Fr. Ramon Echica
This is not exactly my first foray into column writing. In the seminary, the institution that I have served for a long time, I got to write a regular column for our newsletter. But just the same, starting a column today made me think about a general title. Some general titles of my favorite columnists came to mind: There’s the Rub of the late Conrado de Quiros, Public Lives of Randy David, Here’s the Score of the late Teddy Benigno, Looking Back of Ambeth Ocampo. Here in SunStar Cebu, we have Candid Thoughts of Bong Wenceslao, The Other Side of Atty. Frank Malilong.
Though they have undoubtedly made their mark in column writing, I cannot be their copycat. So, what could serve as a general title? I first thought to play around with my name and give the title, “I-chica mo kay Mon” or Chikahan with Mon.” But who would take me seriously with those titles? I am afraid such titles would be seen as nothing but futile attempts to be corny.
In the end, I choose to retain the title of my columns in the past: The Partisan. This is to highlight the truth that a writer inevitably takes sides when expressing one’s opinions. Total objectivity is a philosophical impossibility and there is therefore an inherent partisanship in giving opinions.
Let me illustrate this point by recalling an anecdote. There was once an American student who first studied history in France and later in England. He noticed that in France, history books would recount that Joan of Arc saw visions. In England, he read the same sentence but the last word is written in between quotation marks: Joan of Arc saw “visions.” In other words, the French version of history would highlight reality of what the saint saw while the English would cast doubt on the authenticity of the visions. But whether one places the word “visions” in between quotation marks or not, one inevitably chooses a particular way of looking at the history of the Hundred Years’ War.
Let us take a contemporary example. Should the tirades of former President Rodrigo Duterte be seen as threats or as jokes: Either way, one takes sides.
Indeed, it is rather dangerous if a writer is unaware of one’s biases and presents one’s views as the Gospel truth. It is better to lay all the cards on the table and preface one’s opinion with the statement, “This is where I am coming from.” Equally dangerous would be to be silent under the guise of neutrality when the situation calls for partisanship. I recall here the words of Anglican Bishop Desmund Tutu: “If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse, and you say you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”
Furthermore, one’s bias can in fact lead to deeper interpretations. For instance, one’s bias for the poor could lead to a more profound understanding of Jesus’ words, “Blessed are the poor” and of the Blessed Virgin’s Magnificat, “He has cast down the mighty from their thrones and lifted up the lowly.” Without the bias, one can have an overly spiritualized understanding.
This is not to say that all opinions are equally valid. To say so would fall into relativism. In expressing opinions, we have to be guided by the rules of logic and common sense. We simply cannot shout whatever we believe in and say, “Don’t judge me since this is my own view,” then close our ears when others express their own opinions. We have to argue for our views in the marketplace of ideas in order to be credible.
But then again, we cannot avoid taking sides. In the fight between good and evil, neutrality is in fact in support of evil. Thus, I am unabashedly partisan. I am partisan for truth and justice and for the victims of those in power. Concretely, I cannot be neutral when Israelites would bomb the helpless Palestinians in Gaza. I have to take the side of accountability in the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte. I am on the side of the victims of extra-judicial killing.
Just laying all my cards on the table.