Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Apathetic millennials?
The personal politics of today’s young people
Cleve V. Arguelles
This chapter is divided into two sections. In the first section, I trace the social
conditions and the consequent forms of political participation of the previous
generations. As the approach is macro-historical, spectacular moments of
participation were deliberately chosen to reflect a generation’s politics (instead of
the everyday and the particular). The generational lens adopted here may have also
uncritically homogenized generations. But this is far from the aim of this chapter.
Some political moments discussed may have only mobilized or involved certain
segments of the population. But they nonetheless occupy a valuable place in the
political imagination of one’s generation. Whether the radical university students
that led the anti-dictatorship struggle or the rural youth who joined the anti-
Japanese guerrilla units, these particular youth populations that involved
themselves in defining political moments may be argued to represent a generation’s
politics because of its long-term impact and symbolic value. The second section
accounts for the shared social tragedies or experiences that continue to shape the
specific kind of politics of Filipino millennials. Economic vulnerability,
transnationalizing family, and political detachment are significant experiences that
affect this generation. In turn, they significantly influence their evolving preference
for a personalized and amorphous kind of political involvement.
In young societies like the Philippines, their political futures depend on the
participation of their young people. Societies expect the youth to regularly lead
political renewals by drawing on their fresh ideas, energy, and dynamism. However,
Arguelles, Cleve V. 2020. “Apathetic Millennials? The Personal Politics of Today’s Young
People”. In Rethinking Filipino Millennials: Alternative Perspectives on a
Misunderstood Generation, edited by Jayeel S. Cornelio. Manila: University of Santo
Tomas Publishing House, pp. 41-63.
When news of the hero’s burial of former dictator Ferdinand Marcos broke out,
protests led primarily by the young erupted nationwide. Young professionals and
students as young as grade school kids filled the streets carrying social media-ready
protest signs. Their placards had the millennial imprint. One sign, which said “we’re
young, broke, and woke!”, appropriated a famous pop song to dispel notions of
youth apathy towards politics. Another sign, written with the words “I skipped my
Tinder date for this”, implicitly claimed that young people got their priorities right.
They were not the much-maligned generation that is supposedly seized only by
trivial matters like sex and dating. And another placard, which read “I was not alive
then but I still remember”, summed up the atmosphere of the protests where many
young people despite being born after the dictator Marcos’ rule learned the difficult
lessons of the country’s authoritarian past.
Yet, while indignant voices characterized the protests around the hero’s burial of
Marcos, cheering crowds of young people welcomed the son as he went around the
country for his attempt to secure the second highest government position in the
land. His campaign rallies, where he discussed his message of reinstating the glory
of the Philippines under the dead dictator, had the support of a massive number of
youth. Captivated by the message, the dictator’s son consistently topped university
election surveys. He became an easy friend to aspirational millennials. In between
shots of Starbucks mugs and “Instagrammable” food plates, selfies with him were
inserted in their well-curated feeds. And during the birth anniversary of the dead
dictator, throngs of young people joined the barrage of thank you messages on
social media. One of the more widely shared posts said, “If Marcos was not ousted,
we would have been Singapore by now! Shame to the previous generation who stole
our chance to live in a First World nation.”
reality than initially portrayed by previous studies. Around the globe, young people
are accused of political indifference (Zukin et al 2006). Millennials are said to have
been abandoning elections in droves and abstaining from mainstream politics
(Pattie et al 2004; Dalton 2008). Some scholars even argue that the crisis of
democracy in many societies can be traced to the political complacency of this
generation (Farthing 2010). Without a clear commitment to traditional exercises of
democratic citizenship like voting, joining political parties or attending rallies, they
endanger the legitimacy and sustainability of contemporary political institutions
(Putnam 2000; Mycock and Tonge 2012). In the Philippines, conversations about
millennials reflect the same themes. Many of the country’s contemporary political
misfortunes, from the election of populist president Rodrigo Duterte to the
resurgence of support to the Philippine martial law years, have been blamed on the
supposed apathy of young Filipinos. Critics argue that they have detached
themselves from politics and instead immersed themselves in a self-centered
consumerist world where they try to outdo each other. This they do not in terms of
political contributions but according to achievements in sex, social status, and
cultural capital (Tolentino 2016).
Those who were born in the 1920s grew up as victims and fighters in the Second
World War (Kerkvliet 1977). The Japanese occupation of the Philippines gave no
other choice to this generation but to join the war. Many became martyrs, some as
comfort women, and those who survived ended up with trauma (Constantino and
Constantino 1978). The brutalities of the Japanese and memories of war formed the
identity and memory of this generation (Jose 2001). The succeeding 1930s
generation were also victims of the war. But coming to the war a little later, this
generation of Filipino youth bore the burdens of post-war reconstruction. They
were forced to mature early by a war-torn Philippines needing rebuilding. They
actively built institutions, from government agencies to political parties, for the then
young republic (Abinales and Amoroso 2017). Both these generations inherited a
formally independent Philippines by 1946. Shaped by their tragic experiences of
war, these young Filipinos worked tirelessly to get a taste of a working free and
independent Philippines.
The Filipino youth of the 1940s will eventually become the pioneers of the radical
years of the country in the 1960s (Weekley 2001). Born after WWII, they grew up in
an independent and relatively peaceful and prosperous Philippines. They were very
critical of the achievements of the previous generations, including the
reconstruction effort that fell short of the nation’s aspirations (Guerrero 1979). This
generation poured on the streets to oppose the Vietnam War, protest the hardships
faced by workers and farmers, and advocate for a radical politics in campuses and
elsewhere. The Communist Party of the Philippines, formed by eager university
students who discovered immobilized war veterans in the countryside, was rebuilt
by this same generation (Weekley 2001). The 1960s was a time of disquiet. Young
Filipinos then, disappointed of prevailing social ills despite absence of colonial
occupation, experimented with progressive causes and seized political
opportunities to advance social reforms.
Arguelles, Cleve V. 2020. “Apathetic Millennials? The Personal Politics of Today’s Young
People”. In Rethinking Filipino Millennials: Alternative Perspectives on a
Misunderstood Generation, edited by Jayeel S. Cornelio. Manila: University of Santo
Tomas Publishing House, pp. 41-63.
The years of disquiet prepared the country to a more turbulent period. Those who
were born in the 1950s were the youth who eventually produced the First Quarter
Storm of the 1970s (Pimentel 2006). They eschewed the progressive politics of the
previous generation in favor of a revolution. It was a generation at home with the
radical ideas of the world: from China’s cultural revolution to the anti-war causes in
Europe and USA to independence movements in the Global South (Abinales 1984).
However, an equally politically involved politician, the dictator Ferdinand Marcos,
challenged this era of kinetic involvement of youth in national politics further.
Martial law was imposed in the country to temper the tempest storm that the
rebellious 1950s generation of Filipino youth created. The best and the brightest of
this generation became modern martyrs that led the anti-dictatorship movement.
This generation that suffered under the Marcos period, a time of widespread human
rights violation and misgovernance, produced young revolutionaries and a Filipino
revolutionary politics.
Those who were born in the 1960s and 1970s, called “Marcos babies” and knew
Marcos as the eternal president, is the generation that made the legacies of Marcos
the subject of their dreams and nightmares (Cimatu and Tolentino 2010). Some left
the country in search of less tragic futures but many others stayed. Those who
stayed volunteered to protect the ballots in the 1986 snap election, grieved and
protested the assassination of Ninoy Aquino, and faced Marcos head-on in the EDSA
People Power revolt. After Marcos, many young Filipinos embraced initiatives to
democratize politics as their own project. Whether grassroots non-government
organizations or pockets of participatory avenues in government, they created and
maximized democratic spaces afforded by the new regime. Armed with new
freedoms and the potentials of a country in transition to democracy, the young
Filipinos of this generation replaced radicalism with pragmatic and reformist
politics (Thompson 1998).
But the post-EDSA presidency of Joseph Estrada and Gloria Arroyo gave the 1980s
generation a cause (Lande 2001). They were no Marcos but enough of a low hanging
fruit to mobilize a generation. Estrada was a college dropout, womanizer, alcoholic
and gambler. Arroyo was a plunderer, mastermind of an electoral fraud and a grave
human rights violator. Both declared a bloody all-out war in Mindanao and against
their critics. Both easily became the generation X’s Marcos. The Estrada ouster
campaign, which culminated in the second EDSA People Power revolt in 2001, drew
tactics and strategies from the previous generation’s FQS and people power revolt.
The Arroyo ouster campaign, however, did not succeed. Even so, they have found a
collective politics of anti-corruption, human rights and good governance. More
importantly, in both cases it was an undeniably youthful political movement: the
mobilizations were powered by the rebirth of activist politics in university
campuses and the by then popular text messages in mobile phones (Rafael 2003;
Jordan 2006). Finally, the Filipino generation X found their political moment. And
like previous generations of young Filipinos, the crisis of their time formed their
political responses.
Filipino millennials, or those who were born in the 1990s to present, are slowly
discovering their distinct politics and attempting to make their defining moment in
Philippine politics. This generation grew up under one of the world’s worst
economic crises, tough environmental challenges, and increasing social isolation
(Milkman 2017). The failed policies of the previous generations have brought an
arduous present and a precarious future to a large majority of today’s youth. There
are varied political responses from young Filipinos but its form continue to evolve.
So how did these conditions continue to shape the Filipino millennials’ search for
their political moment?
people who earn irregular income from occasional construction work. Even my
students in community colleges rely on short-term contract service jobs in fast food
chains and shopping malls. Inheriting a global economy that underwent its worst
recession in the recent years even made the situation worse. Young Filipinos who
just joined the labor market realized they were not only economically vulnerable
but also even disposable when the situation worsened. In fact, youth suffer the most
from economic crises (Elder and Rosas 2015). A top contributor to youth
unemployment in the Asia-Pacific, young Filipinos constitute half of all the
unemployed workers in the country (Medenilla 2017). Looking after oneself in an
atmosphere of economic anxiety while living a life of ambient insecurity can be
isolating especially for young people.
And lastly, the exclusionary nature of politics in the country has nourished a sense
of political detachment among Filipino youth. Generations of elite families continue
to dominate Philippine politics since the establishment of the Philippine republic
(Tadem and Tadem 2016). This dominance of elite dynasties also extend to political
institutions that supposedly caters to the youth such as the Sangguniang Kabataan
and the National Youth Commission (NYC) (Malaluan et al 2014). With neither
meaningful access to decision and policy-making nor significant representations to
political institutions, young Filipinos feel helpless and powerless. As such,
participation in mainstream politics is seen as a rather futile exercise. Political
Arguelles, Cleve V. 2020. “Apathetic Millennials? The Personal Politics of Today’s Young
People”. In Rethinking Filipino Millennials: Alternative Perspectives on a
Misunderstood Generation, edited by Jayeel S. Cornelio. Manila: University of Santo
Tomas Publishing House, pp. 41-63.
authentic. They are perceived to be authentic because the political commitments are
reflected in personal choices in everyday life. In this way, the dangers associated
with interest-driven politics of civil society groups like partnering with traditional
politicians or compromising on advocacies may be avoided. It is more practical than
dogmatic or strategic. As such, the shifting orientation of politics by millennials
towards personalization may have been misguidedly interpreted as declining
political involvement.
The amorphous character of this generation’s politics, on the other hand, speaks to
their rejection of highly hierarchical and tightly organized groups. They prefer
horizontal leadership, crowdsourcing and other flexible forms of organizations.
While there is worry that this generation of young Filipinos are not interested in
building cause-oriented organizations, the lifeblood of Philippine civil society, the
forms in which they engage politics is easy to miss. Digital forms of engagement
such as popularizing advocacies in social media or creating online political groups
reflect this trend. The criticism that online activism, pejoratively dismissed as
clicktivism, is a lesser form of participation than street mobilizations or community
organizing do not appeal to millennials whose everyday life is immersed in the
digital world. For young Filipinos, digital action is action in the real world. The
attempt to influence conversations or to make others aware of burning issues of the
day in social media is no less significant than door-to-door community organizing. In
many recent politically contentious issues in the Philippines such as the country’s
war on illegal drugs, young people led online conversations on the issue. Traditional
activist organizations attempted to build on these conversations to mobilize them
and then recruit them into their organizations. Instead of joining, millennials
responded by creating spaces for informal discussions and free actions where the
membership is deliberately loose. Young professionals and students from different
backgrounds, with their disdain for the dominant organized opposition groups as
their only similarity, poured to these activities. The formation of the Occupy Wall
Street movement in 2011 in the United States also parallels this story. A millennial-
led movement, it favored a leaderless, participatory, and consensual ways of
running the organization over traditional movement structures (Milkman 2017).
Under the radar, young Filipinos are moving towards more diversified and plural
forms of organizing themselves to engage in politics.
Conclusion
References
Abinales, Patricio and Donna Amoroso, 2017. State and Society in the Philippines,
2nd edition. New York and Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield.
Abinales, Patricio, editor. 1996. The Revolution Falters: The Left in Philippine Politics
After 1986. New York: SEAP Publications, Cornell University.
Abinales, Patricio. 1984. “The Left and the Philippine Student Movement: Random
Historical Notes on Party Politics and Sectoral Struggles.” Kasarinlan:
Philippine Journal of Third World Studies.
Bennett, W. L. & A. Segerberg. 2011. “Digital Media and the Personalization of
Collective Action: Social Technology and the Organization of Protests Against
the Global Economic Crisis. Information, Communication & Society, 14(6),
770-799.
Cimatu, Frank & Rolando Tolentino. 2010. Mondo Marcos: Writings on Martial Law
and the Marcos Babies. Pasig: Anvil Publishing.
Constantino, Renato and Letizia Constantino. 1978. The Philippines: The Continuing
Past. Quezon City: Foundation for Nationalist Studies.
Cornelio, Jayeel. 2014. “Popular Religion and the Turn to Everyday Authenticity
Reflections on the Contemporary Study of Philippine Catholicism.” Philippine
Studies Historical & Ethnographic Viewpoints, 471-500.
Cornelio, Jayeel. 2016. Being Catholic in the contemporary Philippines: Young people
reinterpreting religion. New York: Routledge.
Coronel, Sheila 2007. “The Philippines in 2006: Democracy and Its Discontents.”
Arguelles, Cleve V. 2020. “Apathetic Millennials? The Personal Politics of Today’s Young
People”. In Rethinking Filipino Millennials: Alternative Perspectives on a
Misunderstood Generation, edited by Jayeel S. Cornelio. Manila: University of Santo
Tomas Publishing House, pp. 41-63.
Engagement (CIRCLE).
Kusaka, Wataru. 2017. Moral politics in the Philippines: Inequality, democracy and the
urban poor. Singapore: National University of Singapore Press.
Landé, Carl. 2001. “The Return of" People Power" in the Philippines.” Journal of
Democracy, 12(2), 88-102.
Loader, B. D. 2007. Young Citizens in the Digital Age: Political Engagement, Young
People and New Media. New York: Routledge.
Madianou, M. 2012. “Migration and the Accentuated Ambivalence of Motherhood:
The Role of ICTs in Filipino Transnational Families.” Global Networks, 12(3),
277-295.
Mannheim, Karl. 1952. “The Sociological Problem of Generations.” Essays on the
Sociology of Knowledge, 306.
McCann Erickson. 1994. “The McCann Erickson Youth Study: The Portrait of a
Filipino as a Youth.” The Youth Journal 1(1): 12.
Mendenilla, S. 2017. “Youth Unemployment to Rise, ILO Report Says.” Manila
Bulletin. November 22, 2017.
Micheletti, M. 2003. “Shopping With and For Virtues.” In Political Virtue and
Shopping, edited by M. Micheletti, 149-168. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Micheletti, M., & Stolle, D. 2012. “Sustainable Citizenship and the New Politics of
Consumption.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, 644(1), 88-120.
Milkman, R. 2017. “A New Political Generation: Millennials and the Post-2008 Wave
of Protest.” American Sociological Review, 82(1), 1-31.
Mycock, A. and J. Tonge. 2012. “The Party Politics of Youth Citizenship and
Democratic Engagement”. Parliamentary Affairs 65: 138–161.
Nye Jr, J. S. 1997. “The Media and Declining Confidence in Government.” Harvard
International Journal of Press/Politics, 2(3), 4-9.
Ofreneo, R. E. 2013. “Precarious Philippines: Expanding Informal Sector,
“Flexibilizing” Labor Market.” American Behavioral Scientist, 57(4), 420-443.
Parreñas, R. 2005. “Long Distance Intimacy: Class, Gender and Intergenerational
Relations Between Mothers and Children in Filipino Transnational Families.”
Global networks, 5(4), 317-336.
Parreñas, R. S. 2001. “Mothering from a Distance: Emotions, Gender, and
Intergenerational Relations in Filipino Transnational Families. Feminist
studies, 27(2), 361-390.
Pattie, C., P. Seyd and P. Whiteley. 2004. Citizenship in Britain: Values, Participation
and Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pharr, S. J., & Putnam, R. D. 2000. Disaffected Democracies: What's Troubling the
Trilateral Countries? New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Pimentel, B. 2006. UG an Underground Tale: The Journey of Edgar Jopson and the
First Quarter Storm Generation. Pasig: Anvil Publishing, Inc.
Putnam, R. D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community.
New York: Simon and Schuster.
Arguelles, Cleve V. 2020. “Apathetic Millennials? The Personal Politics of Today’s Young
People”. In Rethinking Filipino Millennials: Alternative Perspectives on a
Misunderstood Generation, edited by Jayeel S. Cornelio. Manila: University of Santo
Tomas Publishing House, pp. 41-63.