Jeffry Ocay

At the outset, I want to make my position clear that I share Allan B. I. Bernardo’s social psychology of poverty, which, as I see it, is expressed most visibly in his attempt to promote socio-economic equality in the Philippines by way of poverty reduction. The burgeoning poverty in the Philippines is indeed an urgent issue that demands serious consideration. In fact, this is an interesting research theme that has drawn considerable attention from several young Filipino scholars, especially in the field of “development studies” construed more broadly. I therefore commend Bernardo’s contribution to this scholarship given the perspicacity of his noble intention. Yet, certain issues relating to the practicability of his proposal and his reluctance to come to grips with real causes of poverty have to be dealt with squarely—at the end of it all I have to engage in this tussle of showing how much (or rather how less?) Bernardo has done justice to the issue of reducing, if not completely eradicating, poverty in the Philippines to the minimum. My response to Bernardo will focus on these two points. On the one hand, I argue that the alternatives he offers to the problem of poverty in the Philippines appear to be untenable. As we can see, while he clearly warns his readers that his main intention is to explain why there are Filipinos, especially the elites and non-poor, who do not only support but oppose pro-poor economic policies, attitudes conclusive alternatives. This is problematic as it confuses sham causes of poverty with real ones. On the other, Bernardo’s reluctance to come to grips with real causes of poverty as a result of his privileging of the social consciousness (i.e. pro-poor mindset) of the rich or non-poor as the key to poverty reduction has not only pushed real alternatives to the background but also “depoliticized” the real agents of social transformation, that is, the poor people themselves. Thus, my take on the issue on poverty reduction in the Philippines begins where Bernardo ends. To speak very simply, while I agree with Bernardo that social consciousness plays out decisively in addressing the problem of poverty in the country, I argue that it has to be sought not in the consciousness of the rich or the non-poor but in the poor themselves, and that this consciousness needs to be pushed further to the point that it mobilizes them for radical political action. Let me briefly develop my position. It might be worthwhile to remind ourselves here about the key intuition of Bernardo’s paper. As we can see, the paper aims to investigate the nature and dynamics of poverty in the Philippines from the angle of social psychology, and argues that one of the reasons why poverty persists is that “pro-poor policies” have not been pushed by the rich or non-poor Filipinos. As a matter of fact, Bernardo holds that the social motives, beliefs, and attitudes of these privileged Filipinos make them more likely to oppose pro-poor policies. Bernardo then suggests some ways on how to target motives, beliefs, and attitudes that would make Filipinos become pro-poor. Here, Bernardo appears to be deeply influenced by Anthony F. Lemieux and Felicia Pratto’s contention that poverty ultimately stems from social relations. Then, following Carlos Celdran who argues that the elites could have pulled the country out of poverty but failed to do so, Bernardo tasks himself on demonstrating how it could be practicably done by suggesting some alternatives that draw inspiration from social psychology. Although Bernardo acknowledges the fact that his thesis is just one of the many important factors that cause poverty, the manner upon which he presents his solutions to the problem appears to be conclusive; that is, he sees it that if we had only instilled in the mind of the Filipinos some kind of “pro-poor mindset,” which I view as a kind of “social consciousness” (of the privileged Filipinos), then we could have solved poverty and social inequality in the country. To my mind, this is problematic not only because it runs the risk of oversimplifying the highly complex problem of poverty, but also because, as already mentioned, it confuses sham causes of poverty with real ones. More importantly, Bernardo’s approach fails to analyze poverty from the needed socio-historical and politico-economic perspectives, the proper context upon which we can make sense of the problem more meaningfully. As a result, Bernardo’s social psychology of poverty suffers from practical and theoretical deficit that resulted in the offering of piecemeal solutions to the already deeply ingrained problem of poverty in the Philippines as well as the privileging of the rich and non-poor. For sure, social consciousness is crucial to national economic development; however, contrary to Bernardo’s position, I argue that it has to be sought not from the privileged Filipinos but from the direct victims of injustice themselves that is, the poor and marginalized. This is precisely because the rich people do not only have the tendency to be elitist and self-serving, as Bernardo clearly demonstrates in his paper, but also because they will never fully understand the plight of the poor for the simple reason that they do not concretely experience poverty on their knees. As a matter of fact, we cannot expect the rich people to be “pro-poor” and push for “pro-poor policies” given that they are enjoying some kind of social leverage that they are afraid of losing. If we remind ourselves of the historical development of the welfare state in the West, certain pro-poor mindset was introduced not because the elites wanted to address poverty but simply because they were afraid of rebellion. In other words, such pro-poor mindset was not meant to really solve the problem of poverty and promote socio-economic equality but simply to appease the recalcitrant “poor,” which resulted in the acquiescence and depoliticization of the poor themselves. I want to read Bernardo’s social psychology of poverty from this vantage point.

Siliman Journal

Vol. 56 (3) 2015

2015

Ocay, J. (2015). From Social Consciousness to Radical Political Action: A Response to Allan B. I. Bernardo’s Social Psychology of Poverty. Siliman Journal 56 (3) p. 223-228.

https://su.edu.ph/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/SJ-56-3-with-cover-2.21.19.pdf