TABOR HILLS COLLEGE

REFUTING CANCEL CULTURE AND POLITICAL EMOTIVISM

IN VOTERS EDUCATION IN THE PHILIPPINES THROUGH

KAROL WOJTYLA'S THEORY OF PARTICIPATION

Sem. John Niel Tigoy

(Discipulus)

Mr. Jon Neil Perfecio

(Magister)
RATIONALE

Man's rationality creates an impact on the things he experiences in life. A rational agent is

subject to fulfill the destiny that necessitates him to interact with society. As such, calling

requires man to be in a state of participation to help realize his goals. It is inevitable in man's

common experience to deal with different opinions, knowledge, and arguments. Man tends to

agree on some aspects and disagree with what might contradict his principles. Especially when it

comes to political debates of varieties of opinion, man is not free from clashes of different views.

While it is good to participate in politics where people share and hold different notions of

what the nation ought to be. However, separate clashes of principles have led some people to go

through extreme measures of consolidating their convictions (i.e., propaganda, fake news, ad

hominem attacks against persons they disagree with, cancel culture, assassination.) Regardless of

the gravity of extremes, one cannot discount the depth intention for the common good of the

society. The means of recoursing in their upheld belief is the one that cannot be allowed to

tolerate.

Political emotivism is not new in a society where strong-willed emotions are often the

basis of arguments and convictions. In which the aforementioned is rampant and sensible

political discourse seems impossible. For decades, it has been the case, taking the context in the

Philippine political arena where everyone belittles arguments that contradict their views, which

becomes an implicit alienation that every individual participating in such a noble political cause

has problems resolving such a case. However, one cannot deny that the individuality of a

Filipino tends to be on the psychological aspect rather than understanding the reality as

abstractive. The point of argument is on empathy and misunderstanding of political justice.

society. It teaches to vote for candidates with integrity and morally upheld principles to benefit

society. At the same time, criticize if they have done wrong. Nevertheless, the pedagogy of this

noble cause has reached its period of ambiguity and relativism. It is open to further personal

interpretations, which again caused much division and gross disrespect of every exercising

participating citizen.

This paper seeks to understand the tendency of the Filpino as an individual being to

incline in cancel culture and political emotivism in the light of Karol Wojtyla's notion of

participation. It also attempts to refute these two subjects of philosophical investigation and

further implications to society and individuality. The process goes to understand the nature of

man concerning the cosmos and order of beings. Then proceeds to investigate the theory of

participation of Karol Wojtyla, citing some significant notions from his philosophy that can pose

relevance to the intersubjectivity of a Filipino as social and political participation in the

community.
I. Karol Wojtyla's notions of the Acting Person, Human Faculty, and Community

His works focus on man as a personal being – who exists and acts in a certain way

towards his proper end. As a philosopher and a priest, his thoughts are from St. Thomas Aquinas

and Max Scheler. However, the notions from these two prominent thinkers in philosophy

contradict each other. Wojtyla attempts to find objectivity from these thinkers in his study of the

person. His intellectual endeavor is extensively reflected throughout his papacy. Encyclicals like

Fides et Ratio, Laborem Exercens, Redemptor Hominis, Veritates Splendor, and Centisimus

Annus perfectly reflect his personalistic philosophical endeavor.

One of the problems that Karol Wojtyla's thought addressed is the problem of Alienation.

Sourced from the Marxist paradigm, alienation refers to the separation of things that naturally

belong together. In ordinary terms, alienation means being separated from something that one

rightfully has ownership to. For example: a person may be alienated from his private property by

virtue of some law or some event. For Wojtyla, alienation is a problem and a hindrance to a

person's fulfillment through his actions. Alienation is not a threat to man as a human being but is

a threat to him as a person. 1

His answer to the problem of alienation is his theory of participation – described as a

property of the person as well as an ability to share in the humanity of others. 2 It meant that man

exists and cooperates with others in the constant challenge of finding one's personhood.

Wojtyla would argue that the starting point of such a challenge begins with knowledge –

experience. The richness of the human person cannot be limited in words. The person is the

experience of existing and acting together with others. The object of man's experience is himself,

1
(Mejos, 2021, p. 71)
2
Ibid,.
a subject, but at the same time, he also experiences others as subjects. In the experience of man,

he is both the subject and the object of experience. The experience of man involves an "inner"

and "outer" aspect.3 These two distinctive aspects refer to the person's experience; hence, the

experience can be called unique and not transferable (i.e., inner aspect.) While the others

involved are the objects of experience (i.e., outer aspect.)

However, the philosophical assertion of rational beings having individual substances

cannot be tantamount to any other creatures. He argues:

"A person differs from a thing by structure and perfection. The structure

of the person includes "interiority," in which we find the elements of

spiritual life, and this focus us to acknowledge the spiritual nature of the

human soul. Therefore, the person possesses the spiritual perfection

proper to him. This perfection determines his value. In no way may a

person be treated on par with a thing (nor even on par with an

individual animal), since he possesses spiritual perfection, since he is in

a sense an (embodied) spirit, and not merely a "body," even if

splendidly enlivened. An enormous distance, an impassable abyss exists

between the animal psyche and man's spirituality."4

Wojtyla describes that a man performs a particular action; a deliberate will has been

performed because he has superiority over the self and his actions. The man in question has his

own experience of being the actor. Which meant that man's individual experience is the source

and cause of the act.

3
(Mejos, 2021, p. 72)
4
(Wojtyla, Love and Responsibility, 2013, pp. 103-104)
 One cannot deny that human actions reflect the person in question; human actions (actus

humanus) go back to the person because human actions have an intrinsic quality that can be

determined as morally good, evil, or indifferent but depends on the nature of such action. The

totality of man's experience happens through every action's moral and existential quality.

Special attention is given here because moral values not only determine the inner quality

of human actions, but they also never enter into a dynamic imprint sequence of actions without

leaving an imprint whereby man as a person, owing to his actions that may be good or evil,

himself becomes either good or evil. A person is a project – he enacts his existence in his self-

determining actions.5

Human action is pivotal in understanding the human person. The truth of the person

revealed and the means of reaching his destiny. When one undergoes introspection, the person

becomes conscientious, which would help one understand a deeper perspective of personhood

concerning one's actions. Such realizations must lead to the person's action fulfillment because

he becomes good when an act is morally good.

In order to start gaining deeper insights into man's experience, one should never be in a

state of isolation or opposition with others. A person has to expose himself as existing with other

people; otherwise, a person cannot grow if one continues in such a state. As a result,

communities are formed to reach out to others. The relationships that grow in the existing

community will mutually reveal themselves in their human subjectivity.

In a genuinely proper interpersonal community, persons reveal themselves in their most

profound structure of relating as acting persons. It follows that the striving for fulfillment

cultivates everyone's conscience and testifies to the transcendence proper to the human being as a
5
(Mejos, 2021, p. 73)
person. People who engage in this relationship experience themselves a whole new dimension.

This relationship does not lose their personhood but experiences a change of their direction – the

common good determines something. Co-existence and co-acting are what also made unite the

bonds of this relationship. The formation of the relationship is not an accidental event, but it

happens through introspective self-determined actions of the person that one cannot pursue

fulfillment if one is alone. It comes to be by recognizing the common humanity shared by

everyone.
II. ON ALIENATION ITS RELEVANCE TO CANCEL CULTURE

For Wojtyla, alienation abolishes the person as a subject. It hinders the person from

experiencing empathy and sympathy. Alienation signifies that it deprives man of the

personalistic value of one's actions. It is not recognized as a neighbor but treated as a stranger or

an enemy. Alienation treats the person as an outsider –not a community member. Alienation

denies the person his right and ability to associate himself with others to form an interpersonal

community. The real threat of alienation is not so much that it "dehumanizes" the human being

as an individual member of the species but threatens the person as a subject. The reduction or the

non-affirmation of the person as a personal subject, capable of fulfilling and transcending

himself, is one of the greatest dangers of alienation.6

A society that cultivates and tolerates alienation leads its members to be in a state of

isolation from one another. Every individual in such an unfortunate state loses the opportunity to

experience the wealth of experience gained by entering into an interpersonal community and

loses the possible achievements of searching for the common good in society. Alienation also

denies the person of the experience of the value and fulfillment of his actions. The origin and

cause of alienation cannot be singled out to point only to one factor because there could be many

things involved in the process of alienating persons from other persons and their actions.7

The personalistic value so conditions the whole ethical order in acting and cooperation

that it also determines the order. The action must be performed not because only then can it have

an ethical value – and can that value be assigned to it – but also because the person has the basic

and "natural" (i.e., issuing from the fact that he is a person) right to perform actions and to be

fulfilled in them. This person's right attains its full sense and import as a right concerning acting
6
(Mejos, 2021, p. 76)
7
Ibid.,
"together with others." It is then that the normative significance of participation comes into the

whole light and is confirmed.8 The act of alienating someone can be done by an individual, a

community, or a combination, depending on the circumstance. For this reason, Wojtyla

determines two types of systems that support it: Individualism and Totalism.

For Wojtyla, individualism limits the person's participation since it only isolates him

from the rest of the community; to look for his good, which would lead him to regard that such

isolation leads him not to see the good of others the community that he belongs. The good of the

individual is then treated as if it were opposed in contradiction to other individuals and their

good at best; this good, in essence, may be considered as involving self-preservation and self-

defense. From the point of individualism, to act "together with others," just as to exist "together

with others," is a necessity that the individual has to submit to, a necessity that corresponds to

none of his very own features or favorable properties; neither does the acting and existing

together with others serve or develop any of the individual's positive and essential constituents.

For the individual, the "others" are a source of limitation; they may even appear to represent the

opposite pole in a variety of conflicting interests. If a community is formed, its purpose is to

protect the good of the individual from the "others." This, in broad outline, is the essence of

individualism, the variations and different shades of which we shall not consider here. 9 It implies

that at some point, individualism leads to rejecting participation. There is no such thing as well

found within the realm of individualism; it only seeks to work with others for one's gain.

Community activities may be realized under this state but under the pretext of imposition by

authorities that one must act to pursue one's gain.

8
(Wojtyla, The Acting Person, 1979, p. 272)
9
Ibid., p. 274
 Now Wojtyla also considered totalism as a denial of participation as well. However, he

emphasized that totalism is called "reversed individualism." The dominant trait of totalism may

be characterized as the need to find protection from the individual, who is seen as the chief

enemy of society and the common good. Since totalism assumes that inherent in the individual

there is only the striving for individual good, that any tendency toward participation or

fulfillment in acting and living together with others is totally alien to him, it follows that the

"common good" can be attained only by limiting the individual. The good thus advocated by

totalism can never correspond to the wishes of the individual, to the good he is capable of

choosing independently and freely according to the principles of participation; it is always a

good that is incompatible with a limitation upon the individual. Consequently, the realization of

the common good frequently presupposes the use of coercion.10

The weakness found between these two systems lies in their false understanding of the

human person. Both systems alienate the person from entering a community of persons and

fulfilling his actions. Wojtyla describes both systems to be "impersonalistic" or

"antipersonalistic." Both systems deny the capability of the person to enter into a community.

Wojtyla argues that man has the right to total freedom of acting even within the community. A

person still has the freedom to determine his goals even as he is part of a community. This

freedom of action within a community is not to be understood as absolute freedom but rather as a

condition by the truth and the good.11

In this regard, alienation now becomes an outright denial of man's natural faculties – his

potentiality to perform a specific action and the fulfillment of the self as he is existing and acting

together with other people. Such alienation is prevalent in contemporary society, which society
10
(Wojtyla, The Acting Person, 1979, p. 274)
11
(Mejos, 2021, p. 78)
has disregarded and ignored. There are some instances in the political and social sphere that such

systems of alienation are fostered in different means and forms. Nevertheless, for the sake of

clarification, alienation is an event (i.e., a person witnessed the death of his beloved puppy is an

event) or a specific condition experienced by a person (i.e., a mode of being of the person, for

instance, a person who lost his business is in a miserable condition.) Sometimes its motivations

are personal and also a result of many things that are interconnected.

Although Wojtyla never specifies a particular community, society, or nation that fosters

alienation. However, the prevalent use of technology, disinformation, and political emotivism

has led man to a state of confusion and bitterness, in relevance to the heated political situation in

the Philippines where certain groups of people cancel out a specific group of people since they

do not share the same views as them. In which the concerned group retaliates in the same manner

in defense.

Cancel culture is a widespread practice of avoiding assistance or support from specific

individuals, groups, and companies that have made offensive statements due to disagreements of

beliefs, principles, and arguments. Many people suffered from such malpractice, where it is

noticeable in news outlets where individuals suffering from cancel culture opted to lose their

careers businesses and, in some worst cases, committed suicide.

Common scenarios of cancel culture often happen in social media where people clash

with one another due to various political arguments. Everyone insists on believing that they are

correct in their beliefs without seeing the essence of goodness that underlies every argument.

When all forms of civil political discussions end, people resort to mockery, bashing, insulting,

and name-calling. Such circumstances posed severe problems in the phenomenological and

societal sphere; Wojtyla suggests the theory of participation to address the problem.
III. THEORY OF PARTICIPATION

Authentic human acting consistently affirms the unique structure of self-determination.

Insofar brought to be by a person, an act has a personalistic value before a moral value. The

personalistic value of the action lies in the fact that the action is performed, and in it, the person

realizes according to the structure which is proper to him. A person exists and acts in a specific

manner, along with others. 12

In his philosophical endeavor, he introduces the theory of participation. This participation

refers to the joint actions of every individual. Participation requires the realization of standard

action and consequences. However, one needs to protect one's value while undergoing the

process of participation. It also requires that one participates so that he does not lose his essence

of personhood (i.e., to be fully participative and express naturally of his personality without

prejudice and biases.) in pursuit of the destiny of self-fulfillment.

To avoid any misinterpretations of participation. Wojtyla clarifies: "Being and acting

"together with others" does not constitute a new subject of acting but only introduces new

relations among the persons who are the real and actual subjects of acting. In all discussions

about the community, this comment is necessary to avoid misunderstanding. The concept

"community," also in its substantival and abstract sense, seems to come very near to the dynamic

reality of the person and participation, perhaps even nearer than such notions as "society" or

"social group."13

Participation allows every individual to optimize his potentiality as a social creature. It

sees various sequences that determine the inner depth of the self in relation to others. Since an

12
(Mejos, 2021, p. 79)
13
(Wojtyla, The Acting Person, 1979, p. 277)
individual is in a state of participation, it demands the individual to experience different beings in

terms of interpersonal relationships. Such friendly and respectful participation leads him to easily

pursuit the common good. A good example would be the family – each member is a unique

individual whose position in the family is not something which can be replaced by anybody.

Their difference also accounts for the very dynamic relationship that occurs within the family.

Every member has a task to fulfill which only he/she can do. All of these tasks contribute to the

growth and development not only of its members but also of the group (the family) as a whole.

As persons grow, the community grows in the process and vice versa.14

14
(Mejos, 2021, pp. 80-81)
IV. ON SOLIDARITY AND OPPOSITION

As every individual develops in their personal growth, the community, society, and

country grow. The common good is not bounded to a particular object of goodness; instead, it

focuses on the good in itself that people share in the community, which means that everyone is

subjected to be involved in a collective action to achieve a particular common good since there

are various and different communities that require different means to attain. Wojtyla

distinguishes two types of participation necessary for the community to be in harmony:

Solidarity and Opposition.

The attitude of "solidarity" cannot be disassociated from that of "opposition," for each is

necessary to the understanding of the other. The attitude of solidarity is, so to speak, the natural

consequence of the fact that human beings live and act together; it is the attitude of a community,

in which the common good properly conditions and initiates participation, and participation in

turn properly serves the common good, fosters it, and furthers its realization. "Solidarity" means

a constant readiness to accept and to realize one's share in the community because of one's

membership within that particular community. In accepting the attitude of solidarity, man does

what he is supposed to do not only because of his membership in the group, but because he has

"the benefit of the whole" in view: he does it for the "common good." The awareness of the

common good makes him look beyond his own share; and this intentional reference allows him

to realize essentially his own share. Indeed, to some extent, solidarity prevents trespass upon

other people's obligations and duties, and seizing the principle of participation, which from the

objective and "material" point of view indicates the presence of "parts" in the communal

structure of human acting and being. The attitude of solidarity means respect for all parts that are
the share of every member of the community. To take over a part of the duties and obligations

that are not mine is intrinscally contrary to participation and to the essence of the community.15

One cannot avoid being selfish; otherwise, it would also mean that solidarity is not

realized. Therefore, the community's attitude must be coherent with the common good. One must

be reminded that every community member must observe prudence in observing the necessary

act of acting and responsibility. In order to make such a distinction, the needs of the community

must be emphasized than other involvement of particularities. This will eventually supplement

every member in the community (i.e., whatever a particular member has done, every other

member is ready to support his actions in expressing solidarity.)

There are specific implications if the idea of participation is strict to be contextualized in

"solidarity," Wojtyla understands the need for the opposition's attitude. However, in contrast to a

basic understanding of the term, opposition in this sense is to be understood as consistent with

solidarity.

The one who voices his opposition to the general or particular rules or regulations of the

community does not hereby reject his membership; he does not withdraw his readiness to act and

to work for the common good. Different interpretations of opposition that an individual may

adopt with respect to society are of course possible, but here we adopt the one that sees it as

essentially an attitude of solidarity; far from rejecting the common good or the need of

pariticpation, it consists on the contrary in their confirmation. This opposition aims then at more

adequate understanding and, to an even oppoisiton aims then at more adequate understanding

and, to an even greater degree, the means employed to achieve the common good, especially

from the point of the possibility of participation. We have experience of innumerably different

15
(Wojtyla, The Acting Person, 1979, pp. 284-285)
types of oppositions that have been continually expressed in the course of man's existing and

acting "together with others," which show that those who in this way stand up in opposition do

not intend thereby to cut themselves off from their community. On the contrary, they seek their

own place and a constructive role within the community; they seek for that participation and that

attitude to the common good which would allow them a better, a fuller, and a more effective

share of the communal life. It would be too easy to quote endless examples of people who

contest – and thus adopt the attitude of opposition – because of their deep concern for the

common good (e.g., parents may disagree with the educational system or its methods because

their views concerning the education of their children differ from those of the official educational

authorities). 16

A comprehensive inquiry is necessary to evaluate the essence of opposition. Since the

attitude of opposition is relativistic, which requires everyone to participate regardless of

disagreements, this would make the essence of opposition constructive. Wojtyla argues further

that certain conditions need to be met for the essence of opposition to become constructive. The

community must allow the opposition to emerge from solidarity and express itself within the

given community's structure. Such expressive concerns must operate to the benefit of the

community. This structure becomes definite when the community does not acknowledge a

justified opposition but the practical effect of opposition that necessitates the common good and

the rights of participation.

In this regard, Wojtyla accepts the notion of dialogue where community members

genuinely support each other in solidarity. However, such solidarity must not stifle the

16
(Wojtyla, The Acting Person, 1979, p. 286)
opposition since opposition per se operates within the community's framework that seeks the

common good. However, opposition makes the community's cooperation difficult, but Wojtyla

asserts that it should not lead one to damage every member or prevent someone from exercising

it. He believes that the principle of dialogue will lead the community in light of controversial

issues, see if these are true, and remove all other relativistic views. Since this relativistic

perspective leads every member to conflict, the truth leads the community to flourish. Regardless

of circumstance, dialogue must be adopted to maintain the status quo.

When Wojtyla became the supreme pontiff of the Catholic Church, he touched on

contemporary political philosophy by acknowledging a sudden change in the meaning of

democracy, which has its tendency to become relativistic in the guise of pragmatism. He writes

through his encyclical Fides et Ratio:

"There is growing support for a concept of democracy which is not grounded upon any

reference to unchanging values. Whether or not a line of action is admissible is decided by the

vote of a parliamentary majority. The consequences of this are clear: In practice, the great moral

decisions of humanity are subordinated to decisions taken one after another by institutional

agencies. Moreover, anthropology itself is severely compromised by a one-dimensional vision of

the human being, a vision which excludes the great ethical dilemmas and the existential analyses

of the meaning of suffering and sacrifice, of life and death."17

Thus Wojtyla's philosophy has only reinforced the necessity of participation to avoid any

possible distortion of participation since these distortions lead to a radical indifferent attitude in

the community.

17
John Paul II, Fides et Ratio, accessed March 11, 2022, Vatican va, 89.
V. AUTHENTIC PARTICIPATION

All that was said so far about solidarity and opposition as well as our general option of

the principle of dialogue (a more detailed justification of this option would require a separate
study) has to be constantly verified in juxtaposition with that truth about the action and the

person which we have been laboriously striving for throughout this book. Both the attitude of

solidarity and that of opposition appear to be intrinsically "authentic." In the first place, each

allows the actualization not only of participation but also of the transcendence of the person in

the action. In the second place, it appears that in either those attitudes are authentic inasmuch as

each respects the personalistic value of the action.18

Solidarity and opposition must be tested every time since different circumstances need

different interpretations to resolve. Wojtyla acknowledges that when one fails to discern, the

member is inclined to distort the genuine attitude of solidarity and opposition that might deprive

of their actual personalistic value. This means that one is obligated to think thoroughly and

impartially that every communal dialogue needs a dynamic subordination of truth. It must lead to

the common good that manifests through one's moral conscience. This behavior is what Wojtyla

believes is authentic participation. However, he acknowledged that there are two types of

inauthentic participation that, when one fails to notice, will change the attitude of solidarity into

conformism and the attitude of opposition into noninvolvement.

18
(Wojtyla, The Acting Person, 1979, p. 288)
VI. INAUTHENTIC PARTICIPATION CONCERNING POLITICAL EMOTIVISM

The term "conformism" derives from "to conform" and denotes a tendency to comply

with the accepted custom and to resemble others, a tendency that in itself is neutral, in many

respects positive and constructive or even creative. This constructive and creative assimilation in

the community is a confirmation and also a manifestation of human solidarity. However, when it

begins to sway toward servility, it becomes highly negative. It is this negative tendency that we

call "conformism." It evidences not only an intrinsic lack of solidarity but simultaneously an

attitude of evading opposition; in short, a noninvolvement. If it still denotes man's assimilation

with the other members of the community, it does so only in an external and superficial sense, in

a sense devoid of the personal grounds of conviction, decision, and choice.19

The main component of conformism is an attitude of compliance or resignation that leads

him to a specific situation instead of fully operating in his human faculties. Where such faculties

develop him to become responsible and committed, this tendency fails him to exercise a

constructive community and be drifted with the flow of the majority. Even when someone is

willing to conform to the community, one is not saved from the tendency of conformism. This

attitude only indicates a lack of proper disposition and self-governance. Wojtyla observes that

the problem of conformism does not rely on being submissive alone but rather on the positive

impulse of man to be in conformity. Nevertheless, its more profound implications lead one to

believe that working with others has achieved self-fulfillment.

Conformism in its servile form then becomes a denial of participation in the proper

meaning of the term. A mere semblance of participation, a superficial compliance with others,

which lacks conviction and authentic engagement, is substituted for real participation. Thus the

19
(Wojtyla, The Acting Person, 1979, p. 289)
specifically human ability of shaping creatively in his community is dwarfed, annihilated, or

perverted. This state of things cannot but have a negative effect on the common good, whose

dynamism springs from true personal participation. Simultaneously, conformism favors

situations marked by indifference toward the common good. We may then look at it as a specific

form of individualism leading to an evasion from the community, which is seen as a threat to the

good of the individual, accompanied by a need to dissimulate oneself from the community

behind a mask of external appearances. Hence conformism brings uniformity rather than unity.

Beneath the uniform surface, however, there lies latent differentiation, and it is the task of the

community to provide for the necessary conditions for turning it into personal participation.

Situations of prevailing conformism can never be accepted as satisfactory; for when people adapt

themselves to the demands of the community only superficially and when they do so only to gain

some immediate advantatges or to avoid trouble, the person as well as the community incur

irremediable losses. 20

Now Wojtyla turns to the other inauthentic participation, which is noninvolvement. He

begins to characterize it as an act that disregards the concern for attaining the community's

common good. Although conformism evades the authentic attitude of solidarity, avoidance also

leads one to avoid conformism. Nevertheless, it does not exercise the right attitude of opposition,

which consists of the active concern for the common good in the community. A noninvolvement

attitude is nothing but a noticeable withdrawal from the community. It shows protests and

restrained the ability to show concern in participation. The apparent description is that one shows

his absence from the community.

20
(Wojtyla, The Acting Person, 1979, p. 290)
 Wojtyla believes that absence is wrong. Although he acknowledges that the primary

motivation for such attitude is another way of expression, that in some situations might involve

taking the position of debate, noninvolvement becomes a substitute attitude that finds the attitude

of solidarity as something difficult to deal with and does not believe in the opposition principle.

Indeed, it would be impossible to deny that this attitude may result from a deliberate

conscious decision, and then its essentially personalistic value has to be acknowledged. But even

if there are valid reasons to justify it is being adopted by the individual, these same reasons

become an accusation of the community insofar as it has caused it. After all, if participation is a

fundamental good of a community, when participation becomes impossible – as in the attitude of

noninvolvement when justified by the existing conditions – the functioning and the life of the

community must somehow be defective. If the members of a community see the only solution to

their personal problems in withdrawal from the communal life, this is a sure sign that the

common good in this community is conceived of erroneously. Nevertheless, for all that may in a

way justify noninvolvement as a kind of shrunken compensatory attitude for full-fledged

fulfillment, we cannot consider it as authentic. At many points, it borders on conformism, not to

mention the instances when both attitudes merge into something that might perhaps be defined as

a "conformist noninvolvement." The most important, however, is the fact that either attitude

causes man to abandon his striving for fulfillment in acting "together with others"; he is

convinced of being deprived of his prerogatives to be "himself" by the community and thus tries

to save it in isolation. In the case of conformism, he attempts to maintain appearances, but in that

noninvolvement, he no longer seems to care about them. In either case, he has been forcibly

deprived of something very important: of that dynamic strain of participation unique to the
person from which stem actions leading to his authentic fulfillment in the community of being

and acting together with others.21

In this regard, conformism and noninvolvement manifest emotivism. It involves a series

of conflicts due to inclined emotional outbursts caused by disagreements within the community.

If one is actively participating in the community to avoid conflict, one has recourse to the

problematic attitude of conformity if one declines in participation in the community to express

distrust to the community. However, a noninvolvement attitude depends on the person's

conviction, reasons, and motives of acting as such. What results is a very fragmented society,

and people become apathetic and disinterested in matters other than their own.22This is the setup

of voters' education in the Philippines. Where emotionally inclined thoughts are the convictions

of conforming and uninvolving. Distrusts, hatred and false dichotomy are the motivations for

such behavior.

Political discussions are now reducible into the sphere of emotivism. However, one

cannot dismiss emotion since it is a subjective and internalized state of man, a part of his human

faculties that reflects a particular behavior. Emotivism dismisses universal moral principles and

reduces them to the socialization of cultural norms. Emotivism is not subjectivism, but it has

nevertheless been followed by psychological determinism.23 Suppose universal moral principles

are compromised and are now reducible into a social interaction between every community

member with the power to persuade one another. Then emotivism is not applicable in any

political discussion. If one insists on such a case, then every member engaging in a political

discourse must prepare themselves to be emotional, for that matter. Assigning that emotional

21
(Wojtyla, The Acting Person, 1979, p. 291)
22
(Mejos, 2021, p. 82)
23
(Vranic, 2016, pp. 729-730)
meaning should become the criteria for the evaluation would also lead to a vicious cycle since

every disagreement in the political discourse started because of the emotional interpretation of

the attitude.
VII. THE FILIPINO VOTER

A prevalent populist type of electorate characterizes the democratic elections happening

in the Philippines. People elect a candidate in terms of their popularity, political party, and

ancestry.

Voting preference is one dimension of voting behavior that refers to what makes people

prefer one party or candidate over other parties and candidates. Accordingly, the primary factors

that affect voters' decisions are their biological nature and needs, their psychological makeups,

their membership in social groups, and the communications they receive. It explained that many

voters tend to think that candidates and party leaders who share a voter's characteristics are more

likely to act in that person's interest when in office.24

The Filipino voters' inclination to support a particular candidate is through the candidate's

political alignment to a political party or parties that are supportive of an administration that is

gaining popular support from the majority is favored by youth voters. The candidates' secure

positive standing in pre-election surveys is likewise preferred. Needless to say, a candidate's

stand or position on key issues of the country, as well as their personal background, are also

important because the electorate is also composed of non-youth voters. While it is important to

look into the candidate's party affiliation and status in pre-election surveys in voting, these

factors do not guarantee a candidate's winnability in an election, nor do these ensure competence

and ability in the performance of duties and functions. On the part of the voters, it is equally

important to apply an issue-based choice and evaluate the candidate's qualities and background

during elections.25

24
(Batara & Labadan, 2021, p. 245)
25
(Batara & Labadan, 2021, p. 260)
VIII. CONCLUSION

Cancel culture and political emotivism are examples of alienation in the light of Karol

Wojtyla's phenomenology. These problems stem from one's failure of proper disposition, where

one cannot exercise impartiality and see everything with goodness. Democracy in this context is

now interpreted to have connections with Karol Wojtyla's theory of participation (i.e.,

community.) As a nation that exercises the right to suffrage, it is now the act of participation

where everyone votes on their preferred candidate. The Filipino electorate is now participating in

the community's aim for the common good. However, one cannot avoid conflicting political

positions that every position has its own merits. The problem is when a particular group becomes

violent and outward disrespectful in political dialogues. One indeed needs to assert the benefit of

the common good, but one must also necessitate thinking that no one has the monopoly of

participation towards the common good. Cancel culture and political emotivism has done

nothing good but only created an enormous gap of division and utter confusion for every

member.

There are problems encountered when one participates in the community. Nevertheless,

as a member who exercises participation, one needs to recognize the common good positively.

However, it does not automatically happen through a series of self-introspection to achieve

fulfillment. It needs the cooperation of others, and one must not wish for the goodness of his own

but rather the goodness of everyone. The person shares his humanity, and others will also share.

It means that the underlying principle of such an act is through the commandment of love.
 For Wojtyla, the commandment of love and the community of love is the only perfect

community. One must remind oneself that every individual exercising as a social and political

participant has unique circumstances. Although, perceiving different ideas and opinions contrary

to the self posed a severe temptation of alienation regardless of circumstance and good

intentions. However, the commandment of love is that the participants freely enjoy the

experience of every person's richness. Every member must keep in mind that it is the mission of

every man that requires a tremendous amount of patience and effort. One needs to go beyond his

comfort zone and express the virtue of loving that requisites suffering and pain through such

participation.
IX. BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRIMARY SOURCES

___________. Wojtyla, K. (1979). The Acting Person. (A.-T. Tymieniecka, Ed., & A. Potocki,

Trans.) Dordrecht: D, Reidel Publishing Company.

___________. Wojtyla, K. (2013). Love and Responsibility. (G. Ignatik, Trans.) Boston: Pauline

Books and Media.

___________. John Paul II, (2022, March 11). Fides et Ratio. Retrieved from The Holy See:

https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-

ii_enc_14091998_fides-et-ratio.pdf

SECONDARY SOURCES

___________. Batara, E. B., & Labadan, A. K. (2021). Factors Affecting Youth Voting

Preferences in the Philippine Senatorial Election: A Structural Equation Modelling (SEM)

Analysis. Journal of Government and Politics, 242-264. doi:https://doi.org/10.18196/jgp.123137

___________. Mejos, D. E. (2021, December 10). Against Alienation. Retrieved from

http://www.kritike.org/journal/issue_1/mejos_june2007.pdf

___________. Vranic, B. (2016). Democratic Values, Emotions, and Emotivism.

doi:10.2298/FID1604723V