By
Fides Bernardo A. Bitanga
St.
Louis University, Philippines
Abstract
In
this paper, the writer summarises the information given in the article written
by Kevin O’Gorman on Jacques Derrida’s Philosophy of Hospitality by selecting
and reporting the main features, and makes comments where relevant. He, in the
light of hospitality, would like to connect it also to the significance of
English tests to the Filipino visa applicants, like: Test of English as a
Foreign Language (TOEFL) and the International English Language Testing System (IELTS)
as a requirement for visas to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and United Kingdom.
The
article under consideration was published in Hospitality Review 8(4) in 2006. It is specifically found in pages
50-57 of the said journal. It was also linked to the publication in Heriot-Watt
University Research Gateway in that same year.
There
is an attempt to follow O’Gorman’s presentation on Derrida’s Philosophy of
Hospitality or, to be more specific about it, Derrida’s deconstruction of the
word “hospitality”, from its etymology, law of hospitality and laws of
hospitality, unconditional hospitality and conditional hospitality, guests and
parasites, religion (messianicity and messianism) and the impossibility of
hospitality. There is also an attempt to look into O’Gorman’s comments on
Derrida’s biases and Gorman’s reflections.
With
this presentation and re-reading of this article, it is the hope of the writer
to contribute to the growing discussions on hospitality.
Keywords
Hospitality,
law of hospitality and laws of hospitality, unconditional hospitality and
conditional hospitality, guests and parasites, messianism and messianicity, and
impossibility
Introduction
In recent times,
people heard about countries issuing policies on immigration and labour that
limits employment because of English proficiency. There is a great number of
professional and semi-professionals among Filipinos who wanted to work and live
in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom (UK). For instance, the
number or volume of immigrants from the Philippines almost doubled (95%) from
232,665 in 2001 to 454,335 in 2011; and from 2006 to 2015, 321,742 new
permanent residents from the Philippines landed in Canada (http://canadaimmigrants.com/filipino-immigrants-to-canada/).
As to how many applicants for visas who took English test, there were16,143 student
visa applicants completed an English language test in 2013 (https://www.border.gov.au/report-english-test ).
The figure is about student visa applicants only. There are other visa
applications that require English test.
Australia, for
example, uses English language requirements to protect the integrity of
Australia’s visa programmes, and to ensure visa holders are able to safely
participate in Australian society. These English language requirements
generally apply across the Student and Skilled visa programmes and are
prescribed in the Migration Regulations 1994. The Student visa applicant’s
English language ability should allow them to successfully complete a course of
study in Australia; whereas a skilled visa applicant must demonstrate that their
general English ability will allow them to successfully participate in the
labour market (https://www.border.gov.au/report-english-test).
The IELTS
generally has two types: the regular and the UKVI. The regular has IELTS
Academic and IELTS General Training. UKVI has IELTS Life Skills and IELTS
Academic, which are accepted as proof of English proficiency for those wishing
to live, work and study in the UK. IELTS tests for UK Visas and Immigration are
managed by the IELTS partners, which comprises The British Council, IDP: IELTS
Australia and Cambridge English Language Assessment (https://www.ielts.org/what-is-ielts/ielts-for-migration/united-kingdom).
The TOEFL is a standardized test to measure the English language ability of
non-native speakers wishing to enroll in English-speaking universities. The
test is accepted by many English-speaking academic, scientific, industrial,
business and professional institutions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_of_English_as_a_Foreign_Language).
The English test
is not for free. In the Philippines, the regular IELTS fee is Php10,270 (https://www.britishcouncil.ph/exam/ielts/dates-fees-locations).
The fee for IELTS UKVI is Php 13,885.00. IELTS’ prices are subject to review and
change without prior notice (https://www.idp.com/philippines/ielts/ukvi/ukvitestdates).
The registration fee for the TOEFL iBT varies from country to country, and sometimes
even from testing center to testing center. The test fee can be anywhere from
160-250 USD, but in most places it is around $200. If you don’t study (bad
idea) or borrow your study materials (better idea) and register on time (great
idea), that’s all you would have to pay—unless you decide that you need to
change your test date ($60), have a section rescored ($80 per section), or send
more score reports than the four that are included in your testing fee ($18 per
report) (https://magoosh.com/toefl/2013/how-much-does-the-toefl-cost/).
With all these
data presented about the need for an English test for immigration, particularly
to Australia, UK, Canada, and New Zealand, what would be Derrida’s philosophy
of hospitality say about this scenario?
Claim
O’Gorman
claims that Derrida’s philosophy of hospitality is an ethical marker, a maker
both for an individual and a country. It shows to an individual and a country
how small the hospitality rendered to others, the shortcomings of the “host” to
the “guest”, and that the “host” (individual or country) realizes how much more
they could give to the “guest”.
He
also claims that a true hospitality is an enigma. It is even allusive to logic
and philosophy. It is because hospitality is not a matter of objective
knowledge.
Finally,
English test as requirements for granting visas to Australia, Canada, UK and
New Zealand is not too “inviting” and “welcoming”. It is reflective of true hospitality.
“Guests” are abuse by the “host” from the very start. It should be removed. It
has turned all the more language into a business and a barrier rather than a
bridge of love, sharing and care among nations. This is the claim of this
paper.
Reason
The
paper is written to awaken Filipino consciousness about hospitality. The
Filipinos are known to be very hospitable people, and also known as domestic
helpers exploited abroad (Andres 1981). The rigors of going through visa
applications, its processes and policies do not seem to stop Filipino
applicants to secure visas. These same rigors are all sources of corruption,
abuse, and extortion. These Filipinos must know and have to join the fight for
what is to be truly hospitable.
In the
Philippines, to be very specific, there are very few people reacting against
English test as requirements for visas. Many Filipinos are to realize, in the
light of Derrida’s philosophy of hospitality, that such tests are not
necessary. They are not to be persuaded by statements, like: the English test
would allow the applicants to complete their courses abroad and would also
allow applicants to effectively participate in the work places.
These types of
tests do not actually teach the English language. These are only measuring or
assessing the applicants’ listening, reading, writing, and speaking abilities
in the English language. These also recommend English refresher course and
review. The refresher does not go beyond 3 hours in most review centers in the
Philippines, and would proceed to a review which is focused on practicing the
mechanics of the test. So, there is no way English tests could guarantee the
applicants’ completion of the course and successful participation in the labour
market.
These tests are
easier to those who already have good command in English. Having good command
in English is a plus factor and an instant higher assessment. It is clear that
countries, schools and employers are selecting those who would enter a country,
those who would enrol to schools, and those who would be hired. This is an
outright discrimination. In the Philippines, those who availed lower education
and with very few English lessons would have lesser chances of going abroad.
This is all because of the imposition of English test.
English tests
are there to generate money for the country from applicants. Using the words of
O’Gorman and Derrida, the “host” exploits the “guest” even before being
welcomed into a home or a country. The worst is when the “guest” is in the home
or the country, the “host” exploits all the more with restricting laws and
policies.
Evidence
O’Gorman took
note that Derrida is the inventor of Deconstruction. Deconstruction is the
practice of dismantling texts by revealing their assumptions and
contradictions. It attempts to highlight just how much is taken for granted in
contemporary conceptual thought and language (O’Gorman 2006).
Using
deconstruction, Derrida offered an encompassing philosophy of hospitality. He
clearly differentiates between the law of hospitality and laws of hospitality. He
called the former also as the law of unlimited hospitality. “This is to give
the new arrival all of one’s home and oneself, to give him/her one’s home and
oneself, one’s own, … without asking a name, or compensation, or the fulfilment
of even the smallest condition” (Derrida 2000). The laws of hospitality point
to “the rights and duties that are always conditioned and conditional, as they
are defined by tradition and laws” (Derrida 2000).
Derrida also
distinguished between unconditional hospitality, which is considered
impossible, and conditional hospitality, which is viewed as always conditional
(O’Gorman 2006). He defined hospitality is defined by Derrida as inviting and
welcoming the “stranger” (Derrida 2000). This takes place in two levels: the
personal level and the level of individual countries. Etymologically, the word
is derived from “stranger”, “guest”, and “power”. Thus, in the destruction of
the word, there is an essential “self-limitation” built right into the idea of
hospitality, which preserves the distance between one’s own and the “stranger”,
between owning one’s own property and inviting the “other” into one’s home
(O’Gorman 2006).
In matters like
this, it is nice to see the motivations of people or the players (host and
guest). As to motivation, there are hospitality of pleasure and hospitality
born of a sense of duty. People are hospitable to allow others experience
pleasure and comfort. The guests are served with food and drinks. They are
brought to beautiful places. They sleep in comfortable beds. Other people are
hospitable because they feel it is their duty and obligation to do so. It could
be motivated by the nature of their work. There is also the ideal of
hospitality, which presents itself as joyful rather than onerous, and provides
the inspiration for the pursuit of the virtue or virtues of hospitableness
(Telfer 2000).
Looking at the
extreme of conditional hospitality, an impression that unconditional
hospitality is impossible and could never be accomplished. It is so much an ideal,
it is an impossible idea. It simply means hospitality is never totally given to
guests more so to the unknown, foreigner, and strangers (O’Gorman 2006). Absolute
hospitality requires that I open up my home and that I give not only to the
foreigner, but to the absolute unknown, an anonymous other. It commands a break
with hospitality by right, with law or justice as rights (Derrida 2000).
Is this case of
impossibility being brought about by parasitism? Derrida distinguishes between
a guest and a parasite. He said the distinction is straightforward. A guest is
accepted according to a law or laws. A guest is given the right to hospitality.
The parasite is rejected by the law or laws. The parasite is escorted to move
out. Derrida, however, sees the use of language and the enactment of laws by
some countries have done wrong to hospitality. Now, for some countries,
hospitality is parasitism or charity (Rosello 2001).
Absolute
hospitality requires letting the guest to behave as they wish. It means there
is no pressure or obligation to behave in a particular manner (Derrida 1999).
There is no demand for reciprocation or the obligation to pay or to give back.
This applies personally and to countries.
The strongly
perceived impossibility of the unconditional hospitality was never considered
by Derrida as meaningless (O’Gorman 2006). The mere realization that a person
could have given more or the country could have accepted more applicants is
itself a proof that there is a vast space for improvement and development in
terms of hospitality. Thus, if however there is pure hospitality it should be
pushed to this extreme (Derrida 2000).
How absolute
hospitality be more understood? Derrida brings into the table of discussion a
concept of Religion, the idea of “an absolute surprise” (O’Gorman 2006). This
surprise is understood in the distinction of visitation and invitation. Derrida
picks up visitation over invitation. According to him, in visitation, there is
an unexpected visitor. The visitor comes in and the responses are pure and
spontaneous. Furthermore, Derrida makes another distinction between Messianicity
and messianism. Messianism is like religion fixed and dogmatic (when imagining
the coming of the Messiah the host attributes a new kind of origin and centrism
to a divine other and assumes the latter suits their imaginative picture). He
picks up the former. Messianicity is the unexpected surprise. It is not limited
to a religious context (Derrida 2000).
Finally, for
Derrida, the way in which impossibility is treated offers a solution to the
problem; impossibility is an experience or an event. It is a relationship that
means people could never be self-enclosed identities. Impossibility is not a
possibility that cannot be accessed; rather, people are differentiated by
impossibility, and this is one of the many ways in which they are a being in
relationship with “otherness” (Derrida 2000).
Discussion
O’Gorman brought
out the idea that this philosophy of hospitality presented above was born out
of the biases of Derrida. Derrida, being a foreigner, had unhappy experiences
as a young student in Paris (O’Gorman 2006). His personal experiences have
tainted his philosophy under study. He could have expressed these things out of
anger. He could also have brought such to get even.
The possibility
of this point may be granted. But setting the bias aside and looking at what
his philosophy of hospitality is telling it make sense. Devoid of the bias,
Derrida is sending a very strong message not just to individual persons but
most especially to rich countries where Filipinos would place their hopes for
the progress of their families. Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and UK must
open their doors more, like removing the English test as one of their
requirements for visa application.
As mentioned
above, the exams are placed upon applicants as added burdens and expenses. It
is also discriminating for it comes as a selection process, giving the less
fortunate lesser chances of having brighter futures. Filipinos are invited to
come to these countries. These are advertised in different forms of media. They
are promised of better, hope is given to them, yet they have to follow rigorous
processes, spend large amount of money, exert a lot of time, and others just to
acquire visas. There are even cases that after going through all the processes,
many Filipinos are denied of visas or just for one requirement (English test)
entry is not granted. For example, in an academic IELTS exam, a nurse who
wanted to be a nurse in Canada or Australia has to get a band score of 7 in
each part (listening, reading, writing, and speaking). There are so many cases
that Filipinos would get 6 or 6.5 in one part and all the rest is 7. Averaging,
at this instance, is not accepted and it will not satisfy the requirements of
the visa. Options, however, are given to candidates: take the exam again or ask
for a re-check. Both options would mean spending some amount of money again.
For a re-check, an applicant has to pay Php1,400, and the re-test is priced
like the usual fee (https://ielts.britishcouncil.org/content/result).
O’Gorman brought
out also the idea that Derrida’s philosophy of hospitality violated some rules
of Logic. It qualifies as a teleological fallacy, when there is the claim that an
idea has a purpose or necessary end point in the absence of evidence for that
end point (https://logfall.wordpress.com/teleological-fallacy/).
Besides being enigmatic, the gravity of the message of Derrida’s philosophy,
however, is of great concern. This should allow the forgiveness of the fallacy
and look at the importance of the message – that countries of better stature
should help third world countries by at least opening doors wider for people
who wanted to help their families. This will never be a case of parasitism.
Filipinos are good and responsible people (Andres 1989). They know their limits
and they will never get what other people deserved to have.
Finally, the
philosophy of hospitality should be a spark or a stimulus that would bring
about more love and care to Filipinos abroad and to those still applying for
entry. The hope that there is nothing impossible or the impossibility actually
shows the possibility should bring in Asia and in the Philippines the
discussion of hospitality. Perhaps, the existence of an effort to contextualize
hospitality in this region would come to address transgressions. The success of
this discussion is being threatened, however, by the issues of terrorism and
the failure of several attempts of intercultural dialogues and peace talks.
References
A.
Printed
Sources
Andres, T. (1989) The Positive Filipino Values. Manila: New Day Publishers.
________ (1981) Understanding Filipino Values: A Management Approach. Manila:
Cellar
Books.
Derrida,J. (1999) Adieu to Immanuel Levinas. Standford: Standford University Press.
________
(2000) Hospitality. Angelaki:
Journal of the Theoretical Humanities, 5(3), 3-18.
________ (2000) Of Hospitality Anne Dufourmatelle invites Jacques Derrida to respond.
Standford:
Standford University Press.
Rosello, M. (2001) Postcolonial Hospitality: The Immigrant as Guest. Standford:
Standford
University
Press.
Telfer, E. (2000) In Search of Hospitality. Oxford: Butterworth.
B. On line
Sources
anakbeong.blogspot.com,SocialBar_1,24187607,""
