I think it’s time to purge myself of the sentimentality bug that has gotten into me quite recently. So, at the risk of sounding contrived, I would like to give a more “disinterested” take on the recent controversy that has hugged the pageant headlines during the past week.
I have listed down several points of reflection from the Venus Raj dethronement and near enthronement saga:
First, the case of Venus parallels some of the cases examined by author Susan Dewey in her book “Making Miss India Miss World” (Syracuse, 2008)—especially with regard to how girls in the rural areas view pageants as their means towards social mobility and self-improvement, even self-actualization.
Second, the overwhelming support given by (Filipino) pageant fans to the embattled Venus could not have been possible if not for globalization, that is, in the broadest sense of the term.
Third, there is a limit as to how the “virtues” of globalization work in favor of the oppressed or the victims of the elitist social structure. This is especially the case when we begin to consider the consequences of mediatization (or the media construction of social realities, if you will).
Fourth, I believe Venus herself can be seen as an example of a woman exercising her creative agency in a structure ruled by elitist interests. This is especially evident in how she handled different opinions about her case—from the legalistic and more pragmatic take on the issue to the downright combative position especially when dealing with her perceived oppressors.
I shall now discuss them in more detail.
Self-actualization and Venus Raj
Indeed, the Venus story is somewhat parallel to the stories of women in India who, Dewey recounts, see beauty pageants as their means towards achieving their life aspirations. Venus, who comes from a family of modest means in the Philippine countryside, said in one of her interviews that joining pageants has been her way to help her poor family lead a more comfortable life.
Unlike other beauty contestants who come from well-to-do families and who regard pageants as just one of their many options to achieve personal success, Venus treats pageants as her major mechanism to pull her family out of its impoverished condition. Pageants are part of her very limited options, but she knows very well that because of her natural assets as a woman (including her natural intelligence), she can very well succeed in pursuing such option.
It may be easy for some to say “let go” or “it’s time to move on”, but when one is poor and her options are very limited, it is natural for her to hold on to every decent possibility of reclaiming her stolen dreams and to preserve what’s left of her dignity. I suspect that the way Venus dealt with the dethronement issue is partly determined by her socio-economic class. I shall elaborate more on this point in the fourth section.
Globalization and the Pageant Fans
The seeming “triumphal narrative” suggested by recent developments in the Venus Raj story would not have been possible if not for her adoring fans who took the cudgels for her in what is broadly framed as a battle between the oppressed and the oppressor or the underprivileged beauty and the powerful/ elitist beauty pageant structure.
Thanks to globalization, the pageant fans from all over the world are able to wield power in the court of public opinion. Thanks specifically to the new communications technology, the pageant fans, especially Venus supporters, are able to gain access to popular social networking sites where 21st century public opinion is constantly formulated and reformulated. They are also able to access important contacts like representatives of the Miss Universe Organization whom they flooded with complaints and letters of appeal after Venus was unceremoniously dethroned.
Twenty years ago, the appeals would have easily fallen on deaf ears, but because news is now in constant flow in the borderless cyberspace, attention on the issue has been sustained. There was no way for media organizations, the local pageant organizers, and the MUO to ignore the story of Venus Raj.
Mediatization and the Trivialization of Poverty
There is a catch though to the mediatized global spread of the Venus Raj story. That I argue is the trivialization of poverty.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m a fan of Vicky Morales and her “Wish Ko Lang” show. Back home, I would indulge myself in a lachrymal late-Saturday afternoon experience every time I would watch the show. Unfortunately for me, there is no catharsis at the end of the show.
To the unsuspecting, uncritical viewer, a fairy tale ending awaits a tumultuous life journey if one sends her wish to the right godmother. This is what the show [perhaps, unintentionally] suggests. Sure it highlights the triumph-in-spite-of-all-odds aspect in Venus’ life (and every fan, including myself, wants her to succeed in the end), but it cannot be denied that the same show trivializes our concept of poverty, or poverty alleviation for that matter. It is as if dole outs are enough to assuage an impoverished state. It is as if the poor only need the intervention of a fairy godmother—or giant media network if you will—in order to surpass their miserable condition.
My reservation about this media construction of Venus’ story is that while it may have a lot of lachrymal value, it glosses over the fact that the plight of the impoverished in rural Philippines is implicated in the problematic social structure of the country. This same social structure, I must hasten to add, is what has pushed Filipinos like Venus’ mother to find work in places like Doha, Qatar where foreign workers are not necessarily shielded from abusive employers and exploitative working conditions. It is the same social structure that has maintained the patronage-oriented dynamics in the Philippine countryside. It is a social structure that no mere dole out from a giant network or any fairy godmother can reform or restructure.
What the media construction fails to show [or perhaps is afraid of showing] is that the personal narratives of the dramatis personae involved in this story are inextricably interwoven with our national narrative. As it is, biography is tied to history. The birth of Venus in Doha, Qatar, her family’s struggle in the Philippine countryside, and what many would like to believe as her fairytale ascendance to national prominence are all implicated in the not-so-fairytale-like story of the Philippines, incidentally after the fairytale-like episode called People Power of 1986.
Venus as the Agent of Herstory
Notwithstanding the highly problematic signals given off by such media constructions, Venus remains an admirable example of a woman exercising her “creative agency” in a structure that is controlled by elitist interests. So far, she has shown that she knows how to play her cards well, and if she maintains this, success in the international arena would not be farfetched for her—with or without the Universe crown.
Considering that she does not have the resources that would equal those of her perceived oppressors, she has intelligently used the media attention she has generated to let the public hear her side of the story. If she had chosen to remain silent and timid about her situation, her fans’ and supporters’ noise would have easily faded just a few days after her dethronement.
Admirably, Venus is an intelligent girl. Her interviews with the media exhibit not just her sincerity, but her capacity to articulate in the beautiful vernacular her story—which, because of its human interest value, the media has naturally picked up and recontextualized, sometimes to the point of becoming overboard.
Many have suggested that she should bring the issue to court, and Venus has not been remiss in considering such suggestion. But she is intelligent enough to explore, with the guidance of her able legal counsels, possibilities beyond the courtroom drama, which would have been lengthy and draining for the 21-year old beauty and her family from Bato, Camarines, Sur.
Not a few have suggested that she should just “move on” or “let go” and forget about reclaiming the crown, adding that the “legal luminaries” of the Araneta group of companies would make sure they stand firm on their decision to dethrone the crowned Philippine representative to Miss Universe 2010.
Fortunately for her adoring fans, Venus is her own person and is not to be dictated by just anybody, not even by a former international crown holder, whom Venus claims she regards with utmost respect.
“Worth fighting for”
In one of her TV interviews, she says: “This is not about the money. This is not about the crown. This is about my dream…” Thus, in spite of the issues hurled against her by her detractors and what may be regarded as the tentacles of elitism (this especially refers to those parties who easily drop contentious terms as “pragmatism”, “rule of law”, and the like to dissuade Venus from pursuing the case), Venus chose to do what she thought was right—to reclaim a dream that was unceremoniously snagged from her.
In what may be regarded as a strategic move on her part, she framed her quest to reclaim her right to represent the Philippines in the prestigious Miss Universe beauty pageant in a way that would elicit public sympathy and support for her: “My fight is now more than just chasing a dream. It is about clearing my soiled reputation. It is about standing up for people who are poor and born out of wedlock. It is a fight for acceptance” (“Dethroned Bicol beauty fights for dream”, Philippine Daily Inquirer, 9 April 2010). It is not surprising then that she somehow succeeded.
Indeed, Maria Venus Bayonito Raj, as my friend Jerry asserted in a pageant forum, is “worth fighting for.”
(Sincere thanks to Raymond Saldana, Owen Reyes, Bruce Casanova, and Keiji for the images)
###
