Rizal in Fili

Jose Rizal is known as a reformist. He sought change through a "peaceful" way and used education for empowerment. However, the El Filibusterismo stirred the 1896 Philippine revolution. Simoun, the lead character of the novel, sought freedom and revenge against Spanish oppressors through an uprising. The book describes an armed struggle for national reorganization. Rizal's thoughts became an inspiration for a bloody uprising.

The Fili then is interpreted as one of the manifestations of Rizal's position on revolution. According to Benedict Anderson, the characters in the novel represents Rizal. The accounts reflect his mind, thus reflects his possibilities. Simoun could be Rizal. There could be a possibility that Rizal is a revolutionary. The El Fili placed Rizal in a different light and gave him a different persona.

However, Rizal told Ferdinand Blumentrit , "I have not written in [El Fili] my idea of revenge against my enemies but only what is for the good of those who are suffering...". The question still remains, is he for or against revolution?

The Templar

In history, The Knights Templar was a brotherhood of Christian soldiers who swore to protect the temple of Solomon as a passage for pilgrims. They also fought the Crusades to win the Holy Land. However, they accumulated vast wealth that the Order became the hot eye for jealous men. Because of this, they were persecuted and burned at stake.

Steve Berry made a novel inspired by the Knights Templar entitled The Templar Legacy.

In the novel, Raymond de Roquefort has been planning a revolt. Set in the modern context, the brothers are now living in secrecy. As a member of the Order, he seeks to change this lifestyle. One of his hidden agendas is to revenge the persecution the order has undergone.

Raymond de Roquefort's character interests me. As the reader who is able to see the whole picture of the story, I portray him as the antagonist. He killed and tortured innocent people for the sake of his planned revolt. However, if I were a member of the order, i would probably see him as the hero. That's because he gives an excellent speech that appealed to the emotions. He knew what made his brothers tick. And he used their wants and needs to gain control over the order.

Yes, his intentions could be considered positive, but his ways are wrong. To gain support from his fellow brothers, he didn't dwell on the specifics. He pressed on the outcomes and his goals impressed the members.

Magic could be learned

When Adolf Hitler speaks, i often feel that there's a little bit of magic involved. He doesn't smile, he's short and he's scary, but German's adored him. I, on the other hand, was taught not to like him, and early on was informed of his vile behavior. So, when i think of the word "Hitler" i feel uncomfortable. But when i see him, i become fascinated with his words (even if i don't understand German) and I start imitating the marches of he Natzis.

This innate capability of Hitler to influence people is called charisma. He used charisma to govern Germany. He used charisma to persuade people into war and sacrifice their lives. That's too much power that not just I, but most people envy.

According to Tom Geoghegan of BBC News Magazine, Charis means "grace" or "gift" in Greek. He also brought the good news that people like me who dreams of even just a tint of charisma do not have to worry anymore.

A study, led by Richard Wiseman, suggest that charisma is 50% innate and 50% learned.

"When you see someone else who has charisma, without realizing it, you're mimicking their posture and their facial expressions," says Professor Wiseman, a psychologist. "An obvious example is when someone smiles at you and you smile back. And how you hold yourself influences your emotions."

So, how to be charismatic?

General: Open body posture, hands away from face when talking, stand up straight, relax, hands apart with palms forwards or upwards

To an individual: Let people know they matter and you enjoy being around them, develop a genuine smile, nod when they talk, briefly touch them on the upper arm, and maintain eye contact

To a group: Be comfortable as leader, move around to appear enthusiastic, lean slightly forward and look at all parts of the group

Message: Move beyond status quo and make a difference, be controversial, new, simple to understand, counter-intuitive

Speech: Be clear, fluent, forceful and articulate, evoke imagery, use an upbeat tempo, occasionally slow for tension or emphasis

campaigns

In a campaign, multiple interpretations by its audience would make the campaign a failure.

Take sea campaign add by Haribon for example.

The organization’s goal was to advocate and encourage people to save the seas. It starts with a frame the shows a ruined coral reef. The text “where have all the fish gone?” was flashed amidst the emptiness of the reef. It was followed by a drawing of a school of fish swimming around. The frame turned to black and the message “call Haribon Foundation” was projected.

So as a viewer of the ad, the first thought that came to me was the question what would happen if I call? After calling, that would be the time I’d know? For the question “where have all the fish gone?” I could say probably fishermen used dynamites or some other form of corruption of natural resources. There were a lot of questions in my mind. The only thing that’s clear is that the ad wanted to infuse pity in me. That part I wouldn’t know if I haven’t seen other campaigns.

Campaigns need to deliver specific information or else its audience would be confused. They would give different interpretations and the goal of the organization wouldn’t be fulfilled if people would do different things.

OrgComm

Organizational Communication is important. Let us first try to define this concept word by word, and try to niche them together.

In the simplest term, an organization is an arrangement of people performing for a certain goal. Communication on the other hand, is the exchange of messages from a sender to a receiver, with the use of a channel or medium. These two are inseparable, organizational communication is coined because of the need of every organization for communication.

Members of organizations are considered as individuals without any form of communication, isolated. But as the exchange of messages occurs, these individuals connect with each other to form a group.

According to John Maxwell, “one is too small a number to achieve greatness.” Often, we become better and attain more will collective thoughts, resources, and strengths. This is the purpose of an organization. However, a group cannot stand without communication between its members. If this is so, the group will fail to achieve these conditions of collectivity and organization will fail.

An organization therefore needs a skilled person who could maintain its clear flow of messages. It needs someone who could manage the heart of transactions which is communication.

Some would probably think that anyone could do it. That perhaps this is an aspect of multi-tasking, that perhaps the director could handle this at the same time.

Organizational Communication is a different section of the organization as a whole. It has to be managed by a skilled person because there are areas that a regular employee/manager couldn’t understand. One tiny difference in managing communications could determine the success or failure of a transaction. That skilled person must give focus on the exchange of messages inside and outside of the organization.