Epistemological Borders and Crossings in the War against ISIS in the Philippines

Abstract

Abstract Following the approach of Judith Butler in Frames of war: When is life grievable? and similar theoretical perspectives, the paper examines how the war against ISIS in Southern Philippines discursively represents the “other” – the victims of war – as dispensable “collateral damage”. There is no disputing that the siege of Marawi City by an ISIS- inspired group has taken a terrible toll on human life and has exposed the increasing vulnerability of the country to terrorism. Yet, the relation between the state and the displaced victims that emerged, brought forth in and through media reporting and political commentaries, constitutes an epistemological border that casts the military (as the state’s instrument) as the uncontested heroic entity, yet at the same time keeps the dislocated inhabitants – mostly Muslim minorities – out of sight, inaccessible, and in due course ungrievable. Media texts and commentaries, privileging state perspectives and sources, implicitly establish what counts as “grievable” lives. A privileged hegemonic perspective has kept the war victims de-subjectified, rendering their suffering and the grave humanitarian conditions on the ground unproblematic. The paper then looks into how a “desensitized” political discourse is structured by this new cognitive orientation. While some Marawi voices still surface, the focus is on gaining direct public empathy and identification toward a particular side and engendering moral indifference toward the victims. Lastly, the paper looks at epistemological crossings in the form of alternative (and potentially disruptive) discourses that have emerged, despite the narrowed liminal space. It argues that war victims, in a context of new meanings, retain some form of agency that might engender change, and could reemerge as recognizable voices who can participate as full partners in the collective restoration of Marawi and the Muslim community.