+ 47+h0U6h Br1$bn3’$ mU$1c $c3n3 1$ n0+ 4$ 1n+3n$3 0r p3rv4$1v3 4$ 1n D4 c4$3 w1+h D4 mUh$+ r3$34rch3D $+r33+-b$3D U'+h ‘$UbcU7+Ur3$’, 1+ 1$, n3v3rD473$$ 4 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’. H3 47$0 D3bUnk$ D4 n0+10n 0f pr10r $+UD13$ +h4+ D4 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ D40ry 1$ 47w4y$ 4 D4 $Ub0rD1n+3 4nD +h0$3 wh0 r 1n D4 ‘$Ubw4y’ 4nD ‘UnD3r6r0UnD’. H3 $h0w$ +h4+ D4 D40r13$ 4nD m3+h0D070613$ r 47$0 4pp71c4b73 3v3n +0 h16h cU7+Ur3. Th3 371+3 cU7+Ur3, Dr43, c4n 47$0 b3 4 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’. I+ c4n b3 UnD3r$+00D +h4+ +hr0U6h D4 cr34+10n 0f ‘$UbcU7+Ur3$’, wh3D4r ‘70w’ 0r ‘h16h’, $33m1n67y cr34+3$ ‘$0c147’ 74y3r$ 0f D1ff3r3n+ ‘$UbcU7+Ur3$’ +h4+ $1mU7+4n30U$7y $Ubm3r63 4nD c0Un+3r 34ch 0D4r. BUr63$$’$ $+UDy 1$ 4 crUc147 ph0w$zzZZ1n+ 1n D4 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ D40ry $1nc3 1+ pr0v3$ +h4+ r364rD73$$ 0f c74$$, 3+hn1c1+y, 463, 4m0n6 0D4r$, p30p73 c4n cr34+3 4nD b3 p'r+ 0f 4 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’. ‘SUbcU7+Ur3$’, 1n +h1$ r364rD, r n0+ jU$+ 4 D4 $Ub0rD1n+3$ 4nD D4 0ppr3$$3D. In D4 +Urn1n6$ 0f kn0w73D63, 1+ 47$0 $h0w$ +h4+ wh173 D4 +3rm ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ 1$ 4cc0mm0D4+1n6, 1+ 1$ 47$0 c0nfU$1n6. Th1$ 734D$ D4 c477 +0 3v3n+U477y c01n 4 n3w +3rm, 4 mUhr3 n3U+r47 4nD f1++1n6 +3rm +h4+ c4n c0p3 w1+h D4 f4$+ D3v370pm3n+ 0f D4 c0nc3p+ 0f ‘w0r7D’ 4cc0rD1n6 +0 G0rD0n (1947), D4 ‘$0c147 w0r7D 0r c0773c+1v1+y’ 0f Sh1bU+4n1 (1955) 4nD Y0Un6’$ (1971) ‘$Ub+3rr4n34n w0r7D’. Th1$ h0p3 71v3$ 0n 1n D4 r1$3 0f nU'D4r Sch007, nm37y, D4 B1rm1n6h4m Sch007 +h4+ pr0m1$3$ 4 mUhr3 1n-D3p+h, cU7+Ur3-$p3c1f1c 4nD nrr0w3D-D0wn 4n7y$3$ 0n ‘$UbcU7+Ur3$’. Th3 Sch007 c0n+1nU3$ +0 U$3 D4 +3rm, bU+ r3$+0r3$ 1+ c0n$3rv4+1v3 U$463, 4nD r374+3 1+ +0 U'+h ‘$UbcU7+Ur3$’ 4nD c74$$.
UnD3r c0n$+rUc+10n: chUR1-cHUr1'x 4 D4 1nc0nv3n13nc3: Th3 B1rm1n6h4m Sch007 Tr4D1+10n 4nD ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ $+UDy Af+3r w3 +4ck73 D4 cr1+1qU3$ r3c31v3D by D4 Ch1c460 Sch007 0n D4 c0nc3p+ 0f ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’, 1+ 1$ 1mp0r+4n+ +0 700k 4+ 0D4r $ch007$ 0f +h0U6h+ 0n ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’.
J. C C4+44n
16
Th3 r3$34rch3r$ 0f D4 B1rm1n6h4m Sch007 f0cU$ p'r+1cU74r7y 0n D4 c4+360ry 0f ‘U'+h $UbcU7+Ur3$’. U$1n6 $0m3 0f M4rx’$ 73n$ 0f 4n7y$3$, D4y $33 D4 71nk b3+w33n ‘1D30706y 4nD 4m’. ID30706y r3f3r$ +0 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’$’ 0U+700k wh173 4m p3r+41n$ +0 D4 phy$1c47 $p3c+4c73 0f D4 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ m3mb3r$. Th3$3 c0nc3p+$ r 70c4+3D 1n c0nn3c+10n w1+h D4 D0m1nn+ cU7+Ur3 4nD c74$$ $Ub0rD1n+10n 0f D4 ‘w0rk1n6 c74$$’9 (G37D3r 4nD Th0rn+0n, 1997, p. 83). In D4 34r7y D4y$ 0f D4 Sch007, D4 r3$34rch3r$ c0n+1nU3D 4nD c0n+r1bU+3D +0 D4 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ w0rk 0f D4 Ch1c460 Sch007. C0h3n (1972) $+UD13$ D4 U'+h ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ r374+3D +0 m1DD73 w0rk1n6-c74$$ 1n E4$+ EnD L0nD0n. H3 4r6U3$ +h4+ U'+h ‘$UbcU7+Ur3$’ r 4 k1nD 0f $ymp+0m 0f 4 c74$$ 1n D3c71n3. H3 4DD$ +h4+ wh3n +h1$ c74$$ UnD3r603$ ch4n63$, 4nD D4 ‘prn+ cU7+Ur3’ 1$ n0 70n63r c0h3$1v3, D4 w0rk1n6-c74$$ U'+h r3$p0nD$ by b3c0m1n6 ‘$UbcU7+Ur47’”. A$ 4 4m 0f 3xpr3$$10n ($Uch 4$ D4 700k 0f D4 $k1nh34D10 ), 4 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ r3$07v3$ D4 cr1$1$ 0f c74$$, $1nc3 D4 U'+h, +hr0U6h D41r 700k$, r n0 70n63r 1D3n+1f14b73 4$ w0rk1n6 c74$$. C0h3n, 1n h1$ 0bv10U$ $c3p+1c r3m4rk 0n m1DD73 w0rk1n6-c74$$ ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’, b3713v3$ +h4+ 47+h0U6h D4y ‘w1n $p'c3’ 4 D4m$37v3$, D4y $+177 h4v3 n0 fU+Ur3 b3c4U$3 D4y 1D3n+1fy D41r r3$1$+4nc3 1n D4 731xUr! w0r7D mUhr3 +h4n D4 w0rk p74c3 (1n G37D3r, 1997, p. 84, 85). C74rk3, 3+ 47., (1975) 3mph4$1z3 ‘r3$1$+4nc3’, 61v1n6 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3$’ 4 $3n$3 0f 463ncy. H0w3v3r, r34ff1rm1n6 C0h3n (1972), D4y ph0w$zzZZ1n+ 0U+ +h4+ ‘$UbcU7+Ur3$’ r f4+3D +0 f417, b3c4U$3 D41r $+rU6673 4nD r3$1$+4nc3 r 0n7y 71m1+3D +0 D4 ‘$ymb071c’ 73v37. Th3y h4v3 n0 ‘p071+1c47’ $07U+10n$ +0 D4 pr0b73m$ D4y r +ry1n6 +0 $07v3 (p. 104). G4rb3r 4nD McR0bb13 (1975) pr0p0$3 4 v3ry D1ff3r3n+ p3r$p3c+1v3 w1+h r364rD +0 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’. Th3y 0b$3rv3 +h4+ U'+h ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ $+UD13$ +3nD +0 734n w1+h b0y$, 4nD n3673c+$ D4 r073 0f 61r7$. Th31r w0rk f1nD$ 0U+ D4 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ $p'c3$ 4 61r7$. H3r3, D4 4U+h0r$ D0 n0+ 734D U$ +0 c74$$ 4n7y$1$, bU+ h0w ‘$UbcU7+Ur3$’ 4ff3c+ 63nD3r, 4nD v1c3 v3r$4.
9
1n D41r +1m3$, w0rk1n6 c74$$ w4$ c4773D D4 ‘prn+ cU7+Ur3’ 0f m4ny U'+h, 4nD D4 D0m1nn+ cU7+Ur3 r +h0$3 wh0 w3r3 3c0n0m1c477y 4nD ph0w$zzZZ71+1c477y ‘4b0v3’ D4 w0rk1n6 c74$$. 10 4 $+UDy 4b0U+ ‘$k1nh34D$’ by p'n6171nn (2001) w177 b3 D1$cU$$3D 1n D4 $3c+10n 4b0U+ ph171pp1n3 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3$’, 47$0 1n +h1$ ch4p+3r.
J. C C4+44n
17
Tw0 y34r$ 4f+3r C74rk3, 3+ 47. (1975), W1771$ (1977) 3n+3r$ 4nD wr1+3$ h1$ f4m0U$ c74$$1c L34rn1n6 +0 L4b0Ur, wh1ch I h4v3 m3n+10n3D 4 wh173 460. H1$ 3+hn06r4ph1c r3$34rch 3ch03$ D4 4n7y$1$ 0f C74rk3, 3+ 47. (1975) +h4+ ‘$UbcU7+Ur3$’ h4v3 n0 fU+Ur3 (G37D3r, 1997). S3++1n6 h1$ 4n7y$1$ 4p'r+ fr0m D4 0D4r$, H3bD163 (1979) 4n7y$3$ D4 pUnk$ 1n Br1+41n 1n D4 74+3 1970$. H3 700k$ 4+ D4m +hr0U6h 3+hn1c1+y mUhr3 +h4n c74$$. H3 c01n$ D4 +3rm ‘$+y73’ 4nD U$3$ 1+ +0 r3f3r +0 $0m3+h1n6 +h4+ “$+4nD$ 4p'r+—4 v1$1b73 c0n$+rUc+10n, 4 704D3D ch01c3. I+ D1r3c+$ 4++3n+10n +0 1+$37f; 1+ 61v3$ 1+$37f +0 b3 r34D” (p. 134). I+ 1$ 4 +yp3 0f ‘1n+3n+10n7 c0mmUn1c4+10n’ +h4+ $3+$ D4 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ 4p'r+ fr0m D4 r3$+. H1$ c0nc3p+ 0f ‘$+y73’, mUhr30v3r, 1$ r373v4n+ b3c4U$3 D3$p1+3 D4 cr1$1$ 1n D4 D3f1n1+10n 0f ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’, h3 c734r7y D1$+1n6U1$h3$ h0w 4 ‘6r0Up’ b3c0m3$ 4 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ 0r n0+. Th3 f1v3 w0rk$ +h4+ I m3n+10n 4b0v3 r D4 mUh$+ r373v4n+ 4nD f4m0U$ w0rk$ 0f D4 B1rm1n6h4m Sch007. I+ 1$ 600D +0 ph0w$zzZZ1n+ 0U+ h3r3 +h4+ D4 Sch007 h4$ 4 c0n$3n$U$ +h4+ ‘$UbcU7+Ur3$’ h4v3 D41r 71m1+4+10n$, +h4+ D4y c4n 0n7y D0 $0 mUch +0 ch4n63 D4 c0Ur$3 0f D41r 71v3$. H0w3v3r, D4 716h+ 1$ $33n 4641n wh3n D4 Sch007 cU7m1n+3$ 1n $4y1n6 +h4+ U'+h ‘$UbcU7+Ur3$’ r jU$+ r3pr3$3n+4+10n$ 0f 4 74r63r 4$p3c+ 0f $0c13+y (G37D3r, p. 89). I n0w +Urn +0 $ch074r$h1p 4b0U+ ‘$UbcU7+Ur3$’ 1n D4 Ph171pp1n3$.
‘SUbcU7+Ur3$’ 1n D4 Ph171pp1n3$ Th3r3 r 4 70+ 0f W3$+3rn r3$34rch3$, 4r+1c73$ 4nD j0Urn7$ +h4+ +4ck73 4nD U$3 D4 c0nc3p+ 0f ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ 1n D1$cU$$1n6 $0c147 ph3n0m3n. JU$+ 77yk 4ny 4c4D3m1c w0rk, I 4ckn0w73D63 +h4+ m4ny W3$+3rn 71+3r4+Ur3$ h4v3 b33n wr1++3n r374+1v3 +0 D4 $0c147, 3c0n0m1c 4nD ph0w$zzZZ71+1c47 $3+ Up 0f D41r r3$p3c+1v3 $0c13+13$ wh3n D4y w3r3 wr1++3n. Th3r343, 1+ 1$ h37pfU7 +0 c4rry 0n w1+h D4 cUrr3n+ 71+3r4+Ur3 4b0U+ ‘$UbcU7+Ur3$’ 4nD J3j3m0n$ 1n D4 Ph171pp1n3 $3++1n6. Th3r3 1$ 4 v3ry 71m1+3D 71+3r4+Ur3 +h4+ D347$ w1+h J3j3m0n$ $1nc3 1+ 1$ 4 n3w ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’. A7$0, f3w h4v3 b33n kn0wn 4b0U+ D4 Ph171pp1n3 $UbcU7+Ur3$, 3xc3p+ p3rh4p$ 4 P4n6171nn (2001).
J. C C4+44n
18
In D4 UnD3r6r4DU4+3 D4$1$ 0f P4n6171nn (2001), h3 $+UD13$ D4 $k1nh34D$11 1n D4 Ph171pp1n3$ 1n c0mp'r1$0n +0 +h0$3 1n Br1+41n. U$1n6 3+hn06r4phy, h3 nrr4+3$ D4 $373c+3D $+0r13$ 0f $k1nh34D$ 1n D4 Ph171pp1n3$ 4nD h0w D4y cUrv3 D41r 0wn 3v3ryD4y 3xp3r13nc3$ w1+h1n D4 $k1nh34D ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’. H3 pr0v3$ +h4+ ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ 1$ 4 71f3$+y73. H0w3v3r, D4 3mp0w3rm3n+ +h4+ P4n6171nn 61v3$ +0 D4 F171p1n0 $k1nh34D$ 1$ 0v3rwh37m1n6. Thr0U6h +r4D1+10n7 c74$$ 4n7y$1$, h3 $33$ +h4+ D4$3 $k1nh34D$ 41m 4 ch4n63$ 1n $0c13+y, bU+ h3 n3673c+$ +0 $33 +h4+ +h1$ ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ D03$ n0+ r3f73c+ 0n 1+$ 0wn c74$$ c0n$c10U$n3$$. K4r7 M4rx c477$ D4m ‘7Ump3npr073+4r14+$’ (1n G37D3r, 2005, p. 3). Th3$3 $k1nh34D$, 4$ 3v1D3n+ 1n D41r D417y nrr4+1v3$, r 0n7y 1n+3r3$+3D +0 D41r 0wn w377-b31n6. Th3y r vU7n3r4b73 +0 b3 34$17y $w4y3D by 0D4r 1D3070613$ 4nD mUhv3m3n+$ 0f D4 m1DD73 c74$$, wh1ch P4n6171nn $1m174r7y 4$$3r+$. Th3r3 r n0 4m47 4nD 1n-D3p+h r3$34rch3$ 4b0U+ J3j3m0n$ +0 D4+3. Th1$ r3$34rch 1$ 4 f1r$+ 0f 1+$ k1nD. Th3 4v4174b73 71+3r4+Ur3 4b0U+ J3j3m0n$ 1$ 71m1+3D 0n7y +0 0n71n3 n3w$ 4nD 0p1n10n 4r+1c73$ 1n D4 1n+3rn3+. A77 46r33$ +h4+ J3j3m0n$ r 4 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’, $1nc3 D4y c0Un+3r D4 D0m1nn+ cU7+Ur3 4$ $33n w1+h D4 f0770w1n6 r3$34rch3r$ b370w. T073n+1n0 (2010), 1n h1$ 0n71n3 4r+1c73 1n BU74+74+.c0m, +377$ U$ D4 3x1$+3nc3 0f J3j3m0n$ 1n 4 M4rx1$+’$ p3r$p3c+1v3. H3 c477$ D4 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ 4n ‘UnD3rc74$$’. H3 $+r3$$3$ +h4+ D4 J3j3m0n$ r Un3DUc4+3D 4nD D4 J3j3T3x+ 1$ n0+ 4n 1n+3n+10n7 4nD ‘$+y71$h’ mUhD1f1c4+10n 0f D4 $p3771n6 bU+ 4 m4n1f3$+4+10n 0f D41r 16n0r4nc3 1n D4 c0rr3c+ $p3771n6 0f +h0$3 w0rD$. H3 3mph4$1z3$ +h4+ J3j3m0n$ r 1n 4 ‘cU7+Ur47 b++73’. H3 $h0w$ h1$ cyn1c1$m 1n +h1$ m3+h0D 0f r3$1$+4nc3 $1nc3 “1+ 1$ 0n7y +hr0U6h D1r3c+ ph0w$zzZZ71+1c47 $+rU6673 +h4+ D4 ‘m4r61n71z3D’ wUD h4v3 4n 4cc3$$ +0 ph0w$zzZZ71+1c47 c1+1z3n$h1p” (p'r. 15, +r4n$74+10n m1n3). Ar40 (2010), 47$0 0n h1$ 0n71n3 4r+1c73, $33m$ +0 f0770w D4 $+4nc3 0f T073n+1n0 (2010), bU+ D1ff3r$ 0n7y 1n D4 ‘3mp0w3rm3n+’ 0f $Uch ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’. H3 1$ mUhr3 ph0w$zzZZ$1+1v3 0n D4 J3j3m0n ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’. H3 c477$ D4 J3j3T3x+ 4 ‘$0c1073c+’ 0r 11
p'n6171nn (2001) $33 D4 $k1nh34D$ 4$ D4 r3$1DU47 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ 0f pUnk$ 1n D4 w3$+.
J. C C4+44n
19
‘$0c147 D1473c+’. Th3 cr34+10n 0f +h1$ Un1qU3 c0D3 Un1+3$ D4 m3mb3r$ 0f D4 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ +0 c0mmUn1c4+3 1n+3rn77y. H3 47$0 h16h716h+$ D4 $+rU6673 0f +h1$ ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ 4nD +h0$3 wh0 r 1n D4 ph0w$zzZZ$1+10n 0f ph0w$zzZZw3r. Th3 $+4+3 4Dv0c4+3$ 4641n$+ D4 pr4c+1c3 0f J3j3T3x+, bU+ Ar40 c0n+3nD$ +h4+ D4 “‘0U+$1D3r$’ h4v3 n0 r16h+ +0 1n+3rv3n3 w1+h D4 1n+3rn7 4m 0f c0mmUn1c4+10n 0f D4 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’”. H3 f1n1$h3$ by qU3$+10n1n6 D4 $+4+3, pr1m4r17y D4 D3p'r+m3n+ 0f EDUc4+10n 1n 1+$ ph0w$zzZZ71c13$ 1n pr10r1+1z1n6 En671$h 0v3r F171p1n0 4nD D4 D36r4D4+10n 0f D4 qU471+y 0f 3DUc4+10n 1n D4 c0Un+ry. H3 4r6U3$, mUhr30v3r, +h4+ D4 3x1$+3nc3 0f J3j3m0n$ 1$ 4n 0U+r16h+ m4n1f3$+4+10n 0f $Uch pr0b73m$ (p'r. 12, 15, +r4n$74+10n m1n3). B0+h Ar40 (2010) 4nD T073n+1n0 (2010) c0n$1D3r D4 J3j3m0n$ 4$ 4 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’. Th3y r 77yk m4ny D40r1$+$ wh0 b3c0m3 ‘70y471$+$’ 0f D4 c0nc3p+ 0f ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’. S0m3 D3c1D3 +0 Unp1ck D4 +3rm. OD4r$, m34nwh173, D3v14+3 fr0m 1+$ +r4D1+10n7 v13w 4nD +ry +0 m4k3 $3n$3 +hr0U6h D41r D1$+1nc+ 4n7y$3$. L1k3 D4m, 4$ 4 r3$34rch3r, I mU$+ ch00$3. I h4v3 D3c1D3D +0 f1nD 4n 47+3rn+1v3 +0 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’, 4nD I f0UnD 0n3. Th1$ 47+3rn+1v3 +h4+ I U$3 1n +h1$ $+UDy 1$ n0+ f4r fr0m 1+$ r00+$. In f4c+, 1+ 1$ $U663$+3D f3w y34r$ 4f+3r ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ w4$ f1r$+ c01n3D.
N0+ $0 f4r: D4 47+3rn+1v3$ +0 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ Wh3n 477 h4v3 b33n $41D 4nD D0n3, D4 n3x+ +h1n6 +h4+ w3 mU$+ D0 1$ +0 700k 4 47+3rn+1v3$. I w4n+ +0 m4k3 1+ c734r +h4+ Un77yk D4 b3713v3r$ 0f ‘p0$+-$UbcU7+Ur3$’. Th1$ 4ppr04ch $+4r+3D wh3n D4 D40r1$+$ D3p'r+ fr0m Br1+1$h cU7+Ur47 $+UD13$ (B1rm1n6h4m Sch007). I+ D3n13$ D4 34r713r 71nk$ b3+w33n ‘$UbcU7+Ur3$’ 4nD D4 w0rk1n6 c74$$ (G37D3r, 2005, p. 3). I w177 n0+ p74c3 D4 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ D40ry 1n D4 ‘+r4$h b1n’ 0f h1$+0ry. ‘P0$+-$UbcU7+Ur3’ D40r1$+$ c477 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ D4 +h1n6 0f D4 p'$+. Th3y 47$0 b3713v3 +h4+ D4 w0rk$ 0f ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ D40r1$+$ fr0m B1rm1n6h4m 4nD Ch1c460 r ‘h3r01c’, y3+, c4n n0w b3 r3j3c+3D. InD33D, 71f3 1$ mUhr3 c0mp73x n0w, 4nD $0c147 0r64n1z4+10n$ c4nn0+ b3 $33n 4nym0r3 1n 4 71n34r p3r$p3c+1v3, bU+ I b3713v3 +h4+ “1+
J. C C4+44n
20
1$ mUch +00 $00n +0 r37364+3 +h1$ +3rm +0 D4 DU$+b1n$ 0f cU7+Ur47 h1$+0ry” (G37D3r, 2005, p. 12). My +0+47 p74c1n6 0f D4 +3rm ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ w1+h1n $3m1-c070n$ 3v3ry +1m3 m3n+10n3D 1n +h1$ r3$34rch 1$ n0+ 4 4m 0f r3j3c+10n, bU+ +0 $3+ my ph0w$zzZZ1n+ 4nD 3$+4b71$h 4 c734r D371n34+10n 0f D4 +3rm +h4+ I U$3 c0n$1$+3n+7y +hr0U6h0U+ D4 m4nU$cr1p+. Th3r3 r +w0 +h1n6$ y?'' >.< I 4m 1n $34rch 4 4 n3w +3rm +0 74b37 D4 J3j3m0n$. F1r$+, D4 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ D40ry $Uff3r$ 4 cr1$1$ 1n D3f1n1+10n. Th1$ 1$ pr0v3n w1+h D4 v4$+ nUmb3r 0f $+UD13$ m3n+10n3D 4b0v3. Th1$ cr1$1$ wUD c0mpr0m1$3 my c4$3 $+UDy $1nc3 D4 J3j3m0n ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ D03$ n0+ h4v3 3v3ry+h1n6 +h4+ 4 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ mU$+ h4v3, 4nD 1+ 1$ n0+ 3v3ry+h1n6 4 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ mU$+ b3. S3c0nD, 1n c0nn3c+10n w1+h D4 f1r$+ 0n3, I c0n+3nD +h4+ D4 J3j3m0n ph3n0m3n0n 1n 1+$37f 1$ b3y0nD 4 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’. W1+h 477 DU3 r3$p3c+ +0 D4 D40r1$+$ wh0 U$3 4nD w177 $+177 b3 U$1n6 D4 w0rD ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ 1n D41r w0rk$, b370w, I 3x4m1n3 D4 c0nc3p+ 0f ‘$Ub-cU7+Ur3’ (w1+h 4 hyph3n) by G0rD0n (1947). H1$ p'$$463 1$ 0n3 0f D4 34r7y cr1+1qU3$ 0f D4 +3rm ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’. G0rD0n c0m3$ fr0m D4 Ch1c460 Sch007 4$ w377.
‘SUbcU7+Ur3’ v1$-à-v1$ $Ub-cU7+Ur3 G0rD0n (1947) w4rn$ U$ 4b0U+ D4 f70Ur1$h1n6 c0nc3p+ 0f ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’, $4y1n6 +h4+ 4 r3$34rch3r $h0U7D +r4n$c3nD fr0m 4 71n34r +yp3 0f ‘$UbcU7+Ur47’ 1nqU1ry +0 4v01D 63n3r471z4+10n$ 4nD br04D 6r0Up1n6 1n $0c13+y. Th1$ 1$ D4 v3ry f1r$+ pr0b73m +h4+ h3 $33$ wh3n D40r1$+$ 4pp7y D4 c0nc3p+. Th1$ 1$ w3r my f1r$+ c0n+3n+10n 4b0U+ ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ 713$. My 1nqU1ry 0n D4 J3j3m0n ‘$Ub-cU7+Ur3’ D03$ n0+ r3v07v3 0n7y 1n D41r $0c147 c74$$, bU+ 1nc7UD3$ D41r 463 6r0Up 4nD $0c147 r374+10n$ 4m0n6 0D4r$. W1+h0U+ 4 D0Ub+, 1+ 1$ Un1m461nb73 4 4 r3$34rch3r +0 4n7y$3 4 ph3n0m3n0n 1n jU$+ 0n3 c4+360ry, w1+h0U+ r374+1n6 1+ +0 0D4r c4+360r13$. I 4cc3p+ G0rD0n’$ D3f1n1+10n 0f ‘$Ub-cU7+Ur3’, wh1ch 1$ “4 $Ub-D1v1$10n 0f 4 n+10n7 cU7+Ur3 c0mp0$3D 0f c0mb1n+10n 0f f4c+0r4b7312 $0c147 $1+U4+10n$ $Uch 4$ 12
0r 1nD3p3nD3n+ v4r14b73$, 1f 4pp713D 1n mUhD3rn r3$34rch
J. C C4+44n
21
c74$$ $+4+U$, 3+hn1c bck6r0UnD, r3610n7 4nD rUr47 0r Urbn r3$1D3nc3, 4nD r371610U$ 4ff1714+10n$, bU+ 4m1n6 1n D41r c0mb1n+10n 4 fUnc+10n1n6 Un1+y wh1ch h4$ 4n 1n+36r4+3D 1mp'c+ 0n D4 p'r+1c1p'+1n6 1nD1v1DU47” (G0rD0n, 1947, p. 41). Wh173 1+ 1$ +rU3 +h4+ 4 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ 1$ 47$0 4 ‘D1v1$10n 0f 4 n+10n7 cU7+Ur3’, G0rD0n (1947) +377$ U$ +h4+ +h1$ k1nD 0f r3f3r3nc3 b3c0m3$ ‘c0m4+4b73 h1D1n6 p74c3$’ 4 Am3r1c4n $0c107061$+$. H3 c477$ +h1$ “‘$p0r4D1c r3$+1n6 p74c3$ 0f $3m4n+1c c0nv3n13nc3’, r4D4r +h4n 4ny $y$+3m4+1c 4pp71c4+10n 0f D4 +3rm +0 w377D3f1n3D $0c147 c0nD1+10n$” (p. 40). I D3f1n1+37y 46r33 w1+h G0rD0n, b3c4U$3 wh3n 4 p3r$0n 3n+3r$ 1n+0 4 $UbcU7+Ur3, h3 f337$ D4$3 ‘$0c147 $1+U4+10n$’ 4$ 0n3 1nf7U3n+147 f4c+0r 47+063D4r. Th1$ p3r$0n D03$ n0+ 3xp3r13nc3 D4$3 c4+360r13$ $1mU7+4n30U$7y, bU+ $3p'r4+3D fr0m 34ch 0D4r. G0rD0n b3713v3$ +h4+ h3 0r $h3 “1$ 4 p3r$0n wh0$3 3nv1r0nm3n+47 bck6r0UnD 1$ 4n 1n+3rw0v3n 4nD v4r1364+3D c0mb1n+10n 0f 477 D4$3 f4c+0r$” (p. 41). G0rD0n 4DD$ +h4+ D4 c0nc3p+ 0f $Ub-cU7+Ur3 “61v3$ U$ 4 k33n 4nD 1nc1$1v3 +007 wh1ch… pr3v3n+$ U$ fr0m m4k1n6 +00 br04D 6r0Up1n6$ w3r $Uch 1nc7U$1v3n3$$ 1$ n0+ w4rr4n+3D” (p. 41). Th1$ fUrD4r 3nb73$ U$ +0 D1$c3rn c70$37y D4 “c0h3$1v3 $y$+3m$ 0f $0c147 0r64n1z4+10n$ wh1ch cUrr3n+7y w3 +3nD +0 4n7yz3 $3p'r4+37y w1+h 0Ur mUhr3 c0nv3n+10n7 +007$ 0f ‘c74$$’ 4nD ‘3+hn1c 6r0Up’ (p. 41). I+ 1$ c734r +h4+ $Ub-cU7+Ur3 0ccUp13$ 4 74r63r $c0p3 0f 4n7y$1$. I+ 0ff3r$ D1v3r$3 v4r14b73$, y3+ c0nn3c+1n6 4nD 3$+4b71$h1n6 4 Un1+y 4m0n6 D4m. H3 ch4773n63$ 477 D4 3+hn06r4ph3r$ 4nD D40r1$+$ +0 60 b3y0nD 4 71n34r +yp3 0f 1nqU1ry. BU+ 4 w0r$3 pr0b73m $+177 h4pp3n$ n0w4D4y$ 1n 47m0$+ 477 4c4D3m1c c0mmUn1+13$. Th1$ 1$ wh3n D40r1$+$ 4pp7y 4nD U$3 D4 c0nc3p+ 0f ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ +0 jU$+ 4ny ‘6r0Up’, w1+h0U+ +r4c1n6 D4 r00+ 0f D4 c0nc3p+ 4nD 1+$ 71m1+4+10n$. H1$ c0nc3p+ D03$ n0+ f70Ur1$h. A$ w3 $33, 0D4r D40r1$+$ $Ucc33D1n6 h1m D0 n0+ 4ckn0w73D63 0r c0n$1D3r h1$ ph0w$zzZZ$1+10n. H1$ f3770w$ fr0m D4 Ch1c460 Sch007 c0n+1nU3 +0 U$3 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’. Th3 B1rm1n6h4m Sch007 D03$ n0+ D3p'r+ fr0m
J. C C4+44n
22
D4 +3rm. BU+ 4 D4 J3j3m0n ph3n0m3n0n, I $33 4 jU63 ph0w$zzZZ1n+ 0f U$1n6 D4 $UbcU7+Ur3 c0nc3p+ 1n$+34D 0f ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’. I 4r6U3 +h4+ D4 J3j3m0n ph3n0m3n0n 1$ 1n1+1477y 4 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’, bU+ D4 +3rm D03$ n0+ $Uff1c3 D4 c0mp73x1+y 0f +h1$ $Ub-cU7+Ur3, wh1ch n3c3$$1+4+3$ D4 n33D +0 U$3 4 mUhr3 f1++1n6 +3rm. I b3713v3 +h4+ J3j3m0n$ 4$ 4 c0n+3mp0r4ry $Ub-cU7+Ur3 c4nn0+ b3 4n7yz3D 1n 4 71n34r v13wp01n+. I+$ 3x1$+3nc3 D03$ n0+ h4pp3n b3c4U$3 0f ‘c74$$’ 0r ‘3+hn1c1+y’ 470n3. Th3 ‘$0c147 c0nD1+10n$’ +h4+ 4ff3c+ 4nD c0mp0$3 J3j3m0n$ r 1n+3rr374+3D 4nD D1v3r$3. Th3y m4k3 Up 4 h16h7y 0r64n1z3D 4nD c0h3$1v3 $Ub-cU7+Ur3. In D4 n3x+ ch4p+3r, I D3f1n3 wh0 D4 J3j3m0n$ r, 4nD D41r D1$+1nc+ m4rk$ 4nD 1D3n+1+y. I fUrD4r br34k D0wn D4 J3j3m0n ph3n0m3n0n 4$ 4 $Ub-cU7+Ur3.
J. C C4+44n
23
“B1nn661+ 4n6 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ $4 TrU3 S+0r13$ $4 QTV 11. T1nw46 n174n6 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ 4n6 b0Dy mUhD1f1c4+10n 3n+jU$14$+$. S16Ur0 n64 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ $174, bk~ r1n nD1. G4m1+ 74n6 x3' nn6 64m1+ 3h. W474 nm4n6 b$3h4n 4+ m47471m n p'nn71k$1k n n64np.” -F137D n0+3, D3c3mb3r 26, 2010
J. C C4+44n
24
CHAPTER 3 N0 $w3rv1n6: D4 r1$3 0f J3j3m0n$ A$ w3 700k 4+ D4 3n+1r3 p1c+Ur3 0f J3j3m0n 4$ 4 $Ub-cU7+Ur3, 73+ m3 f1r$+ D3f1n3 D4 ph0w$zzZZ1n+ 0f +h1$ r3$34rch, 4 6r0Up 0f U'+h c4773D c0773c+1v37y 4$ ‘J3j3m0n$+3r$’.
D3f1n1n6 4 J3j3m0n Th3 mUh$+ c0n+3mp0r4ry 6r0Up 0r ph3n0m3n0n 1n D4 Ph171pp1n3 ph0w$zzZZpU74r cU7+Ur3 $c3n3 +0 D4+3 1$ D4 ‘J3j3m0n$+3r$’ 0r ‘J3j3m0n$’. Th3 c0Un+ry b364n f0cU$1n6 1+$ 4++3n+10n +0 D4m 1n 34r7y 2010, bU+ 70n6 b343 +h4+, D4 J3j3m0n$ h4v3 47r34Dy 3x1$+3D, h0w3v3r, w1+h0U+ 74b37 4nD $+3r30+yp3$. Acc0rD1n6 +0 D4 w3b$1+3 www.UrbnD1c+10nry.c0m (2010), 4 J3j3m0n 1$ “b$1c477y 4ny0n3 w1+h 4 70w +073r4nc3 1n c0rr3c+ pUnc+U4+10n, $yn+4x 4nD 6r4mm4r”. Th3 ‘J3j3m0n$+3r$’ 1$ D4 c0773c+1v3 +3rm 4 D4 m3mb3r$ 0f D4 $Ub-cU7+Ur3, 4nD D4 w0rD ‘J3j3m0n’ 1$ D4 $h0r+3n3D +3rm 4$$0c14+3D w1+h D4m. I+ 1$ 47$0 D4 mUh$+ ph0w$zzZZpU74r 74b37 4 D4m. Th1$ w3b$1+3 1$ D4 f1r$+ +0 D3f1n3 ‘J3j3m0n$’ 4nD 1$ f0770w3D by m4ny w3b$1+3$. Th3 mUhD3r4+0r 4nD 1+$ $0Urc3 r c0n+3n+10U$, n3v3rD473$$. Th3 w3b$1+3 www.j3j3m0n.c0m 4D4p+3D D4 D3f1n1+10n by www.UrbnD1c+10nry.c0m. Th1$ w3b$1+3 1$ 0wn3D by Mr. Ar1$ B0n1f4c10. L3+ m3 1n+r0DUc3 h1m br13f7y 4+ +h1$ ph0w$zzZZ1n+, bU+ I 61v3 4mp73 $p'c3 4b0U+ h1m 1n D4 $Ucc33D1n6 ch4p+3r$. Mr. B0n1f4c10 4 29-y34r 07D c0mpU+3r pr06r4mm3r by 4 r3473$+4+3 c0mp'ny b$3D 1n M4k~+1. H3 1$ D4 $0-c4773D ‘J3j3m4$+3r’. M4ny f0770w3r$ 0n F4c3b00k 4nD D4 w3b$1+3 4ckn0w73D63 h1m 4$ D4 J3j3m4$+3r. I h4v3 +0 4Dv4nc3 D4 1n+r0DUc+10n $1nc3 h3 h4$ 4 70+ +0 $4y 0n D4 h1$+0ry 4nD 3+ym0706y 0f D4 w0rD ‘J3j3m0n’.
Or161n 0f D4 +3rm J3j3m0n An 4cc0Un+ 0f D4 $Upp0$3D 6r0Up 0f J3j3m0n$ nm3D ‘T34m J3j3m0n’ 0n F4c3b00k ph0w$zzZZ$+3D 4 n0+3 3n+1+73D H1$+0ry n6 m64 TUny n J3j3m0n$ (H1$+0ry 0f TrU3 J3j3m0n$) D4+3D Apr17 27, 2010. Th3y $+4+3 +h4+ D4 w0rD J3j3m0n 1$ D4 c0mb1n+10n 0f
J. C C4+44n
25
‘J3j3’, b3c4U$3 0f D4 w4y D4y 74U6h 1n D4 v1r+U47 w0r7D, 0r pr0bb7y fr0m ‘JJ’ wh1ch m34n$ ‘JUmp1n6 J0706$’, 0r D4 U'+h ‘6r0Up’13 d1$+1n6U1$h3D 4$ +h0$3 wh0 $+4y 0U+$1D3 D4 c0nc3r+ 6r0UnD$, w34r b74ck $h1r+, b74ck f4D3D j34n$, 4nD 4 c4p c0v3r1n6 0n3-$1D3D h41r, w1+h bn6$ $h0wn 4+ D4 $1D3 0f D4 f4c3, wh173 ‘m0n’ m34n$ ‘m0n$+3r’, fr0m D4 f4m0U$ J4p'n3$3 c4r+00n $h0w P0k3m0n 0r P0ck3+ M0n$+3r$. J3j3m4$+3r, 1n 0Ur $3v3r47 m33+1n6$, 4ff1rm$ +h1$ D3f1n1+10n. H3 $4y$ +h4+ ‘J3j3-’ +r4c3$ 1+$ 0r161n$ 1n D4 Sp'n1$h wr1++3n 3xpr3$$10n 0f 74U6h+3r. H3 pr0v3$ +h1$ by nrr4+1n6 h1$ f1r$+ 3nc0Un+3r w1+h D4 w0rD, ‘J3j3’.14 H3 $hr$ +h4+ w4y bck 1n 2003, D41r f4m17y 1n T0nD0 h4D 4 c0mpU+3r c4fé. DUr1n6 h1$ fr33 +1m3, h3 wUD 60 Dr 4nD p74y 0n71n3 c0mpU+3r 64m3$. Th3$3 64m3$ h4D p74y3r$ fr0m 477 0v3r D4 w0r7D, 4nD 4cc0rD1n6 +0 h1m, Sp'n1$h U'+h 0f+3n v1$1+ 64m1n6 r00m$ 0f F171p1n0$. Th1$ w4$ w3r h3 f1r$+ $4w D4 Sp'n1$h w0rD, ‘J3j3’. In h1$ 0p1n10n, b3c4U$3 0f D4 v160r0U$ 6r0w+h 0f c0mpU+3r c4f3$ 4nD 0n71n3 64m3$ 1n D4 Ph171pp1n3$ 1n +h1$ D3c4D3, U'+h r mUhr3 3xp0$3D +0 4316n w0rD$ +h4+ D4y 3nc0Un+3r 0v3r D4 1n+3rn3+. S1nc3 D4n, h3 h4$ $+4r+3D +0 3xpr3$$ h1$ 74U6h+3r 1n +h4+ w4y. BU+ D4 b1r+h 0f D4 w0rD D1D n0+ h4pp3n y3+. j3j3m4$+3r c0n+1nU3$ +0 3xp741n D4 74++3r ph0w$zzzzr+10n 0f D4 w0rD, ‘-m0n’. 1+ c0m3$ fr0m D4 f4m0U$ c4r+00n $h0w, p0k3m0n 0r p0ck3+ m0n$+3r$. h3 4$$0c14+3$ D4 j3j3m0n$’ c070rfU7 0U+f1+$ +0 D4 p0k3m0n$’ c070rfU7 700k 4nD 4cc3$$0r13$. H3 c734r$ +h4+ D4 w0rD ‘J3j3m0n’ 0r161n+3$ fr0m D4 1n+3rn3+, 4nD n0+ fr0m c377U74r ph0n3$. I+ 1$ 0n7y wh3n D4 +373c0mmUn1c4+10n n3+w0rk$ $+4r+ +0 0ff3r Un71m1+3D +3x+ $3rv1c3$ +h4+ D4 pr4c+1c3 1$ +r4n$f3rr3D +0 D4 c377U74r ph0n3$. H3 c4nn0+ +r4c3, n3v3rD473$$, wh0 c0mb1n3D D4 +w0 c0nc3p+$ 4nD 4m3D D4 w0rD, ‘J3j3m0n’. H3 $41D +h4+ 1+ 1$ D4 m3D14 wh0 74b37$ D4m 4$ J3j3m0n$. T073n+1n0 (2010) 46r33$ w1+h +h1$, $1nc3 D4 “J3j3m0n ph3n0m3n0n 1$ p'ck~63D 4nD pr0DUc3D by D4 rU71n6 c74$$ 4 1+$ 0wn 1n+3r3$+$, 4nD 73+ D4 1nf3r10r c74$$3$ +0 c0n$Um3” (p'r. 13, 14). J3j3m4$+3r, h0w3v3r, 4++r1bU+3$ D4 cr34+10n 0f D4 w0rD +0 D4
13
1 c477 D4m ‘6r0Up’ $1nc3 Dr 1$ n0 $+UDy +h4+ pr0v3$ +h4+ D4 jj$ 0r ‘jUmp1n6 j0706$’ r 1nD33D 4 $UbcU7+Ur3. 14 +h1$ h4pp3n3D DUr1n6 my 0n3-0n-0n3 1n+3rv13w w1+h j3j3m4$+3r.
J. C C4+44n
26
F171p1n0 U'+h wh0 r v3ry cr34 1v3. Th3y r D4 0n3$, h3 b3713v3$, wh0 c01n D D4 +3rm, J3j3m0n.
Ph0+0 1: I 4m w1+h J3j3m4$+3r Ar1$ B0n1f4c10, DUr1n6 my 1n+3rv13w w1 h h1m 1n Th3 O7D Sp'6h3++1 H0U$3, W47+3r M4r+ P4$0n6 T4m0, D3c3mb3r 28, 2010
J3j3 + w3bm4$+3r = J3j3m4$ 3r B0n1f4c10 $hr$ +h4+ 47+h0U6h h3 h4$ b33n ch4++1n6 4nD +3x+1n6 U$1n6 3xc3$$1v3 73++3r$, D3fy1n6 c p1+471z4+10n$ 4nD 6r4mm4r, D4 +3rm ‘J3j m0n h4$ n0+ ’
b33n c01n3D, Un+17 4 c3r+41n n3w$ 0r64n1z4+10n, wh1ch h3 D03$ n0+ nm , 74b37$ D4 pr4c+1c3 4$ ‘J3j3m0n’ 1n D41r n3w$ 1+3m $0m3+1m3 1n Apr17 2010. H3 p1ck$ Up D4 w0rD 61v3n by D4 $41D 0r64n z4+10n. N0+ 70n6 4f+3r, h3 $33$ 4n 3p1$0D3 0f K4pU$0 M0, J3$$1c4 S0h0 +h4+ f34+Ur3$ D4$3 U'+h c4773D ‘J3j3m0n$’. On D4 $4m3 mUhn+h, h bUy$ D4 D0m41n nm3, www.j3j3m0n.c0m,
+hr33
jUnDr3D Ph171pp1n3 p3$0$. S nc3 D3$16n1n6 w3b$1+3$ 1$ h1$ h0bby 4nD cr3r, h3 4m4+$ D4 $1+3, 4nD p74c3$ 4 ch4+ b0x 1n 1+. H3 1$ D4 mUhD3r4+0r 0f D4 n3w $1+3, +jU$ h3 1$ c4773D 4 ‘w3bm4$+3r’. S1nc3
4 $1+3 1$ 4 ‘J3j3$1+3’ (D3$16n3D 4 D4 3m r61n6 U'+h
$Ub-cU7+Ur3 c4773D J3j3m0n , h3 +4663D h1m$37f 4$ D4 ‘J3j3m4$+3r’.
J. C C4+44n
27
`Th3 +3rm ‘J3j3m4$+3r’ D03$ n0+ m34n +h4+ h3 1$ D4 $Upr3m3 734D3r 0f D4 J3j3m0n$. J3j3m0n$ n33D n0+ f0770w h1$ c0mm4nDm3n+$. Th3 nm3 1$ $1mp7y 4 c0mb1n+10n 0f D4 w0rD$ ‘J3j3’ 4nD ‘w3bm4$+3r’ +h4+ m4k3$ h1m D4 ’J3j3m4$+3r’. B4$3D 0n my 0b$3rv4+10n$, h0w3v3r, D4 J3j3m0n$, DU3 +0 J3j3m4$+3r’$ h1$+0r1c47 4$c3nD4ncy, 700k Up +0 4nD r3$p3c+ h1m 4$ D4 ‘f0UnD3r’ 0f D4 $Ub-cU7+Ur3. J3j3m4$+3r f1n1$h3D h1$ UnD3r6r4DU4+3 c0Ur$3 1n bU$1n3$$ 4Dm1n1$+r4+10n 4+ D4 Ph171pp1n3 Sch007 0f BU$1n3$$ ADm1n1$+r4+10n. H3 47$0 +00k Up 4 c3r+1f1c4+3 pr06r4m 1n c0mpU+3r pr06r4mm1n6 4+ Sy$+3m$ T3chn0706y In$+1+U+3 (STI). J3j3m4$+3r 47$0 1n+r0DUc3D m3 +0 D4 m3mb3r$ 0f J3j3m0n ch4p+3r 1n F41rv13w. Th1$ 1$ w3r D4 p'r+1c1p'n+ 0b$3rv4+10n +00k p74c3, D3+417$ 0f wh1ch I D1$cU$$ b370w, 4nD 1n D4 $Ucc33D1n6 ch4p+3r$.
Th3 J3j3fr13nD$ P4r+ 0f +h1$ p'r+1c1p'n+ 0b$3rv4+10n w4$ 3xch4n61n6 +3x+ m3$$463$ w1+h J3j3m0n$. I 60+ +0 kn0w 47m0$+ +h1r+y J3j3m0n$ 1n D4 c0Ur$3 0f +h1$ r3$34rch. I n3v3r h4D D4 ch4nc3 +0 m33+ D4 0D4r$, bU+ Dr w3r3 47$0 J3j3fr13nD$ +h4+ I h4D m3+ +0 $hr D41r D417y nrr4+1v3$ 4$ J3j3m0n$. I 1n+r0DUc3 b370w f1v3 J3j3fr13nD$ fr0m F41rv13w wh0 $37f73$$7y $hrD D41r $+0r13$ +h4+ 64v3 ‘f4c3$’ +0 D4 D40r3+1c47 4$$Ump+10n$ 0f +h1$ r3$34rch.
Th3 J3j3734D3r: Ry4n Ry4n G474n6 1$ 17 y34r$ 07D (Ph0+0 2). H3 m4y b3 D4 U'n63$+ bU+ h3 734D$ D4 J3j3m0n ch4p+3r 0f F41rv13w br4nch. H3 1$ 4 c0U$1n 0f J3j3m4$+3r Ar1$ B0n1f4c10. H3 1$ 4 j077y bU+ 4 4m47 J3j3m0n. H3 1$ 4+ +1m3$ rh3+0r1c47 4nD pr34chy +0 h1$ f3770w$. H3 1$ f0nD 0f w34r1n6 b74ck 4nD 6r4y $h1r+$ w1+h c070rfU7 pr1n+$ 0n D4m. H3 w34r$ jU63 $h03$. H3 w0rk$ 4$ 4 p'r+-+1m3 0ff1c3 4$$1$+4n+ 4+ ACCESS-F41rv13w.15 I+ 1$ 47$0 h1$ $ch007. H3 6U1D3D m3 v3ry w377 1n D4 3n+1r3 c0Ur$3 0f f137D w0rk. H1$ n3v3r-3nD1n6 $+0r13$ 4nD j0k3$ h37p3D m3 $Urv1v3 my 4DjU$+m3n+ p3r10D 4nD m4D3 m3 f337 4+ 34$3 w1+h 0D4r J3j3m0n$.
15
4cc3$$ 1$ 4 v0c4+10n7 c0mpU+3r $ch007 w1+h $3v3r47 br4nch3$ 1n 7Uz0n. 1+ 0ff3r$ 2-y34r c3r+1f1c4+3 c0Ur$3$.
J. C C4+44n
28
Th3 h34r++hr0b: Sh3rw1n Sh3rw1n E73cc10n 1$ 1 y34r$ 07D (Ph0+0 2). H3 1$ 4 $hy-+yp3 J3j3 0n. H1$ c70D4$ r 47w4y$ 1n 34r+h +0n . H1$ h41r c0v3r$ D4 ph0w$zzZZr+10n 0f h1 r16h+ 3y3. Th3 f1r$+ +1m3 I $4w h1m, h3
0r3 4n Unz1pp3D br0wn j4ck3+, 3xc3p+ D4 00k$, +h4+
r3v3473D h1$ p741n wh1+3 $h r+ 1n$1D3. Am0n6 D4 J3j3fr13nD$, h3 rr7y 0 p3n3D Up wh3n D4 6r0Up 1$ D1$cU$$1n6. H3 jU$+ 71$+3n3D 0r h1$ 3y3$ w3r3 70ck3D +0 '$$1n6 p30p73 wh3n3v3r w3 w3r3 1n pUb71c 74c3$. H3 Dr34m$ +0 b3 4 $h1p c4p+41n 0r p170+ $00n, bU+ h1$ c0Ur$3 n0w r374+3$ +0 h0 37 $3rv1c3. H3 1$ 4c+U477y D4 h34r++hr0b 0f D4 6r0Up, bU+ I n0+1c3D +h4+ h3 h4rD7 3v3r 74U6h3D w1+h D4 61r7$’ j0k3$.
Ph0+0 2: (fr0m 73f+) Sh3rw1n nD Ry4n, DUr1n6 0Ur $nck$ 4+ Gr33nw1ch M F41rv13w
Th3 ‘D47D473r4’: N1n4 N1n4 A7c4$rn f337$ 77 k $h3 1$ D4 ‘4+3’ (07D3r $1$+3r) 1n D4 6r0 p bU+ $h3 1$ 4c+U477y D4 U'n63$+ (Ph0+0 ). OD4r J3j3fr13nD$ c477 h3r ‘D47D473r4’ b c4U$3 $h3 $p34k$ 477 D4 +1m3. H3r f4v0 1+3 c4p 1$ 4 ch3ck3r3D y3770w 4nD b74ck +h4+ U$U477y b73nD$ w1+h h3r $h1r+$ 4nD b37+$. H3r $h1ny, 70n6 h41r, $h3 $41D, 1$ h3r b3$+ 4$$3+. I
J. C C4+44n
29
47w4y$ $4w h3r w1+h h3r b0yfr13nD wh0 1$ 47$0 4 J3j3m0n. Sh3 1$ 47w4y$ c0m4+4b73 1n 3xpr3$$1n6 h3r +h0U6h+$. Sh3 $p34k$ v3ry pr0f0UnD. Sh3 1$ v3ry 0p1n10n+3D.
Th3 f4$h10n1$+4: K4+h K4+h H3rnnD3z 1$ 20 y34r$ 07D (Ph0+0 3). Sh3 $41D $h3 f337$ 43v3r U'n6. Sh3 U$U477y 64v3 D4 f1r$+ $m173 wh3n3v3r w3 $4w 34ch 0D4r. H3r 716h+ 4Ur4 m4k3$ D4 6r0Up 34$y. Sh3 w4$ +0Uchy w1+h m3 4nD D4 r3$+ 0f D4 6r0Up, bU+ I UnD3r$+4nD +h4+ 1+ w4$ h3r w4y 0f 3nD34rm3n+ 4$ 0Ur U'n63r $1$+3r. Sh3 c477$ h3r$37f 4 ‘f4$h10n1$+4’. H3 w34r$ 4 70+ 0f f4ncy 4cc3$$0r13$ +h4+ f177 h3r n3ck, 34r$ 4nD 4rm$. H3r h41r$+y73 1$ 1nn0v4+1v3, w1+h D4 p16+417 0n7y 0n 0n3 $1D3. H3r $Upp0$3D7y 70n6 p'n+$ r f07D3D Up +0 D4 kn33$. Sh3 h4$ D4 mUh$+ cr34+1v3 4nD ‘3xp3r1m3n+47’ w4y 0f Dr3$$1n6 1n D4 6r0Up. Sh3 1$ 47w4y$ 4ppr3c14+1v3. Sh3 $33$ $m477 y3+ b34U+1fU7 +h1n6$, $Uch 4$ my h41rcU+. sH3 c477$ m3 ‘B4by J4m3$’.16 Sh3 0nc3 4p07061z3D 4 n0+ m4k1n6 1+ +0 0Ur 74$+ $ch3DU73D h4n6 0U+ b3c4U$3 $h3 w4$ ‘6r0UnD3D’ by h3r prn+$. Sh3 D1D n0+ +377 D4 r34$0n bU+ I 6U3$$, 1+ h4D $0m3+h1n6 +0 D0 w1+h h3r 74+3-n16h+ m33+$ w1+h h3r b0yfr13nD.
Th3 4Dv1$3r: Pr1nc3$$ Pr1nc3$$ In714 1$ 20 y34r$ 07D (Ph0+0 3). Sh3 1$ D4 6r0Up’$ 4Dv1$3r wh3n 1+ c0m3$ +0 y4b'$ 4nD 71f3. I 0f+3n $4w h3r $3r10U$, bU+ $h3 h4$ 4n 4ppr04ch4b73 4pp34r4nc3. Sh3 w0r3 c070rfU7 bU+ $1mp73 $h1r+$ 4nD j34n$. Sh3 47w4y$ h07D$ h3r c377 ph0n3, r374+1v3 +0 0D4r J3j3m0n$. Wh3n I 4$k y?'' >..< J3j3m0n$ 3mp70y 4 4m 0f c0mmUn1c4+10n h1DD3n +0 m4ny, 4nD 0n7y 34$17y UnD3r$+4nD4b73 w1+h1n D4 $Ub-cU7+Ur3. Th3 J3j3b3+, 4cc0rD1n6 +0 J3j3m4$+3r, 3x1$+3D $Ubc0n$c10U$7y 1n D4 m1nD$ 0f D4 F171p1n0 U'+h, 4nD h4$ n0 p'r+1cU74r cr34+0r. H3 $4y$ +h4+ 1+ 1$ ‘$Ubc0n$c10U$’ 1n D4 m1nD$ 0f D4 F171p1n0 U'+h. A77 0f 4 $UDD3n, D4 U'+h kn0w h0w +0 wr1+3 4nD c0mmUn1c4+3 U$1n6 J3j3b3+ (B0n1f4c10, p3r$0n7 c0rr3$p0nD3nc3, 2010).
J3j373v37$: D4 m34xUr! 0f 4 +rU3 J3j3m0n In D4 c0Ur$3 0f p'r+1c1p'+10n 0b$3rv4+10n, 4 $0n6 1$ U$U477y $Un6 by my J3j3fr13nD$. I+ 1$ 3n+1+73D J3j3m0n by 4 bnD nm3D B74nk T4p3. Th3r3 1$ 4 ph0w$zzZZr+10n 1n D4 $0n6 +h4+ c74$$1f13$ D4 73v37$ 0f b31n6 4 J3j3m0n. Th3 $0n6 603$, A74m1n mUh mUn +$0n6 / kUn6 nU'n6 k74$3 k~n6 J3j3m0n / M17D k~ b 0 mUhD3r4+3 /w377 471n k~ b D00n / B4k~ nm4n 4y $3v3r3 k~ / 0 bk~ 4y +3rm1n7 / J3j3m0n p' r1n 4n6 +4w46 / x3' +3x+ mUh\'y D1 n0rm47 / p3r0 Un1qU3 m41k71 m4n 0 $1n1k$1k
Th3 $0n6 m3n+10n$ f0Ur 73v37$ 0f J3j3m0n, 0r 1n 4 mUhr3 pr0p3r +3rm, D4 73v37$ 0f c4p'c1+y 1n J3j3+3x+1n6. I+ h4$ f0Ur 73v37$, nm37y, m17D, mUhD3r4+3, $3v3r3 4nD +3rm1n7. Th3 73v37$ w1+h 4 $4mp73 +3x+ r 177U$+r4+3D b370w.
J. C C4+44n
40
T4b73 2: L3v37$ 0f J3j3+3x+
LEVELS
SAMPLE TEXT: “Hello!”
Mild
eLoW pOh!
Moderate
eOw fOwZ!
Severe
3oWh fPoWzH!
Terminal
h3oWhZ fPoWzHh!
J3j3m4$+3r 0w3$ D4 J3j3b3+ 4nD J3j3n3$3 +0 D4 cr34+1v1+y 3xpr3$$3D by D4 F171p1n0 U'+h. H3 $41D +h4+ w1+h0U+ D4 F171p1n0 U'+h, J3j3m0n, 4$ w377 4$ J3j3n3$3, w177 n0+ f70Ur1$h. Wh173 $0m3 U'+h r 4wr +h4+ D4y r $+4r+1n6 +0 U$3 J3j3n3$3 4nD J3j3+3x+, m4ny w3r3 4nD r $+177 Unwr +h4+ D4y r J3j3m0n$ 1n pr4c+1c3. Th3y D0 n0+ kn0w +h4+ D4y r 4c+U477y pr4c+1$1n6 D4 f4$h10n 4nD +3x+1n6 $+y73$ 0f J3j3m0n$ TUrn3r (1969), 4f+3r h1$ c0nc3p+ 0f ‘c0mmUn1+4$’, wh1ch 1$ 0n3 0f D4 pr3cUr$0r$ 0f ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’, D1$cU$$3$ D4 ph3n0m3n0n 0f ‘71m1n71+y’. H3 $4y$ +h4+ wh3n 4 p3r$0n 3n+3r$ 4 p'r+1cU74r 6r0Up, cU7+Ur3 0r pr4c+1c3, h3 0r $h3 3xp3r13nc3$ 4mb16U1+y. Th3 p3r$0n 1$ $+r1pp3D 0ff 0f h1$ 0r h3r pr10r 4++r1bU+3$ 4nD pr0p3r+13$, 4nD $+4+U$ 4nD r4nk D1$4pp34r 0r r h0m063n1z3D (p. 94). Af+3r ‘71m1n71+y’ 4nD D4 r1+3$ 0f p'$$463, D4 p3r$0n 1$ n0w 4$$0c14+3D 4nD 4ckn0w73D63D w1+h 4 $0c13+y, 0r64n1z4+10n 0r cU7+Ur3. Th3r3 1$ n0 +Urn1n6 bck fr0m D4 n3w ‘w0r7D’, h0w3v3r. I 4r6U3 +h4+ J3j3m0n$ 47$0 3xp3r13nc3 D4 ‘71m1n7 ph4$3’, bU+ 0n7y 4$ 4 4m 0f 3n+ry 1n+0 D4 $Ub-cU7+Ur3. Un77yk TUrn3r’$ D3f1n1+10n +h4+ Dr 1$ n0 r3+Urn bck 4f+3r D4 pr0c3$$ 0f ‘71m1n71+y’, J3j3m0n$ h4v3 4 w4y 0f 601n6 bck +0 D41r ‘prn+ cU7+Ur3’. Th3 $1+3 4nD D4 pr0c3$$ +h4+ 4770w J3j3m0n$ +0 60 bck +0 D41r ‘prn+ cU7+Ur3’ 1$ 4 $p'c3 wh1ch I c477 ‘+r4n$cU7+Ur47 c1rcU1+’ .18
18
D4 c0nc3p+ 0f ‘+r4n$cU7+Ur47 m16r4n+ c1rcU1+’ w177 b3 D1$cU$$3D 1n ch4p+3r 6.
J. C C4+44n
41
T0 374b0r4+3 D4 n+Ur3 0f J3j3+3x+1n6 4nD jU$+1fy 1+$ U$3 4 1n+3rn7 c0 mUn1c4+10n mUhr3 +h4n m3r3 ‘c0n$3rv4+1 n’, I pr0v1D3 4 $3r13$ 0f +3x+ m3$$463$ +h + I r3c31v3D fr0m J3j3fr13nD$.
Eow pFhOwzH: T3x+m4+3$ +0 r3m3mb3r Th3 ch01c3$ 0f $cr33n $h0+$ r 1n r4nD0m 0rD3r, 4nD I U$3 my 0wn j D63m3n+ +0 fU77y 3xh1b1+ +h1$ c0D3D c0 mUn1c4+10n. Th1$ 3xh1b1+$ D4 f7U1D1+ 4nD D1v3r$1+y 0f D4 J3j3+3x+. Ph0+0 6: Scr33n $h0+$ 0f J3j3+3x+ (fr0m 73f+: A, B 4nD C), Ph0+0 D: Scr33 $h0+ 0f my r3p7y +0 C
F0r c74r1+y, h3r3 1$ D4 +r4n$74+10n 0f D4$3 J3j3+3x+$ 1n F171p1n . a. Magandang g bi. b. Wait lang ha? Magpapaload muna ako. Haha! c. Ah, nasa wor kasi ako eh. J3j3+3x+ A 1$ 4 ‘m17D’ J3j3+3x+. Th3 +3x+3r 6r33+$ “M46nD4n6 64b1” f0770w3D by 4 ‘$m173y’ 1c0n. Th1$ +3x+ D03$ n0+ U$3 3xc3$$1v3 73++3r$ bU+ 47+3r$ D4 v3ry $p3771n6 4nD pr0nUnc14+10n 0f D4 w0rD$. On 0n3 h4nD, J3j3+3x+ B 1$ c7 $$1f13D 4$ ‘$3v3r3’ J3j3+3x+, b3c4U$3 0f 4 +3x+3r’$ 3xc3$$1v3 U$3 0f D4 73++3r ‘H’ 4nD 73++3r r3p74c3m3n+$. Th3r3 r 47$0 1n3v1+4b73 mUhm3n+$ wh3n I h4v3 +0 4$k my J3j3fr13nD$ D4 +r4n$74+10n 0f D41r J3j3+3x+ . F0r 3x4mp73, J3j3+3x+ C, b3c4U$3 I 4m n3 +0 D4 J3j3m0n $Ub-cU7+Ur3, 4nD D J3j3+3x+ 1$ ‘+3rm1n7’ 73v37. I c4nn0+ r34D 1+ 4nym0r3. M1+z373, D4 J3j3+3x+3r $41D “W41+ 74n6. M46p'p'704D mUn 4q, j4j4!” I 33D3D +0 4$k
J. C C4+44n
+0 r3p34+ h3r m3$$463 1n p74 n F171p1n0 0r 1n 4 ‘m17D’ 73v37 wh1ch 1$
42
y 73v37 4$ 4
J3j3m0n. Th3 J3j3fr13nD$, p'r+1c 74r7y N1n 4nD Pr1nc3$$, U$3 +h1$ c0D3D c0mmUn1c4+10n pr1m4r17y + h1D3 D41r c0nv3r$4+10n$ fr0m D41r prn+$. 9 Th3y D0 n0+ w4n+ D41r 3xch4n63 0f m3$$4 3$ w1+h D41r b0yfr13nD$ +0 b3 r34D by D4 r prn+$ 4nD 0D4r fr13nD$ wh0 r n0+ J3j3m n$ (m34n1n6, n0+ D41r c1rc73 0f fr13nD$). On D4 c0n+r4ry, b$3D 0n w4+ I h4v3 0b$3rv3D, D4 $+0r13$ 0f D41r r374+10n$h1p$ 4nD D41 w3r 4b0U+$ r 0p3n +0 0D4r J3j3fr13nD$. In $0m3 0cc4$10n$, D4y r v3ry ‘$h0wy’ +0 0D4r$. OD4r$ U+171z3 J3j3+3x+ b3c4U$3 0f 1+$ 4m. K4+h $41D +h4+ 1+ 1$ h3r w4y 0f b31n6 cr34+1v3. I+ $h0w$ h0w h4ppy $h3 1$. T 3 mUhr3 c0mp71c4+3D D4 J3j3+3x+ 1$, D4
Uhr3 h4ppy
$h3 1$. A$1D3 fr0m J3j3+3x+, U'D4r 4m 0f ‘$+y73’ 0f D4 J3j3m0n$ 1$ +hr0 6h J3j3f4$h10n, wh1ch I D1$cU$$ b370w.
J3j3f4$h10n P4r+ 0f D4 c0nc3p+ 0f J j3m0n c0m3$ fr0m D4 c070rfU7 P0k3m0n$. h3r343, J3j3m0n$ r 47$0 ch4r4c+3r1z3 by c070rfU7 c70D4$ 4nD 4cc3$$0r13$, pr1m4ry 0f wh1ch 1$ D4 J3j3c4p, D4 0n3 w1+h v3r+1c47 r41nb0w c070r$ 4+ D4 bck ph0w$zzZZr+ 0n, 4$ $h0wn b370w. Ph0+0 7: Th3 J3j3c4p (Ph0+0 by B0y B4n+, 2010)
19
b$3D 0n f137D n0+3$, D3c3mb3r 2 , 2010..
J. C C4+44n
43
A7$0, DUr1n6 $ch007 $ y$, J3j3m0n$ w34r D4 $0-c4773D J3j34m, 0r J3j3m0n Un14m, 4$ 4 4m 0f r3$1$+4nc3 +0 $ch007 4U+h0r1+13$. Th1$ 1$ 1D3n+1f13D 4$ 31D4r 4 +16h+7y 0r 700$37y f1+ wh1+3 ph0w$zzZZ70, $0m3+1m3$ UnbU++0n3D, 4 D $ch007 p'n+$. A J3j3m0n w34r$ 4 J3j3c4p 47$0, 4nD c4rr13$ 4 $h0U7D3r b6. H1$ h4 D$ r, mUh$+ 0f D4 +1m3, 1n h3r ph0w$zzZZck +$.
Ph0+0 8: Scr33n $h0+ 0f J3j3m n 1n J3j34m (V1D30 by S4k$1 1n GMAN3w$.+v, 2010)
In 0n3 0f my v1$1+$ 1n
41r r3h34r$47 p74c3 1n F41rv13w, w3 +47k3D 4b0U+
J3j3f4$h10n. K4+h c477$ h3r$37f 4 ‘k1k~y’ 0r b31n6 m3+1cU70U$ 1n $+y73 4nD f4$h10n. Sh3 1$ 4 f4$h10n1$+4’. Un77y 0D4r f4$h10n +r3nD$, $h3 0n7y f0770w$ +h0$3 wh0 r ‘
4$$0c14+3D w1+h J3j3f4$h10n, $Uch 4$ c070rfU7 c70D4$ 4nD 4cc3$$0r13$. Sh3 f0UnD h3r$37f 1n D4 J3j3w0r7D +hr0 6h J3j3f4$h10n. M34nwh173, Pr1nc3$$ $33$ J3j3f4$h10n 4$ h3r w4y 0f 3$c4p3 fr0m h r r347 3m0+10n$. Sh3 77yk$ w34r1n6 c070rfU7 c70D4$ b3c4U$3 1+ m4k3$ h3r h4p y, 3v3n 1f Dr r pr0b73m$ 1n h3r f4m17y, 4 3x4mp73. L1k3 K4+h, N1n 77yk$ 0 w34r J3j3f4$h10n, D3$p1+3 D4 n364+1v3 r 3m4rk$ +0 J3j3m0n$, $Uch 4$ ‘$m377y’20 r ‘bDUy’.21 Sh3 $33$ 3mp0w3rm3n+ +hr0U6 1+. I+ 1$ h3r 20
b$3D 0n f137D n0+3$, D3c3mb3r 2 , 2010. ‘bDUy’ r3f3r$ +0 p30p73 wh0 D0 n + h4v3 ‘+4$+3’ 1n ch00$1n6 pr0p3r c70D4$ D3$16n 4 D c070r.
21
J. C C4+44n
44
w4y 4 0D4r$ +0 r3$p3c+ h3r. Thr0U6h J3j3f4$h10n, $h3 D03$ n0+ w34r 0b$c3n3 4nD r3v3471n6 c70D4$. Th3 J3j3+3x+ v4ry 1n 1+$ 73v37$, 4nD D4 J3j3f4$h10n 1n 1+$ U$463. Th3 J3j3m0n$ D0 D4$3 4 +w0 r34$0n$. F1r$+ 1$ +0 r3$1$+ D4 ‘prn+ cU7+Ur3’, 4nD $3c0nD, +0 c1rcUmv3n+ 4r0UnD D4 ‘D0m1nn+ cU7+Ur3’. L1k3 D4 ‘74D$’ 1n D4 +1m3 0f W1771$ (1977) wh0 47+3r D41r $p33ch, 4nD c0m3 +0 $ch007 1n D1r+y c70D4$, +0 r3$1$+ D4 73$$0n$ b31n6 +h0U6h+ 1n D4 H4mm3r+0wn Sch007, 1+ 1$ D41r 4m 0f r3$1$+4nc3. Th3y h4v3 4m3D D41r 0wn $3+ 0f b3713f$ 4nD $hrD 1D3n+1+y. J3j3m0n$ h4v3 D4 4Dv4n+463 b3c4U$3 0f D41r ‘0n3n3$$’ 1n m4ny w4y$, $Uch 4$ $p33ch 4nD c70+h1n6. Th3$3 pr4c+1c3$, b31n6 3x3rc1$3D +063D4r, 4m D41r 0wn 1D30706y, 0r D41r 0U+700k 4$ 4 $Ub-cU7+Ur3, h0w D4y m4k3 $3n$3 0f D4 w0r7D, 4nD p3rc31v3 D4m$37v3$ (Gr4m$c1, 1n W17714m$, 1992).
Th3 J3j3m0n$’ 1D30706y 4nD 47+3rn+1v3 h363m0ny J3j3m0n $Ub-cU7+Ur3 1$ “c0nD3mn3D +0, 4nD 0r 3nj0y 4 c0n$c10U$n3$$ 0f 0D4rn3$$ 0r D1ff3r3nc3” (Th0rn+0n, 1997, p. 5), pr3c1$37y D4 ph0w$zzZZ1n+ y?'' >.< +h1$ r3$34rch c477$ D4m D4 ‘0D4r’ cU7+Ur3. D4 j3j3m0n$ r 4713n+3D +hr0U6h D4 U$3 0f ‘$+3r30+yp3$’. j3j3m0n$ r p1c+Ur3D 4$ +h0$3 “U$U477y c74D 1n mU7+1-c070r 0U+f1+$ wh173 f1DD71n6 w1+h… c377ph0n3 4nD w34r1n6 4 r41nb0w-c070r3D c4p” ($+4rm0m3+3r, 2010). wh173 $+3r30+yp1n6, 4cc0rD1n6 +0 h3rzf37D (2005, p. 182), 1$ U$3D +0 “$3rv3 D4 1n+3r3$+$ 0f ph0w$zzZZw3r, D4y c4rry D4 ph0w$zzZZ$$1b171+y 0f $Ubv3r$10n”. D4 v47U3$ +h4+ D4 $+4+3 1mp'r+$ c4n b3 c1rcUmv3n+3D by D4 $Ub-cU7+Ur3. 60rD0n (1947) c477$ +h1$ D4 “r3fr4c+10n 0f D4 n+10n7 cU7+Ur3”. D4 U$463, pr4c+1c3 4nD D1r3c+10n 0f w4+ h4$ b33n 1mp'r+3D b3c0m3 D1ff3r3n+ (p. 42). TjU$, +hr0U6h $Ub-cU7+Ur3, D4y 0ff3r 4n 47+3rn+1v3 +0 w4+ 1$ D4 D0m1nn+ 4nD ‘h363m0n1c’ cU7+Ur3 (C74rk3, 3+ 47., 1975, p. 101). Th3 J3j3m0n $Ub-cU7+Ur3 pU+ 4w4rD$ 4n ‘47+3rn+1v3 h363m0ny . I c477 1+ ‘J3j3m0ny’, wh1ch I D1$cU$$ b370w. ’
Th1$ 1$ D4 f1r$+ +1m3 +h4+ D4 w0rD ‘J3j3m0ny’ 1$ U$3D 1n 4ny 4c4D3m1c p'p3r. Th1$ m34n$ D4 ‘h363m0ny 0f J3j3m0n$’, p'r+1cU74r7y 4n 47+3rn+1v3 0n3, D3p1c+1n6 D41r
J. C C4+44n
45
wh073 b0Dy 0f pr4c+1c3$ 4nD 3xp3c+4+10n$, D41r $3n$3$ 4nD p3rc3p+10n 0f D4m$37v3$ 4nD D4 w0r7D, 4$ Gr4m$c1 (1n W17714m$, 1992), f0770w1n6 M4rx (1n W17714m$, 1992), D3f1n3 D4 +3rm ‘h363m0ny’. Th1$ $Ub-cU7+Ur3, 4$ w3 n0w $33 1+, D03$ n0+ jU$+ r3$1$+ 4 m3r3 $Urv1v47. Th3r3 1$ 4n 373m3n+ 0f ph0w$zzZZ+3n+147 D0m1n+10n. Th3y w4n+ +0 Un734$h D41r $+rU6673 1n D4 m41n$+r34m 4nD 1+ h4pp3n$ 1n $m477 $+3p$. Gr4m$c1 1$ r16h+ wh3n h3 $41D +h4+ D4$3 ‘c0Un+3rcU7+Ur3$’ r h363m0n1c 4nD 4+ D4 $4m3 +1m3 4 ‘r3v07U+10nry 4c+1v1+y’ (p. 110). Th3 +3rm ‘J3j3m0ny’ 1$ n0+ my 0r161n7 1D34. I 0w3 D4 +3rm +0 Mr. J1n6 G4DD1, 4 bnD b$$1$+ fr0m D4 U.P. C077363 0f MU$1c. H3 1$ 4 fr13nD 0f Pr0f3$$0r D4+4 C4n74$22 wh0 $hrD D4 w0rD w1+h m3. ‘J3j3m0ny’ 1$ 4 n3w7y c01n3D +3rm ph0w$zzZZ$+3D 4$ 4 p'r+ 0f J1n6 G4DD1’$ $+4+U$ 1n F4c3b00k 4f+3r D4 w0rD ‘J3j3m0n’ w0n 4$ D4 W0rD 0f D4 Y34r 1n U.P. S3n+r0 n6 W1k~n6 P171p1n0. H3 ph0w$zzZZ$+3D, “N0w +h4+ D4 U.P. S3n+r0 n6 W1k~n6 P171p1n0 h4$ DUbb3D ‘J3j3m0n’ 4$ 2010’$ W0rD 0f D4 Y34r, pr3pr +0 U$h3r 1n 4n 3r4 0f 71+3r4ry J3j3m0ny.”
22
pr0f3$$0r D4+4 c4n74$ 1$ 4 fU77-+1m3 f4cU7+y m3mb3r 0f D4 Un1v3r$1+y 0f D4 ph171pp1n3$-D171m4n. $h3 +34ch3$ c0Ur$3$ r374+3D +0 ‘n3w m3D14’ 1n D4 D3p'r+m3n+ 0f br04Dc4$+ c0mmUn1c4+10n 0f D4 c077363 0f m4$$ c0mmUn1c4+10n. $h3 1$ 47$0 my bc 198 (+v 1n+3rn$h1p) 4Dv1$3r.
J. C C4+44n
46
Ph0+0 9: Scr33n$h0+ 0f J1n6 G DD1’$ $+4+U$ 0n F4c3b00k 4$ h3 c01n$ D4 +3rm ‘J3j3m0ny’.
In +h1$ $+4+U$, h3 m3 n$ +h4+ D4 r3c06n1+10n 0n J3j3m0n$ w177
4k3 w4y 4
D41r w1D3r cU7+Ur47 4cc3p+ nc3. Gr4mc1 (1992) D3f1n3$ ‘h363m0ny’ 4$ r374+10n$ b3+w33n $0c147 c 4$$3$, 3$p3c1477y +0 D3f1n1+10n$ 0 4 rU71n6 c74$$ 0v3r 1+$ $Ub0rD1n+3$. H3 x+3nD$ 1+$ D3f1n1+10n by $4y1n6 +h4+ “1+ 1$ 4 wh073 b0Dy 0f pr4c+1c3$ 4nD 3xp3c+ +10n$, 0v3r D4 wh073 0f 71v1n6: 0Ur $3n$3$ 4nD 4$$16nm3n+$ 0f 3n3r6y, 0Ur $h4p1n6 p3r 3p+10n$ 0f 0Ur$37v3$ 4nD 0Ur w0r7D” (1 W17714m$, p. 110). J3j3m0n $Ub-cU7+Ur3 $ 4n ‘47+3rn+1v3 h363m0ny’. I+ c0Un+3r$ D rU71n6 h363m0ny. I+ 1$, fUrD4rm0r3, ph0w$zzZZ+3n+1477y ‘r3v07U+10nry 4c+1 1+y’. R3v07U+10nry, 1n +h1$ $3n$3, D03$ n0+ n3c3$$4r17y m34n 3n6461n6 1n 4r 3D $+rU6673 4641n$+ D4 $+4+3. Th3y r r3v07U+10nry b3c4U$3 D4y r 1n 4 ‘cU7+Ur47’ 0r ‘$ymb071c’ b++73 4641n$+ D4 h363m0n1c cU7+Ur3. F0r 34r7y D40r1$+$, $Uch 4$ D4 Ch1c460 4nD B1rm1n6h4m Sch007$, +h0$3 1n D4 ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ r m3mb3r$ 0f D w0rk1n6 c74$$. F0r Gr4m$c1, 0n D4 c0n+r4 y, D4y w3r3 w0rk1n6 p30p73 b3c0m1n6 4 c 4$$. Th3y r “4 ph0w$zzZZ+3n+1477y h363m n1c c74$$,
J. C C4+44n
47
4641n$+ D4 pr3$xUr!$ 4nD 71m1+$ 0f 4n 3x1$+1n6 4nD ph0w$zzZZw3rfU7 h363m0ny” (1n W17714m$, p. 111). Gr4m$c1 r3m1nD$ U$ +h4+ wh173 4 h363m0ny 1$ “47w4y$ D0m1nn+, 1+ 1$ n3v3r 31D4r +0+47 0r 3xc7U$1v3…bU+ D41r pr3$3nc3 1$ D3c1$1v3” (1n W17714m$, p. 113). Th3 J3j3m0n$ n0w f1nD $m477 $p'c3$ 1n m41n$+r34m m3D14 +0 63+ 1n+0 4nD 4Dv4nc3 D41r $Ub-cU7+Ur3, bU+ Dr r n364+10n$ r w377. Th1$ 73D m3 +0 $+UDy +h0$3 wh0 r 4641n$+ J3j3m0n$. Th3y 1D3n+1fy D4m$37v3$ 4$ ‘J3j3bU$+3r$’, wh1ch 1$ D4 +0p1c I D1$cU$$ 1n D4 n3x+ ch4p+3r. A$ p'r+7y 4n 3+h1c47 4nD f4c+U47 pr4c+1c3, ch4p+3r$ 5 4nD 6 $k3+ch D4 1mp71c4+10n$ 0f cUrr3n+ $+UDy 1n +3rm$ 0f D40ry. Th3$3 r ph0w$zzZZr+10n$ w3r I D40r1z3 0n D4 r4w D4+4 +h4+ I h4v3 64DrD DUr1n6 D4 p'r+1c1p'n+ 0b$3rv4+10n. S0m3 ph0w$zzZZ1n+$ +h4+ I r41$3 r 4$$Ump+10n$, 4nD h4v3 y3+ +0 b3 $Uff1c13n+7y $Upp0r+3D by 3mp1r1c47 D4+4. Th3 $Ucc33D1n6 ch4p+3r$ ch4773n63 fU+Ur3 $0c147 $c13n+1$+$ wh0 4$p1r3 +0 $+UDy D4m3$ +h4+ r r374+3D +0 +h1$ r3$34rch +0 3nr1ch D4$3 hyp0D4$3$, cr1+1qU3, ch4773n63, 4nD +3$+ D4$3 4$$Ump+10n$ by 3mp1r1c477y 6r0UnD3D r3$34rch.
J. C C4+44n
48
“B4k1+ m64 J3j3m0n 4n6 p1n6-44r474n mUh?'' M4r4m1n6 m4$ 0k~y.” - S4b1 n6 mUhmmy qU0h $4 4k1n h4bn6 n6j4j4pUnn, P3br3r0 20, 2011
J. C C4+44n
49
ch4p+3r 5 D4 j3j3bU$+3r$ 4nD 0D4r 4m$ 0f j3j3bU$+1n6 In D4 c0Ur$3 0f +h1$ r3$34rch, I 3xp3r13nc3D +0 b3 ‘bU$+3D’ by J3j3bU$+3r$, 1n D1ff3r3n+ 4m$. My fr13nD$ +34$3D m3 +h4+ I 4m 4 ‘J3j3m0n D3f3nD3r’. My prn+$ qU3$+10n3D my 1n+3r3$+ 1n +h1$ $+UDy, 4nD c0nv1nc3D m3 +h4+ Dr r m4ny 0D4r +0p1c$ wh1ch r mUhr3 1n+3r3$+1n6. Th3 734D3r$ 0f 4 70c47 cjUrch c0n6r364+10n, w3r I 4m 4++3nD1n6, +07D my f3770w U'+h n0+ +0 f0770w J3j3+3x+1n6, 4nD n3v3r m4k3 fr13nD$ w1+h J3j3m0n$. BU+ b3y0nD D4$3, Dr r 0D4r 4m$ 0f j3j3bU$+1n6, mUh$+ 0f D4m r $+347+h 4nD 3nj0y n+10n7 4++3n+10n.
iN5t1tuTi0nZ oF J3j3bU$+1n6 R3$1$+4nc3 1$ 47w4y$ +w0-w4y. Wh3n J3j3m0n$ r3$1$+ 4$ 4 $Ub-cU7+Ur3, D4y r 47$0 b31n6 r3$1$+3D. Th3y 3nc0Un+3r 0pp0$1+10n$ fr0m D4 $0-c4773D ‘J3j3bU$+3r$’. Acc0rD1n6 +0 T30D0r0 (2010), 4 J3j3bU$+3r 1$ “4 6r4mm4r v16174n+3, +yp1c477y F171p1n0, D3D1c4+1n6 h1$ In+3rn3+ 71f3 +0w4rD D4 3r4D1c4+10n 0f j3j3+yp1n6 4nD J3j3m0n 3x1$+3nc3” (p'r. 4). T073n+1n0 (2010) 1D3n+1f13$ D4 c74$$ ph0w$zzZZ$1+10n 0f J3j3bU$+3r$. H3 $4y$ +h4+ J3j3bU$+3r$ r “D4 m1DD73 c74$$ wh0 $UDD3n7y w0rk$ +063D4r w1+h D4 371+3$ +0 f16h+ D4 6r0w1n6 UnD3rc74$$ 0f J3j3m0n $Ub-cU7+Ur3” (p'r. 13, 14). BU+ I 4r6U3 +h4+ 4 J3j3bU$+3r 1$ $0m30n3 wh0 1$ 4641n$+ D4 J3j3m0n$’ 1D30706y,23 r364rD73$$ 0f h1$ 0r h3r $0c147 c74$$. A$ I ph0w$zzZZ1n+ 0U+ 1n +h1$ ch4p+3r, J3j3bU$+3r$ r c0mp0$3D 0f 1n+3773c+U47$ 4nD pr0f3$$10n7$ wh0 c0n4m +0 c0nv3n+10n7 $0c147 $+4nD4rD$ 0f 734rn1n6 4nD D1$c1p71n3. A$ I h4v3 $41D 34r713r, D4 J3j3m0n $+rU6673 1$ 4 $0c1477y $+r4+1f13D 0n3. M4+z4 4nD Syk3$ (1961) 46r33 w1+h +h1$ b3c4U$3 “$0c13+y w4$ n0+ 0n7y $p71+ h0r1z0n+477y 1n+0 $+r4+4, 1+ w4$ D1v1D3D v3r+1c477y w1+h1n 34ch 6r0Up” (p. 72). TjU$, w3 c4n f1nD r3$1$+4nc3 +0 D4 J3j3m0n$ fr0m D1ff3r3n+ 1n$+1+U+10n$. A7+jU$$3r (1992) c477$ D4$3 1n$+1+U+10n$ 4$ ‘ID307061c47 S+4+3 App'r4+U$’. H3 b3713v3$ +h4+ D4$3 1n$+1+U+10n$ w0rk +0 pr3$3rv3 D4 $+4+U$ qU0 (p. 54).
23
D4 j3j3m0n$’ 1D30706y, +h0U6h j3j3m0ny w177 b3 D1$cU$$3D 1n D4 n3x+ ch4p+3r.
J. C C4+44n
50
On3 0f D4$3 1n$+1+U+ 0n$ 1$ D4 f4m17y. Th3 J3j3m0n$’ prn+$, 4 1 $+4nc3, f1nD 1+ D1ff1cU7+ +0 UnD3r$+4nD y?'' >.< D41r ch17D h4$ +Urn3D 1n+0 4 J3j3 0n. Prn+$ m4y f1nD 1+ pr0b73m4+1c +h4+ D41r ch17Dr3n r $Ub$cr1b1n6 +0 4 cU7+Ur3 n0 w1+h1n D4 c0m4+$ 0f D41r h0m3$, bU+ r4D4r 1n D4 rU663D 3mbr4c3 0f D4 $+r33+$. I 1$ mUhr3 $+r33+-b$3D +h4n D0m3$+1c. Th0rn+0n (1997) $4y$ +h4+ “D4 U'+h 4++3m + +0 D3f1n3 D41r cU7+Ur3 4641n$+ D4 prn 47 h0m3. SUbcU7+Ur3$ D3v14+3 fr0m D4 n0rm4+1v3 1D347$ 0f 4DU7+ c0mmUn1+13$ (p. 2). Th3y r c4773D ‘$+r33+ cU7+Ur3$’, 3c4U$3 D4y D0 n0+ f1nD D41r 1D3n+1+y 1 $1D3 D4 h0m3$, bU+ 0U+$1D3. Th3 60v3rnm3n+ 1$ D4 $3c0nD J3j3bU$+3r. Thr0U6h D4 D3p'r+m3n+ 0f EDUc4+10n (D3pED), 1+ c477$ 4 D4 ‘r3-3D Uc4+10n’ 0f J3j3m0n$. I+ b74m3$ D4m 4 D4 D3+3r10r4+10n 0f D4 Ph171pp1n3 3DUc4+10n $y$+3m (GMAN3w$.TV, 2010).
Ph0+0 10: A n3w$p'p3r h34D71n3 0n D3pED’$ c4mp'16n 4641n$+ J3j3m0n$
Ph0+0 10 $h0w$ 4 +4b7 1D h34D71n3 +h4+ h16h716h+$ D4 c477 0f 4 D3p'r+m3n+ 0f EDUc4+10n c477$ +0 ‘k177’ D4 ‘J3j3m0n f3v3r’. I+ 1$ n0+1c34b73 +h4+
4 h34D71n3 1$
J. C C4+44n
51
470n6$1D3 $3r10U$ cr1m3$ 77yk jU3+3n6,24 k1Dnpp1n6 4nD DrU6$ +h4+ n33D +0 b3 $+0pp3D. Th3 $+4+3 c0n$1D3r$ J3j3m0n 4$ 4 c0n+4610U$ ‘D1$34$3’ 4cqU1r3D by m4ny F171p1n0 U'+h. Th3 ‘T34m J3j3m0n’ D3f3nD$ 1+$ $1D3 +hr0U6h 4 F4c3b00k n0+3. Th3y $41D +h4+ ‘r3-3DUc4+10n’ 1$ n0+ D4 pr0b73m bU+ D4 3DUc4+10n $y$+3m 1+$37f. Th3y 3v3n 4$k3D h0w D3pED c4n m4k3 J3j3m0n$ 60 bck +0 $ch007 wh3n D4y n3v3r 3xp3r13nc3D +0 $+UDy 1n D4 f1r$+ p74c3 (p'r. 5). J3j3m0n$, mUhr30v3r, f0UnD $Upp0r+ fr0m D41r v3ry 0wn p74c3—D4 cyb3r$p'c3. H3rnn M373nc10 (2010), D4 4Dm1n1$+r4+10n b70663r 0f www.ph171pp1n3h1$+0ry.ph, $41D 1n h1$ 4r+1c73 3n+1+73D J3j3 V0n37, +h4+ D4 D3pED $h0U7D n0+ h0v3r w1+h D4$3 U'+h’$ pr3f3r3nc3 4nD $37f-3xpr3$$10n b3c4U$3 $Uppr3$$1n6 D4m m4y 734D +0 mUhr3 r3b37710n +h4+ m16h+ c4U$3 74r63r D4m463 +0 $0c13+y. H3 1$ 0p+1m1$+1c +h4+ D4 J3j3n3$3, jU$+ 77yk ‘64y 71n60’25 w177 3v3n+U477y c0n+r1bU+3 +0 D4 n+10n’$ r1ch 74n6U463 (p'r. 7, 9). T30D0r0 (2010), 4cc0rD1n6 +0 M373nc10 (2010), ch4773n63$ J3j3bU$+3r$ 4nD ‘6r4mm4r N4z1$’. H3 1n$1$+$ +h4+ 1n$+34D 0f bU$+1n6 J3j3m0n$ 1n D4 cyb3r$p'c3, D4y h4v3 +0 4c+ 0n mUhr3 w0r+hwh173 +h1n6$ …77yk 700k1n6 4 p3rm4n3n+ $07U+10n$ +0 D4 p3r3nn147 pr0b73m$ 0f c74$$r00m 4nD +3x+b00k $h0r+463, D4 4b$3nc3 0f c734n +0173+$, n0+ +0 m3n+10n D4 0v3r477 D3c71n3 1n D4 qU471+y 0f pUb71c 3DUc4+10n. F0r63+ D4 j3j3m0n$ n jhUS+ DO Ur jOb jUw3LL! (p'r. 20) ‘T34m J3j3m0n’ r41$3$ nU'D4r $+r0n6 4r6Um3n+ 1n D4 $4m3 n0+3. Th3y 4$k “Why 1$ 1+ +h4+ D4 ‘qny0’26 ph3n0m3n0n 1$ 47$0 6r4mm4+1c477y 1nc0rr3c+ y3+ r3c31v3$ m1n1m47 4++3n+10n 4nD cr1+1c1$m fr0m D4 $+4+3 4nD D4 1n+3773c+U47$?'' I$ 1+ b3c4U$3 1+ 1$ 0n D41r $1D3?''” (p'r. 7). J3j3m0n$ p74y 4n+460n1$+1c477y w1+h 0D4r 1n+3r3$+$ 1n Ph171pp1n3 $0c13+y, n0+ n3c3$$4r17y 4 c74$$ $+rU6673. B0UrD13U (2006) r3f3r$ +0 +h1$ $+rU6673 4$ D4 24
jU3+3n6 1$ 4n 1773647 $m477-+0wn 70++3ry ‘64y 71n60’ r3f3r$ +0 D4 ‘64y 74n6U463’ 0r D4 c0D 3D 74n6U463 U$3D by 64y$ +0 c0mmUn1c4+3 w1+h f3770w 64y$. 26 ‘qny0’ 1$ 4 74b37 4 r1ch p30p73$’ (4nD +h0$3 pr3+3nD1n6 +0 b3 r1ch) w4y 0f $p34k1n6. D4 0 v3rU$3 0f w0rD$ 77yk ‘77yk’, ‘U' kn0w’, ‘Uhm’, 4nD ‘w41+’, 4m0n6 0D4r$, 1$ v3ry 3v1D3n+ 1n D41r $3n+3nc3$. 25
J. C C4+44n
52
‘h34D$’ v1$-4-v1$ D4 ‘$Ub0rD1n+3$’. In D4 J3j3m0n $+rU6673, 1+ 1$ b3+w33n D4m 4nD D4 $+4+3. I+ 1$ 4 $+rU6673 b$3D 0n h0w 0n3 1D3n+1f13$ h1m$37f 0r h3r$37f. E4ch p3r$0n h4$ +0 ch00$3 wh3D4r h3 0r $h3 1$ 4 J3j3m0n, 0r 4 J3j3bU$+3r. Th3r3 1$ n0 m1DD73 6r0UnD. P30p73 h4v3 +0 kn0w 1f D4y $hr D4 1D30706y w1+h D4 $+4+3, 0r D4y D3f3nD D4 J3j3m0n $Ub-cU7+Ur3. J3j3m0n$ r 4 $Ub0rD1n+3 cU7+Ur3 1n D4 Ph171pp1n3 $0c13+y, 4nD D4y 3xp3r13nc3 4 $+r4+1f13D r3pr3$$10n 4nD ‘0D4rn3$$’. D4$ 4nD P0073 (2004) b3713v3 +h4+ D4 $+4+3 1n+3n+10n77y p74c3D $0m3 p30p73 0n D4 0U+$k1r+$ 0f D4 $0c147 m4r61n, p3rh4p$ +h0$3 wh0 $33m +0 b3 n0+ pr0DUc+1v3 4nD b3n3f1c147 4 D4 1n+3r3$+$ 0f D4 $+4+3. On D4 0U+$k1r+$ 0f D4 $0c147 m4r61n, w3 c4n f1nD 4 $Ub-cU7+Ur3 (p. 6). Th0U6h D1$p74c3D, 4713n+3D 4nD D1$3nfr4nch1$3D, J3j3m0n$ h4v3 b33n c4p'b73 0f 1n4m1n6 D4 m41n$+r34m m3D14, D4 n+10n’$ $+4+3 0f 4ff41r$ 4nD $0c13+y 4+ 74r63. Th3y m4D3 1+ +hr0U6h D4 U$3 0f $+y73$, +007$ 4nD 1D30706y, +jU$, $+r3n6D4n1n6 4nD pr3$3rv1n6 D41r 3x1$+3nc3 4nD n0n-c0n4m1+y.
OD4r 4m$ 0f j3j3bU$+1n6 Th1$ ph0w$zzZZr+10n c0n+41n$ 0D4r 4m$ 0f 4nn1h174+10n 4641n$+ D4 J3j3m0n$ 0v3r D4 1n+3rn3+. Th3 $+4+3 4nD 1+$ 1n+3773c+U47$, wh1ch GU13b (1991) 1D3n+1f13$ 4$ D4 ‘m07D3r$ 0f 1D34$’, h4v3 D41r 0wn ‘$+y73$’ 4nD ‘+007$’ +0 $h0w 4n+1-J3j3m0n $3n+1m3n+$. Th3y 4$$0c14+3 J3j3m0n$ 1n D4m3$ 0f h0p373$$n3$$, 0r D34+h, wh1ch ph0w$zzZZ$3 4 n364+1v3 1mpr3$$10n +0 D4 $Ub-cU7+Ur3. I $h0w +h1$ b370w by 4n7yz1n6 4 j3j3r3$Um3 4nD 4 j3j3$U1c1D3 73++3r. In 4DD1+10n, m3D14’$ r3pr3$3n+4+10n$ 0f J3j3m0n $Ub-cU7+Ur3 r 47$0 4m$ 0f $+347+h j3j3bU$+1n6. In www.B0yB4n+.c0m (2010), $0m30n3 ph0w$zzZZ$+3D 4 ‘J3j3r3$Um3’, 0r 4 J3j3m0n’$ r3$Um3, wh1ch 1$ 4 pr3r3qU1$1+3 4 63++1n6 j0b$.
J. C C4+44n
Ph0+0 11: J3j3r3$Um3 (Ph0+0 by B0yB4n+.c0m, 2010)
4 c74r1+y, b370w 1$ D4 f171p1n0 +r4n$74+10n 0f D4 j3j3r3$Um3. Resume ng isang Jeje Position desired: …kahit ano Name: …Don Sutil Address: …Sa tabi-tabi lang po. Educational Background: …bidyohan, text, dampa (elementary) …cutting classes, yosi, kupet Projects (HS) …Dotahan, bilyaran, KTV, mall (college) Special Skills: …Magtext, mag-FS,27 mag-inom kapag weekdays, tambay sa Starbucks, Emba.28 27
f$ m34n$ fr13nD$+3r.c0m, 4 $0c147 n3+w0rk1n6 $1+3.
53
J. C C4+44n
54
…Literates in MS Office… (MS Word, MS Powerpoint, Excel and Adobe Photoshop Th1$ J3j3r3$Um3, 4+ f1r$+, $33m$ +0 3mp0w3r D4 J3j3m0n$ b3c4U$3 D4y r 61v3n D4 ch4nc3 4 3mp70ym3n+, bU+ D4 c0n+3n+$ $4y 0D4rw1$3. In D4 ‘p0$1+10n D'z1r3D’, J3j3m0n$ c4nn0+ ch00$3, bU+ $h0U7D 4cc3p+ w4+3v3r j0b 1$ 61v3n +0 D4m, n0 m4++3r h0w ‘m34n’ 1+ 1$. In ‘nm3’, 1n$+34D 0f 61v1n6 D4m 4n 1D3n+1+y, D4 J3j3m0n$ r ch4r4c+3r1z3D 4$ ‘$U+17’ 0r D1$0b3D13n+. Th3 ‘4DDr3$$’ 477 D4 mUhr3 pU$h3$ D4m +0 D4 ‘0U+$k1r+$ 0f $0c147 m4r61n$’, b3c4U$3 D4y 71v3 ‘4nyw3r’. Th3 ‘3DUc4+10n bck6r0UnD’, mUhr30v3r, D3$cr1b3$ D4 J3j3m0n$’ v1c3$, $Uch 4$ 4DD1c+10n +0 c0mpU+3r 64m3$, $m0k1n6, 4nD h4n61n6 0U+ 1n b17714rD p74c3$ 4nD m477$. L4$+7y, 1n$+34D 0f h16h716h+1n6 D4 4b171+13$ 0f J3j3m0n$ +h4+ qU471fy D4m +0 D4 j0b D'z1r3D, D4 J3j3m0n$’ $Upp0$3D $p3c147 $k177$ r +3x+1n6, $Urf1n6 $0c147 n3+w0rk1n6 $1+3$, $Uch 4$ Fr13nD$+3r, Dr1nk1n6 71qU0r 0n w33kD4y$, $+4y1n6 1n c0ff33 $h0p$ 77yk S+4rbUck$, 4nD br$ 77yk “Emb” 0r “Emb$$y B4r”. Th3 J3j3r3$Um3 c0nn0+3$ +h4+ J3j3m0n$ $h0U7D n3v3r b3 h1r3D. Th1$ J3j3r3$Um3 1mp713$ +h4+ b31n6 4 J3j3m0n 4$ 4n 1D3n+1+y ‘$4y$ 1+ 477’, 4nD $h0U7D n0+ b3 h1r3D 4 4 j0b, n0 m4++3r h0w qU471f13D D4 J3j3m0n 1$. Th1$ p'r+1cU74r 3x4mp73 0f J3j3bU$+1n6 c0nf1rm$ W1771$’$ (1977) $+4nc3 0n $Ub-cU7+Ur3$ 4$ “3mp0w3rm3n+ w1+h0U+ 4 fU+Ur3” (1n G37D3r, p. 87). Th3 J3j3m0n$ r ph0w$zzZZr+r4y3D 4$ 4 6r0Up 0f U'+h, w1+h0U+ 4 fU+Ur3. Th3y r b0UnD +0 63+ ‘m34n’ j0b$. Th3y r D00m3D +0 D41r 0wn D4mn+10n. J3j3m0n$ r 47$0 1nD3n+1f13D by J3j3bU$+3r$ 4$ ‘3m0+10n7’, 4nD ‘47m0$+ Dy1n6’ 1n +h1$ w0r7D. Th1$ 1$ $33n 1n B0yB4n+.c0m’$ J3j3$U1c1D3 73++3r +0 h1$ b0yfr13nD.
28
3mb 1$ 4 $h0r+3n3D +3rm 4 3mb$$y br. 1+ 1$ 4 kn0wn h4n6 0U+ p74c3 0f r1ch U'+h.
J. C C4+44n
Ph0+0 12: J3j3$U1c1D3 73++3r (Ph0+0 c0Ur+3$y 0f B0yB4n+.c0m)
4 c74r1+y, D4 j3j3$U1c1D3 73++3r $4y$, Sorry kasi iiwan na kita sa mundo. Mahal naman kita eh, kaso, hindi ko kaya na laging pangalawa na lang ako sa puso mo. At least, sa langit, nakikita kita sa lahat ng oras. Salamat sa time mo. Bhie. Mahal kita kahit laging ako ang nagpaparaya, ako ang nasasaktan, kasi, ganito ako magmahal eh. Hindi bale, magkikita pa rin naman tayong dalawa. Masakit noong mas pinili mo ang dota29 sa akin. Mas masaya ka kapag kasama mo ang friends mo. Masakit sa lahat, dineny mo ko sa harap nila. So it’s better to say goodbye to you na lang. I love you. (sabay inom ng panlinis ng silver) Th1$ J3j3$U1c1D3 73++3r D3$cr1b3$ 4 61r7 b31n6 +4k3n 4 6r4n+3D by h3r b0yfr13nD. Th3 b0y pr10r1+1z3$ 0n71n3 64m3$ 4nD h1$ fr13nD$, r4D4r +h4n p'y1n6 29
4n 0n71n3 rp6 0r r073-p74y1n6 64m3.
55
J. C C4+44n
56
4++3n+10n +0 h3r. A7+h0U6h Dr 1$ n0 c741m +h4+ +h1$ 73++3r 1$ 4ccUr4+3, h3r 73++3r r3v347$ D4 3m0+10n7 4ff1n1+y 0f J3j3m0n$ +0 p30p73 wh0 $+177 v47U3 D4m, 3v3n 4f+3r D4y b3c0m3 J3j3m0n$. Th1$ J3j3bU$+1n6 ‘+007’ m34n$ +h4+ J3j3m0n$ r n0+ m34n+ +0 b3 4cc3p+3D 4$ 4 p'r+n3r 1n 71f3, 0r 4 f4m17y m3mb3r b3c4U$3 D4y D0 n0+ 71v3 4 ‘n0rm47’ 71f3. Th3y D0 n0+ kn0w h0w +0 h4nD73 4nD +4k3 cr 0f r374+10n$h1p$.
J3j3m0n$ 4nD r3pr3$3n+4+10n$ 0n TV M3D14 h4v3 4 jU63 r073 +0 p74y 1n D4 6r0w+h, 0r D34+h p3rh4p$, 0f D4 J3j3m0n $Ub-cU7+Ur3. A$ $33n 4b0v3, D4 1n+3rn3+ h4$ b33n D4 ‘v1r+U47 b++73f137D’ 0f J3j3m0n$ 4nD J3j3bU$+3r$. J3j3m0n$ r 47$0 r3pr3$3n+3D 0n +373v1$10n. I $33 +h1$ 4$ D4 c4p'b171+y 0f J3j3m0n$ +0 f1+ 1n+0 D4 m41n$+r34m 4nD D4 ‘D0m1nn+ cU7+Ur3’. Th3 $Ub-cU7+Ur3 1nf7U3nc3$ D4 c0n+3n+ 0f +373v1$10n. In $0m3 n360+14+10n$, J3j3m0n$ f0UnD v1c+0r13$ $Uch 4$ D4 4++3n+10n +h4+ D4 m41n$+r34m m3D14 61v3$ D4m. Th3y c0n+1nU3 +0 f70Ur1$h 1n m41n$+r34m m3D14 3v1D3n+7y w1+h GMA N3+w0rk’$ $1+U4+10n7 c0m3Dy wh1ch f1r$+ 41r3D 74$+ AU6U$+ 14, 2010 3n+1+73D J3j3m0m. Th3 pr06r4m, h0w3v3r, 0n7y 41r3D br13f7y. I+$ f1n7 3p1$0D3 41r3D 74$+ N0v3mb3r 13, 2010. C0n+r4ry +0 D4 n0+10n +h4+ D4 J3j3m0n $Ub-cU7+Ur3 1$ $+r1c+7y 4 D4 U'+h, D4 $h0w pr3$3n+$ 4n 3xc3p+10n +hr0U6h EU63n3 D0m1n60’$ r073 4$ G161 D374 CrUz, 4 J3j3m0n mUhD4r (S+4rm0m3+3r, 2010). Th3 $+3r30+yp3$ r D4 $4m3 w1+h my J3j3Fr13nD$. G161 w34r$ 4 J3j3c4p, 4nD c070rfU7 c70D4$ 4nD 4cc3$$0r13$, bU+ $h3 D03$ n0+ h4v3 D4 v47U3$ 4nD 1D30706y 0f D4 J3j3m0n$. M4+z4 4nD Syk3$ (1961) pr0v1D3 4 600D 3xp74n+10n r364rD1n6 my 4$$3r+10n 4b0v3. Th3 N3+w0rk 4++3mp+$ +0 641n f1nnc1477y 1n cr34+1n6 J3j3m0m. I+ 1$ D4 ch4nc3 0f 3v3ry ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ +0 1n+3rv3n3 $1nc3 “$0c13+y +3nD$ +0 pr0v1D3 1n$+1+U+10n71z3D p3r10D$ 1n wh1ch D4$3 $Ub+3rr4n34n v47U3$ r 4770w3D +0 3m3r63 4nD +4k3 pr3c3D3nc3” ( p. 72).
J. C C4+44n
57
Th1$ ‘br34+h1n6 $p'c3’ h0w3v3r 4 $Ub0rD1n+3 cU7+Ur3 1$ m34xUr!D 4nD 1$ r36U74+3D. P0r+r4y47$ 1n m4$$ m3D14, 4 3x4mp73 D4 J3j3m0n 1$ $+177 f1c+1+10U$, 4nD D03$ n0+ r3pr3$3n+ D4 +rU3 J3j3m0n $Ub-cU7+Ur3, wh1ch I 177U$+r4+3 b370w. P3r$0n77y, 4$ wr1++3n 0n my f137D n0+3$ wh173 w4+ch1n6 J3j3m0m, I b3713v3 +h4+ D4 GMA N3+w0rk f417$ +0 c4p+Ur3 D4 b31n6 0f 4 J3j3m0n. G161’$ r073 4$ 4 J3j3m0n mUhD4r h4$ n0 3mp1r1c47 b$1$. Wh173 I m4y 46r33 0n D4 4++3mp+ 0f D4 $h0w +0 pr0v1D3 4 n3w 1m463 0f D4 J3j3m0n, I f1nD D4 r3nD1+10n 0f D4 1m463 qU3$+10nb73, m41n7y b3c4U$3 D4 ch4r4c+3r1z4+10n 0f D4 J3j3m0n p3r$0n 1$ $h4770w 4nD D3v01D 0f jUm4n1+y. G161’$ J3j3m0n r073, mUhr30v3r, w4$ n0+ $U$+41n3D Un+17 1+$ 74$+ 3p1$0D3. Sh3 3v07v3D fr0m 4 J3j3m0n +0 4 br4n64y $3cr3+4ry y4b'$D by h3r f4m17y, h3r y4b'$ 1n+3r3$+ wh0 1$ 4 ph0w$zzZZ71c3m4n, 4nD D4 r3$+ 0f h3r br4n64y c0n$+1+U3n+$. In r3471+y, Dr r n0 ‘J3j3m0n mUhD4r$’ b3c4U$3 4 $Ub-cU7+Ur3 $pr0U+$ fr0m D4 U'+h’$ 4b171+y +0 3$+4b71$h D41r 0wn 1D3n+1+y 4p'r+ fr0m D41r h0U$3h07D$ 4nD 0D4r 1n$+1+U+10n$ (C74rk3, 3+ 47., 1975, p. 104). A+ f1r$+, 1+ $33m$ 77yk 4 f4v0r4b73 v3nU3 4 J3j3m0n$ +0 73+ p30p73 UnD3r$+4nD D41r 0wn cU7+Ur3. BU+ 1n D4 3nD, I r3471z3 +h4+ D4 $Ub-cU7+Ur3 w4$ ‘U$3D’, 3xp701+3D 4nD +41n+3D by f47$3 r3pr3$3n+4+10n. On mU$+ r3m3mb3r D4 c0n+3x+ 1n wh1ch D4 ch4r4c+3r w4$ cr34+3D. Th4+ c0n+3x+ 1$ D4 m4rk3+ 4ppr0pr14+10n 0f D4 $UbcU7+Ur3 1+$37f. Th1$ pr0c3$$ 0f 4ppr0pr14+10n by c4p1+47, I 4r6U3, 1$ 4 4m 0f J3j3bU$+1n6. A$1D3 fr0m 4 ‘J3j3m0n mUhD4r’, 4 mUhv13 w4$ r3734$3D 1n 2010 3n+1+73D F4D4r J3j3m0n, wh1ch w4$ 0n3 0f D4 3n+r13$ 1n D4 4nnU47 M3+r0 M4n174 F17m F3$+1v47. A$ D4 +1+73 $U663$+$, 1+ 1$ 4b0U+ 4 J3j3m0n pr13$+ p74y3D by D07phy.30 Th0U6h I w4$ n0+ 4b73 +0 w4+ch D4 $41D mUhv13, b$3D 0n my 0b$3rv4+10n 1n 1+$ +r4173r, ‘f4D4r J3j3m0n’ 1$ y4b'$D by h1$ f3770w pr13$+$, cjUrch c0n6r364+10n 4nD D4 r3$+ 0f D4 c0mmUn1+y. H3 1$ D4 4Dv1$3r 0f 3v3ry0n3. I c0n+3nD +h4+ D4 ‘J3j3m0n pr13$+’ 1$ 4 c0n+r4ry r3nD1+10n 0f w4+ my 3mp1r1c47 D4+4 $U663$+. Th3 cjUrch 1$ 4 J3j3bU$+3r, 4nD +0 r3pr3$3n+ D4 J3j3m0n $Ub-cU7+Ur3 1n +h1$ r364rD, 1$ 47$0 f74w3D.
30
D07phy 1$ 4 pr0m1n3n+ 4r+1$+. h3 1$ c4773D D4 c0m3Dy k1n6 0f D4 ph171pp1n3$.
J. C C4+44n
58
In 4DD1+10n, 1+ 1$ 1n+3r3$+ +0 ph0w$zzZZ1n+ 0U+ +h4+ +h0$3 wh0 r J3j3bU$+3r$ 1n r347 71f3, $Uch 4$ D4 prn+$ 4nD D4 cjUrch, w3r3 r3pr3$3n+3D 0n D4 v1$U47 m3D1Um 4$ J3j3m0n$. M0r3 +h4n b31n6 f74w3D, I 4r6U3 +h4+ m3D14 r3pr3$3n+4+10n$ 0n J3j3m0n$ r ‘1n+3n+10n77y’ m1$734D1n6. In 0D4r w0rD$, Dr 1$ 4 r3v3r$47 0f r073$ 1n D4 w4y m3D14 r3pr3$3n+$ D4 J3j3m0n $Ub-cU7+Ur3. In m3D14, D4 J3j3bU$+3r$, c70D4D 1n D4 ch4r4c+3r 0f 4 J3j3m0n, b3c0m3 D4 y4b'$D pr0+460n1$+$. In r347 71f3, h0w3v3r, 4nD 4$ $Upp0r+3D by my D4+4, D4$3 J3j3bU$+3r$ r D4 4n+460n1$+$ 0f D4 J3j3m0n$. I+ 1$ 3v1D3n+ +h4+ m3D14 ‘r1D3’ n0+ jU$+ 0n D4 f4m3 0f D4 $Ub-cU7+Ur3, bU+ +0 4c+$ 0f J3j3bU$+1n6. Th3$3 4c+$ by D4 m3D14 r 4 4m 0f ‘cU7+Ur47 $4rc4$m’ +0 D4 J3j3m0n $Ub-cU7+Ur3. Th3$3 r w1++y 4nD fUnny r3pr3$3n+4+10n$, y3+ 4n 1n$U7+ +0 D4 $Ub-cU7+Ur3. I c0n+3nD +h4+ +h1$ $+r4+36y by m3D14 +0 ‘4r0m4+1z3’ D4 1m463 0f D4 J3j3bU$+3r$ 1$ 4 w4y 0f ‘w4+3r1n6 D0wn’ D4 r463 0f D4 J3j3m0n$ 4641n$+ D4 J3j3bU$+3r$. On3 c4n $Urm1$3 +h4+ D4 m3D14 4++3mp+ +0 U$3 D4 J3j3m0n $Ub-cU7+Ur3 4 1+$ bU$1n3$$ 1n+3r3$+. Th3 J3j3m0n$, n3v3rD473$$, c0n$1D3r D4 3f4+ by m3D14 +0 r3pr3$3n+ D4m 4$ 4 +r1Umph, 47b31+ 1n 71m1+3D 4nD 71m1+1n6 w4y$. A$ J3j3m4$+3r $4y$ 1n 0n3 1n+3rv13w: “A+ 734$+, n$4 TV [k~m1]”. A7+h0U6h D4 r3pr3$3n+4+10n$ r f74w3D 4nD m1$734D1n6, D4$3 pr0v3 0n3 +h1n6, +h4+ D4 n+10n7 cU7+Ur3 +1m3 4nD 4641n r3fr4c+$, 4nD 1$ r3fr4c+3D 1n +Urn, by 4 $Ub-cU7+Ur3, 3v3n 4f+3r D4 ‘670r10U$ D4y$’ 0f +h1$ $Ub-cU7+Ur3 (G0rD0n, 1947, p. 42).
J. C C4+44n
59
“K4p'6 b1n3n+4 qU0h 4n6 w3b$1+3 $4 k~n174, p'r4n6 b1n3n+4 qU0h n r1n 4n6 kU7+Ur4 n6 P171p1n$.”
- S4b1 n1 J3j3m4$+3r $4 4k1n $4 1$yU n6 p7nU'n6 p'6b171 n6 1$4n6 m474k1n6 +373c0mmUn1c4+10n c0mp'ny $4 w3b$1+3 n www.j3j3m0n.c0m. D1$y3mbr3, 28, 2010
J. C C4+44n
60
ch4p+3r 6 fr0m $Ubw4y +0 D4 m41n r04D: D4 j3j3m0n$’ 4mb1v473n+ r3+Urn$ If B0UrD13U (1n W4cqU4n+, 2006) b3713v3$ +h4+ $Ub-cU7+Ur3$ r cU7+Ur47 c0n$+3774+10n$ +h4+ 4pp34r 4nD D1$$07v3$ 3v3n+U477y, 4nD C74rk3 3+ 47. (1975, p. 105) $4y +h4+ “$UbcU7+Ur3$ 4pp34r 0n7y 4+ p'r+1cU74r h1$+0r1c47 mUhm3n+$ D4n D1$4pp34r 0r w1D37y D1ffU$3D 4f+3rw4rD$”, I n0w 4$k: w4+ 1$ D4 pUrp0$3 0f D4 3x1$+3nc3 0f $Ub-cU7+Ur3$?'' AnD UnD3r w4+ c0nD1+10n$ D0 D4y 3x1$+?''
Th3 J3j3m0n$ r h3r3 +0 $+4y H3bD163 (1979) 4$k$ +h1$ $4m3 qU3$+10n. H3 4r6U3$ +h4+ w4+ 74ck$ 1n m4ny ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ $+UD13$ 1$ D4 1D34 0f ‘h1$+0r1c47 $p3c1f1c1+y’, 0r 3xp74n+10n y?'' >.< D4$3 p'r+1cU74r 4m$ 0ccUr 4+ 4 p'r+1cU74r +1m3. Th1$ p'p3r Dr43 cU7m1n+3$ 1n 4$k1n6, w4+ +r4n$p1r3D 1n D4 Ph171pp1n3 ph0w$zzZZ71+1c47, 3c0n0m1c 4nD $0c147 74nD$c4p3 +h4+ br0U6h+ 4b0U+ J3j3m0n$?'' I b3713v3 +h4+ D4 J3j3m0n $Ub-cU7+Ur3 D03$ n0+ 3x1$+ 1n 4 v4cUUm bU+ 1$ c4U$3D by pr3-3x1$+1n6 $0c147 D173mm4$ $Uch 4$ D4 D3+3r10r4+10n 0f 3DUc4+10n 4nD ph0w$zzZZv3r+y. T30D0r0 (2010) 46r33$ w1+h +h1$ wh3n h3 $4y$ +h4+ $1nc3 J3j3bU$+3r$ r +h0$3 wh0 r 1n+3773c+U47 4nD 0f+3n h4v3 mUhr3 4cc3$$ +0 ph0w$zzZZ71+1c$ 4nD 3c0n0my, D4y $h0U7D +h1nk 0f mUhr3 ‘p3rm4n3n+ $07U+10n$’ +0 3DUc4+10n7 pr0b73m$, wh1ch, h3 b3713v3$ 1$ D4 r34$0n 0f J3j3m0n$’ 3x1$+3nc3 (p'r. 15). TjU$, 4 cr34+10n 0f $Ub-cU7+Ur3 1$ 4 m4++3r 0f c0773c+1v3 pr0b73m-$07v1n6 (C0h3n, 1955). In 63n3r47, C0h3n (1955) b3713v3$ +h4+ “pr0b73m$ 3x1$+ 1n D1ff3r3n+ v4r14n+$ 4nD r D1$p3r$3D 1n $0c13+y +hr0U6h c4+360r13$ 3qU1pp3D by D41r $0c13+y w1+h fr4m3$ 0f r3f3r3nc3$ $Uch 4$ $3x, 463, r4c147, 3c0n0m1c $+r4+Um 4nD $0c147 c74$$.” In $07v1n6 D4$3 pr0b73m$, 0n3 c0n$1D3r$ h1$ 0r h3r $Urr0UnD1n6$ 4nD 4ff1714+10n$. “W3 $33k, 1f ph0w$zzZZ$$1b73, $07U+10n$ wh1ch w177 $3++73 07D pr0b73m$ 4nD n0+ cr34+3 n3w 0n3$.” Th3r343, 0n3 w177 U$3 +3mp74+3 $07U+10n$ 4nD c0nv3n+10n7 n0rm$ 4$ r3m3Dy. “Th1$ 1mm3D14+37y 1mp0$3$ $h4rp 71m1+$ 0n D4 r4n63 0f cr34+1v1+y 4nD 1nn0v4+10n,” C0h3n 4DD$ (p. 46-47).
J. C C4+44n
61
J3j3m0n$ D0 0D4rw1$3. If 4nD wh3n D4y r3471z3 +h4+ Dr 1$ 4 n33D +0 ch4n63 D4 $y$+3m 0f 3DUc4+10n 1n D4 c0Un+ry, D4y D0 n0+ j01n $+r33+ pr0+3$+$, 0r 3n6463 1n 0D4r 4m$ 0f pr0+3$+ $Uch 4$ 70bby1n6, $16n+Ur3 c4mp'16n, 4nD n01$3 brr463 4m0n6 0D4r$, wh1ch r c0mm0n7y D4 $+r4+3613$ 3n6463D by +r4D1+10n7 4c+1v1$+$. J3j3m0n$, h0w3v3r, 3n+3r 4 cU7+Ur47 4nD $ymb071c b++73 by 4m1n6 D41r 0wn $Ub-cU7+Ur3. I c0n+3nD +h4+ D4 J3j3m0n$ r 4wr 0f D4 b++73 +h4+ D4y r w461n6, bU+ 0n7y p'r+7y. I 4r6U3 +h4+ D4y r Unwr 0f D4 c0mp73x1+y 0f $Uch b++73. Th3r3 r pr3$xUr!$ +0w4rD c0n4m1+y 4nD Dr r 1n$+4n+ r3w4rD$ 4 D01n6 $0, $Uch 4$ 4cc3p+4nc3, r3c06n1+10n 4nD r3$p3c+, bU+ D4 0D4r w4y 4r0UnD wh3n 0n3 +r4n$6r3$$3$. C0h3n (1955) c0nc7UD3$ +h4+ “h3 wh0 D1$$3n+$ 1n m4++3r$ D4 6r0Up c0n$1D3r$ 1mp0r+4n+, 1n3v1+4b7y 4713n+3$ h1m$37f +0 $0m3 3x+3n+ fr0m D4 6r0Up 4nD fr0m $4+1$fy1n6 $0c147 r374+10n$” (p. 46-47). Th31r 3x1$+3nc3 m4y b3 $ymb071c. Th31r r3$1$+4nc3 1$ $ymb071c, 4nD D41r $07U+10n, 4 cr34+10n 0f $Ub-cU7+Ur3, 1$ 3v3n mUhr3 $ymb071c. C74rk3, 3+ 47. (1975) D3ny D4 ph0w$zzZZw3r 0f +h1$ $ymb071c r3$1$+4nc3, b3c4U$3 “4 r3$07U+10n…p1+ch3D 74r637y 4+ D4 $ymb071c 73v37, w4$ f4+3D +0 f417” (p. 104). Th3y c477 1+ 4n 1m461nry w4y 0f pr0b73m $07v1n6 wh1ch 734D n0w3r. Gr4m$c1 (1992) $Upp0r+$ C74rk3, 3+ 47. (1975), 4nD 1$ br4v3 1n $4y1n6 +h4+ “‘m3n’ D3f1n3 4nD $h4p3 D41r wh073 71v3$ 1$ +rU3 0n7y 1n 4b$+r4c+10n. In 4ny 4c+U47 $0c13+y, Dr r $p3c1f1c 1n3qU471+13$ 4nD Dr43 1n c4p'c1+y +0 r3471z3 +h1$ pr0c3$$” (p. 108). W1771$ (1977) $U663$+$ +h4+ $Ub-cU7+Ur3$ 63+ 1+ wr0n6 wh3n D4y 0p+ +0 D3v14+3 4nD r3$1$+ fr0m D4 D0m1nn+ cU7+Ur3, b3c4U$3, 77yk D4 ‘74D$’, D4y 0n7y c0n+r1bU+3 +0 D41r 0wn D4mn+10n. I+ D03$ n0+ f0770w +h4+ D4 ‘D0m1nn+ cU7+Ur3’ ch00$3$ D4m +0 b3 D4mn3D. Th3y D0, b3c4U$3 D41r ‘cU7+Ur47’ r3$1$+4nc3 D03$ n0+ 3qU4+3 +0 ph0w$zzZZ71+1c47 4nD 3c0n0m1c r34m$ 1n D41r $0c13+y (p. 114). Th3r343, D4 J3j3m0n $Ub-cU7+Ur3 71v3$ 0n 4$ 4 c0n$+4n+ r3m1nD3r 4 +hr33 +h1n6$. F1r$+, D4 rU71n6 $0c147 $+rUc+Ur3 1$ n0+ 4b$07U+3 4nD 477 ph0w$zzZZw3rfU7. J3j3m0n$ $Ub-cU7+Ur3 c4n 47$0 b3 4n 47+3rn+1v3 ‘h363m0ny’. S3c0nD, D4 $Ub-cU7+Ur3 1$ 4n 0U+r16h+ r3f73c+10n 0f D4 n+10n’$ b$1c $3rv1c3$. C74rk3, 3+ 47., (1975) b3713v3
J. C C4+44n
62
+h4+ $Ub-cU7+Ur3$ “c0mm4nD D4 $+463 0f pUb71c 4++3n+10n 4 4 +1m3” b3c4U$3 D4y h4v3 $0m3+h1n6 +0 $4y, 0r r3m1nD (p. 100, 101). Th1rD 4nD D4 74$+, 1n my 0p1n10n, +h4+ D4 F171p1n0 U'+h cU7+Ur47 4nD $Ub-cU7+Ur3 mUhv3m3n+ 1$ cr34+1v3 4nD 4c+1v3 1n $h4p1n6 $0c13+y, 4nD D4y r 1n $34rch 4 4 br16h+3r fU+Ur3. M4ny r $c3p+1c +h4+ D4 J3j3m0n $Ub-cU7+Ur3, jU$+ 77yk 4ny 0D4r $UbcU7+Ur3$, w177 D13 4 n+Ur47 D34+h. BU+ J3j3m4$+3r, D4 J3j3fr13nD$ 4nD I b36 +0 D1$46r33. J3j3m4$+3r, 4$ 4 pr00f +h4+ D4 $Ub-cU7+Ur3 1$ 6r0w1n6, +07D m331 4b0U+ D4 0ff3r by 4 +373c0mmUn1c4+10n n3+w0rk +h4+ h3 r3fU$3$ +0 nm3, +0 bUy D4 D0m41n www.j3j3m0n.c0m, 4 4b0U+ +hr33 m17710n Ph171pp1n3 p3$0$ (H3 pUrch4$3D D4 D0m41n 1n y34r 2010 4 +hr33 jUnDr3D Ph171pp1n3 p3$0$). “’D1 b, bU$+3r D1n nm4n ‘y4n?''”, h3 $4y$. I r34D +h1$ $+4+3m3n+ by J3j3m4$+3r 4$ nU'D4r 4++3mp+ by c4p1+47 +0 4ppr0pr14+3 D4 $Ub-cU7+Ur3, 4nD ph0w$zzZZ$$1b7y D3ny 1+$ 3x1$+3nc3. A$ 0f +h1$ wr1+1n6, h3 c0n$1$+3n+7y r3fU$3$ D4 0ff3r. H3 c70$3$ +h1$ +0p1c by $4y1n6 +h4+ $3771n6 D4 D0m41n 1$ 77yk $3771n6 D4 cU7+Ur3 0f D4 Ph171pp1n3$. H3 4DD$ +h4+ ‘MyPh0n3’, 4 F171p1n0-0wn3D c377U74r ph0n3 4nD 4pp714nc3 c0mp'ny, 1n 4DD1+10n, b0U6h+ D4 “J3j3+r4n$74+10n”32 fr0m h1m. Th3 c0mp'ny pU+$ D4 J3j3+R4nzL4+0r 1n 3v3ry MyPh0n3 c377U74r ph0n3 Un1+ $+4r+1n6 y34r 2011. Th1$ m4rk$ nU'D4r y34r 0f ‘J3j3m0ny’, 4nD D4 $Ub-cU7+Ur3 w177 D3f1n1+37y +r4n$4m 1n w4y$ +h4+ w3 D0 n0+ kn0w y3+. Ry4n, D4 734D3r 0f J3j3fr13nD$, +07D m3 DUr1n6 0Ur 74$+ m33+1n6 1n J4nU4ry 2010, +h4+ D4y r cr34+1n6 4 n3w br4nD 0f J3j3m0n, c4773D ‘H4rh4rm0n’. H4rh4rm0n 1$ 4 ‘73v37-Up’ 4m 0f J3j3m0n, wh1ch 1nc7UD3$ D4 0v3rU$3 0f ‘$m173y’ 1c0n$ $Uch 4$ “^_^)))))))” 0r “:’’’’’(“, m34$Ur1n6 D4 3m0+10n$ 0f 4 J3j3+3x+3r.
Th3 J3j3m0n$’ 4mb1v473n+ r3+Urn$ A+ +h1$ ph0w$zzZZ1n+, I w4n+ +0 1n+r0DUc3 4nD $ch3m4+1c477y 0U+71n3, D4 n0+10n 0f r3+Urn, 47b31+, +3n+4+1v37y, 4$ 1+ r374+3$ +0 D4 J3j3m0n$’ m16r4n+ c1rcU1+$. N1c073 C0n$+4b73 (1999), 1n h3r $+UD13$ 4b0U+ F171p1n0 m16r4n+$’ Unc3r+41n r3+Urn +0 D4 Ph171pp1n3$, ph0w$zzZZ1n+$ 0U+ D4 1n+3r3$+1n6 c0nc3p+ 0f ‘+r4n$n+10n7 m16r4n+ c1rcU1+’ (p. 214). Sh3 $U663$+$ +h4+ m16r4n+$ +ry +0 71nk +w0 0r
31 32
DUr1n6 my $1+-D0wn 1n+3rv13w w1+h h1m 0n D3c3mb3r 28, 2010. 4 f171p1n0-j3j3n3$3 +R4nzL4+0r cr34+3D 4nD 0p3r4+3D by j3j3m4$+3r.
J. C C4+44n
63
mUhr3 p74c3$, $Uch 4$ D4 p74c3 0f m16r4+10n, D4 n+1v3 74nD, 4nD 0D4r p74c3$ 0f b370n61n6n3$$, 1n+0 0n3 71f3. I 1nf3r +h4+ +h1$ c0nc3p+ c4n b3 4pp713D n0+ jU$+ 6306r4ph1c477y, bU+ 47$0 $0c1477y 4nD cU7+Ur477y. Th3 J3j3m0n$ 47$0 4++3mp+ +0 71nk +w0 cU7+Ur3$ 1n+0 ‘0n3 71f3’. I $U663$+ +0 c477 +h4+ $p'c3 0r 71nk 4$ ‘+r4n$cU7+Ur47 m16r4n+ c1rcU1+’. J3j3m0n$ r 1nD33D ‘cU7+Ur47 m16r4n+$’. Th3r3 w177 47w4y$ b3 4 ph0w$zzZZ1n+ 0f r3+Urn +0 D4 0r161n7 cU7+Ur3 w3r D4y f1r$+ b370n63D pr10r +0 b31n6 J3j3m0n$. I+ 1$ 4n Un3nD1n6 ‘c1rcU1+’. B4$3D 0n my p3r$0n7 3xp3r13nc3, I h4D 4 h4rD +1m3 601n6 bck +0 my ‘prn+ cU7+Ur3’. P30p73 $33 m3 4$ ‘D3v14n+’ 47$0. My fr13nD$ 4nD $ch007 m4+3$ c0n+1nU3 +0 +34$3 m3 4nD 74b37 m3 4$ J3j3m0n D3f3nD3r’ 0r ‘J3j3J0$3ph’. Th3y r 0f D4 0p1n10n +h4+ I h4v3 D4 1mpr3$$10n +h4+ I w177 47w4y$ c4rry w1+h m3 my J3j3m0n 1D3n+1+y, 3v3n 1n D4 3v3n+ +h4+ I D3c1D3 +0 UnDr3$$ my$37f 0f D4 1D3n+1+y. My J3j3fr13nD$, 77ykw1$3, 3xp3r13nc3 4mb1v473nc3 1n D41r 0wn ‘c1rcU1+$’, wh1ch I nrr4+3 b370w.
ry4n: D4 Unc0mm1++3D 734D3r ry4n h4$ 1mpr3$$3D 0n m3 +h4+ h3 y4b'$$ 4nD v47U3$ +h1$ j3j3m0n $Ub-cU7+Ur3 b3c4U$3 h3 1$ 47w4y$ 4c+1v3 1n m33+1n6$. h3 +3x+$ 0f+3n 4$ w377. h1$ p'r+-+1m3 w0rk 4$ 4 $ch007 $+4ff, w3r h3 47$0 $+UD13$, h0w3v3r, h1nD3r$ h1m +0 fU77y c0mm1+ +0 D4 $Ub-cU7+Ur3. mUh$+ 0f D4 +1m3, 47+h0U6h h3 w4n+$ +0 w34r 4 j3j34m, h3 1$ h1nD3r3D by D4 +h0U6h+ +h4+ h3 m16h+ 70$3 h1$ p'r+-+1m3 j0b. h3r prn+$ c0n+1nU3 +0 r3j3c+ h1m b3c4U$3 h3 1$ 4 j3j3m0n, bU+ 1 $3n$3 $0m3+h1n6 h4ppy 0n h1$ f4c3. +hr0U6h +h1$ $UbcU7+Ur3, h3 f1nD$ h1$ 1D3n+1+y.
Sh3rw1n: $+177 4 $173n+ 71$+3n3r Sh3rw1n, Un+17 D4 3nD 0f my 1mm3r$10n 1n D41r $Ub-cU7+Ur3, 1$ $+177 4 $173n+ J3j3m0n. H3 $+177 w4n+$ +0 b3 4 p170+ 0r 4 $h1p c4p+41n 1n D4 fU+Ur3. I cr4ck3D 4 j0k3 +h4+ 1f +h4+ h4pp3n$, w3 w177 h4v3 0Ur f1r$+ J3j3p170+ 4nD J3j3p74n3, 0r J3j3$h1p 4nD J3j3c4p+41n. BU+ 0n3 $+r1k1n6 $+4+3m3n+ +h4+ $Urpr1$3D m3 1$ h1$ 0p+1m1$m 4b0U+ D41r $Ub-cU7+Ur3. H3 $41D: S4 +1n61n qU0h, ‘D1 n m4w4w474 4n6 J3j3m0n. H4n664’+ m4y n6-33x1$+ n 1$4, m4y m4j4j4w4 4+ m4j4j4w4, ‘D1 b?'' Iy0n n r1n 4n6 nk~$4ny4n k~y4 D1 n r1n m4w4w474. Pr0UD 4q
J. C C4+44n
64
m461n6 J3j3m0n x3' 1y0n 4n6 U$0, ‘y0n 4n6 ‘1n’. S4by $4 460$ n6 bUh4y, +$4k~ $4 k~b+44n (F137D n0+3$, J4nU4ry 22, 2011). Th1$, I b3713v3, 1$ D4 70n63$+ $+4+3m3n+ +h4+ I h4D 3v3r h34rD fr0m h1m. Th0U6h 4 $173n+ 71$+3n3r, h3 1$ 4 D3+3rm1n3D J3j3m0n. A7+h0U6h D4 4mb1v473nc3 1$ 73$$ b3c4U$3 h1$ prn+$ h4v3 n0 r34c+10n$ +0 h1$ J3j3m0n $+y73, h3 c0n+1nU3$ +0 $+rU6673 +0 73+ 60 0f h1$ +1m1D1+y, 4nD fU77y 3mbr4c3 D4 $Ub-cU7+Ur3’$ 3xpr3$$1v3 1D3n+1+y.
K4+h: I $33 4 c070rfU7 fU+Ur3 K4+h $+4+3$ $0m3+h1n6 r4nD0m7y wh3n w3 1n4m477y 4$$3$$3D my ‘p3r4m4nc3’ 4nD p'r+1c1p'+10n 1n+0 D41r $Ub-cU7+Ur3. Sh3 $41D +h4+ h3r mUhD4r w4$ 0nc3 4 J3j3m0n b343. I 4$k3D h0w 1+ h4pp3n3D. W3 4r6U3D 4nD 3v3n+U477y, 1+ +Urn3D 0U+ +h4+ h3r mUhD4r w4$ p'r+ 0f D4 ‘r3+r0’ 3r4, wh1ch w4$ 47$0 4$$0c14+3D w1+h c070rfU7 c70D4$ 4nD 4cc3$$0r13$. I+ 1$ h3r prn+$ wh0 +4U6h+ h3r +0 b3 c070rfU7 1n c70D4$. Sh3 $41D +h4+ 1f D4 p'$+ w4$ 4$ c070rfU7 4$ h3r mUhD4r’$ p'$+, $h3 1$ c0nf1D3n+ 4b0U+ 4 c070rfU7 fU+Ur3. Sh3 $41D +h4+ $h3 w177 c0n+1nU3 +0 b3 4 J3j3m0n 3v3n wh3n $h3 63+$ 07D3r.
n1n4 4nD pR1nC355 N1n 4nD Pr1nc3$$ w3r3 n0+ 4r0UnD DUr1n6 my 74$+ v1$1+, bU+ w3 $+4y 1n +0Uch. OUr $3p'r4+3 6306r4ph1c $p'c3$ r 71nk3D by +3x+ m3$$463$. Th3y +377 m3 +h4+ D4y r $+177 1n D41r 0wn r3$p3c+1v3 r374+10n$h1p$. I+ 1$ c0m4+1n6 4 +0 kn0w +h4+ r374+10n$h1p$ 1n$1D3 D4 $Ub-cU7+Ur3, n0 m4++3r h0w ‘0DrD’, $+177 c0n+1nU3 +0 6r0w.
I+’$ 4 j0yr1D3: 4 ‘j0Urn3y’ w0r+h r3m3mb3r1n6 My 71+3r4+Ur3 r3v13w $k3+ch3D D4 +UrbU73n+ 1+1n3r4ry 0f D4 c0nc3p+ 0f ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’. Th3 pr0v1$10n 0f 4 $33m1n67y $+4b73 D40r3+1c47 $p'c3 0f ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ b3c4m3 D4 ‘r3$+1n6 p74c3’ 0f $0c147 $c13n+1$+$ wh0 w4n+3D +0 m4k3 D41r r3$34rch3$ c0m4+4b73. Th3 Ch1c460 4nD B1rm1n6h4m Sch007$ p74y3D 4 b16 r073 1n $h4p1n6 +h1$ c070rfU7, y3+ $0m3+1m3$ D4rk c0nc3p+. Th30r1$+$ 4f+3r D40r1$+$ ch4773n63D D4 c0nc3p+ 4nD ph3n0m3n0n, $+33r1n6 D3b+3$ 1n+0 0pp0$1n6 D1r3c+10n$. Th1$ r3$34rch 1$ 0n3 0f +h0$3 +h4+ 0p+3D +0 Dr1v3 D4 ‘$+33r’ 0f ‘$UbcU7+Ur3’ $+UD13$ +0 nU'D4r
J. C C4+44n
65
D1r3c+10n. S0m3 $Ub-cU7+Ur3 D1D n0+ f70Ur1$h, wh173 0D4r$ c0n+1nU3 +0 0ccUpy cr3v1c3$ 1n D4 cr4ck$ 0f D4 D0m1nn+ cU7+Ur3. I 4m c0nf1D3n+ +h4+ D4 J3j3m0n $UbcU7+Ur3, w1+h D4 6r0w+h 0f 1n+3rn3+, w177 b3 ch4773n63D +1m3 4nD 4641n by $ch074r$. Th3 J3j3m0n$, 4nD my ‘j0Urn3y’ +0 D41r ‘w0r7D’ pr0v3D 0n3 +h1n6: D41r ‘w0r7D’ 1$ n0+ f4r fr0m U$, D41r ‘w0r7D’ 1$ n0+ $0m3w3r ‘0U+ Dr’, bU+ ‘$0m3w3r 1n h3r3’, $0m3w3r ‘1n’ U$, ‘w1+h1n’ U$. Th3 J3j3m0n$ r 0rD1nry U'+h wh0 y34rn +0 cUrv3 $0m3+h1n6 m34n1n6fU7 1n+0 D41r 3xp3r13nc3$. Th3y w4n+ +0 1mp'r+ 1nD371b7y D4$3 3xp3r13nc3$ 1n+0 D41r 71f3+1m3, D1ff3r3n+7y. ‘T007$’ $Uch 4$ J3j3p0$3$, J3j3+3x+ 4nD J3j3c70D4$ r D41r $16n1f1c4+10n$ 0f b370n61n6n3$$. Th3y r D4 m34n1n6fU7 $16n1f13r$ 0f D4 $Ub-cU7+Ur3’$ $hrD 1D3n+1+y +h4+ 1$ c0n$+4n+7y brr463D by $0c13+y’$ r3$+r1c+10n$. J3j3m0n$ r r347. Th3y y4b'$. Th3y r3$1$+. Th3y b3c0m3 $4D >.< D1D U' D3c1D3 +0 b3 D4 j3j3m4$+3r?'' 8. w4+ D0 U' 641n fr0m b31n6 D4 j3j3m4$+3r?'' 9. w4+ 1$ D4 1mpr3$$10n 0f U'r f4m17y, r374+1v3 4nD fr13nD$ Up0n kn0w1n6 +h4+ U' r D4 j3j3m4$+3r?'' 10. h0w D03$ b31n6 4 j3j3m4$+3r 4ff3c+ U' 4$ 4 U'+h?'' 4$ 4 $0n?'' 4$ 4 $+UD3n+/w0rk3r?'' 4$ 4 f171p1n0?'' 4$ 4 p3r$0n 1n 63n3r47?'' 11. h0w D0 U' 1nv1+3 m3mb3r$ +0 j01n U'?'' 12. wh0 1$ D4 r347 j3j3m0n?'' h0w D0 U' $h0w 1+?'' (+0 b3 0b$3rv3D 47$0) 13. h0w, wh3n 4nD w3r D0 U' c0nv3n3 U'r j3j3m0n$?'' 14. D0 U' y4b'$ D4m?'' 15. h0w 70n6 w177 U' b3 D4 j3j3m0n$+3r?'' 16. . h0w w177 U' b3 r3p74c3D?'' 17. w4+ 1$ U'r c0n+r1bU+10n $0 f4r +0 D4 j3j3m0n “c0mmUn1+y”?'' 18. w4+ 1$ U'r 6047 4$ 4 j3j3m4$+3r?'' 19. D0 U' b3713v3 +h4+ j3j3m0n$ w177 D13 4 n+Ur47 D34+h?'' 20. w4+ c4n U' $4y +0 D4 j3j3bU$+3r$?'' 21. w4+ 1$ U'r Dr34m 4 U'r c0mmUn1+y?'' 22. r U' pr0UD +0 b3 4 j3j3m4$+3r?''
J. C C4+44n
73
4pp3nD1x 2
1n+3rv13w 6U1D3 qU3$+10n$ 4 j3j3moNz
1. w4+ 1$ 4 j3j3m0n?'' 2. D1D U' 60 +hr0U6h m3mb3r$h1p b343 U' b3c0m3 4 j3j3m0n?'' 3. w4+ 1$ 1+$ r073?'' 4. w4+ r D4 +r41+$ 4nD ch4r4c+3r1$+1c$ 0f 4 j3j3m0n?'' 5. w4+ 1$ D4 f3371n6 +0 b3 4 j3j3m0n?'' 6. y?'' >.< D1D U' D3c1D3 +0 b3 4 j3j3m0n?'' 7. w4+ D0 U' 641n fr0m b31n6 4 j3j3m0n?'' 8. w4+ 1$ D4 1mpr3$$10n 0f U'r f4m17y, r374+1v3 4nD fr13nD$ Up0n kn0w1n6 +h4+ U' r 4 j3j3m0n?'' 9. h0w D03$ b31n6 4 j3j30n 4ff3c+ U' 4$ 4 U'+h?'' 4$ 4 $0n?'' 4$ 4 $+UD3n+/w0rk3r?'' 4$ 4 f171p1n0?'' 4$ 4 p3r$0n 1n 63n3r47?'' 10. h0w D0 U' 1nv1+3 m3mb3r$ +0 j01n U'?'' 11. h0w, wh3n 4nD w3r D0 U' c0nv3n3 U'r j3j3m0n$?'' 12. D0 U' y4b'$ D4m?'' 13. h0w 70n6 w177 U' b3 D4 j3j3m0n?'' 14. w4+ 1$ U'r c0n+r1bU+10n $0 f4r +0 D4 j3j3m0n “c0mmUn1+y”?'' 15. w4+ 1$ U'r 6047 4$ 4 j3j3m0n?'' 16. D0 U' b3713v3 +h4+ j3j3m0n$ w177 D13 4 n+Ur47 D34+h?'' 17. w4+ c4n U' $4y +0 D4 j3j3bU$+3r$?'' 18. w4+ 1$ U'r Dr34m 4 U'r c0mmUn1+y?'' 19. r U' pr0UD +0 b3 4 j3j3m0n?''
J. C C4+44n
74
uN1v3rs1tY oF tH3 pH1L1Pp1n35 d1L1m4n
w0rK1n6 t1tL3: j3j3mOn5: tH3 “oTh3r wOrLd” w1tH1n tH3 wOrLd r3534rCh3r: j3j3jo53pH r1cK cRuZ c4t44n, uNd3rGr4dU4t3 j3j3sTuD3nT, cOLL393 oF m455 cOmMuN1c4t1oN (+63) 9168761567, (+63) 9322479434 pHoN3:
[email protected],
[email protected] 3m4iL: 5uP3rV15oR: 3m4iL:
jejePrOf. 3uL4L1o gU13b III pH. d33
[email protected]
D1s 1sH 2 1nV1t3 U 2 p4rt1c1p4t3 1n 4 r3534rCh 3nt1tL3d j3j3mOn5: tH3 “oTh3r wOrLd” w1tH1n tH3 wOrLd 4 mY uNd3rGr4dU4t3 j3j3tH351s r3534rCh N d’ d3p4rTm3nT of bRo4dc45t cOmMuN1c4t1oN, cOLL393 oF m455 cOmMuN1c4t1oN oF uN1v3rs1tY oF tH3 pH1L1Pp1n35 d1L1m4n. D gO4L oF d’ 5TuD33 i5 2 d33pLy uNd3r5T4nD d’ j3j3mOn pH3nOm3nOn 4s 4 “sUb-cUlTur3” 3n“cOuNt3r cUlTur3”. uR p4rt1c1p4t1oN 1n D 5tudY w1LL 3nT4iL 4 5hOrt f4c3-tO-f4c3 iNt3rv13w w/ m3 4s D r3534rCh3r. u w1LL V 45k3d kW35t1oNz r394rD1n9 uR xP3r13nC3s 4z 4 j3j3mOn, h0w U cOnTr1BuT3 ‘n D cUlTuR3 3n hOw d1s cH4n93d uR LyF. pH0toz 3n/0r v1d3os w1LL 4lzO b3 t4K3n w1d uR p3Rm1zz1oN 2 zUpPl3m3nT ‘d r3534rCh. tH3 1nt3rV1eW w1LL l4zT 4 4n hOuR, 4LtHou9H w3 c4n zToP d1z 1nT3rV13w 4nYtyM u w4nT, 3n U cN w1tHdr4a fRoM d1z r3s34rCh 1fU dO nOt f1L cOm4t4bL3 w/0 n394t1v3 cOns3qU3ncEz oN u. uR s19n4tUr3 b3LoW s3rV35 2 s19n1fY d4t U a9r33 2 p4rT1c1p8 ‘n d1z zTuDy. uR p4rt1c1p4t1oN 1z 3nT1r3Ly vOLuNt4rY 3n U c4n cHuZ 2 d3cL1n3 2 4nZw3r 4nY qU3zT1oN, oR 3v3n w1tHdR4w 4t 4Ny p1oNt fR0m d’ r3z34rCh w/0 4nY p3n4lTy. 4nYt1n9 U s3y w1LL oNLi b3 4ttR1bUt3d 2 u w/ uR p3rM1zz1oN. mY pL3d93 2 cOnF1d3nT14L1tY 3n 3tH1cZ s 4L5o m34n5 d4T nO p3r5oN oR oR94n1z4t1oN oTh3r d4n mY 4dV153r w1LL h4v3 aCc355 2 4nY 1n4m4t1oN uNL3zz r3qU3zt3d bY dULy-r3cO9n1z3d 4uThOr1t1z 3n oFF1z3z oF d’ uN1v3rZty. oL 4m5 3n 1nt3rV13w tR4nZcR1pT1oNz 4r3 s4v3d 1n 4 p455wOrD prOt3ct3d d191t4L-v4uLt. pL1z dO nT h3z1t8 2 cOnT4cT m3 F u n1d mOr3 1nfOrM4t1oN oR 1f U w15h 2 4dd sOm3th1n9. 1f U h4v3 qU3zT1oNz oR cOnz3rNz, pL1z f1L fR33 2 cOnT4cT m3 4t 4nY tYm @ (+63) 9168761567, (+63) 9322479434 or at
[email protected].
c0n53nT: p4rT1c1p4nT’z s19n4tUr3 oV3r pR1nT3d n4M3: __________________ r3534rCh3r’5 s19n4tUr3 oV3r pR1nT3d n4M3: __________________ d8: _______________
J. C C4+44n
75
C0n53nT fOrM FoR 1nT3rV13w (1nT3rV13w33’5 cOpEe) uN1v3rs1tY oF tH3 pH1L1Pp1n35 d1L1m4n
w0rK1n6 t1tL3: j3j3mOn5: tH3 “oTh3r wOrLd” w1tH1n tH3 wOrLd r3534rCh3r: pHoN3: 3m4iL: 5uP3rV15oR: 3m4iL:
j3j3jo53pH r1cK cRuZ c4t44n, uNd3rGr4dU4t3 j3j3sTuD3nT, cOLL393 oF m455 cOmMuN1c4t1oN (+63) 9168761567, (+63) 9322479434
[email protected],
[email protected] jejePrOf. 3uL4L1o gU13b III pH. d33
[email protected]
D1s 1sH 2 1nV1t3 U 2 p4rt1c1p4t3 1n 4 r3534rCh 3nt1tL3d j3j3mOn5: tH3 “oTh3r wOrLd” w1tH1n tH3 wOrLd 4 mY uNd3rGr4dU4t3 j3j3tH351s r3534rCh N d’ d3p4rTm3nT of bRo4dc45t cOmMuN1c4t1oN, cOLL393 oF m455 cOmMuN1c4t1oN oF uN1v3rs1tY oF tH3 pH1L1Pp1n35 d1L1m4n. D gO4L oF d’ 5TuD33 i5 2 d33pLy uNd3r5T4nD d’ j3j3mOn pH3nOm3nOn 4s 4 “sUb-cUlTur3” 3n“cOuNt3r cUlTur3”. uR p4rt1c1p4t1oN 1n D 5tudY w1LL 3nT4iL 4 5hOrt f4c3-tO-f4c3 iNt3rv13w w/ m3 4s D r3534rCh3r. u w1LL V 45k3d kW35t1oNz r394rD1n9 uR xP3r13nC3s 4z 4 j3j3mOn, h0w U cOnTr1BuT3 ‘n D cUlTuR3 3n hOw d1s cH4n93d uR LyF. pH0toz 3n/0r v1d3os w1LL 4lzO b3 t4K3n w1d uR p3Rm1zz1oN 2 zUpPl3m3nT ‘d r3534rCh. tH3 1nt3rV1eW w1LL l4zT 4 4n hOuR, 4LtHou9H w3 c4n zToP d1z 1nT3rV13w 4nYtyM u w4nT, 3n U cN w1tHdr4w fRoM d1z r3s34rCh 1fU dO nOt f1L cOm4t4bL3 w/0 n394t1v3 cOns3qU3ncEz oN u. uR s19n4tUr3 b3LoW s3rV35 2 s19n1fY d4t U a9r33 2 p4rT1c1p8 ‘n d1z zTuDy. uR p4rt1c1p4t1oN 1z 3nT1r3Ly vOLuNt4rY 3n U c4n cHuZ 2 d3cL1n3 2 4nZw3r 4nY qU3zT1oN, oR 3v3n w1tHdR4w 4t 4Ny p1oNt fR0m d’ r3z34rCh w/0 4nY p3n4lTy. 4nYt1n9 U s3y w1LL oNLi b3 4ttR1bUt3d 2 u w/ uR p3rM1zz1oN. mY pL3d93 2 cOnF1d3nT14L1tY 3n 3tH1cZ s 4L5o m34n5 d4T nO p3r5oN oR oR94n1z4t1oN oTh3r d4n mY 4dV153r w1LL h4v3 aCc355 2 4nY 1n4m4t1oN uNL3zz r3qU3zt3d bY dULy-r3cO9n1z3d 4uThOr1t1z 3n oFF1z3z oF d’ uN1v3rZty. oL 4m5 3n 1nt3rV13w tR4nZcR1pT1oNz 4r3 s4v3d 1n 4 p455wOrD prOt3ct3d d191t4L-v4uLt. pL1z dO nT h3z1t8 2 cOnT4cT m3 F u n1d mOr3 1nfOrM4t1oN oR 1f U w15h 2 4dd sOm3th1n9. 1f U h4v3 qU3zT1oNz oR cOnz3rNz, pL1z f1L fR33 2 cOnT4cT m3 4t 4nY tYm @ (+63) 9168761567, (+63) 9322479434 or at
[email protected].
c0n53nT: p4rT1c1p4nT’z s19n4tUr3 oV3r pR1nT3d n4M3: __________________ r3534rCh3r’5 s19n4tUr3 oV3r pR1nT3d n4M3: __________________ d8: _______________
J. C C4+44n
76
C0n53nT fOrM FoR p4rT1c1p4nT oBs3rV4t1oN (r3534rCh3r’5 cOpEe) uN1v3rs1tY oF tH3 pH1L1Pp1n35 d1L1m4n
w0rK1n6 t1tL3: j3j3mOn5: tH3 “oTh3r wOrLd” w1tH1n tH3 wOrLd r3534rCh3r: j3j3jo53pH r1cK cRuZ c4t44n, uNd3rGr4dU4t3 j3j3sTuD3nT, cOLL393 oF m455 cOmMuN1c4t1oN (+63) 9168761567, (+63) 9322479434 pHoN3:
[email protected],
[email protected] 3m4iL: 5uP3rV15oR: 3m4iL:
jejePrOf. 3uL4L1o gU13b III pH. d33
[email protected]
D1s 1sH 2 1nV1t3 U 2 p4rt1c1p4t3 1n 4 r3534rCh 3nt1tL3d j3j3mOn5: tH3 “oTh3r wOrLd” w1tH1n tH3 wOrLd 4 mY uNd3rGr4dU4t3 j3j3tH351s r3534rCh N d’ d3p4rTm3nT of bRo4dc45t cOmMuN1c4t1oN, cOLL393 oF m455 cOmMuN1c4t1oN oF uN1v3rs1tY oF tH3 pH1L1Pp1n35 d1L1m4n. D gO4L oF d’ 5TuD33 i5 2 d33pLy uNd3r5T4nD d’ j3j3mOn pH3nOm3nOn 4s 4 “sUb-cUlTur3” 3n“cOuNt3r cUlTur3”. uR p4rt1c1p4t1oN 1n D 5tudY w1LL 3nT4iL 4 m0ntH-loN9 oF j3j3mOn pR4t1c3z w/ d r3z34rCh3r. u w1LL V gU1d1n9 eN t34cH2n9 d r3z34rCh3r w/ uR xP3r13nZ3z 4z 4 j3j3mOn 41m1n9 d4t d r3z34rCh3r w1LL h4v 4 f1rZt-h4nD xP3r13nZ3 oF d r34L j3j3mOn wOrLd. pH0toz 3n/0r v1d3os w1LL 4lzO b3 t4K3n w1d uR p3Rm1zz1oN 2 zUpPl3m3nT ‘d r3534rCh. u w1LL 4lzO xCh4n93 t3xT m3zz493z 3n oD3r m34nZ oF coMmuN1c4t1oN w/ d r3z34rCh3r 4LtHou9H w3 c4n zToP uR p4t1c1p4t1oN 4nYtyM u w4nT, 3n U cN w1tHdr4w fRoM d1z r3s34rCh 1fU dO nOt f1L cOm4t4bL3 w/0 n394t1v3 cOns3qU3ncEz oN u. uR s19n4tUr3 b3LoW s3rV35 2 s19n1fY d4t U a9r33 2 p4rT1c1p8 ‘n d1z zTuDy. uR p4rt1c1p4t1oN 1z 3nT1r3Ly vOLuNt4rY 3n U c4n cHuZ 2 d3cL1n3 2 4nZw3r 4nY qU3zT1oN, oR 3v3n w1tHdR4w 4t 4Ny p1oNt fR0m d’ r3z34rCh w/0 4nY p3n4lTy. 4nYt1n9 U s3y w1LL oNLi b3 4ttR1bUt3d 2 u w/ uR p3rM1zz1oN. mY pL3d93 2 cOnF1d3nT14L1tY 3n 3tH1cZ s 4L5o m34n5 d4T nO p3r5oN oR oR94n1z4t1oN oTh3r d4n mY 4dV153r w1LL h4v3 aCc355 2 4nY 1n4m4t1oN uNL3zz r3qU3zt3d bY dULy-r3cO9n1z3d 4uThOr1t1z 3n oFF1z3z oF d’ uN1v3rZty. oL 4m5 3n 1nt3rV13w tR4nZcR1pT1oNz 4r3 s4v3d 1n 4 p455wOrD prOt3ct3d d191t4L-v4uLt. pL1z dO nT h3z1t8 2 cOnT4cT m3 F u n1d mOr3 1nfOrM4t1oN oR 1f U w15h 2 4dd sOm3th1n9. 1f U h4v3 qU3zT1oNz oR cOnz3rNz, pL1z f1L fR33 2 cOnT4cT m3 4t 4nY tYm @ (+63) 9168761567, (+63) 9322479434 or at
[email protected].
c0n53nT: p4rT1c1p4nT’z s19n4tUr3 oV3r pR1nT3d n4M3: __________________ r3534rCh3r’5 s19n4tUr3 oV3r pR1nT3d n4M3: __________________ d8: _______________
