Currents of Philippine Nationalism

Fernando V. Beup Jr.
History 116



Currents of Philippine Nationalism: Critical Analyses of the Development of the Nationalist Thoughts that Shaped the Filipino Consciousness and National Discord


Introduction

It is an extremely arduous task to write about Philippine nationalism if one were to be ambitious in detailing each and every aspect of the issue. Nevertheless, the undertaking would be a tremendous help to the better understanding of what Philippine nationalism is.
This is not to say that there has been a lack of writings on the topic. Indeed, books and articles written on the subject are aplenty. Among the most notable ones that can provide a good introduction to the subject matter are John Schumacher's The Making of a Nation: Essays on Nineteenth-Century Filipino Nationalism and Romeo Cruz' Ang Pagkabuo ng Nasyonalismong Pilipino. There are many more to add to the two, each one offering a different, if albeit overlapping view; though some do offer fresh insights into the discourse of Filipino nationalism.
Perhaps to add one more to the already cacophonous views on the issue will not hurt, especially if it comes from a relatively younger generation far removed from the ones who wrote the bulk of literature on the topic. Every generation has its own views; and each view can be supposed to differ from the others, each having its own importance. Altogether, they would aid in the fair assessment of what Philippine nationalism has achieved, or what it aims to achieve as part of a collective agenda to strengthen the Filipinos' concept of nationhood and nationalism.
This paper will not set out to explain everything there is about the subject matter. Rather, it hopes to add one more view especially as regards the manner by which one can arrive at answers to fundamental questions of nationalism: Are Filipinos nationalistic? What are the factors that helped shape their national consciousness? In what context and levels has nationalism been absorbed and understood by the Filipinos? What problems, if ever, do these differences offer to the overall concept of nationhood and nationalism?
This paper will take a broad look at the major currents of Philippine nationalist thoughts in order to address the questions posed in the foregoing. It will do so by analyzing written materials related to the topic of inquiry and putting questions into them so as to give a different perspective on the issues concerned. Ultimately, this paper aims to arrive at a feasible approach to the understanding of the different currents of nationalism. In other words, to help give coherence to the apparently diverse, if not conflicting views on the matter.

Nationalism before History: Was Lapu-Lapu a Filipino?

A quick look at most books on Philippine history will give an impression that Philippine history only began after the Spaniards came to what then were a group of islands that was later to be known as the Philippines. This impression, as has been noted by other historians, stems from the fact that much emphasis has been accorded to the colonial period of history.[1] Understandably, this has been done on the pretext that the Philippines did not exist then as a country, being, as it was, a cluster of islands with no centralized form of government and without a unified goal. This emphasis on the coming of the Spaniards as the "beginning" of Philippine history has therefore made possible the bias to write Philippine history from this period. It is perhaps for this reason that Lapu-Lapu, the acknowledged assailant of Ferdinand Magellan is seen by some not as the first example of a Filipino nationalist who fought against Spanish incursions into his island territory citing that there was no nation (Philippines) yet to speak of at the time.[2] This reasoning demands careful consideration precisely because it provokes a controversial question as to whether Lapu-Lapu should at all merit a part in Philippine historiography on nationalism. By implication, it also puts into question the entire notion of nationalism as understood by many Filipinos of which the fight against foreign aggression or imperialism is a major ingredient with Lapu-Lapu as the first icon of that reaction.
This problem, no matter how seemingly trivial it appears, serves to demonstrate the fragility of the Filipino notion of nationalism not necessarily because the claim to the foregoing issue is absolutely valid but because it lays open to attack the foundation of the Filipino sense of belonging to his ancestors as imposed on him by a constricting historical time frame. Moreover, the issue begs other questions which only serve to further alienate the Filipino from his pre-Hispanic roots. One might for instance ask, Was Lapu-Lapu then not a Filipino? If not, then why bother to mention him at all in Philippine history, much less consider him a hero?--questions that inevitably lead to the question of identity and nationalism.

Time-space Factor in History: Who is a Nationalist--in Which Time?

Nevertheless, the above questions serve some purpose: they open up a new world of possibilities as regards the interpretation and evaluation of the nationalist consciousness of the Filipino. They allow him to locate himself in the time and context of events in which he developed his own consciousness and consequently his own notion of nationalism. It is here that the dynamics of "how", "why", "when" and "therefore" comes into play as he begins to question his being and identity.
Obviously, time and context have so much to do with the shaping of the consciousness of the people inevitably pointing to the non-static nature of nationalism. It can develop (or diminish) over time, even refashion itself in response to various social, political and economic forces.
Philippine nationalism itself did not come into being overnight, nor did it remain the same after the common objective of independence had been achieved from Spain. Indeed, it took on different forms, expressed in various ways, but nevertheless geared towards a better understanding of the Filipino identity and belongingness to one nation. The beginnings of the Philippine nation and nationalism, taking into account the coming of the West, suggests that these were essentially 'modern' constructs, meaning that they, in the words of Anthony D. Smith, "are purely modern phenomena, without roots in the past."[3]
Smith was of course merely putting in broad terms the modernist theories advanced by the likes of Eric Hobsbawm, Ernest Gellner, John Breuilly, etc. But what these modernist theories imply is that Lapu-Lapu's actuation does not fall in the category of a nationalist reaction for there was no political structure then existent which is assumed as a focal point in which social conflict, and hence, nationalism, could germinate.
The question about Lapu-Lapu being a Filipino or not reveals the weakness of some modernist theories noted by Smith as "too dismissive of the legacies of pre-modern ethnic and cultural ties."[4] In other words, the heroism of Lapu-Lapu and his being a Filipino cannot be totally dismissed in the light of the time-space factor already mentioned. In Philippine historiography, the attendant problem resurfaces in the use of the word "Filipinos" as opposed to "indios" depending on which period of Philippine history one is talking about. Consequently, this failure to locate oneself in the time-space continuum creates a problematic, if not a controversial issue if one talks about the "depth" or "nature" of one's nationalism especially in the absence of quantitative data to help proffer an explanation. Nevertheless, whether or not one has the instruments for measuring levels of nationalism, it can be assumed without much debate that nationalism permeates the consciousness in different levels or magnitude, the variables being one's experiences in relation to the time and context in which he lives.
Hence, for an ordinary Filipino not into the study of history, Lapu-Lapu not being a nationalist appears as an absurd proposition, indeed, much less if his being Filipino is questioned. In the light of the foregoing, therefore, it is important to take into consideration the time-space continuum of the person reflecting on his history.

Representations of Nationalism: Are Some More Filipinos than Others?


Teodoro Agoncillo dates the use of the "Filipino" to be in the late 1890's towards the end of the Spanish regime. Prior to that, "Filipinos" only referred to the insulares, or Spaniards born in the country.[5] Considering the "artificiality" of the collective name given to a geographically fragmented population, it is reasonable to assume that others most probably had not initially identified with the term "Filipino" as indicated by the way Andres Bonifacio referred to his followers as "Tagalog." In effect, Agoncillo may have a valid point in calling the issue a "decelerator" in Filipino nationalism.[6] This point further shows that in the process of consolidating as a nation and as a people, the Filipinos' sense of nationalism must have evolved differently at different times, only finding a common ground in the expression of grievances, and finally the overthrow, of the oppressive Spanish regime. Renato Constantino succinctly phrases this common thread thus: "The nation was born of the Revolution as much as the Revolution was the expression of the nation being born."[7]
It would be unwise however to say that Filipinos found their expression of nationalism in purely revolutionary terms. The ilustrados, particularly Jose Rizal, Graciano Lopez Jaena, etc. found their expression of nationalism essentially through assimilation and reforms while Emilio Aguinaldo and Andres Bonifacio were for independence through armed revolution. It should be pointed out, however, that though the nationalist consciousness was being formed differently, they were, in varying terms, complementary.

The Ilustrado-Katipunero Schism: of What Nationalist Tradition Are You?

The apparent difference between ilustrado and revolutionary nationalists was obviously the method by which they responded to the call of nationhood. Constantino tries to bridge the schism between the two by invoking the educational attainment of Bonifacio which Constantino saw to have synthesized the "theory" of the ilustrados with the "movement" of the Katipuneros.[8] John Schumacher likewise notes that Bonifacio must have indeed built on the ideas of Rizal as indicated by the parallels in their thoughts as expressed in Bonifacio's "Ang Dapat Mabatid ng mga Tagalog."[9] Whether the rest of Bonifacio's followers were able to meaningfully absorb the ilustrados' theory remains a big question, and Constantino's claim to synthesis may have held true only insofar as the Katipunan's leaders were concerned. It is likely that it did not penetrate deeply into the understanding of the rest of the people. Constantino betrays this possibility by remarking on Bonifacio and his companions' handicap by saying that they "were incapable of abstractions. Thus their writings voiced the raw ideas of the people."[10] He goes further by saying that "the ideas of Bonifacio did not have a solid ideological content. His was a primitive ideology based more or less on the dignity of man."[11]
The implication of this ilustrado-Katipunero schism is far-reaching: it set the stage for two major nationalist traditions to emerge, underscoring the differences in the way nationalism has been written, understood, discussed and practiced even in contemporary times.

The Ilustrado and Revolutionray Traditions: the Battle Still Rages

One of the major--perhaps the most prominent--traditions in the discourse of nationhood and nationalism is the one originated from the ilustrados as spearheaded by Jose Rizal. Reynaldo Ileto attributes much of this tradition's popularity to Filipino historians whose writings he describes as "a very subtle kind of elitism" (ilustrado).[12] Ileto cites the likes of Agoncillo, Constantino and Ferdinand Marcos as belonging to the same tradition of ilustrado nationalists who relegate the masses in the their writings to the background , as well as their emphasis on the linear movement of history. In his criticism of this kind of history, Ileto writes:

"…The reason most educated Filipinos find the linear-developmental mode a natural one for ordering such phenomena as revolts and the consolidation of state power in the name of nationalism is, I think, because this framework puts them [the 'elistist' Filipinos] at the forefront of the development process. Whether as apologists or activists, they are able to reorganize themselves in a comfortable way in the past, and they are assured of a primary role in the fulfillment of the end towards which history moves. We can detect this with respect to the nineteenth century 'ilustrados' construction of a history that moved from Golden Age, to Fall, to Dark Age, to Enlightenment or Ilustracion."[13]


Ileto especially detests Constantino's pretension to being radical with the latter's socio-economic determinism and its aim "to precisely locate the stages of economic and social development…so that the progression in time can be more scientifically plotted."[14] For Ileto, such emphasis on precision and order may have come from the "bourgeois mentality" or "the fear of anarchy and disorder."[15] Hence, "by displaying such order and precision in his text…Constantino in fact subverts his radical claims."[16]
Ileto may have a valid argument in putting Constantino in the league of the elite on the point of the latter's portrayal of the masses as passive individuals who needed the ilustrados to vocalize their sentiments. Yet it cannot be denied that Constantino bears the revolutionary strain by picturing the elite as more or less opportunists whose main agendum was to usurp or take over the power of the ruling class. It is possible that Constantino's intention was to arouse indignation and consequently rectify this "error" in history in view of the existing (Constantino's generations') realities--quite possibly through an armed struggle. Indeed, the overall tone and movement of Constantino's history tends to support this hypothesis, and the best proof of that is the real affinity that present day Marxists/leftist ideologues continue to have with his works--an affinity that would find its most tangible expression in the resurgence of nationalism in the Marcos regime.
Ileto's criticism of Constantino's kind of history provides a glimpse of the differences that the ilustrado-Katipunan schism has fathered no only among ordinary Filipinos themselves but more so among Filipino nationalist historians.
Through the eyes of Constantino, it is easy to see how the Katipuneros' fight for political independence during the Spanish regime acquired a different cause in the 20th and 21st century to become a more ardent fight for economic, social and political justice.
Ileto's view of Constantino may have been motivated by his own agendum of writing a history from the point of view of the masses. For him, the masses are active participants in the creation of history and not passive individuals Constantino and others portray them to be. In this sense, Ileto offers an alternative view of history--one that hopes to be "radical," or, in other words, true to the Katipunan tradition of displacing the dominant (or dominating) ideology. If so, it turns out that Ileto may have only been preying on his own kind (Constantino) whose point of view is but a strain of his (Ileto's) own variety.
Nevertheless, this case illustrates how different the two nationalist strains have evolved into, so that it has now become very difficult to identify where one begins and the other ends. More importantly, it has brought to the fore the problematic aspect of Filipino nationalism and what a Gordian knot it has become with both forces oftentimes coming at odds with each other. Romeo Cruz conveys this very same view when he talks about Filipino nationalism which he classified into two: "Liberal Nationalism" and "Radical Nationalism."[17]
The ilustrado current finds its parallel in Cruz' Liberal Nationalism, and the Katipunan (revolutionary) current in Radical Nationalism. Cruz points out, as has been discussed earlier, that these two had been mixed with various influences in the passing of time. Cruz further notes that through most of Philippine history, the relationship of the two has always been characterized by ambivalence: "In times of war or crisis, the two traditions would merge. And in times of peace, the two would oppose each other. Whether they are allies or foes, Liberal Nationalism would always win [translation from Filipino mine]."[18] Why this was always so is an interesting and a very important facet of nationalism's development in the Philippines.

From Rizal to Marx

This paper has so far argued that the ideology of the ilustrado may have been little understood by the masses due mainly to its abstractions. In this scenario, the ilustrado/liberal nationalism would understandably always win because, as history would have it, power has always been held in succession by those belonging to the educated class. It also helped that the same class would later control much of the country's wealth, and consequently much of the country's affairs. It is therefore not surprising that the bulk of assertions regarding nationalism would eventually take on economic overtones (read Marxist) especially as the country was moving into the 1960's and 1970's when poverty was becoming more pronounced. Nationalism came to be defined and understood within the terms of wealth distribution and equitable development. In other words, the schism now became the split between the rich and the poor, and in the larger context, between the exploited and impoverished third world and the wealthy and presumably exploitative West. Between the two opposites, there has always been some form of distrust. Understandably, many of the political leaders would come to be tagged as puppets of the West (America), notwithstanding the fact that many of them also took on nationalist stance (i.e., Ferdinand E. Marcos). On the other hand, the activists or radicals, as advocates of economic and social equality, came to be tagged as Communists (i.e., Benigno Aquino). Again, the notion of nationalism took on a different form and course with respect to the context of history. Yet the old schism subtly underlies every form that nationalism had been taking. Whatever it has become, it can be noted that the outcome had been one of constant paranoia and chronic distrust--of putting almost everyone under suspicion of being un-nationalistic, with the intelligentsia as the main objects of criticism. Interestingly but expectedly, Jose Rizal with his ilustrado background would be among the first to fall into the radicals' version of historical witch-hunting. Rizal, according to them, was no more than a hero "sponsored" by the Americans.[19]
If anything, this example demonstrates how the issue of nationalism can be used to co-opt people into a particular mode of thought or ideology. In other words, nationalism has become a part of almost every agenda as a tool for appropriating power or legitimizing a cause.
This is not to say, however, that nationalism has been absolutely disgraced. Rather, this further shows how varied the issue can be taken and how prone Filipino nationalism is to being wrested by opposing groups at the expense of the entire country. A common ground is therefore called for if it is to be hoped that nationalism can contribute to the solidarity and advancement of the nation.

Conclusion: Back to the Past, Back to Rizal

But how does one find a common ground? Surely it is nationalistic to demand for equitable development (as what the radicals do) just as it is nationalistic to formulate policies towards this end (as what the powers that be ought to do). But in the end nationalism is just one among the many forces that needs to be mapped out in relation to many other things that concern the country. In other words, it is quite easy to have a nationalist sentiment, but to enact pertinent policies in view of other issues is another thing.
Constantino found his common ground in the revolutionary tradition history has bequeathed to the Philippines by saying that "the nation was born of the Revolution" and "the Revolution was the expression of the nation being born."[20] If at this time we were to accept that the Philippines is still undergoing identity crisis, then it follows that the Philippines is still a nation in the process of being born, and that the Revolution is just waiting around the corner waiting to be set off at somebody's command. Surely, Constantino has a good reason for saying what he had said, but to build a nation on the entire notion of revolution hardly ever helps in providing a strong foundation for a young democracy. Of course it helps as an intervening force whenever national interests are seriously threatened, but, as Cruz has pointed out, radical nationalists has not always been found to be very cooperative with liberal nationalists at other times. One need only look at Philippine society today to sense that Cruz had indeed been right in saying so.
Upon close examination, Constantino clearly shares in the modernist idea of the Philippines being basically a modern state borne out of the West's outward expansion. Ileto does not vastly differ from Constantino in that sense, no matter if he substitutes the masses for the elite as the main movers of history. For both historians, nationalism is first and foremost a reaction to Western imperialism and antagonism that robbed the Filipinos of their freedom and autonomy, hence the emphasis on the revolution in their discourse of history. Here, the two share in the view of Isaiah Berlin that "nationalism is an inflamed condition of national consciousness which…seems to be caused by wounds, some form of collective humiliation."[21]
Wounds and collective humiliation were and are in fact not uncommon in the Philippine experience, whether suffered in the hands of colonizers or fellow Filipinos. These, multiplied and recurrent throughout history, may have bred a destructive attitude of self-doubt, among other things. Indeed, it will be no exaggeration to say that much of the Filipinos' sense of distrust, cynicism and defiance of authority may have been one downside legacy of a prolonged (oftentimes justified) replication of revolutionary thought. The revolutionary, no matter his nationalism, must always have someone or something for an opponent.
Under this circumstance, the prospect for national solidarity remains to be a distant dream. Clearly, an alternative view to nationhood and nationalism must be proffered, one that can weld the entire nation and make nationalism weave a positive response to the challenges being faced. Nationalism, if it is to perform such task, should be anchored on a solid foundation on which the temporal aspects of nationalism (i.e., reactions to foreign oppression) can find a firm footing such that long after the challenges had been addressed, the spirit of the nation still remains, ready to move forward from that point on. Obviously, such a foundation can only be had through having shared memories of the past, traditions, and everything else that Filipinos hold as comprising the super-body of culture that set apart Filipinos from other peoples. This goal comes close to Benedict Anderson's idea of "imagined political community," and closer still to Smith's "ethno-symbolic alternative" where a nation shares " a myth of common ancestry," "historical memories and traditions," "elements of common culture," "link with an historic territory," etc. [22]
Interestingly, the importance of such kind of foundation had long been recognized by Rizal, and, by the same token, by the historians that Ileto considered elitist because of their subscription to the myth of a Golden Age, etc.
Of course, the term "Golden Age" may be too peremptory to describe the level of civilization Filipinos have achieved when the Spaniards came, but the purpose for which it has been given prominence in nationalist history books (i.e., O. D. Corpuz' The Roots of the Filipino Nation and Teodoro Agoncillo's A History of the Filipino Nation) attest to these historians' view that a nation's cultural past is of paramount importance to the development of a national identity and consciousness.
Rizal himself was clearly aware of the Filipinos' pre-Hispanic cultural achievements and the significant role it could play in fostering pride and love for country once national identity and achievements had been established. John Schumacher writes:
Rizal felt deeply that it was in understanding pre-Hispanic Philippines that the Filipinos would understand themselves, would find the identity on which a new nation could rise. Earlier he had urged his colleagues in Barcelona to learn Italian so as to translate the manuscripts of Pigafetta, Magellan's chronicler, 'so that people may know in what state we were in 1520.' He is, moreover, at pains to show links existing before the coming of the Spaniards, pointing to Morga's remarks on the similarity of customs among the different linguistic groups as evidence 'that the links of friendship were more frequent than the wars and differences. Perhaps there existed a confederation.'"[23]


Considering the time Rizal thought of such a foundation for the Filipino nation, it can be deduced that he was far more advanced in his understanding and foresight as regards the nation's destiny. He at once understood that identity would prove very crucial in the formation and unification of the country.
Numerous other accounts point to Rizal's vision of the Philippines as essentially a nation that could eventually come to terms with its past, a nation with cultural achievements that can be at par, if not better than the cultural achievements of the Europe that he had seen.
It is reasonable to think that Rizal's deep understanding (in fact romantic) dream for the Philippines could only have come from the "wounds" that oppression had inflicted on him and his countrymen. Furthermore, his exposure to the ideological supremacy of the West (Europe) as confirmed by its material and cultural achievements may have opened up Rizal's eyes to the possibility that the same could be achieved by the Filipinos.
In this regard, the ardent nationalist, Claro M. Recto is justified to have Rizal be studied in schools on the premise that there are plenty of lessons that Rizal can impart to the Filipinos. It is perhaps for Rizal's vision that he stands as the giant among all other national heroes of the Philippines, and it is all worth it to discover and rediscover him in the changing times.
Somehow Rizal has given Philippine nationalism an enduring legacy by imbuing the Filipinos with a sense of past that, in the passing of time, will serve as a basis for solidarity that Filipinos can firmly stand on in times of crisis. With this foundation, Filipinos can claim everyone and everything within the threshold of their collective memories--the heroism of Lapu-Lapu, Dagohoy and others, the stories that archeological artifacts tell, the various customs and traditions of the archipelago--to form part of their being and consciousness. With these, the course of the nation and nationalism may shift according to the temporal needs of the nation, but it is assured of a home to go back to in the fullness of time.


***

[1] This has been pointed out by John N. Schumacher, among others. See John N. Schumacher, The Making of a Nation: Essays on Nineteenth-Century Filipino Nationalism (Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1991), 10-11.
[2] See Romeo Cruz, Ang Pagkabuo ng Nasyonalismong Pilipino (Metro Manila: JC Palabuy Enterprises, c 1988), 1.
[3] Anthony D. Smith, Myths and Memories of the Nation (United States: Oxford University Press, Inc., New York, 1999), 6.

[4] Ibid., 7.
[5]Teodoro Agoncillo, A History of the Filipino People, 8th ed. (Quezon City: Garotech Publishing, 1990), 115.
[6] Renato Constantino, The Philippines: A Past Revisited (Manila: Renato Constantino, 1975), 149.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid., 169.
[9] See Schumacher, 9.
[10] Constantino, 169.
[11] Ibid.
[12] See Reynaldo Ileto, Critical Questions on Nationalism: A Historical View (Manila: de la Salle University, c1986).
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid.
[17] See Romeo Cruz, And Pagkabuo ng Nasyonalismong Pilipino (Metro Manila: JC Palabuy Enterprises, 1988), 51-57.
[18] Ibid, iv.
[19]See Ambeth Ocampo, "is Rizal an American-Sponsored Hero?" in Rizal Without the Overcoat (Pasig City: Anvil Publishing, Inc, 2000), 2-3.
[20]Above.
[21] Isaiah Berlin, "The Bent Twig," in Foreign Affairs, vol. 51, 1972, p. 17.
[22] Smith, 3-19.
[23]Schumacher, 112.


SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Agoncillo, Teodoro. 1990. A History of the Filipino People, 8th ed. Quezon City: Garotech Publishing.

Berlin, Isaiah. 1972. "The Bent Twig" in Foreign Affairs, vol 52.

Constantino, Renato. 1975. The Philippines: A Past Revisited. Manila: Renato Constantino.

Cruz, Romeo. 1988. Ang Pagkabuo ng Nasyonalismong Pilipino. Manila: Palabuy Enterprises.

Ileto, Reynaldo. c1986. Critical Questions on Nationalism: A Historical View. Manila: de la Salle University.

Ocampo, Ambeth. 2000. "Is Rizal an American-Sponsored Hero?" in Rizal Without the Overcoat. Pasig City: Anvil Publishing, Inc.

Schumacher, John. 1991. The Making of a Nation: Essays in Nineteenth Century Filipino Nationalism. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.

Smith, Anthony D. 1999. Myths and Memories of the Nation. United States: Oxford University Press, Inc. NY.