Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Email: Jo296@cam.ac.uk
Mobile: +639175278094, +447442759754
Submitted to
ICA Conference 2008
Montreal
Biographical Notes
Jonathan Corpus Ong is a PhD Candidate in Sociology at Corpus Christi
College, University of Cambridge. He is one of only 100 students in the 2007 batch
with the prestigious Bill Gates Scholarship. He has an MSc in Politics and
Communication (Distinction) at the London School of Economics and Political
Science and a BA in Communication (Summa Cum Laude) at the Ateneo de Manila
University. He has worked in top media organizations including the BBC, McCann-
Erickson Philippines, and GMA Network. He is also a Lecturer in Media and
Globalization at the Ateneo de Manila University. His PhD dissertation is entitled
Cosmopolitanism, Media and Morality: How Audiences Relate with Distant Others In
and Around the Media. Fields of interest include: media ethics, media and migration,
child/youth audiences, and mediated public participation.
Paper Abstract
Introduction
In March 2007, I visited the homes of Filipino migrants in London as part of
the initial phase of my fieldwork. It was the first time that I myself had been away
from Manila for a significant period, and I was starved for news about the
“homeland”, especially for updates on the May 2007 Philippine National Elections.
Philippine Elections, as many commentators say, are best described as
carnivalesque, with the whole country thrown into frenzy from campaign road tours,
catchy advertising jingles, and the literally star-studded lineup of celebrities-turned-
politicos (Bionat 1998). I was then curious as to how such an occasion would qualify
as a kind of “media event” of ecstatic nationalism (Dayan & Katz 1992) for Filipinos
living away from the Philippines. And with 11% of the Philippine population living
abroad (“Stock Estimate”, 2006), I wanted to inquire into how this politically and
economically significant community engage with homeland political affairs by
watching the news, learning about the candidates, and subsequently voting as
transnational Filipino publics.
While doing my interviews however, I found that news about the elections
was not closely monitored. Families did not readily gather around the television set,
as I had thought. And talk about Philippine politics was either minimal or severely
critical, as Filipino migrants compared them to the more “systematic”, “sensible”, and
“serious” politics of the British Parliament. Having satellite subscriptions to The
Filipino Channel (TFC) then did not “magically transport” them to the homeland as
engaged citizens indifferent to the politics of the host country—a view that
conservative thinkers, policy-makers, and even the media themselves assume
(Madianou 2005a: 522; Aksoy & Robins 2000: 351). In short, I didn’t get a sense of
ecstatic nationalism from their news watching at all.
But, still listening and observing, I noted that Filipinos reflect on their Filipino-
ness in their media practices from a variety of less extravagant, though not
necessarily humble, ways: commenting on British news media’s depictions of Filipino
nurses, boasting about Filipino athletes winning international tournaments, claiming
the superiority of Filipino soap operas over “boring” British soaps, and others.
My most interesting discovery though happened at a birthday party in a
respondent’s apartment in Bromley-by-Bow, East London. The media were a big-
screen television, two microphones, and a thick playlist of “local” and “foreign” songs.
Singing karaoke, it seemed, was what brought Filipinos around the TV and, perhaps,
was what brought them “home”. Karaoke, the migrants claimed, is a distinctly
“Filipino practice”. “Only in the Philippines do you get shot for singing out of tune,”
one said unabashedly, referring to a BBC report of a man killed in Manila after an off-
key rendition of Frank Sinatra’s My Way. And throughout such evenings, talk, gossip,
and jokes about what it meant to be Filipino would draw both serious debate and
bawdy laughs. The question whether such a practice could be called a “high holiday”
of national pride when juxtaposed against “traditional” media practices of news
reception then became a curious turning point for my study.
This study, drawing from my interviews and participant observation with
London-based Filipino migrants, attempts to demonstrate the ways in which the
media influence identity constructions and the ways in which migrants themselves
use the media to actively construct their own identities. While it follows the tradition of
research that highlights the dialectical relationship between media and identity (e.g.,
Gillespie 1995; Aksoy & Robins 2000; Madianou 2005), I go on to highlight that both
“serious” and “soft” media are implicated in questions of inclusion and exclusion, of
helping and hindering belonging, of raising and erasing symbolic boundaries, for a
social group that is continually making sense of who they are and who they wish to
become. By bridging the “public knowledge project,” which focuses on audiences of
the news, and the “popular culture project,” which focuses on audiences of
entertainment media (Corner 1991), I argue that we gain a deeper understanding of
the complex operations of the media as an “environment” (Silverstone 2006),
inextricably linked with the everyday symbolic project of constructing the self
(Thompson 1995). This approach is able to show how migrant audiences select (or
even choose not to select) different media at particular occasions to connect and
disconnect from multiple national imaginaries and why.
Further, by examining media as technology, content and context, I show that
“serious” and “soft” media (products, texts, practices) provide individuals tools,
occasions, and spaces for ecstatic and banal expressions of nationalism and
transnationalism. Instead of assuming that transnational media consumption
seamlessly lift people out from their national context, I explore from the ground-up
how audiences weave in and out of their loyalties to British and Filipino publics
across the media of British news, Filipino news, and karaoke. This bottom-up
exploration, I argue, may perhaps shift the emphasis of media as disembedding
mechanisms (Giddens 1990) but as resources for reflexive reterritorialization, for
bringing the distant near, bringing there to here, bringing the past to the present,
bringing the image to the material environment, bringing home to host—at the
wherewithal of active audiences in everyday life.
Background
Family 1 Family of five (parents are nurses in the UK for 7 years,
(middle class) nursing college graduates; children are 9 and 7; one male co-
(Ida, Red, worker lives with the family, has lived in the UK for 3 years)
Boyet)
Family 2 Family of two (one sister is an accountant in the UK for 5
(middle class) years, university graduate; the other sister is a nurse in the
(Norma, Nora) UK for 2 years, nursing college graduate)
Family 3 Family of two (mother is a domestic helper in the UK for 30
(working class) years, some high school education; daughter is a university
(Liza, Bea) student)
Family 4 Family of four (father is a bartender in the UK for 25 years,
(working class) some high school education; mother is a domestic helper in
(Angel, Zeny, the UK for 20 years, some high school education; 17-year old
Kim, Carl) daughter and 12-year old son are in high school)
Family 5 Family of two (female cousin is a shop owner in the UK for 12
(middle class) years, some high school education; male cousin is a
(Lea, Ricky) shopkeeper in the UK for 10 years, some high school
education)
Family 6 Family of three (father is investment banker in the UK for 25
(upper middle years, university graduate; mother is a housewife for 25
class) years, university graduate; son is a university student)
(Herman,
Cora)
Family 7 Family of two (husband is an accountant in the UK for 6
(middle class) years, university graduate; wife is an NGO worker in the UK
(Hector, Lolit) for 4 years, university graduate)
1
The two TFC subscriber families were Family 2 and Family 5. Family 2 claims that they are “addicts” of
Filipino soaps. As recent migrants, they said that having TFC made their transition to living in London
“smoother”. Family 5 subscribes to TFC for their business, a Filipino shop in Victoria that also functions
as a tambayan (“hangout”) for customers, and for their home. Both middle-class families complain about
the steep subscription fees, but say that a subscription is “worth it”.
Earl’s Court, visit the Filipino store at Victoria, or sit in the waiting room at the
Philippine Embassy. This is Hector, an accountant, non-subscriber of TFC, and away
from the Philippines for six years:
“It’s usually when a friend has a party in his place that [my wife and I] get to watch TFC. We’ll
all chip in and bring [food such as] kare-kare and sinigang. Then if it’s a Sunday party, we try to
get there early to watch [showbiz news] and then [primetime news]. Yes, you can read about
Philippine news online, but it’s not the same [as TV]. And of course it’s always a riot to watch
the news with fellow Filipinos.”
Hector’s statement is echoed by the other non-subscriber respondents.
Consumption of homeland newscasts is generally a collective experience and
marked well in advance in their calendars. There were cases where news-viewing
practices were “reverential,” in line with Dayan and Katz’s (1992) description of
media events, such as in a get-together of Filipina professionals planned for the day
of the Philippine elections. They had all planned to leave work early to make it to the
primetime newscast, each one pitching in, bringing takeaway food. The viewers,
while expressing their frustrations with the Philippine political system and their
disdain for celebrity politicians, were nonetheless hopeful about their country—a
country that they claimed to love and wish to return to.
I also want to focus on another important point expressed by Hector: his
assertion that reading about Philippine news online is simply not the same as
watching it on TV. And I think that this points to how television, for these migrants
(and perhaps even for non-migrant audiences), remains as the medium that is most
central to the ritualistic experience of news. While some respondents admit to going
out of their way and buying Filipino newspapers in Filipino stores or logging on to
gmanews.tv, the sentiment remains:
Boyet: “I don’t feel as connected. It’s still different if you see it on TV. It’s more real.”
…
Cora: “It’s not as if I have difficulty with imagining things. But the impact is much greater when
you can see it for yourself.”
Television as an integral part of the moral economy, of the environment of the
household, has been underscored in the literature (Silverstone 1994; Livingstone
1998a). And while recent scholarship has emphasized the role of the Internet in
fostering diasporic public spheres (e.g., Mitra 2001), perhaps migrants’ experience
with television—and television news, in particular—remains as the most enabling and
disabling medium in their everyday symbolic project to integrate with the publics of
home and host. Its banality, continuity, and audio-visual force all contribute to its
ritual character and its concurrent promise of social cohesion. And when television
representations deny migrants and minorities of this promise, the crush of rejection is
perhaps more painful here than with other media.
In attempting to bridge the “public knowledge project” and the “popular culture
project,” this study demonstrates how different media—“soft” and “serious”, news and
entertainment, national and transnational, mass and particularistic—are all implicated
in issues of identity and belonging, inclusion and exclusion. While hardly an apples-
to-apples comparison, examining the media of news and karaoke reveals how
technology, content, and context provide roadsigns directed to either home or host
(imagi)nations. From banal, taken-for-granted language calling viewers out as “British
publics” in the news to ecstatic, hyperreal images of the motherland in the video of
karaoke, individuals reflect on their dual loyalties in their use of both media.
But while the media prompt reflection among audiences, audiences
themselves actively appropriate media and provide them with meanings that
themselves give meaning to their condition. This dialectic is most evident in Filipino
migrants’ use of karaoke. In one direction, karaoke displays powerful reminders of
Filipino-ness in its selection of songs and images pointing to the homeland. And in
the other direction, audiences themselves confer on the medium greater social
significance by placing its use at the heart of Filipino community gatherings, indeed,
at the hearth of the home(land). As food and décor flag the nation in a more banal
manner, high holidays of Filipino-ness find their culmination in the singing of the
nation. In reterritorializing the homeland on foreign soil through their creative use of
symbols, the emotions of joy and even bittersweet nostalgia simultaneously enable a
temporary “lifting out” to the homeland. However, as it is a salient site where
symbolic boundaries are drawn, karaoke practices serve to exclude other Filipinos
who themselves do not carry traditional markers of the homeland, whether it be by
their language, hybrid ethnicity, or social class.
My findings also point to a great significance to the role of emotions in
connecting and disconnecting to national imaginations across media consumption.
Filipino migrants in everyday life, I discovered, are sincere, if not desperate, in their
attempt to “fit in” British society. They look to British news as a resource for them to
learn about British culture and to give them a common language, even common
accent, to speak with their British officemates and friends. Consumption of British
media is everyday, routine, necessary, indispensable. And they wholeheartedly, if
unconsciously, accept their interpellation as “British publics” by announcers of the
evening news. However, certain topics in the news that provoke fearful and
defensive responses snap them out from their fantasy to be included in British
society and direct them back to the homeland imagination. News items on
immigration and terrorism remind migrants of their not really being part of the “British
public,” whether they are contract workers or British citizens, and result in talk where
they exaggerate their radical difference with people of dominant white ethnicity.
Indeed, literature in media and migration studies (e.g., Gillespie 1995; Madianou
2005) have previously identified that representations of conflict wherein the news
media resort to binarisms of us-and-them tend to reproduce this same discourse
among migrants’ media talk. And here, this is expressed mostly in growing concern
for other Filipinos, rather than as an affront to the dominant ethnic group, such as
Cora’s response to a hate crime report: “This is why we have to stick together.”
Feelings of hurt and anger often greet British news media representations of
Filipinos and the Philippines as well, prompting a dissociation with the host country
and an association with the homeland. Complaints about Filipinos being represented
as destitute or dangerous or backward or bizarre by British media are all too
common, as they are able to compare these with the dominant discourse of Filipinos
as modern day heroes in their exposure Philippine news. But more fundamentally, it
is in the lack of visibility of Filipinos in international news that they speak with the
clearest and strongest voice acknowledging their Filipino-ness. Moments of tension
are when they begin to see themselves as representatives of their home country in
the foreign space of their host country. Across the media of news and karaoke then,
it is emotional, rather than rational, responses that direct migrants to the homeland. It
is in the most ecstatic moments of media consumption that they find themselves
reflecting, and reflecting on, their Filipino-ness.
Future studies should further explore the continuities and discontinuities of
identity construction across news and entertainment media. In bridging the “public
knowledge project” and the “popular culture project”, we not only gain a more
complex picture of the dynamics of mediation—its ability to include and exclude—we
also see how audiences engage and disengage, participate and withdraw, associate
and dissociate, with national imaginaries. While such efforts are seen in political
communication (e.g., Coleman 2006), we need to apply this insight more in media
and migration studies, where the politics of inclusion/exclusion is a central theme.
Studying migrants’ rational and emotional responses to fiction films about the
homeland and even home videos might provide us with greater insight as to the
hows and whens of their association with home and host publics. While I was not
able to see significant differences in identity construction among the families in terms
of social class, future studies will also benefit from a more diverse sample of families.
Social class—and its attendant cultural capital—are greatly recognized to
enable/disable belonging after all. I feel that my sample was too limited to tease out
its more subtle dynamics, and future studies can expand on this. Lastly, my attention
to media as technology, content, and context enabled me to bring together insights
from reception, domestication and everyday life traditions in audience studies.
However, Livingstone (1998b) reminds us that it is crucial for comparative research
to supplement the limitations of such approaches. Other researchers can perhaps be
interested to take up this challenge and see how migrant communities in other
contexts appropriate news and karaoke in everyday life and with what consequences
as regards their roots and routes, their tradition and translation, their being and
becoming.
References
Ang, I. (1985). Watching Dallas: Soap opera and the melodramatic imagination. New York:
Methuen.
Aksoy, A. & K. Robins (2000). “Thinking across spaces: Transnational television from
Turkey.” European Journal of Cultural Studies. Vol 3(3), 343-365.
Asis, M.M.B. (2006). “The Philippines’ Culture of Migration.” In Migration Information Source
Online. Available URL: http://www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=364.
Accessed 14 April 2008.
Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity, trans. M. Ritter. London: Sage.
Bionat, M. (1998). How to win (or lose) in Philippine elections. Pasig City, Phils: Anvil
Publishing.
Buckingham, D. (2008). (ed.) “Introducing identity.” Youth, identity and digital media.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Buenafe, D. (9 May 2007). Europe News Bureau Chief. ABS-CBN The Filipino Channel.
Personal Conversation. London Victoria Station.
Cabanes, J. (2007). “Pinoy postings: How Filipino professionals in Singapore use
performances of patriotic pride and cosmopolitanism as strategies to re-present their cultural
identity in blogs.” Paper presented at Asia Research Institute Graduate Conference. National
University of Singapore. 27-28 July 2007.
Coleman, S. (2006). “How the other half votes: Big Brother viewers and the 2005 general
election.” Hansard Society.
Corner, J. (1991). “Meaning, genre and context: The problematics of ‘public knowledge’ in the
new audience studies.” In Curran, J. & M. Gurevitch (eds.) Mass media and society. London:
Edward Arnold.
Creswell, J.W. (1994). Research design, qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand
Oaks: Sage
Dayan, D. & E. Katz (1992). Media events: The live broadcasting of history. Cambridge,
Mass: Harvard University Press.
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age.
California: Stanford University Press.
Gordolan, L. (2004). “Care workers briefing.” Centre on Migration, Policy, and Society Online.
Available URL: http://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/Briefings/CareWorkersBriefing.pdf. Accessed 25
July 2007.
Hall, S. (1996). “Introduction: Who needs identity?” In Hall, S. & P. Du Gay (eds.) Questions
of cultural identity. London: Sage.
Madianou, M. (2005). Mediating the nation: News, audiences, and the politics of identity.
London: UCL Press.
May, T. (1993). Social research: Issues, methods, and process. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Mitra, A. (2001). “Diasporic voices in cyberspace.” In New Media & Society Vol 3(1), 29-48.
“OFW Remittances hit US$12.8 billion in 2006, exceeds forecast.” In Philippine Information
Agency Online. Available URL: http://www.pia.gov.ph/?
m=12&sec=reader&rp=2&fi=p070221.htm&no=16&date=. Accessed 14 April 2008.
“Profile of the Filipino community in the UK.” In Philippine Embassy UK Online. Available
URL: http://philembassy-uk.org/default.asp?iID=KGIMG. Accessed 14 April 2008.
Robins, K. & A. Aksoy (2001). “From spaces of identity to mental spaces: Lessons from
Turkish-Cypriot cultural experience in Britain.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, Vol
27(4), 685-711.
Said, E. (1999). Out of place: A memoir. New York: Knopf.
Saunders, R.A. (2006). “Denationalized digerati in the virtual near abroad: The Internet’s
paradoxical impact on national identity among minority Russians. Global Media and
Communication, Vol 2(1), 43-69.
Schramm, W.L. & W. Porter. Men, women, messages and media: Understanding human
communication, 2nd ed. New York: Harper Collins.
Shome, R. (2006). “Thinking through the diaspora: Call centers, India, and a new politics of
hybridity.” International Journal of Cultural Studies, Vol 9(1): 105-124.
Silverstone, R. (2006). Media and morality: On the rise of mediapolis. London: Polity.
Thompson, J. (1995). The media and modernity: A social theory of the media. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Tyner, J.A. (2004). Made in the Philippines: Gendered discourses and the making of
migrants. London: Routledge.