Cruz / The (Mis)education of the Filipino Writer 3 THE (MIS)EDUCATION OF THE FILIPINO WRITER The Tiempo Age and Institutionalized Creative Writing in the Philippines Conchitina Cruz University of the Philippines-Diliman Abstract According to Merlie Alunan, the writers Edilberto and Edith Tiempo, founders of the Silliman University National Writers Workshop, have so influenced Philippine literary production that the latter half of the twentieth century and “a few more decades hereafter” can be called “The Tiempo Age.” This essay examines the relationship of aesthetics and politics in institutionalized creative writing in the Philippines by unpacking the politics of the Silliman Workshop’s autonomous aesthetics. It situates the origins, pedagogy, and imagined community of the Silliman Workshop within the network of American colonial education in the Philippines, American cultural diplomacy, and institutionalized creative writing in the United States. It explores how New Criticism, as appropriated by the Iowa Writers’ Workshop-trained Tiempos, conflates the autonomy of the literary text with the autonomy of the literary space in which it is produced. The lack of institutional self-critique authorized by this conflation results in the propagation by the Silliman Workshop of colonialist and classist ideas about language and literary production, which are camouflaged, if not naturalized, as principles and mechanisms integral to the craft of writing. The essay calls on the successors of the Tiempos who currently run the Silliman Workshop to scrutinize the historical contingency of the aesthetic values they inherited and to revise their New Critical pedagogy, which continues to uphold the primacy of English as the language of creative writing education and literary production. Keywords creative writing pedagogy, writing workshops, politics of aesthetics, cultural diplomacy, Philippine writing in English Kritika Kultura 28 (2017): –034 © Ateneo de Manila University <http://journals.ateneo.edu/ojs/kk/> Cruz / The (Mis)education of the Filipino Writer 4 About the Author Conchitina Cruz teaches creative writing and literature at the University of the Philippines in Diliman. Her books of poetry include Dark Hours, elsewhere held and lingered, and There Is No Emergency. She earned her Ph.D. in English from State University of New York (SUNY) Albany. She is part of the small presses High Chair and the Youth & Beauty Brigade, and she helps run the small press expo Better Living Through Xeroxography (BLTX). Kritika Kultura 28 (2017): –034 © Ateneo de Manila University <http://journals.ateneo.edu/ojs/kk/> Cruz / The (Mis)education of the Filipino Writer 5 Creative writing as an academic discipline entered the Philippines by way of a Filipino officer who served in the resistance movement during World WarII . Like his colleagues and students at Silliman University in Dumaguete, Edilberto K. Tiempo, together with his wife Edith, was forced to retreat to the hills of Negros Oriental at the onset of the war. He worked as the historical data officer of the Seventh Military District, gathering intelligence for the United States Armed Forces in the Far East (USAFFE). The data he collected, which tracked the movements and documented the atrocities of Japanese troops, was consolidated into a unit history and later proved to be relevantin the prosecution of Japanese war criminals (Casper, “Tiempo, Edilberto” 1554; Torrevillas, “Light on the Mountain” 224-225; Klein 12). After the war, Tiempo was given a scholarship to attend graduate school in the United States by the Presbyterian Board of Missions, which funded the American- run Silliman University. A teacher of literature and a writer, he was sent to the Iowa Writers’ Workshop of the University of Iowa in 1946, the year the Philippines gained independence from the United States. The following year, Edith received the same scholarship and joined her husband at the Iowa Writers’ Workshop (Alegre and Fernandez 409-10, 447). The Tiempos were the first Filipinos and among the first non-Americans to graduate from the oldest creative writing program in the United States.1 They, in turn, inaugurated the institutionalization of creative writing in the Philippines and in Asia (Torrevillas, “From Hybrid Seed”). In 1951, the Tiempos established a creative writing program for undergraduate English majors at Silliman University (Pernia 47). In 1962, they launched the National Summer Writers’ Workshop, which is still to this day extremely influential in disseminating the aesthetics and pedagogy that they learned in Iowa. The Silliman University National Writers Workshop, as it is now known, is an annual summer workshop that provides aspiring writers with the opportunity to study with a panel of acclaimed Filipino authors. Having built a reputation as “a rite of passage for the country’s finest writers,” it has given fellowships to over six hundred Filipinos since its inception over half a century ago, and counts among its alumni and teaching panel those who dictate “the shape, direction, and development of Philippine literature” (“About”). A coveted means of induction to the literary community, the Silliman Workshop is also known as a bastion of New Criticism, which dominates the tradition of Philippine literature in English. New Critical tenets were integral to the Tiempos’ transplantation of the American creative writing workshop to the fledgling postcolony.2 According to Merlie Alunan, the Tiempos have influenced Philippine literary production to such an extent that the latter half of the twentieth century and “a few more decades hereafter” can be called “the Tiempo Age” (373).3 For their work as teachers steeped in New Criticism, the fiction writer Edilberto and the poet Edith are credited with cultivating excellence in the writing craft among generations of Filipino writers and teachers of creative writing. They are, however, Kritika Kultura 28 (2017): –034 © Ateneo de Manila University <http://journals.ateneo.edu/ojs/kk/> Cruz / The (Mis)education of the Filipino Writer 6 also charged with propagating a purportedly politically impotent movement of literary criticism, in which the writer’s primary domain of responsibility is the integrity of the literary text in itself, as an aesthetic object and an organic whole. To their critics, the Tiempo school, which embodies institutionalized creative writing in the American New Critical mode, privileges aesthetics over politics. In downplaying the role of literature in social transformation, which, in postcolonial Philippines, includes the work of decolonization and nation building, it authorizes the production of apolitical and de-historicized, if not assimilationist and antinationalist, literature. The charge is not without basis, but it is not yet thoroughly elaborated on by Filipino literary critics and historians. On the one hand, the New Critical belief in the autonomy of literature tends to function as a convenient shorthand to justify the easy dismissal of the Tiempo school as indifferent to socio-historical realities in general, and the nationalist project in particular. On the other hand, the primacy of craft as the content of a creative writing education serves as a catchall explanation for the lack of emphasis on social consciousness in the Tiempos’ pedagogy. Both arguments rely on the deadlock that pits aesthetic against political investments and maintain that the Tiempos, for better or worse, privileged the former over the latter. To unsettle the routine adherence to this theoretical impasse and apprehend more fully the vexed relationship of aesthetics and politics in institutionalized creative writing in the Philippines, it is necessary to flesh out the politics of the Silliman Workshop’s autonomous aesthetics. I turn to accounts by the Tiempos, their American mentor Paul Engle, and Filipino writers mentored by the Tiempos to situate the Silliman Workshop within the network of American colonial education in the Philippines, American cultural diplomacy, and institutionalized creative writing in the United States. These coordinates illuminate the colonial roots of the American creative writing workshop in the Philippines and implicate the Silliman Workshop in what Renato Constantino calls “the mis-education of the Filipino.” In his essay of the same title, first published in 1966, Constantino argues that long after the Philippines achieved state sovereignty, the Filipino continues to be “a good colonial,” whose lingering subservience is ensured by an educational system instituted by the United States and rigged to propagate American supremacy. Constantino’s call for “a truly nationalist education,” which occurred during the early years of the Silliman Workshop, draws attention to the need for educational institutions, in the aftermath of colonization, not only to recognize their compromised provenance, but also to dismantle and repurpose the ways that they function as conduits of colonial ideas. As the case of the Silliman Workshop will show, however, New Criticism, while providing a systematized approach to art that validates its study in an institutional setting, is also an effective apparatus for disabling institutional self-critique. Accounts of the Silliman Workshop’s history by Kritika Kultura 28 (2017): –034 © Ateneo de Manila University <http://journals.ateneo.edu/ojs/kk/> Cruz / The (Mis)education of the Filipino Writer 7 its founders and those whom they trained suggest that the belief in the autonomy of the literary text sanctions the treatment