Imagination is an underrated skill in sociology.

Imagination appears
counter-intuitive to the demands of empirical investigation. To be
sociological is not to be delusional. Sociological investigation involves
critically examining realities, not daydreaming about unachievable
ambitions. Daydreams are for poets, musicians, novelists, and romantics.
Sociologists have the duty to puncture fantasies, not perpetuate them. For
empiricists, the promise of sociology is to make sense of society through
careful and systematic investigation of reality.

encounters. Reading C. Wright Mills’s The Sociological Imagination

(1959), students are challenged to link personal troubles to public issues,
to realize that what is biographical is historical. To imagine sociologically
is to locate one’s place in the world, and situate everyday realities to
broader social transformations that shape even the most mundane
encounters.
The Philippine Sociological Review’s Special Issue on Imagined
Democracies proposes a demanding concept of imagination to make
sense of today’s realities and articulate a vision for the future. While
it remains important for the theory, methodology, and practice of
sociological research to commit to the rigors of social investigation, it
is equally important to build our capacities to imagine better futures. To
make sense of today’s democracy, we need both sharp empirical tools
and an imaginative gaze.
What does it mean to imagine democracies sociologically? What are
the ethics and politics of such endeavor? Is this simply mental calisthenics,

on the world?
This introductory piece puts forward an agenda for imagining today’s
democracies sociologically. Imagining democracy means two things.

from these narratives, whose voices are subordinated, and which interests
are ultimately served. This is the empirical task of imagination.
Second, to imagine democracy is to visualize paths to the future. The
crisis of today’s democracy is a crisis of imagination. In various parts
of the world, we have seen indications of citizens increasingly growing
discontented with some facets of democracy. This is manifest in low voter
turnout, declining membership in political parties, or general distrust of
politicians. Democracies become vulnerable to tyranny when they are
exhausted from this malaise.
But democracies today have also taken root in some of the most
unexpected places, whether it is a Facebook rant against the pork barrel
scam that evolved to the Million People March, or a sociology student
who wore a cardboard sign on the train to draw attention to extra-judicial
killings. Democracies are always reimagined, performed, and contested.
The challenge is to identify and resist voices that tell us to stop dreaming,
push the boundaries of what can be done, and map the routes that lead us
to our aspirations.

In 2012, Yaron Ezrahi published the book Imagined Democracies:

Necessary Political Fictions. The book is premised on a critique of the
European Enlightenment’s “ideological tendency” to distinguish science
from religion, reason from emotion, politics from the arts, and facts from
to the project of modernity, these too have obscured our understanding of
the concept of the “imaginary.” For Ezrahi, the imaginary is both fact and

For Ezrahi, politics is far from being a monolithic practice that

perpetuates particular interests or goals. It is instead an “eclectic patchwork
of half-baked programs” the government promotes while the public sphere

the democratic ideal is central to the project of modernity, in practice it is

not composed of a coherent infrastructure built on rationality but rather
a “profoundly fraught emotional and social condition” (Mishra 2016).
What lends coherence to these tense conditions are the ingredients of

scripts” that give life to institutions and collective behavior (Ezrahi

A democracy, like any other political regime, must be imagined and

performed by multiple agencies in order to exist. Like a symphony, democracy
has to be performed reasonably well in order to be realized as a political world.

To say that democracy entails performance does not mean that

democracy is an inauthentic experience. Democracy is a necessary

that account for the durable character of today’s politics, even though

poetry is often portrayed as passionate, serendipitous, monogamous,

heterosexual, physically co-located, sensuous, and conjugal. Everyday

There are many forms of relationships in today’s society such as same-

sex couples, polyamorous arrangements, unmarried cohabiting partners,

has an enduring quality because it provides the compass by which we

 The same can be said of democracies. Everyday realities remind
us of democracy’s distorted character, from news reports of corruption
scandals to the exasperating incompetence of our bureaucracy. But every
six years, the country is captivated by the spell of electoral politics.

the “power of the ballot” and the importance of “getting our voices
heard,” for these lend credibility to the process. Ethnographic work on

2015), reveal the emotional foundations of voting, for such act generates

and has become “central to the experience of a contemporary citizen”

“the people have spoken,” which, in turn, give legitimacy to elected

leaders. Even more revealing is its sheer continuation. Despite questions
over electoral integrity, holding periodic elections is celebrated as a
democratic achievement, for it symbolizes a peaceful transfer of power.

but they may gain credibility as they establish their congruence with

social resonance.
Take the case of Rodrigo Duterte’s war on drugs. The war on drugs

street-level pushers are part of Duterte’s construction of a dystopian

narrative that the Philippines is at the brink of becoming a narco-state.
The government’s own data belies this, but Duterte’s performance of the
threat, from his emphatic line “My god, I hate drugs,” to his supporters
posting gruesome photographs of children murdered by drug addicts in
social media, conjure an image of a nation in crisis. This is a necessary
approach to the drug problem. The nation is in crisis. Therefore, we must
go to war. And when we are at war, there will be blood. There will be
casualties. Normal rules do not apply until the war is won.
The concept of the imaginary illustrates its analytical potency in this
example. As mentioned earlier, an imaginary is simultaneously fact and

base their rational calculations on hard evidence. But there is a competing

rationality here. Citizens’ subjective experiences and everyday anxieties
caused by petty crimes, drug-related violence, and the emotional toll
of having family members addicted to shabu (crystal meth), as well
as the growing mistrust with the criminal justice system, provide the
cultural stock to which Duterte’s dystopian narrative appeals (Curato

emotions, statistics from subjective experiences. But for those who view
this social phenomenon from the perspective of the war on drugs as an
imaginary, the issue has less to do with weighing the more superior form

from this imaginary, who is oppressed by it, and what power structures it
creates and which ones it dismantles.

Duterte regime, but characteristic of any persuasive political project.

against corruption, where his performance was anchored on the language

of good governance. Part of his regime’s performance is the distinction
between President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s corrupt regime to the

politicians behind bars (dramatic arrests and release of mug shots are

moral high ground, being the son of democracy icons. The Aquino
regime’s narrative is also an illustration that imaginaries can only go so
far. When the government claims success in economic growth marked by
objective economic indicators, these can easily be negated by everyday
miseries citizens experience, whether it is surviving the kilometric queues
for the MRT (Metro Rail Transit), or waiting for relief goods after a
mega-disaster. The transition from Aquino to Duterte is a demonstration
of how one imaginary collapses and gives rise to another. Imaginaries,
therefore, are contested stories a nation wants to tell about itself. They

In the aftermath of Donald Trump’s election as President of the United

States, progressive movements, pundits, pollsters, and intellectuals all
over the world attempted to make sense of this unexpected outcome,
setting in motion a global process of reckoning, especially among liberals.
We have now entered “the age of anger” Pankaj Mishra (2016) argues,
where the public’s discontent from widespread inequalities has been laid

ressentiment is particularly useful to capture the fury of publics who are

Did anyone on the left foresee that the reign of neoliberalism would end

discredited by successive economic and social crises, somebody else would

steal our lunch?

The failure of the global intellectual class to anticipate the rise of

Mishra (2016) argues, “because our dominant intellectual concepts and

categories seem unable to process an explosion of uncontrolled forces.”
There are exceptions though. One of the highlights for sociological
research in the past year is Arlie Russell Hochschild’s Strangers in Their
Own Land (2016). In this book, Hochschild unpacks the resentments of
Americans who joined the Tea Party Movement through ethnographic
work. Contrary to Hillary Clinton’s depiction of these individuals as a
“basket of deplorables,” Hochschild describes the sense of betrayal white
Americans feel when immigrants, refugees, and African Americans “cut
in line” in receiving government support. Hochschild does not disparage
her respondents as racists and xenophobes, but empathetically tells their
stories which, in turn, provide bases for thoughtful critique about the
very same conditions that gave rise to Trump. Hochschild’s work serves
as inspiration for she, as in her previous work on the outsourced self
(2012) and second shift (Hochschild and Machung 2012), underscores
the importance of attentiveness and critical listening in sociological
research.
Research on the Philippines has pursued comparable lines of inquiry.

a counterpoint to the disparaging portrayals of masa voters as “bobo”

(stupid), uneducated, and short-sighted citizens who sell their votes
without thinking about the long-term implications of putting corrupt

construct a vision of “good politics,” where politicians that intellectuals

consider to be perpetuating patronage politics are the politicians that, for
slum communities, accord them respect and dignity. Wataru Kusaka’s
book, Moral Politics in the Philippines
this time critiquing the moralization of politics in the Philippines that
tends to look down on the poor’s ethical calculations. Kusaka argues
against the “civic exclusivism” perpetuated by middle-class moralities,
and instead advocates an agonistic, instead of antagonistic, approach
to political struggles. The Institute of Philippine Culture’s (IPC) series
on research on The Vote of the Poor contributes to this conversation. In
2004, IPC’s research found that the poor maintain idealistic notions of
leadership, where piety, sincerity, and responsibility are prized virtues

far from being a case of the rich manipulating the poor, the meanings
impoverished communities associate with vote buying range from
considering it as “biyaya” (grace), a form of protest due to the lack of
government support or rightful earning for labor one has rendered (this is
often associated with the “hakot” or “transported” crowd). The poor vote,
in other words, is a thinking vote (see Aguilar 2005).
transformation in the past year is only one side of the coin. To diagnose
what happened is one thing, to diagnose what did not happen is another.
Examining why alternative visions for the future did not materialize is
also the task of sociology. Here, the shift from understanding imaginaries
to using imagination is key.
Imagination, as Eddie S. Glaude Jr. argues, “helps us break loose from
the inertia of our habits.” It is imagination that encourages us to challenge
the status quo in all of its ugliness. It is imagination that inspires us to see
beyond what is right in front of us (Glaude 2016).
In 2016, the International Sociological Association (ISA) set the
agenda of imagining the future as a task for sociological work. The
third ISA forum and its dedicated website “The Futures We Want” push
sociologists to take a “forward orientation in empirical, theoretical,
and normative research to tackle the problems and opportunities that
cut across borders” (Schulz 2016). In a series of curated posts written
by sociologists from all over the world, the Futures Forum on ISA’s
website presents visions for alternative futures and roadmaps for social
transformation. The topics range from network revolutions to climate
justice, to a “southern solution” in sociological education. A futures-
oriented research is a welcome development in global sociology, for the
promise of sociology, to use Mills’s language, is both a commitment to
the past and an obligation to the future.
In the same way that there is a good way of doing research, there is
also a good way of imagining futures. How can imagining the future be

powerful. In fact, imagination is the key to a robust sense of the good life. It
motivates us to act for what is possible and not settle for things as they are,
and helps us see the fullness of the humanity of those with whom we live.
connection between understanding why things are the way they are, and
how they might otherwise be. And this process, I suggest, should be
inspired by the virtues of criticality, deliberation, and creativity.

First, we need to critically examine which forces sap our energies for
imagination. These practices, I reckon, are often banal, and it is in their
banality that their power lies. Recall the last time someone put forward an
ambitious political agenda like increasing the minimum wage, demanding
free education, or exhuming the corpse of the dictator Ferdinand Marcos
at the National Heroes’ Cemetery. These ambitions, more often than not,
are shut down with sneering comments. “How can you implement it?”
“Do you know how much it costs?” “That’s impossible.” “What a silly
idea.” “You must be dreaming.”
These comments may be well-meaning, but they dishonor our dreams
and urge us to stick to what is familiar. Like colonial subjects disparaged
for aspiring for independence, a post-colonial mindset works to limit the
horizon of our imaginations. This perhaps is the reason why shortcuts
are so alluring. Instead of imagining humane ways of approaching social
problems, we get enticed by solutions that are quick and actionable,
whether it is ridding society of drug addicts through murder, or evicting
slum communities because they get in the way of constructing a new
business hub. When our imaginations are curtailed, cruelty takes over.
Limiting our imagination only serves the dreams of the powerful while
creating nightmares of insecurity, violence, and hopelessness for the
vulnerable (Khasnabish and Haiven 2014). Now, more than ever, we
must not let anyone tell us that our “thoughts, daydreaming, and critical
theorizing aren’t important” (Thrasher 2016).
This is not to say that practical politics is not important. To think
of strategy is critical. This must be guided by a clear-headed and
ethical vision, instead of the tone of defeatism and resignation. The
task of sociology then is to think about what society dismisses as
unthinkable, and extend the boundaries of our imagination to this
scale (see Back 2009).
 Second, our imagination should be inspired by virtues of deliberation.
Simply put, deliberation is a vision of politics that places inclusive
reason-giving at the center of its conduct (Dryzek 2012). Imagination
cannot be monopolized by intellectuals, the literati, social movements,
and the political class. Fundamentalists, right-wing extremists, feminist
campaigners, journalists, bloggers, grassroots organizers, anarchists,
celebrities, rebels, and indigenous activists, among others, all have
competing visions for the future. Ezrahi is right to point out that the
dichotomy in our politics today is not separated by authoritarian or
democratic regimes, but by “competing clusters of popular imagination

Our imaginations should be subject to the critical scrutiny of others.

We must be ready to defend it, maintain epistemic humility, and remain
open to the possibility that better visions for the future are out there.
Imagination is a battleground, and it can only be a productive battleground
if we use this space to test our ideas, develop attentiveness to the needs

it, “let your mind become a moving prism catching light from as many

Sociologists have various terms for the application of the virtues of

deliberation in sociological practice. Les Back refers to this as developing

global attentiveness that challenges the sociological listener’s

preconceptions and position while at the same time it engages critically
with the content of what is being said and heard. It also means engaging into

enemies. (Back 2009)

sociology as space for dialogic inquiry. For Holmwood, the imagination

that sociologists contest each other’s claims. The task for imagination,
therefore, is for sociologists to “be rigorous in our practices, modest in
our claims, and open to the surprise and pleasure of learning from others,

This ethos is especially critical in the practice of public sociology

(Burawoy 2005), which seeks to enrich the connection between the
sociologist as a professional and the sociologist as a citizen.

Finally, our imagination must be creative. The productive power of

imagination lies in creating ideas that serve as a resource for broader
publics to visualize collective aspirations and navigate their way into
these ambitions. There are several intellectual traditions from which
today’s sociologists can take inspiration.

From Andres Bonifacio to Simón Bolívar to Frantz Fanon, our necessary

“progressives” to defend institutions of liberalism. “But that’s not going

to work,” he said. Rather than defending the status quo that authoritarians
seek to dismantle, it is important to place our imaginations on the side

inspirations for the future, it may be worth looking at our radical pasts

always negotiated.
Another inspiration for creative imagination is to draw from Mills’s
conception of sociology as a craft. Sociology, for Mills, must have literary
ambitions. He rejects the “turgid and polysyllabic prose” that prevails in

craftsmanship” is crucial to sociological practice. One must always ask,

on the craft of writing could not be more relevant today. Sociology is an

“imaginative trade,” a craft that should re-enchant the senses and make
 It seems that the more avenues become available for sociologists
to engage broader publics, the more pressures there are to speak the
professional jargon to get published in academic journals.
This does not have to be the case. The Philippine Sociological Review,
for example, has taken active steps to discourage the use of jargon unless

indeed, passionate communication style that entice broader audiences to

engage with scholarly work. The journal has also started experimenting
in various forms of dissemination, such as producing a video featuring
an interview with Professor Randolf David (in this issue), and inviting
shorter commentaries that spark engaging debates within the discipline.
Beyond the academy, Philippine sociology has a rich tradition of
creatively engaging broader publics through work in broadcast, print,
and digital media, in grassroots organizing, taking administrative
responsibilities that shape the norms of the university, and developing
mentorship styles that foster the critical voices of young sociologists.
The discipline has always welcomed creativity. These days, however, it is
worth pausing to think of other ways in which to make our interventions
more strategic, meaningful, and humanistic.

This Special Issue on Imagined Democracies brings together a range of

voices that make sense of political transformations in the Philippines as

own imaginary of contemporary Philippine democracy and illustrates

the various ways in which these imaginaries gain power and create new
forms of contestations.

Rodrigo Duterte’s rise to power. The issue begins with Walden Bello’s

Bello puts forward the concept of fascism to characterize Duterte’s

governance style. He attributes Duterte’s emergence to the failure of
liberal democracy to deliver on its promise, as well to Duterte’s distinct
capacity to enliven a grassroots movement that supported his bid to
the presidency. Bello is one of the best examples of sociologists who
have mastered the art of intellectual craftsmanship. In this piece, there

provocative!) ideas that draw on Bello’s own observations in his capacity

as a sociologist, activist, and progressive politician.

the lens of moral politics. He compares Aquino’s civic morality of decency to

Duterte’s morality of uncivic nationalism. Kusaka’s extensive ethnographic

Duterte as a folk hero and promoted an appealing narrative that catapulted

him to the presidency. Kusaka draws on the language of “social banditry,”
in which the corrupt social order is dismantled to give rise to another regime
that has the tendency to undermine democratic institutions.
Kusaka’s article is best read in conjunction with Herbert Docena’s
commentary (the last piece in this issue) on Kusaka’s latest book on moral
politics. Docena interrogates Kusaka’s conceptualization of hegemony.

that warrant further unpacking to better understand the character of

contemporary Philippine politics, especially the barriers that thwart
the development of counter-hegemonic discourses of democracy and
political change.
Adele Webb continues the analysis of Duterte’s rise to power in the
piece “Why are the Middle Class Misbehaving? Exploring Democratic
Ambivalence and Authoritarian Nostalgia.” Drawing from her years
of PhD research, Webb conceptualizes “democratic ambivalence” as
an alternative imaginary to the dichotomy of authoritarianism and
democracy. “Democracy is a freedom that needs restraint” is one of the

a “Filipino” as a subject incapable of self-rule.

Cosmopolitan Engagements in Contending Self-determination Struggles,”

focuses on the case of inclusion in the Bangsamoro. Jose Jowel P.
Mindanews
imaginaries between the Bangsamoro and Lumad peoples in constructing
a political entity. What makes this piece intriguing is Canuday’s use of
the concept of “everyday cosmopolitanism” when making sense of the
Bangsamoro and indigenous peoples’ struggle for self-determination.
This article pursues many lines of inquiry and these all come together in

and cross-cultural and cross political understanding, the Bangsamoro and

indigenous peoples showed how they act in the cosmopolitan spirit while

locked up in the closets of provincialism to which and whom Philippine

power, inclusion, and solidarities in complex times.

The next four pieces focus on the political sociology of Professor

Randolf S. David. This year, Anvil published David’s much-awaited
book Understanding Philippine Society, Culture, and Politics. It inspired

to Randy David” tries to solve a conceptual puzzle that has blemished

Rorty’s record as a pragmatist philosopher. The conceptual puzzle
involves Rorty’s notion of “ethnocentrism.” Rorty’s critics have dismissed
this conceptualization as divisive and relativistic. Llanera resolves this
critique by theorizing ethnocentrism in a non-egoistic fashion, drawing

incisive take on how pragmatist philosophy can be enriched by drawing

on Philippine examples, as lucidly portrayed in David’s work.
The second article takes a critical turn and engages David’s concept of
modernity through a close reading of Niklas Luhmann’s systems theory.
Erwin F. Rafael’s “Philippine Problems are Problems of Modernity, Not

Modernity” argues that institutional dysfunctions are better understood

as problems of modernity itself, instead of David’s framing of these
issues as problems of the Philippines’ transition to modernity. Rafael’s
intervention provides a fascinating counter-narrative to how Luhmann’s
work can be used in linking empirical observations to sociological
theorizing, opening further spaces for debates about the social ills that
are inherent to the project of modernity.

a thoughtful account of how the book speaks to today’s confronting

problems by situating it to David’s broader intellectual trajectory. She
characterizes David’s scholarship in relation to Michael Burawoy’s

contributions as part of the tradition of public sociology where he does not

only tell us what is wrong, but also proposes a way forward. Promoting
scholarship that is both critical and productive is certainly a high bar, but
a worthy inspiration for contemporary times.
David’s thoughts on this subject are further unpacked in our interview
entitled “Truth Can be Subversive.” There are many motivations for setting
up this interview. One is to clarify some of the issues raised in his latest book.
Another motivation has to do with timing. The interview was conducted in
December 2016, almost six months into the Duterte administration, and a
few weeks after the wave of youth-led protests against the burial of dictator
Ferdinand Marcos at the National Heroes’ Cemetery. David takes stock of

of modernity inspired by Bonifacio and Jose Rizal to the sources of national

esteem of a country like the Philippines. David foregrounds the importance
of contestation among various imaginaries as a way to live in a complex
society. “I do not believe that the decision to give Marcos a hero’s burial

David’s optimistic imaginary of Philippine democracy surfaces in

various parts of the interview. When asked about his thoughts on the

asked about Duterte’s track record on human rights, David turns to the
concept of “unexamined common sense” which underpins his popular
support. “This is really an anti-poor war,” he argues, “and more people
.
public intellectual in today’s confusing time. David shows candor here,

anti-intellectualism and post-truth politics. David makes a case for the

legacy of modernity. “We have to show that truth can remain subversive,
that the truth of science can produce a better world,” (p. 1 8
9)

who has opted out of social media, blogging, and engaging with digital

“Our obligation is to share that sociological imagination with the broader

public. That has always been my vision for our discipline” (p. 194).

are many ways of interpreting what transpired, and even more ways
of thinking about what else can be done. This Special Issue hopes to
engage not only readers who read the journal for lucid summations
of contemporary social transformations, but also those who express
curiosity over how we can imagine better futures. Through this modest
contribution to scholarship, our hope is, as David puts it, to become

Nicole Curato
Editor

There are many people who made this Special Issue possible. First on the list are
the organizers of the 2016 Philippine Sociological Society’s National Conference at

My gratitude also goes to the Dean of De La Salle University’s College of Liberal

Arts, Professor Julio Teehankee, for providing the intellectual space to develop
the contours of this volume. Micah Tadena took a leadership role in curating the
images in volume. Connie Maraan’s meticulous and thoughtful editorial support
was instrumental in the timely completion of this publication. I am and will forever
be grateful to Rossine Fallorina for being one of the most dependable people in
inspiration. Finally, the anonymous reviewers who provided enthusiastic, rigorous,

articles are published in this volume.

Philippine Presidential Campaign.” Philippine Studies

Back, Les. 2009. “Global Attentiveness and the Sociological Ear.” Sociological
Research Online

Banerjee, Mukulika. 2015. Why India Votes

Distant Love
Burawoy, Michael. 2005. “For Public Sociology.” American Sociological
Review
How Voters Feel
Coronel, Sheila S. and Yvonne T. Chua. 2004. The Poor Vote is a Thinking Vote.
).

and Duterte’s Rise to Power.” Journal of Current Southeast Asian

Understanding Philippine Society, Culture, and Politics,

Dryzek, John S. 2012. Foundations and Frontiers of Deliberative Governance.

Ezrahi, Yaron. 2012. Imagined Democracies: Necessary Political Fictions.

Craft of Sociology Revisited.” Theory, Culture & Society

Time.com.

).
Hochschild, Arlie Russell. 2012. The Outsourced Self: What Happens When We Pay
Others to Live Our Lives for Us
Hochschild, Arlie Russell. 2016. Strangers in their Own Land: Anger and Mourning
on the American Right
Hochschild, Arlie and Anne Machung. 2012. The Second Shift: Working Families and
the Revolution at Home

Critique of Michael Burawoy.” Sociological Theory

Moral Politics in the Philippines: Inequality, Democracy and
the Urban Poor.

Sociology of Emotions.” Sociology

Jenkins, Scott. 2016. “Ressentiment, Imaginary Revenge, and the Slave
Revolt.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research

Khasnabish, Alex and Max Haiven. 2014. “Why Social Movements Need the Radical
Imagination.” Open Democracy

social-movements-need-radical-imagination).
Mills, C. Wright. 1959. The Sociological Imagination
Books.
Mishra, Pankaj. 2016. “Welcome to the age of anger.” The Guardian.

welcome-age-anger-brexit-trump).
On the Genealogy of Morals. Translated by Walter

Buying and Voter Education in the Philippines.” Institute for Advanced

Study, School of Social Sciences, Occasional Paper No. 21. Retrieved May 5,

for a Better World.” Futureswewant.net.

).

Emboldened.” The Guardian.

progressives-aghast-they-should-be-emboldened).

Splendour.” The Guardian