Angel Locsin depends Kim Chiu from bashers, shares brainy 'law of classroom' analysis from netizen

Photo file from Facebook

Actress Angel Locsin also expressed her support for colleague Kim Chiu, who has been the favourite subject of bashers after her “law of classroom” statement while defending ABS CBN amid its closure.

Angel said she understood what Kim was trying to say and was also proud of her co-artist.

“Naiintindihan namin, kimmy! Napanuod namin kasi ng buo. Super proud of you.” Angel said in one of her comment, posted by another Twitter user.

“Thank you ate angel,” Kim replied.

"See? Mabuti pa c @143redangel. Pinanood nya kasi ng buo. Kayo ba?" another user said

However, another netizen joined the tweet exchange and asking the former Darna star to explain Kim’s statement.

“Paki explain gurl @143redangel lahat lahat pati law of classroom,” the basher said.

This prompted Angel to post a Facebook user’s analysis of Kim’s viral quote. 

“Mas kaya po nya :) salamat po,” Angel tweeted back.

Here is the analysis which the Kapamilya actress attached:

“Kim Chiu is ABS-CBN’s organic intellectual. It is not easy to think up analogies to forge a critique. She did and it is a breakthrough in showbiz talk. She was talking about how institutions are in fact coercive and actually function as an arbitrary machine of law.”

“Here, she offers an Althusserian reading of institutions like media, schools, legal systems and governments for the 21st century. Althusser was rather soft on ideological state apparatuses and attributes coercion only to their repressive counterparts. And her take even gets more interesting when she, sounding as if a follower of the Paris Commune’s radical democracy proceeds by pushing the analogy further towards citing actual factors, which stand for ABS-CBN’s legal steps are taken through its battle for the franchise.”

“Kim Chiu presents this as a struggle within the classroom between students and the coercive classroom itself where the former manages to modify rules to their advantage. Here, she reminds us of the Commune’s great predicament that it could neither have anticipated nor dealt with while it was trying to seize proletarian power: radical democracy is not the same as revolutionary democracy.”

 “The Paris Commune was quashed for being unable to push for the latter as it carried the radical proletarian democratic form, yet it lacked the substantive revolutionary content that a seizure of power exacts. Kim Chiu is pushing for a democratic form without revolutionary content, thereby expressing the crucial question of our day: Why can’t the liberal democratic state accommodates its own liberal democratic rules?”