PETA and the Articulation of Nationalism
For theater to thrive in the Philippines it must be regarded in its true essence-service to a particular community where each production is a partial testimony to the kind of service intended-as a contribution to the life of the community.(1)
| ...the global political climate challenged artists to view the role of their art as a means to engage their community in a dialogue about individual and national identity.
Filipino theater organizations during the 60's and 70's were fundamentally shaped by the political and social climate of Martial Law. And while the times demanded that they react to that climate, the way in which they chose to react was primarily in opposition to the first lady's attempt to determine a national arts culture. As governor of Metro Manila and the head of numerous committees and departments, Imelda Marcos, during the tenure of her husband's rule catalyzed, among other things, the creation of the Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP). The CCP was to rival the Lincoln Center in New York in some respects, offering space for international productions of operas, ballets and the like, as a show of the Philippines' cosmopolitan-ness. While this may have been a worthwhile endeavor in cultivating a culture of aesthetically pleasing art that existed for its own sake, the global political climate challenged artists to view the role of their art as a means to engage their community in a dialogue about individual and national identity.
The years between 1967 and 1986 were a prolific time for theater in the Philippines. Between 1967 and 1976 no less than fourteen theater groups were founded, mostly on university campuses in the greater Manila area.(2) There were a few, however, such as Sining Kambayoka in Mindanao, that were established in other parts of the archipelago. Many of these groups, in some fashion, were influenced by the shifts that Cecile Guidote pushed through the establishment of the Philippine Educational Theater Association, or PETA, in 1967.
Cecile Guidote's vision of a national Philippine Theater was well thought out and fully cognizant of every necessary component. Guidote outlined a plan that was conscious of every minute detail, from the need for funding to the attention to the different aspects of society that she wished to reach. She created a children's theater arm, a training arm for educators and community groups, and professional development for those who wished to pursue acting. Her plan for a Central Institute of the Theater Arts in the Philippines (CITAP), theoretically, would provide professional training and academic research for those interested in various aspects of the dramatic arts. To do so, she sought the help of many of her artist friends whom she knew would share and support her vision, Reme Grafalda and Lino Brocka among them. In the end, her primary objective was to "build a true National Theater which will provide the perpetual opportunities and encouragement for its native artists" which she knew would only be realized through "concerted energy, imagination, careful planning, and a well-directed expenditure of money."(3) By 1968, Guidote was teaching a six week summer "crash course" in creative dramatics at the Ateneo De Manila, and a children's theater piece, "Forest" was produced, and PETA was well on its way to actualizing Guidote's vision.
In her desire to develop a national theater culture that appealed to the people, Guidote instituted three specific characteristics into PETA. First, PETA pioneered the use of the national language, Pilipino (or Tagalog), onstage. Prior to this the use of the vernacular immediately labeled a theatrical production as bakya, or backward.(4) Guidote and PETA wanted to reverse this notion for two reasons: a) to reach the common tao and b) to encourage the people to move away from the notion that the local culture is somehow beneath the foreign cultures that have influenced Philippine society. She specifically sought out plays written in Tagalog. She also courted major film stars to perform in PETA productions -as a means of attracting the masses to the theater. She would hand out tickets to people in the streets or even used them as actors and/or extras in PETA productions. This diversity of audience and actors, too, must have put forth questions to those in the seats about their own socio-economic condition and who is, really, entitled to be a part of cultural production. Her concerted actions caused people from different strata of society to acknowledge and confront questions of national identity, demanding all the participants—audience and actors alike—to see the similarities that they all shared, be that language or experience.
PETA...was fundamentally committed to the formulation of a Philippine National Theater which would respect the social and cultural diversity of the archipelago...
Second, PETA trained people to become actors. The educational component of PETA set it apart from other theater groups that were developing at the time. It produced creative dramatics workshops for community groups for all ages; youth, teens and adults. PETA set the educational standard for many of the companies that followed it.
Finally, PETA, through each of its endeavors, was fundamentally committed to the formulation of a Philippine National Theater which would respect the social and cultural diversity of the archipelago while articulating a national culture that echo the triumphs and tribulations of the people as one.
Guidote ultimately wanted to evolve PETA into the Philippines ' premier theater company that fully reflected a national culture that drew inspiration from other theater forms from around the world in recognition of the growing global culture that was manifesting itself in more obvious ways at that time. Its eventual identity as an educational theater organization would only partially meet her expectations in dispelling three generally held assumptions about theater.
The development of a national theater at that time was largely hindered by several assumptions about the arts commonly held by Filipinos. First was the common perception that theater's purpose as either purely entertainment or as a fundraising tool. Second, "real" theater was perceived in grand terms equivalent to Broadway or Hollywood, blockbuster productions whose primary goal is profit. Finally, because theater was only viewed as entertainment, it was not taken seriously; that it was a social frivolity that only the elite are able to afford.(5) These were fundamental hurdles Guidote knew PETA would have to overcome to become a reality.
Unfortunately, personal relationships darkened the development of PETA in the political climate under Marcos rule. The Marcos' were bent on quelling, or eliminating, any and all potential opposition. Imelda Marcos invited Guidote to be the artistic director of the Cultural Centre of the Philippines, but Guidote refused,(6) undoubtedly placing Cecile on the first lady's unfavored list. Guidote's personal relationship with a well-known leftist leader in the Philippines, Sonny Alvarez, also placed her in danger of being "invited" to a military installation for "questioning." At that time, that usually meant detainment without cause, a high potential for torture, or even anonymous and suspicious death. The Philippines was a hotbed of human rights violations throughout the Marcos era, with over 30,000 arrested under emergency regulations within the first three years of Martial Law.(7) In 1972, five years after her return home to establish her vision of a national theater culture and after being the youngest person at that time to be given the Ramon Magsaysay Award, Cecile Guidote had to seek refuge in the United States in the wake of the declaration of Martial Law, leaving PETA in the hands of her colleagues who determined that the times warranted a different direction for the organization.
In the spirit of camaraderie and reciprocal learning, and in commitment to the cause of social change and justice, the PETA actors took on new roles as ATORS—A rtists-
The PETA that eventually surfaced during the EDSA Revolution retained some of the core of Guidote's organizational vision, but those who were left to run the organization eventually chose to focus more on using the power of theater as a means of activating the masses to react to their social conditions and demand justice. Eugene Van Erven pointed out that, prior to the seventies and the anti-Martial Law movement, "theater was more incidental than consciously a part of an effective nationalist cultural movement."(8) Due to the ever increasing danger that the political climate posed to overt dissenters, theater artists sought out means of subversive protest. By adopting the Brechtian(9) concept that theater was a transient, not stationary, entity, Guidote sent a clear message early on that theater was an agent of change. Keeping in line with that idea, PETA organizers opted to produce plays that reflected the current condition of the masses.(10) Presenting real life scenarios to an audience allowed people to detach themselves from that condition for a moment and analyze it to determine possible solutions. PETA then engaged their audiences in "debriefing" sessions after all their productions and workshops to make sure that the art they produced was reflective of the people's condition. This allowed the audience to share their own interpretation of the piece and connect it to their own experiences. This broke down that "fourth wall" that separated the actor from the audience, allowing the performers to develop a relationship with the people that they performed for and worked with. In the spirit of camaraderie and reciprocal learning, and in commitment to the cause of social change and justice, the PETA actors took on new roles as ATORS—A rtists- T eachers- O rganizers- R esearchers—to "signify their change of attitude from individualistic, career-oriented performers to artists totally committed to stimulating creative activity on the grassroots level."(11)
During the decade of the seventies, theater was the most effective means of spreading the word of revolution and empowering communities to demand social change across the archipelago. Mass Media was heavily regulated and, as Eugene Van Erven observed,
.Theater became the best medium for spreading alternative points of view. People's theater workshops, conducted throughout the archipelago, increased the political awareness of urban poor, farmworkers, unemployed, or striking factory laborers and students.(12)
Theater groups worked hard to keep their material immediately current. It became the people's—literate and illiterate— newspaper.(13) For instance, if a theater group that was working with a group of laborers on strike learned of a new development in the negotiations between the workers and the company, they would rework their scripts and rehearse the actors to reflect the current situation of the workers. In return for sharing movement and theater technique that drew influence from the international experience of its founder, local artists shared their own specific cultural knowledge with PETA. This allowed PETA to develop a synthesized Filipino sensibility that the theater group could integrate into the original work it would produce later, while maintaining their commitment to working for the betterment of the people. This sharing of knowledge and production was transmitted through PETA all around the archipelago, and the theatrical techniques and ideologies that they shared with the people were arguably the foundation for the articulation of a national identity.
By 1983, the watershed year for the Anti-Martial Law Movement all over the world, there were more than three hundred community-based theater groups established all around the island country, many of which created their own networks within their communities, ready and waiting to broadcast the change everyone was waiting for.
Even at the turn of the seventies decade, there was much dialogue going on between groups from all over the islands.
Just as the proliferation of theater companies during Martial Law has been historically discounted, so have the number of theater productions that were produced at this time. PETA, along with student theater groups that were formed in a number of universities and communities within this timeframe, produced many theatrical productions. Isagani Cruz's book A Short History of Theater in the Philippines listed hundreds of productions that were produced between 1970 and 1971 by various theater groups all over the Philippines. PETA alone produced forty plays. Panday Sining, Gintong Silahis, Kalinangan Anak Pawis and other groups collectively produced over fourteen works. Groups from different colleges and universities all over the Philippines produced at least ten productions each. This does not mean that all of these works were focused on protest, or even inculcated a sense of nationalism. What one does observe about this list is the number of plays written or translated in Tagalog or Pilipino. The other striking feature is the apparent sharing of writing amongst these groups. Even at the turn of the seventies decade, there was much dialogue going on between groups from all over the islands.
One of the first productions by PETA was a play called Bayaning Huwad, an adaptation of Virginia Moreno's Straw Patriots. Produced in 1967, Bayaning Huwad was a piece about a man named Casiqueng Bruno who offered his god-daughter to an American Lieutentant to persuade him to give back the riceland to his family and his tenants.(14) The inaugural performance for the Theater-in-the-Ruins in Fort Santiago, Bayaning Huwad was produced in such a way to delight, shock and intrigue its audience. The theater was equipped with sunken seats enclosed by three side stages and one long stage in the front, much like a fallen "E."(15) While the story arc of the play itself was inconsequential, it was a manifestation of Guidote's vision of what PETA productions should be, who they should reach out to. Thus, for this first production, Guidote decided to utilize a real horse in her production. To have a horse come out onto the stage, as big as they are to begin with, was surely a surprise to the audience at the very least. Secondly, keeping true to her belief that theater was to be accessible to all, Cecile Guidote passed out tickets to the street vendors that surrounded Fort Santiago. Thus, the audiences of PETA plays were truly reflective of the socio-economic reality of the archipelago, not a red-carpet who's who event.
Ang Pagsambang Bayan: The People's Worship
Ten years after the production of Bayaning Huwad and five years after the declaration of Martial Law, the Drama Group of the University of the Philippines produced Ang Pagsambang Bayan: The People's Worship.(16) Performed in Tagalog and mirroring the familiar ritual of the Catholic Mass, Ang Pagsambang Bayan drew parallels between the persecution of the Filipino people by the Marcos government and the persecution of the early Christians as it is chronicled in the Bible. Written by a priest, the play follows the structure of a mass, emphasizing the need for struggle toward achieving social justice, despite all odds.
This piece was the product of a discussion that occurred during a religious conference entitled, "Rediscovery and Renewal: Towards a liberating liturgy."(17) The show's producer Behn Cervantes, along with the music director, were arrested due to the subversive tone of the piece. While Ang Pagsambang Bayan did not directly indict the Marcos government as the cause for the destitute condition of the masses, the play did call for the people to take action and not passively accept the current socio-political and economic condition.
Juan Tamban is reflective of the change that many artists wished to see occur in their audience. These characters could be any of the spectators; the question gone unsaid, "what would you do in this situation?"
Another PETA play was Juan Tamban by Malou Leviste Jacob. First produced in 1979, the play told the story of a little boy named Juan who lived in the slums of Manila.(18) He made money by eating whatever was given him—nails, worms, rats— as a sort of spectacle. The police run after Juan because they thought that he had stolen something. While he was able to get away from them and run back to his father in the squatter area where they live, he falls ill. He is taken to the hospital and the police arrest him. Instead of putting him in jail, Juan is sent to see a psychologist about his behavior. The psychologist turns out to be a university student finishing up her thesis. Her role was to observe his behavior and try to help modify it so that he would not be self-destructive. But the main character ultimately becomes invested in her subject's situation, shifting her way of thinking about her purpose and her work. Juan Tamban is reflective of the change that many artists wished to see occur in their audience. These characters could be any of the spectators; the question gone unsaid, "what would you do in this situation?"
When one witnessed the production of this play, or even read the script, one would assume that the primary character was the child Juan. This was not the case. As Michael Bodden pointed out in his article, "Class, Gender, and the contours of Nationalism in the culture of Philippine Radical Theater," the central character of Juan Tamban is not the destitute street child of the play's title, but the middle-class student/social worker, Marina, a character whose background is similar to that of the major portion of PETA's audiences. Thus, Marina provide[d] a point of emotional identification for middle-class women who saw the play, but more generally, for all middle-class audiences who felt concerned about the state of Philippine society. As Marina attempts to understand Juan's problems so that she can "solve" his case, parlay that success into a good grade in her courses, and advance another rung on the career ladder that she is climbing, she begins to realize that the concepts of justice, equality before the law, and the benefits of hard work, concepts she [had] used to justify and make sense of the existing system, are of little help to Juan and others who have been similarly marginalized.(19)
Through this piece, PETA challenged their audiences to be introspective about their own commitment to social justice and their fellow Filipinos.
The productions of EDSA
The EDSA Revolution was an explosion of creativity for theater artists, as playwrights unleashed a plethora of dramatic commentary in the wake of the imminent downfall of the Philippine dictator. Once again, PETA was at the foreground. They performed a new piece, Sigwa, or Storm, as the controversy over the election brewed, to jolt their contemporaries into a dialogue over their own current political condition. The play told the story of three mid-30 somethings who were former radical student leaders during the First Quarter Storm. More than ten years had passed, and they were now living comfortably, with families and jobs, happily apolitical. The death of a former comrade in the struggle brings the three friends together again to reminisce and recount the last decade of their lives—how they have changed, how their priorities had changed. The characters challenged each other to really look at the choices they had made, to ask what happened to their commitment. Sigwa was performed one more time a few months after its premiere during a pro-Cory rally for more than two million people.(20)
The late sixties through the mid-eighties, contrary to much of the literature, was a prolific period for cultural production. It was also a time of great ideological growth for artists all over the nation.
Two days later PETA performed two new pieces, Nukleyar [Nuclear] and Ang Prosesyon ng Bayan [The People's March] in front of the American Embassy to protest U.S. intervention and the potential (and realized) granting of exile to the Marcos's. Nukleyar was a rock opera, highlighting the continued American presence and influence in the Philippines in the form of multi-national corporations, military bases and other foreign investments. Ang Prosesyon ng Bayan was a funeral march in honor of all those who had been killed for the sake of social justice and revolution. Performed with music from different ethnic tribes of the Philippines, the performers wore masks with suffering or agonized facial expressions. They moved in perfect synchrony to the solemn music as singers tell the tale of the fate of these activists—torture, death, salvage—as it was represented by a dragon character that swooped down on the masked performers one by one. In the end, however, a bird of freedom rose among the people, giving them faith, hope and the courage to rise up against the monster that was trying to destroy them.
Each of these plays, from Bayaning Huwad to Sigwa, reflected an evolution of theater and theatrical production as a means of articulating and actualizing a sense of nationalism and national identity. The late sixties through the mid-eighties, contrary to much of the literature, was a prolific period for cultural production. It was also a time of great ideological growth for artists all over the nation. It also signaled, for the first time, collaboration among groups across the nation as they rang out in protest against a common enemy.
The history of theater in the Philippines has remained largely narrative and, unfortunately, isolated. But the evolution and articulation of Filipino nationalism was one of the effects of the development of Philippine theater, particularly within the timeframe of Martial Law. Filipino nationalism, as it was articulated through the EDSA Revolution, for the first time, came from the people and was manifested in the dramatic works that were developed during that time period.
During the time period in which Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos ruled the Philippines, they attempted to impose upon the Filipino people what they believed was truly "Filipino." The problem with their rendering of a Filipino identity was that it was surreptitiously grounded in their desire to present what they felt would be acceptable to the international community rather than what was truly part of the experience and spirit of the Filipino people, as well as press the loyalty and patronage of the wealthy elite. Thus, Imelda's beautification projects that propped up fences to hide the slums from tourists' views, or her hurried construction of the International Film Center that resulted in the death of a number of workers as she callously ordered the other workers to pour concrete over the bodies and not stop construction, were a reflection of her and her husband's claim to power. As Vicente Rafael suggests, their concept of nationalism and national culture were "so many gifts from above bestowed on those below."(21)
This was not satisfactory to the Filipino people. Their agency as actors in that process of determining a cohesive national identity was diminished by the Marcos' idea that it was their duty, and prerogative, to determine what "Filipino-ness" was. The declaration of Martial Law made it almost impossible for many to speak out against this elitist construction of nationalism; except for the artists.
PETA, from its inception, stood in opposition of Marcos' charge that a Filipino national identity was the government's responsibility to determine. Cecile Guidote's vision to provide a space to allow the people to negotiate, dialogue about and perform what they believed to be Filipino was what would articulate and determine what it meant to be Filipino. The people's inclusion in that discussion began in 1967, contrary to the government's desire to project their interpretation of whom and what "Filipino-ness" was. The final rejection of a purely elitist rendering of what the Filipino national identity occurred in 1986, with the exile of the dictator and his wife. Today, the people continue to negotiate what Filipino nationalism is, guided by a greater sense of the archipelago's cultural and ethnic diversity as a result of the collaboration that occurred among artists between 1968 and 1986.
(1) Cecile Guidote-Alvarez, Theater for the Nation: A prospectus for the National Theater of the Philippines ( Manila: De La Salle University Press, Inc., 2003), 28.
(2) PETA, Repertory Philippines (1967); University of the Philippines (U.P.) Repertory (1968); Kamanyang Players, Kalinangan anak-pawis, Panday Sinig, Gintong Silahis, & Tanghalang Bayan (1969); Kalinangan ng Lahi (1973); Ateneo Experimental Theater (1974); Sining Kambayoka (1975); Dulaang U.P. (1976) in Isagani Cruz, ed., A Short History of Theater in the Philippines (Manila: Cultural Center of the Philippines, 1971).
(3) Guidote-Alvarez, Theater for the Nation, 171.
(4) Remé Grefalda, Cecile Guidote's theater colleague and personal friend. Interview by Author, 10 March 2007. Digital Recording. Washington DC.
(5) Guidote-Alvarez, 28.
(6) Eugene Van Erven, Stages of People Power: The Philippine Educational Theater Association, (The Hague: Center for the Study of Education in Developing Countries, 1989), 11.
(7) Amnesty International, Human Rights Violations in the Philippines: An Account of torture, 'disappearances,' extrajudicial executions and illegal detentions, Amnesty International USA Publication, 1982, 1.
(8) Van Erven, Stages of People Power, 12.
(9) Bertholt Brecht was a German dramaturg from the mid twentieth century who formulated a new way of thinking about theater and its relationship to its audience.
(10) Van Erven, Stages of People Power, 14.
(11) Ibid., 60
(12) Van Erven, Stages of People Power, 58.
(13) Burns, Lucy "Theater in the Streets: An interview with Chris Millado about the 1980's Philippine Protest Theater," 2002, [internet article]; available from http://www.oovrag.com/essays/essay2002b-6.shtml ; Internet; accessed 21 March 2007.
(14) Malou Leviste Jacob, Juan Tamban ( Quezon City: Philippine Educational Theater Association, 1984, 259.
(15) Remé Grefalda, Interview by Author, 10 March 2007. Digital Recording. Washington DC.
(16) Rev. J. Elias, "The People's Worship: Ang Pagsambang Bayan" in Theater as Struggle: Asian People's Drama in Special Issue of Ampo 11 (Tokyo: Pacific-Asia Resources Center, 1979): 50-65.
(17) Ibid., 65.
(18) Malou Leviste Jacob, Juan Tamban (Quezon City: Philippine Educational Theater Association, 1984).
(19) Michael Bodden, "Class, Gender, and the contours of Nationalism in the culture of Philippine Radical Theater," Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies (1996): 30-31.
(20) Eugene Van Erven, "Philippine Political Theater and the Fall of Ferdinand Marcos," The Drama Review: TDR 31 (Summer 1987): 67.
(21) Vincent Rafael, White Love and other events in Filipino history Durham: Duke University Press, 2000), 138.
PRIMARY RESOURCE MATERIALS
Scripts; individual & anthologies
Atienza, Glecy, B. Lumbrera, & G. Zafra. Bangon: Antolohiya ng mga Dulang
Mapanghimagsik Quezon City: Unibersidad ng Pilipinas, 1998.
Elias, Reverend J. "The People's Worship: Ang Pagsambang Bayan" Ampo
Nos. 2-3 (1979): 50-65.
Jacob, Malou Leviste. Juan Tamban. Quezon City: Philippine Educational
Theater Association, 1984.
Millado, Chris and others. "Oath to Freedom," Asian Theater Journal Vol. 8
No. 1 (Spring 1991): 48-88.
Moreno, Virginia. "Straw Patriot." In Selections from Philippine
Contemporary Literature in English. eds. O.A. Dimantala & C.P Hidalgo.
Salanga, Alfredo. Kamao: Writings in protest: 1972-1985. Quezon City:
Ateneo De Manila Press, 1985.
Community Theater: The Mindanao Experience. Davao City: Kulturang Atin
Foundation, Inc., .
Guidote-Alvarez, Cecile. Theater for the Nation: A prospectus for the
National Theater of the Philippines. Manila: De La Salle University Press,
Lacaba, Jose. Days of Disquiet, Nights of Rage: The First Quarter Storm &
Related Events. Manila: Salinlahi Publishing House, 1982.
Magazines & Periodicals
Pacific-Asia Resources Center. Theater as Struggle: Asian People's Drama.
Special Issue of Ampo 11. Nos. 2-3, 1979.
Tiongson, Nicanor. The Politics of Culture: The Philippine Experience.
Proceedings and Anthology of Essays, Poems, Songs, Skits and Plays of
the Makiisa I People's Cultural Festival. Manila: Philippine Educational
Theater Association (PETA), People's Resource Collection & Philippine
Assistance for Rural and Urban Development, 1984.
Fajardo, Brenda. The aesthetics of Poverty: A rationale in designing for
Philippine Theater. Theater Studies (5). Quezon City: Philippine
Educational Theater Association, 1984.
Labad, Lutgardo. PETA & Brecht: a story of friendship. Theater der Ziet.
Weinmar: Center for the GDR, 1983.
Fajardo, Brenda & Socrates Topacio. BITAW: Basic Integrated Theater Arts
Workshop Manual. Quezon City: Philippine Educational Theater
Grafalda, Remedios, Editor of Our Own Voice E-Zine and personal friend of
Cecile-Guidote Alvarez. 2007. Interview by Author, 10 March. Digital
Recording. Author's personal archive.
SECONDARY RESOURCE MATERIALS
Adams, Don and Arlene Goldbard. Community, Culture and Globalization.
New York: The Rockefeller Foundation, 2002.
Bonner, Raymond. Waltzing with a dictator: The Marcoses and the making
of American Policy. New York: Vintage Books, 1987.
Casanova, Arthur. The Kambayoka Book: The first 30 years of the Sining
Kambayoka of the Mindanao State University, Marawi City. Manila:
Unibersidad ng Santo Tomas, 2004.
Cohen-Cruz, Jan. Radical Street Performance: An International Anthology.
New York: Routledge Press, 1998.
Cohen-Cruz, Jan & Mady Schultzman. A Boal Companion: Dialogues on
theater and cultural politics. New York: Routledge Press, 2006.
Cruz, Isagani. A Short History of Theater in the Philippines. (incomplete
Constantino, Renato. Synthetic Culture and Development. Quezon City:
Foundation for Nationalist Studies, 1985.
Fernandez, Doreen. Palabas: Essays on Philippine Theater History. Manila:
Ateneo de Manila Press, 1996.
Foley, Kathy. Essays on Southeast Asia Performing Arts: Local
Manifestations and Cross-cultural Implications. Berkeley: Center for
Southeast Asian Studies, University of California Press, 1992.
Karnow, Stanley. In Our Image: America 's empire in the Philippines. New
York: Ballantine Books, 1989.
Rafael, Vincent. White Love and other events in Filipino history. Durham:
Duke University Press, 2000.
Sentro Pangkultura ng Pilipinas (Cultural Center of the Philippines ). CCP
Encyclopedia of Philippine Art, Vol. VII, Theater. Manila: Sentro
Pangkultura ng Pilipinas, 2004.
Swidler, Ann. 1995. "Cultural Power and Social Movements." In Social
Movements and Culture; Social movement, Protest and Contention Vol.4.
eds. Hank Johnston & Bert Klandermans. 25-79. Minneapolis: University
Van Erven, Eugene. Stages of People Power: The Philippines Educational
Theater Association. The Hague: Center for the Study of Education in
Developing Countries, 1989.
_______________. The Playful Revolution: Theater and Liberation in Asia.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1992.
_______________. Community Theater, Global Perspectives. London:
Gonzalves, Theodore. "When the lights go down: Performing in the
Filipina/o Diaspora, 1934-1998." PhD Diss., University of California,
Hawkins, Michael. "A turning point: Filipino nationalism before and after
the 1986 Revolution." Masters Thesis. Boise State University, 2005.
The Filipiniana Special Collections Project Staff, University of the
Philippines, Diliman, Main Library. Philippine Radical Papers in the
University of the Philippines Diliman Main Library: A Subject Guide.
Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press, 1998.
Medina, Isagani. Filipiniana Materials in the National Library. Quezon City,
Philippines: National Library and the University of the Philippines, 1972.
Dictionaries/Language Reference Tools
Ramos, Teresita. Tagalog Structures. PALI Language Texts: Philippines.
Honolulu: University of Hawaii, 1971.
Ramos, Teresita & Resty Cena.. Modern Tagalog: Grammatical Explanations
and Exercises for Non-native Speakers. Honolulu: University of Hawaii,
Adkins, John. " Philippines 1972: We'll wait and see." Asian Survey Vol. 13
No. 2 (Feb 1973): 140-150.
Bodden, Michael. "Class, Gender, and the contours of Nationalism in the
culture of Philippine Radical Theater." Frontiers: A Journal of Women
Studies Vol. 16 No. ' 2/3 (1996): 24-50.
Del Carmen, Rolando. " Philippines 1974: A holding pattern—power
consolidation or prelude to a decline?" Asian Survey Vol. 15 No. 2 (Feb
Fernandez, Doreen. "The Playbill after 1983: Philippine Theater after Martial
Law," Asian Theater Journal Vol. 12 No. 1 (Spring 1995): 104-118.
Grossholtz, Jean. " Philippines 1973: Whither Marcos?" Asian Survey. Vol.
14 No. 1 (Jan 1974): 101-112.
Guidote, Cecile. "Theater Education in the Philippines." Education Theater
Journal. Vol. 20. No. 2. (1968): 307-308.
Hawes, Gary. "Theories of peasant revolution: A critique and contribution
from the Philippines." World Politics Vol. 42 No. 2 (Jan 1990): 261-298.
Kessler, Richard. "Politics Philippine style, Circa 1984," Asian Survey Vol. 24
No. 12 (Dec 1984): 1209-1228.
Lumbrera, Bienvenido. "Philippine Theater 1972-1979: A Chronicle of
Growth under Constraint. Journal of Osaka University of Foreign Studies.
74:1-2, (1987): 97-121.
Machado, Kit. "The Philippines in 1977: Beginning a return to normalcy?"
Asian Survey Vol. 18 No. 2 (Feb 1978): 202-211.
___________. "The Philippines 1978: Authoritarian Consolidation continues"
Asian Survey Vol. 19 No. 2 (Feb 1979): 131-140.
Malin, Herbert. "The Philippines in 1984: Grappling with Crisis." Asian Survey
Vol. 25 No. 2 (Feb 1985): 198-205.
Morante, Melchior. "Theatre of the small people: experiments in community
theater in the Philippines." Asian Action 7 (1977): 42-43.
Neher, Clark. "The Philippines in 1979: Cracks in the fortress," Asian Survey
Vol. 20 No. 2 (Feb 1980): 155-167.
__________. "The Philippines in 1980: The gathering storm" Asian Survey
Vol. 21 No. 2 (Feb 1981): 261-273.
Neumann, Lin. "The Art of being Artists under Marcos' Martial Law." One
World: (October 1979): 14-15.
Noble, Lela. " Philippines 1976: The contrast between shrine and shanty."
Asian Survey Vol. 17 No. 2 (Feb 1977): 133-142.
Schechner, Richard, ed. "Special Issue on Theater and Social Action." The
Drama Review 21. No. 1 (March 1977).
Schock, Kurt. "People power and political opportunities: Social Movement
Mobilization and Outcomes in the Philippines and Burma " Social Problems
Vol. 46, No. 3 ' (Aug 1999): 355-375.
Silliman, G. Sidney. "The Philippines in 1983: Authoritarianism
beleaguered," Asian Survey Vol. 24 No. 2 (Feb 1984): 149-158.
Tilman, Robert. "The Philippines in 1970: A difficult decade begins." Asian
Survey Vol. 11 No. 2 (Feb. 1971): 139-148.
Toh, Swee-Hin & Virginia Floresca-Cawagas, "Toward a People-centered
Education: Possibilities and Struggles in the Philippines " International
Review of Education Vol. 43 No. 5/6 (1997): 527-545.
Usmani, Renate. "To Rehearse the Revolution." Canadian Theater Review 47
(Summer 1986): 38-55.
Van Erven, Eugene. "Philippine Political Theater and the Fall of Ferdinand
Marcos," The Drama Review: TDR Vol. 31 No. 2 (Summer 1987): 57-78.
Wurfel, David. "Martial Law in the Philippines: The Methods of Regime
Survival" Pacific Affairs Vol. 50 No. 1 (Spring 1977): 5-30.
Youngblood, Robert. "The Philippines in 1981: From 'New Society' to 'New
Republic'" Asian Survey Vol. 22 No. 2 (Feb 1982): 226-235.
Burns, Lucy. Theater in the Streets: An interview with Chris Millado about
the 1980's Philippine Protest Theater, 2002. Available from
Carranza, Rowena. In political activism, age does not matter: FQS veterans
link up arms once more, 2004. Retrieved July 21, 2006 from
Taguiwalo, Judy. The women of the First Quarter Storm of 1970: Women
"Fully engaged in the making of history," 2005. Retrieved July 21, 2006
© Lily Ann B. Villaraza