Topic 1.

Significance of the Life and Works of Rizal

Unit 1. Introduction

Presentation of Contents

How should the life and works of Rizal be taught in the academe? What should be the different considerations for an
academician to teach the course effectively? These are some questions that I would like to ponder and will try to achieve in
this course. I think the first to be considered is its purpose and usefulness. It must be valuable in the holistic development
of students. Learners must acquire both knowledge, and values from the lessons discussed. It must go beyond the
conventional way of asking the students to memorize the dates, events, names. So, what if they memorized everything?
However, if they have a comprehensive understanding of its importance, this would result in the application of knowledge
in their lives, and being imbued with values. Another, the course should be presented in an interdisciplinary way, integrating
various theories in the Social Sciences and related fields. Doing this would enhance students' critical analysis to
contextualize the course in their setting or field. Hence, they can question the prevailing status quo and social reality to
recommend possible solutions to reform and change society.

I have mentioned earlier that one of the essential ways to teach the course is to present its applicability and relevance.
Then, Why do you think it is essential to study the life and works of Rizal? Is it significant in the lives of people? Some
would readily say yes. The students who affirm this will eventually reminisce about all the different 'godlike or superhuman
like' qualities of Rizal. Since this is the way, they were taught. Those who negate the essentiality of studying the course
would come up with a simplistic and pragmatic thought, what is the relevance of the subject in my life? Can it give me bread
and butter, or fill my empty tummy? As a medical student, can we apply it in our field? These are the thoughts that linger in
the minds of learners. Have you tried asking these questions? These questions also necessitate a reflection on the part of
educators and students.

This course is significant in knowing our national identity. Knowing who we are as Filipino people, we can be part of a
broader mission to transform our nation. Consequently, our national identity has been problematic due to the impacts of
colonialism. Western colonialism has altered the Filipino people's consciousness, resulting in a culture of inferiority and
a lack of pride in their cultural identity. The lack of knowledge of their identity has produced the lack of national
consciousness leading to a fragmented nation and lack of nationalism among its people. Further, many people are more
concerned about their interests than what benefits the nation.

This course is a call to revitalize our deep sense of pride in our national identity, ignite our national consciousness. In
this way, we can also be agents and actors not only repressed by colonialism, dictatorship, and other dominant structures but
as actors who have overcome the oppressive structures and agents in making a difference in our nation.

Topic 2. Republic Act 1425

Presentation of Contents

A law is defined as the principles and regulations established in a given society, whether that is from custom, legislation,
or policy that binds people together. It must always apply to its people. The law reflects the goals, aspirations, ideals of a
nation/state.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1425

AN ACT TO INCLUDE IN THE CURRICULA OF ALL PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS, COLLEGES AND
UNIVERSITIES COURSES ON THE LIFE, WORKS AND WRITINGS OF JOSE RIZAL, PARTICULARLY HIS NOVELS
NOLI ME TANGERE AND EL FILIBUSTERISMO, AUTHORIZING THE PRINTING AND DISTRIBUTION THEREOF,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

WHEREAS, today, more than any other period of our history, there is a need for a re-dedication to the ideals of freedom
and nationalism for which our heroes lived and died;

1
WHEREAS, it is meet that in honoring them, particularly the national hero and patriot, JoseUnit
Rizal, we remember with
1. Introduction
special fondness and devotion their lives and works that have shaped the national character;

WHEREAS, the life, works and writing of Jose Rizal, particularly his novels Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo, are a
constant and inspiring source of patriotism with which the minds of the youth, especially during their formative and decisive
years in school, should be suffused;

WHEREAS, all educational institutions are under the supervision of, and subject to regulation by the State, and all schools
are enjoined to develop moral character, personal discipline, civic conscience and to teach the duties of citizenship; Now,
therefore,

SECTION 1. Courses on the life, works and writings of Jose Rizal, particularly his novel Noli Me Tangere and El
Filibusterismo, shall be included in the curricula of all schools, colleges and universities, public or private: Provided, That
in the collegiate courses, the original or unexpurgated editions of the Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo or their English
translation shall be used as basic texts.

The Board of National Education is hereby authorized and directed to adopt forthwith measures to implement and carry
out the provisions of this Section, including the writing and printing of appropriate primers, readers and textbooks. The
Board shall, within sixty (60) days from the effectivity of this Act, promulgate rules and regulations, including those of a
disciplinary nature, to carry out and enforce the provisions of this Act. The Board shall promulgate rules and regulations
providing for the exemption of students for reasons of religious belief stated in a sworn written statement, from the
requirement of the provision contained in the second part of the first paragraph of this section; but not from taking the
course provided for in the first part of said paragraph. Said rules and regulations shall take effect thirty (30) days after their
publication in the Official Gazette.

SECTION 2. It shall be obligatory on all schools, colleges and universities to keep in their libraries an adequate number of
copies of the original and unexpurgated editions of the Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo, as well as of Rizal’s other
works and biography. The said unexpurgated editions of the Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo or their translations in
English as well as other writings of Rizal shall be included in the list of approved books for required reading in all public or
private schools, colleges and universities.

The Board of National Education shall determine the adequacy of the number of books, depending upon the enrollment of
the school, college or university.

SECTION 3. The Board of National Education shall cause the translation of the Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo, as
well as other writings of Jose Rizal into English, Tagalog and the principal Philippine dialects; cause them to be printed in
cheap, popular editions; and cause them to be distributed, free of charge, to persons desiring to read them, through the
Purok organizations and Barrio Councils throughout the country.

SECTION 4. Nothing in this Act shall be construed as amendment or repealing section nine hundred twenty-seven of the
Administrative Code, prohibiting the discussion of religious doctrines by public school teachers and other person engaged
in any public school.

SECTION 5. The sum of three hundred thousand pesos is hereby authorized to be appropriated out of any fund not
otherwise appropriated in the National Treasury to carry out the purposes of this Act.

SECTION 6. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

Approved: June 12, 1956

Published in the Official Gazette, Vol. 52, No. 6, p. 2971 in June 1956.

The RA 1425 was enacted during a time of political instability, economic challenge, and social fragmentation. In 1950s,
2
 Agrarian unrest was intensified. There was tremendous power struggle among the Huks Unit and1.the government. The
Introduction
landlords sabotaged the effort by President Quirino in leading a negotiation process to grant amnesty to the Huks. Here
below are list of notable events that happened during the period that influenced the enactement of RA1425.

• (1950-1952) Intensification of the anti-HUK campaigns of the government

• (1950) Bell commission reported that Philippine economy was on the brink of collapse
• (1950) Pres. Elpidio Quirino appointed Congressman Ramon Magsaysay as National Defense Secretary
• 1951) CIA Operative Edward Landsdale arrived in Manila (close ally of Sec. Magsaysay)
• (1952) Robert Hardie, an American land reform adviser in the Philippines called for land redistribution but was ignored
• (1953) Magsaysay was elected President of the Republic
• (1954) Huks surrendered
• (1955) Laurel-Langley Agreement, a means to further US economic interests, partly a way of appeasing Philippine
nationalism and partly a concession to Philippine elite
• 1957) Magsaysay died in a plane crash
• (1958) President Carlos P. Garcia promoted the “First Filipino Policy”

Topic 3. Understanding Nationalism

I mentioned earlier that this course aims to open the students' awareness of their national identity and nation. However, the
concept of nation, national identity, national consciousness could be elusive. According to Watson, "there is no scientific
definition of a nation that can be devised, yet the phenomenon has existed and exists." In Anderson's Imagined Community,
he explored the existence of nation as 'imagined.' He did not say that nation does not exist, rather, it is more real ( Cavet,
2016). In trying to present the existence of a nation, he ventured on explaining the emergence of nationalism. He further
mentioned that nationalism is a cultural artifact. It can only be understood in a proper elucidation on how such 'historical being'
emerged and how its meaning changed over the historical process. He emphasized on how people attached meanings to
specific structures, not the structures per se deviating from Marx's critical theory and structuralism.
Most importantly, how this construct gained its legitimacy by affecting the consciousness of people. Anderson (1983) further
explicated that nationalism is not the awakening of a nation to self-consciousness but invents nations. A nation does not
predate nationalism, but the latter creates the former. He presented the different periods in history to expound his arguments
since he firmly believed that nationalism should be understood not to be aligned with political ideologies but with cultural
systems that preceded it and as well as against it (ibid.,12).
From the ancient period to the age of enlightenment, he traced how people were shaped to specific external structures
(political, economic, cultural) that pervaded their consciousness. Their belief of the sacred bounded these religious
communities. During the dynasties, it was ruled by pre-ordained monarchs by mandate of heavens. The Christendom came,
where the religious authorities provided canonical teaching that whoever avert these canons were considered heretics. The
Latin language was the canonical medium of the religious institution. It elated the clergies, ecclesiastical authorities into
dominant class along the Latin language. However, people began to question the authority and supremacy of the church. The
rise of Protestantism led by Luther became a historical mark that paved the way for forming people's new form of
consciousness. His attacks against the Catholic Church's teaching became successful due to his writings, which surfaced the
way to the translation of the bible. This move deconstructed the use of Latin and became instrumental to the use of vernacular
language. The use of vernacular language and mass production of published materials as means of production had shaped
new relations of production that bonded people together.
Print technology and capitalism created a new form of imagined community (ibid.,p.46). The Print-languages laid the bases
for national consciousness in three distinct ways: 1). It created a unified field of exchange and communication; the fellow
readers in a way they were connected formed the embryo of nationally imagined community,2)it gave fixity to language; the
printed book kept a permanent form, and 3). It created languages of power.
He concluded that Imagined Communities were created through the interplay of capitalism, print technology, and the fatal
diversity of languages. He emphasized that a nation is an imagined political community-and imagined as both inherently
limited and sovereign. It is imagined because the members of the smallest nations do not know most the members, meet
them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion (1983, p.6). It is limited because it
is not co-extensive with humanity.
It is sovereign because it emerged during the renaissance, which challenged the canonical, universality of truth imposed by
religion.
3
Imagined community because regardless of inequality and exploitation that may prevail, the nation is Introduction
Unit 1. always conceived as a
deep, horizontal comradeship. For this reason, millions of people, not so much to kill but willingly die for such imaginings
(ibid.,p.7).
These processes explicate why the nation was born as a shared story between equals and through the written language
(especially the Press and literature).These interwoven processes created a new, potent political entity — the Nation-State.
Thus in the Andersonian vision, nations are 'imagined communities' and are the fruit of the march to modernity ( Calvet, 2016).

Anderson and the ImaginedNation*

Marc Sanjaume i Calvet

INStItUt D’EStUDIS DE l’AUtoGoVERN UNIVERSItAt oBERtA DE
CAtAlUNYA
marcsanjaume@gmail.com
oRCID: oRCID: 0000-0001-8723-1618

Received: 14/04/2016 Accepted: 30/05/2016

ABSTRACT
This article is a synthesis of the Theory of Nationalism in Anderson’s work and
argues its applicability to ‘Stateless Nations’. The author’s point of departure is
the interpretations that have been made of Anderson’s definition of nations as
‘imagined communities’. Anderson’s definition is presented as universal, realistic
and capable of embracing diverse facets of nationalism — oppressive or
liberating as the case may be. The paper ends with a short reflection on the
complexity of The Catalan Lands from an Andersonian point of view.
Keywords: nation, nationalism, Anderson, imagined, realism, community.

Corresponding author: Marc Sanjaume i Calvet. Institut d’Estudis de l’Autogovern. Generalitat de Catalunya. Departament de la
Presidència. C/ Baixada de Sant Miquel, 8 08001 Barcelona.
Suggested citations: Sanjaume, M. (2016). Anderson and the Imagined Nation. Debats. Journal on Culture, Power and Society, 1.
65–69

Benedict Anderson was not a researcher with just one work to his name. A glance at his list of publications reveals many
remarkable contributions and a deep knowledge of history and politics around the world, especially in the colonies.
Yet by far and away his best-known and most translated work is Imagined Communities. Reflections on the origin
and Spread of Nationalism, which was published in 1983 and translated into Catalan by the Afers1 publishing house
a little over a decade ago. This book is a reference work for students of Political Philosophy and Political Sciences
alike.

In this seminal academic work, Anderson sets out a general theory of national identity and the phenomenon
of nationalism. In his view, nationalism was born out of Capitalism, the Press, the novel and vernacular
languages. Thus at the end of the 18 th Century, the first national consciousness sprang into being and spread
rapidly to Europe and other continents. The break with The Divine Right of Kings, Latin (or the languages of
the great religions) and the old concept of the cosmos required a new way of thinking about the community.
4
According to Anderson, this was when the nation was born as a shared story between equals and
Unit 1. through the
Introduction
written language (especially the Press and literature). This created a new, extremely powerful political entity
— the Nation State. Thus in the Andersonian vision nations are ‘imagined communities’ and are the fruit of the
march to modernity. For Anderson, the nation cannot predate nationalism, given that the former emerges from the
latter to form a community that is shaped by the Press and later by the gradual definition of the bounds of said
community.

Another nationalism scholar — Anthony Smith — places Anderson in what he terms Classic Modernism, together
with other authors including Gellner, Nairn, Giddens, Tilly, Breully, Hechter, Kedourie (Smith, 1998). This current of
thought on nationalism was consolidated in the 1980s and shares the same idea, namely that the phenomenon
is a product of modernity (in its broadest sense — the emergence of the State, market economy, public
administration and so forth). One should note that this school of thought was influenced by Weber, Deutsch and
Simmel, and shared their rejection of perennialism or primordialism (that is to say, the notion that nations are
millenarian entities with an adaptive or immutable ontology over time). Such an idea was dismissed as ‘romantic’
and as merely a mythification of nationalism2.

The novelty of Anderson’s work — which also characterises that of Hobsbawm (1983) — was of offering a Marxist
perspective on Classic Modernism. Here, Anderson considered nationalism and nations as cultural artifacts that
were mainly based on a narrative that could be analysed. This approach opened the door to a post-modernist
critique enabling one to deconstruct nationalism. That said, as Bevir notes, it would be unfair to classify Anderson’s
theory within the post-modern current, which tends to belittle the importance of nations (Bevir, 2010). First,
Anderson had already stated his intention of analysing nationalism in his foreword to Imagined Communities — a
phenomenon that Marxism had forecast was doomed to vanish. Anderson pointed out the error of such predictions
and noted the emergence of nationalism in new States and lands around the world. Second, Anderson’s theory
basically explains the emergence and importance of nationalism, and defines the nation as an ‘imagined
community’. He also revindicated this definition as a category that should be considered a category of belonging
in the same way that an individual feels kinship or membership of a religion. Thus the mistake the Marxists made
was in considering nationalism to be just another ‘ism’, as if it were an ideology that was merely a passing fad.

ReVindicating andeRson
The philosopher Joan Vergés (2013) has also highlighted Anderson’s radical modernism, which saw the nation
as a product of the emergence of nationalism. Vergés has also denounced a mistaken or ill-intentioned reading
of Anderson to deny the existence of nations (which are often Stateless Nations). These ‘small’ nations in the
Kunderian sense3 tend to be given short shrift by the nationalists of the States in which they are straight-jacketed.
These State ‘nationalists’ (often in the guise of would- be cosmopolitan intellectuals) do not shrink from using
Anderson as a pretext to label these nations as figments of the imagination.

Catalonia and The Basque Country as homogeneous cultures are pure invention (an “imagined community”
in the words of the anthropologist Benedict Anderson). The rise to power of the [Catalan and Basque]
nationalist elites leads to attempts to mould society in their image and to institute a new official culture,
repressing dissenting minorities — if necessary by force (Álvarez, 1996).
However, careful reading of Anderson provides no support for such tendentious interpretations. First, for theorists of
nationalism, there are no nations that are more ‘real’ than others. Thus anyone who spends his time scribbling
accusations that other nations do not exist because they are ‘imagined’ must at the very least be willing to accept that
his own nation is equally ‘imagined’. If this were not the case, we would be dealing with a ‘selective’ (and hence either a
mistaken or ill-intentioned) application of Anderson’s theory. Second, the most surprising feature of the confusion
5
 (deliberate or not) is that considers ‘imagined’ to be the same as non-existent. At the end ofUnit
the1.day, the setting in which
Introduction
we find ourselves is woven from institutions and shared consensus that are not necessarily either palpable or material.
As Vergés says:

Social reality is spun from shared beliefs (...) and that is the stumbling block for anti-nationalists when they deny that
nations may be based on people’s beliefs. Such nay-sayers owe us an explanation of how social reality is formed
Vergés (2013: 17–57).

The third factor, which in my view is vital for understanding Anderson’s vision of nationalism, is his ability to
distinguish among the various forms taken by nationalism since its emergence. From a global perspective, linked
to his studies of Asia and the colonial world, the philosopher and anthropologist distinguishes various forms of
nationalism that have arisen through history. In his view, what drove the emergence of nationalism was ‘creolisation’,
especially in Latin America. This was a kind of revolutionary nationalism that sought to throw of the yoke of the
metropolitan power. It was led by the elites in European colonies. This avant- garde led the struggles for freedom,
beginning with Britain’s American Colonies in 1776 and ending with the Latin American and Caribbean Colonies of
other powers in 1830. According to another scholar
— Seton-Watson — one should distinguish this nationalism from what he calls ‘official nationalism’. While the
first was of a revolutionary nature, the second was led by aristocrats and the metropolitan powers — that is
to say, the rulers of the great Imperial States such as the Tsar of Russia. The latter nationalism focused on
subjugated identities and their respective popular nationalisms (from The Ukraine to Poland and Corsica), not
only adopted by the great Russian, German and Ottoman empires but also by the Chinese and Japanese ones.

The theorisation on the various faces of nationalism and its ability to be either liberating or oppressive
depending on the use made of national identity is another aspect of the work by this Chinese-born Anglo-
Irish anthropologist. Few men knew the nature of The British Empire in Asia as well as Anderson.

The theorisation on the various faces of nationalism and its ability to be either liberating or oppressive
depending on the use made of national identity is another aspect of the work by this Chinese-born Anglo-
Irish anthropologist. Few men knew the nature of The British Empire in Asia as well as Anderson.

andeRson and Us
A third channel for the emergence of nationalist movements and national identities identified by Anderson is
what he termed ‘linguistic nationalism’. This typically arose in Western Europe, especially among those
speaking minority languages repressed by the ‘official nationalism’ of the great empires. These linguistic
nationalism sprang into existence in the 19 th Century. The defence of culture and language also turned into
political defence under the influence of thinkers such as Rousseau and Herder, spawning a new nationalism:

Hence enormous energy came to be devoted to the construction of dictionaries for many languages which did not
have them at that point — Czech, Hungarian, Ukrainian, Serbian, Polish, Norwegian, and so on. Oral literary traditions
were written down and disseminated through print as popular literacy slowly began to increase.These productions
[culturals] were used to fight against the domination of the big languages of the dynastic empires, such as Ottoman,
High German, Parisian French, the King’s English and eventually Muscovite Russian, too (Anderson, 2001). In
Imagined Communities, this kind of nationalism is the one that defines us best (together with ‘official
Spanish nationalism’). Yet the Catalan Lands are a clear example of the complexity of the nationalist
phenomenon from both internal and external standpoints. Multiple (and sometimes overlapping) national
identities (Catalan, Catalan of the Principality, Valencian, Balearic Islands, and so on) has been the cause of
6
 many disputes and clashes but has also been part of their very nature. Fuster spoke of Introduction
Unit 1. it in these terms:
The terminology was imposed but could not be invented. The lack of a distinctive name for the Catalan Lands as
a whole and for the Principality was to have grave consequences. ‘Catalonia’ and ‘Catalan’ were circumscribed to
the Principality, acquiring a purely regional meaning. Meanwhile, there was no term that covered all Catalan-
speakers. As time went on, the regional nuances of País Valencià [the Valencian Country] and Balears [The
Balearic Islands] became stronger in relation to the Principality. This would not have been a stumbling block to
collective cohesion had there been a general, binding name for the whole (...). In the absence of a better
alternative, our community came to be called the Catalan Lands (Fuster, 1996: 58).

Fuster’s definition and his lament in a way proved Anderson right: nationalism makes the nation and there can be no
nation without such a movement (be it creole, imperial, linguistic or cultural). Yet one should also recall the caveat
made by Smith (an anti-modernist) who always opposed constructivist excesses. He also argued that the results of
mixing the primary elements were unpredictable (elements that he termed ‘geological’ or, as Fuster would have it,
“could not be invented’). In other words, the national narrative did not appear out of nothing but rather from a pre-
existing cultural and institution fabric that make they viable, providing the raw materials for an ‘archaeology’ that
allowed the growth of a sense of belonging. Here, we do not mean a previous ethnic base but rather a cultural
substrate that was necessary (but not sufficient) for creating the preconditions of a national narrative. This material in
the Catalan case was difficult to mix and arose from a highly diverse territorial context. Today, being Catalan seems
inextricably bound with the Battle of Almansa and Ramon Llull yet these elements were not determing factors, as one
can see from the diversity of political projects that have bloomed in The Catalan Lands over the last few years. As
Renan (1882) so nicely puts it: “L’existence d’une nation est un plébiscite de tous les jours”

 Nationalism vs Patriotism
 Anderson’s Imagined community
 What is nationalism?
 According to Watson, “no scientific definition of a nation can be devised, yet the phenomenon has existed and exists”
 Nation-imagined political community-and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign.
 Nationalism is a cultural artifact to be understood in how such historical being came into existence and how its
meaning changed over time, and how they command such profound legitimacy
 It is not the awakening of nation to self consciousness but invents nations
 Nation does not predate nationalism, but the later creates the former
 It is imagined because the members of the smallest nations do not know most the members, meet them, or even
hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion (1983, p.6)
 It is limited because it is not co-extensive with humanity
 It is sovereign because it emerged during the renaissance which challenged the canonical, universality of truth
imposed by religion
 Imagined community because regardless of inequality and exploitation that may prevail, the nation is always
conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship. For this reason, millions of people, not so much to kill but willingly die
for such imaginings (ibid.,p.7)
 Nationalism should be understood not to be aligned with political ideologies but with cultural systems that preceded it
and as well as against it (ibid.,12)
 Religious community, dynasty, Christendom, Enlightenment (use of Reason)
 The origins of National Consciousness
 Print technology and capitalism created a new form of imagined community (ibid.,p.46)
 The Print-languages laid the bases for national consciousness in three distinct ways:
1.It created unified field of exchange and communication; the fellow readers in a way they
were connected formed the embryo of nationally imagined community
2.it gave fixity to language; the printed book kept a permanent form
3. It created languages of power

7
 Unit 1. Introduction
 Imagined Communities were created through the interplay of capitalism, print technology and fatal diversity of
languages
 this was when the nation was born as a shared story between equals and through the written language (especially the
Press and literature). This created a new, extremely powerful political entity — the Nation State. Thus in the
Andersonian vision, nations are ‘imagined communities’ and are the fruit of the march to modernity ( Calvet, 2016)
 Anderson stated different factors that paved way to nationalism, how about in the Philippines? Would you consider the
same factors?
 What could be some problems regarding Philippine nationalism?
 Do you agree that nationalism is a positive force?
 Anderson argued that nationalism is different from racism. How do you think are they different?
STATE is a politically- organized body of people, occupying a definite territory and living under a government entirely
free from external control and competent to secure habitual obedience from all persons within it
4 FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENTS OF THE STATE
 1.] Permanent Population/People
 2.] Territory/ Defined Territory
 3.] Government
 4.] Sovereignty
STATE :
 is a politically organized body of people (permanent population)
 occupying a definite territory (defined territory)
 and living under a government (government)
 entirely free from external control (external sovereignty) and
 competent to secure habitual obedience from all persons within it (internal sovereignty).
Fundamental Rights of the State:
 ] The right of existence, integrity and self- preservation.
 2] The right of sovereignty and independence.
 3] The right of equality.
 4] The right of property and jurisdiction; and
 5] The right of legation or the right of diplomatic intercourse.
INHERENT POWERS OF THE STATE:
1] Police Power- the power of the State to enact such laws or regulations in relations to persons and properties as
may promote public health, public morals, public safety and the general welfare and convenience of the people.
2] Power to Tax- the power of the State to IMPOSE a charge or burden upon persons, property and rights for the use,
and support of the government so that the latter may able to discharge its proper functions.
- tax evasion vs. tax avoidance
3] Power of Eminent Domain- the power of the State to take private property for public use with just compensation.
- there must be refusal on the offer of the government to purchase the property

8
 Unit 1. Introduction
The Philippines: as a State
 Prior to 1898- a colony of Spain
 Prior to 1946- a ‘colony’ of America
 1946- the Philippine independence from the Americans--- a sovereign state
INHERENT POWERS OF THE STATE:
1] Police Power- the power of the State to enact such laws or regulations in relations to persons and properties as
may promote public health, public morals, public safety and the general welfare and convenience of the people.
- Legislation (Congress):
- statute: Republic Act
Purpose of the bill
(Senate Bill # 438)

 Senator Laurel: to disseminate Rizal’s ideas and ideals through Noli and Fili
 Senator Recto: Rizal describing the realities of his time, critical of some erring ministers of the Church but was
appreciative of some through his characters Fr. Fernandez and Padre Florentino
 Other supporters: Congressmen Jacobo Z. Gonzalez, Emilio Cortez, Mario Bengzon, Joaquin Roxas, Lancap
Lagumbay, Quintin Paredes, and Senator Domocao Alonto of Mindanao
 - House Bill (HB) # 5561
OPPOSITION:
 Senator Francisco Rodrigo, Senator Mariano J. Cuenco and Senator Decoroso Rosales.
.
 From the Lower House, it was also opposed by Congressmen Ramon Durano, Jose Nuguid, Marciano Lim, Manuel
Zosa, Lucas Paredes, Godofredo Ramos, Miguel Cuenco, Congresswomen Carnen Consing and Tecia San Andres
Ziga.
Original Bill (Senate Bill # 438)
 Noli and Fili as compulsory reading
 Emphasis on original editions or unexpurgated English and national language versions
 Punishments: dismissal, disqualification and withdrawal of permits
Anti Rizal Bill

 Bill an attempt to discredit the Catholic religion

 Inimical to the tenets of the faith (170 lines in Noli and 50 in Fili)
 Compulsion to read something against one’s faith impairs freedom of speech and religious freedom
 ------
 - Senator Emmanuel Pelaez suggested that Rizal’s novels “ should be made available in the libraries of school and not
prescribed as compulsory reading ; Noli andFili should only serve as supplementary reading in school.
Final version of the bill (Substitute Bill)
 Included all the works and writing of and for Rizal

9
 Unit 1. Introduction
 Emphasis on unexpurgated or original Noli and Fili
 Removed the idea of compulsion by allowing exemption

The Promise of the Sociological Imagination

By C. Wright Mills
C. Wright Mills will likely prove to be the most influential American sociologist of the twentieth century.
He was an outsider to the sociology profession of his time, but he was a powerful scholar with a brilliant
sociological imagination -- a term he invented. The following excerpt is from the beginning of his classic book
"The Sociological Imagination"

His opening section argues that people nowadays experience their lives as traps that they feel they
cannot overcome. He then offers his solution: ways of seeing the world around us that can help us to make
wiser, saner and more effective choices in our lives -- as individuals and through our governments. The
sociologically imagination, says Mills, insists on understanding people in terms of the intersection of their own
lives (their biographies) and their larger social and historical context (in history).

The final section discusses the difference between "private troubles" and "public issues" or "social
problems." Mills points out that there are many forms of private troubles, but that some of them also affect
many other people -- they have structural or large-scale sociological causes. These personal troubles that
are also social issues include poverty, unemployment, many schools in New York and other cities, air and
water pollution, war, racism, teenage pregnancy, abortion, drug policy and many other topics in the news
and that we have been discussing this semester.

Nowadays men and women often feel that their private lives are a series of traps. They sense that
within their everyday worlds, they cannot overcome their troubles, and in this feeling, they are often quite
correct: What ordinary people are directly aware of and what they try to do are bounded by the private orbits
in which they live; their visions and their powers are limited to the close-up scenes of job, family,
neighborhood; in other mile , they move vicariously and remain spectators. And the more aware they become,
however vaguely, of ambitions and of threats which transcend their immediate locales, the more trapped they
seem to feel.

Underlying this sense of being trapped are seemingly impersonal changes in the very structure of continent-
wide societies. The facts of contemporary history are also facts about the success and the failure of individual men and
women. When a society is industrialized, a peasant becomes a worker; a feudal lord is liquidated or becomes a
businessman. When classes rise or fall, a man is employed or unemployed; when the rate of investment goes up or
down, a man takes new heart or goes broke. When wars happen, an insurance salesman becomes a rocket launcher; a
store clerk, a radar man; a wife lives alone; a child grows up without a father

Neither the life of an individual nor the history of a society can be understood without
understanding both.

Yet men and women do not usually define the troubles they endure in terms of historical change and
institutional contradiction. The well-being they enjoy, they do not usually impute to the big ups and downs of
the societies in which they live. Seldom aware of the intricate connection between the patterns of their own
lives and the course of world history, ordinary people do not usually know what this connection means for the
kinds of people they are becoming and for the kinds of history-making in which they might take part. They do
not possess the quality of mind essential to grasp the interplay of man and society, of biography and history,
of self and world. They cannot cope with their personal troubles in such ways as to control the structural
transformations that usually lie behind them.

1
0
 Unitexposed
Surely it is no wonder. In what period have so many people have been so totally 1. Introduction
at so fast a
pace to such earthquakes of change? That Americans have not known such catastrophic changes as have the
men and women of other societies is due to historical facts that are now quickly becoming "merely history."
The history that now affects every man is world history. Within this scene and this period, in the course of a
single generation, one sixth of mankind is transformed from all that is feudal and backward into all that is
modern, advanced, and fearful. Political colonies are freed; new and less visible forms of imperialism
installed.
Revolutions occur; people feel the intimate grip of new kinds of authority. Totalitarian societies rise, and are
smashed to bits -- or succeed fabulously. After two centuries of ascendancy, capitalism is shown up as only one
way to make society into an industrial apparatus. After two centuries of hope, even formal democracy is
restricted to a quite small portion of mankind.
Everywhere in the underdeveloped world, ancient ways of life are broken up and vague expectations become
urgent demands. Everywhere in the overdeveloped world, the means of authority and of violence become total
in scope and bureaucratic in form. Humanity itself now lies before us, the super-nation at either pole
concentrating its most co-ordinated and massive efforts upon the preparation of World War Three.

The very shaping of history now outpaces the ability of men and women to orient themselves in
accordance with cherished values. And which values? Even when they do not panic, people often sense that
older ways of feeling and thinking have collapsed and that newer beginnings are ambiguous to the point of
moral stasis. Is it any wonder that ordinary men and women feel they cannot cope with the larger worlds with
which they are so suddenly confronted? That they cannot understand the meaning of their epoch for their own
lives? That -- in defense of selfhood -- they become morally insensible, trying to remain altogether private
men? Is it any wonder that they come to be possessed by a sense of the trap?

It is not only information that they need -- in this Age of Fact, information often dominates their
attention and overwhelms their capacities to assimilate it. It is not only the skills of reason that they need --
although their struggles to acquire these often exhaust their limited moral energy.

What they need, and what they feel they need, is a quality of mind that will help them to use
information and to develop reason in order to achieve lucid summations of what is going on in the world and
of what may be happening within themselves. It is this quality, I am going to contend, that journalists and
scholars, artists and publics, scientists and editors are coming to expect of what may be called the
sociological imagination

The sociological imagination enables its possessor to understand the larger historical scene in terms of
its meaning for the inner life and the external career of a variety of individuals. It enables him to take into
account how individuals, in the welter of their daily experience, often become falsely conscious of their social
positions. Within that welter, the framework of modern society is sought, and within that framework the
psychologies of a variety of men and women are formulated. By such means the personal uneasiness of
individuals is focused upon explicit troubles and the indifference of publics is transformed into involvement
with public issues.

The first fruit of this imagination -- and the first lesson of the social science that embodies it -- is the
idea that the individual can understand his own experience and gauge his own fate only by locating himself
within his period, that he can know his own chances in life only by becoming aware of those of all individuals
in his circumstances. In many ways it is a terrible lesson; in many ways a magnificent one. We do not know
the limits of man's capacities for supreme effort or willing degradation, for agony or glee, for pleasurable
brutality or the sweetness of reason. But in our time we have come to know that the limits of "human nature"
are frighteningly broad. We have come to know that every individual lives, from one generation to the next,
in some society; that he lives out a biography, and that he lives it out within some historical sequence. By the
fact of his living he contributes, however minutely, to the shaping of this society and to the course of its
history, even as he is made by society and by its historical push and shove.

The sociological imagination enables us to grasp history and biography and the relations between the
1
1
two within society. That is its task and its promise. Unit 1. Introduction
To recognize this task and this promise is the mark of the classic social analyst. It is characteristic of
Herbert Spencer -- turgid, polysyllabic, comprehensive; of E. A. Ross -- graceful, muckraking, upright; of
Auguste Comte and Emile Durkheim; of the intricate and subtle Karl Mannheim. It is the quality of all that
is intellectually excellent in Karl Marx; it is the clue to Thorstein Velben's brilliant and ironic insight, to
Joseph Schumpeter's many-sided constructions of reality; it is the basis of the psychological sweep of W. E.
H. Lecky no less than of the profundity and clarity of Max Weber. And it is the signal of what is best in
contemporary studies of man and society.

No social study that does not come back to the problems of biography, of history, and of their intersections within a
society has completed its intellectual journey. Whatever the specific problems of the classic social analysts, however limited
or however broad the features of social reality they have examined, those who have been imaginatively aware of the promise
of their work have consistently asked three sorts of questions
1. What is the structure of this particular society as a whole? What are its essential components, and how are
they related to one another? How does it differ from other varieties of social order? Within it, what is the
meaning of any particular feature for its continuance and for its change?

2. Where does this society stand in human history? What are the mechanics by which it is changing? What is
its place within and its meaning for the development of humanity as a whole? How does any particular feature
we are examining affect, and how is it affected by, the historical period in which it moves? And this period --
what are its essential features? How does it differ from other periods? What are its characteristic ways of
history-making?

3. What varieties of men and women now prevail in this society and in this period? And what varieties are
coming to prevail? In what ways are they selected and formed, liberated and repressed, made sensitive and
blunted? What kinds of "human nature" are revealed in the conduct and character we observe in this society
in this period? And what is the meaning for "human nature" of each and every feature of the society we are
examining?

Whether the point of interest is a great power state or a minor literary mood, a family, a prison, a creed
-- these are the kinds of questions the best social analysts have asked. They are the intellectual pivots of classic
studies of man in society -- and they are the questions inevitably raised by any mind possessing the
sociological imagination. For that imagination is the capacity to shift from one perspective to another -- from
the political to the psychological; from examination of a single family to comparative assessment of the
national budgets of the world; from the theological school to the military establishment from considerations of
an oil industry to studies of contemporary poetry. It is the capacity to range from the most impersonal and
remote transformations to the most intrinsic features of the human self -- and to see the relations between the
two. Back of its use there is always the urge to know the social and historical meaning of the individual in the
society and in the period in which he has his quality and his being.

That, in brief, is why it is by means of the sociological imagination that men and women now hope to
grasp what is going on in the world, and to understand what is happening in themselves as minute points of the
intersections of biography and history within society. In large part, contemporary man's self-conscious view of
himself as at least an outsider, if not a permanent stranger, rests upon an absorbed realization of social
relativity and of the transformative power of history. The sociological imagination is the most fruitful form of
this self-consciousness.

By its use people whose mentalities have swept only a series of limited orbits often come to feel as if suddenly
awakened in a house with which they had only supposed themselves to be familiar. Correctly or incorrectly, they often
come to feel that they can now provide themselves with adequate summations, cohesive assessments, comprehensive
orientations. Older decisions that once appeared sound now seem to them products of a mind unaccountably dense. Their
capacity for astonishment is made lively again. They acquire a new way of thinking, they experience a transvaluation of
values: in a word, by their reflection and by their sensibility, they realize the cultural meaning of the social sciences
1
2
 Unit 1. Introduction
II

Perhaps the most fruitful distinction with which the sociological imagination works is between
personal troubles and public issues. This distinction is an essential tool of the sociological imagination and
a feature of all classic work in social science.

Troubles occur within the character of the individual and within the range of his immediate relations
with others; they have to do with his self and with those limited areas of social life of which he is directly and
personally aware. Accordingly, the statement and the resolution of troubles properly lie within the individual
as a biographical entity and within the scope of his immediate milieu -- the social setting that is directly open
to his personal experience and to some extent his willful activity. A trouble is a private matter: values
cherished by an individual are felt by him to be threatened.

Issues have to do with matters that transcend these local environments of the individual and the range
of his inner life. They have to do with the organization of many such mile into the institutions of an historical
society as a whole, with the ways in which various mile overlap and interpenetrate to form the larger structure
of social and historical life. An issue is a public matter: some value cherished by publics is felt to be
threatened. Often there is a debate about what that value is and about what it is that really threatens it. This
debate is often without focus if only because it is the very nature of an issue, unlike even widespread trouble,
that it cannot very well be defined in terms of the immediate and everyday environments of ordinary men. An
issue, in fact, often involves a crisis in institutional arrangements, and often too it involves what Marxists call
"contradictions" or "antagonisms."

In these terms, consider unemployment. When, in a city of 100,000, only one man is unemployed, that
is his personal trouble, and for its relief we property look to the character of the man, his skills, and his
immediate opportunities. But when in a nation of 50 million employees, 15 million people are unemployed,
that is an issue, and we may not hope to find its solution within the range of opportunities open to any one
individual. The very structure of opportunities has collapsed. Both the correct statement of the problem and the
range of possible solutions require us to consider the economic and political institutions of the society, and not
merely the personal situation and character of a scatter of individuals.

Consider war. The personal problem of war, when it occurs, may be how to survive it or how to die in
it with honor; how to make money out of it; how to climb into the higher safety of the military apparatus; or
how to contribute to the war's termination. In short, according to one's values, to find a set of milieu and within
it to survive the war or make one's death in it meaningful. But the structural issues of war have to do with its
causes; with what types of men and women it throws up into command; with its effects upon economic and
political, family and religious institutions, with the unorganized irresponsibility of a world of nation-states.

Consider marriage. Inside a marriage a man and a woman may experience personal troubles, but when
the divorce rate during the first four years of marriage is 850 out of every 1,000 attempts, this is an
indication of a structural issue having to do with the institutions of marriage and the family and other
institutions that bear upon them.

Or consider the metropolis -- the horrible, beautiful, ugly, magnificent sprawl of the great city. For
many upper-class people, the personal solution to "the problem of the city" is to have an apartment with
private garage under it in the heart of the city, and forty miles out, a house by Henry Hill, garden by Garrett
Eckbo, on a hundred acres of private land. In these two controlled environments -- with a small staff at each
end and a private helicopter connection -- most people could solve many of the problems of personal milieu
caused by the facts of the city. But all this, however splendid, does not solve the public issues that the
structural fact of the city poses. What should be done with this wonderful monstrosity? Break it all up into
scattered units, combining residence and work? Refurbish it as it stands? Or, after evacuation, dynamite it and
build new cities according to new plans in new places? What should those plans be? And who is to decide and
1
3
to accomplish whatever choice is made? These are structural issues; to confront themUnit
and1.toIntroduction
solve them
requires us to consider political and economic issues that affect innumerable mile.

In so far as an economy is so arranged that slumps occur, the problem of unemployment becomes
incapable of personal solution. In so far as war is inherent in the nation-state system and in the uneven
industrialization of the world, the ordinary individual in his restricted milieu will be powerless -- with or
without psychiatric aid -- to solve the troubles this system or lack of system imposes upon him. In so far as the
family as an institution turns women into darling little slaves and men into their chief providers and unweaned
dependents, the problem of a satisfactory marriage remains incapable of purely private solution. In so far as the
overdeveloped megalopolis and the overdeveloped automobile are built-in features of the overdeveloped
society, the issues of urban living will not be solved by personal ingenuity and private wealth.

What we experience in various and specific mile, I have noted, is often caused by structural changes.
Accordingly, to understand the changes of many personal mile we are required to look beyond them. And the
number and variety of such structural changes increase as the institutions within which we live become more
embracing and more intricately connected with one another. To be aware of the idea of social structure and to
use it with sensibility is to be capable of tracing such linkages among a great variety of mile. To be able to do
that is to possess the sociological imagination.

III

What are the major issues for publics and the key troubles of private individuals in our time? To
formulate issues and troubles, we must ask what values are cherished yet threatened, and what values are
cherished and supported, by the characterizing trends of our period. In the case both of threat and of support
we must ask what salient contradictions of structure may be involved.

When people cherish some set of values and do not feel any threat to them, they experience well being. When
they cherish values but do feel them to be threatened, they experience a crisis -- either as a personal trouble or
as a public issue. And if all their values seem involved, they feel the total threat of panic.

But suppose people are neither aware of any cherished values nor experience any threat?
That is the experience of indifference, which, if it seems to involve all their values, becomes apathy.
Suppose, finally, they are unaware of any cherished values, but still are very much aware of a threat? That
is the experience of uneasiness, of anxiety, which, if it is total enough, becomes a deadly unspecified
malaise.

Ours is a time of uneasiness and indifference -- not yet formulated in such ways as to permit the work
of reason and the play of sensibility. Instead of troubles -- defined in terms of values and threats -- there is
often the misery of vague uneasiness; instead of explicit issues there is often merely the beat feeling that all is
somehow not right. Neither the values threatened nor whatever threatens them has been stated; in short, they
have not been carried to the point of decision. Much less have they been formulated as problems of social
science.

In the thirties there was little doubt -- except among certain deluded business circles -- that there was
an economic issue which was also a pack of personal troubles. In these arguments about "the crisis of
capitalism," the formulations of Marx and the many unacknowledged re- formulations of his work probably
set the leading terms of the issue, and some men and women came to understand their personal troubles in
these terms. The values threatened were plain to see and cherished by all; the structural contradictions that
threatened them also seemed plain.
Both were widely and deeply experienced. It was a political age.

But the values threatened in the era after World War Two are often neither widely acknowledged as
1
4
values nor widely felt to be threatened. Much private uneasiness goes unformulated; Unit much 1. public
Introduction
malaise and
many decisions of enormous structural relevance never become public issues. For those who accept such
inherited values as reason and freedom, it is the uneasiness itself that is the trouble; it is the indifference itself
that is the issue. And it is this condition, of uneasiness and indifference, that is the signal feature of our
period.

All this is so striking that it is often interpreted by observers as a shift in the very kinds of problems
that need now to be formulated. We are frequently told that the problems of our decade, or even the crisis of
our period, have shifted from the external realm of economics and now have to do with the quality of
individual life -- in fact with the question of whether there is soon going to be anything that can properly be
called individual life. Not child labor but comic books, not poverty but mass leisure, are at the center of
concern. Many great public issues as well as many private troubles are described in terms of "the psychiatric" -
- often, it seems, in a pathetic attempt to avoid the large issues and problems of modern society. Often this
statement seems to rest upon a provincial narrowing of interest to the Western societies, or even to the United
States -- thus ignoring two-thirds of mankind; often, too, it arbitrarily divorces the individual life from the
larger institutions within which that life is enacted, and which on occasion bear upon it more grievously than
do the intimate environments of childhood

Problems of leisure, for example, cannot even be stated without considering problems of work. Family
troubles over comic books cannot be formulated as problems without considering the plight of the
contemporary family in its new relations with the newer institutions of the social structure. Neither leisure nor
its debilitating uses can be understood as problems without recognition of the extent to which malaise and
indifference now form the social and personal climate of contemporary American society. In this climate, no
problems of "the private life" can be stated and solved without recognition of the crisis of ambition that is part
of the very career of men and women at work in the incorporated economy
It is true, as psychoanalysts continually point out, that people do often have "the increasing sense of being moved by
obscure forces within themselves which they are unable to define.” But it is not true, as Ernest Jones asserted, that
"man's chief enemy and danger is his own unruly nature and the dark forces pent up within him.” On the contrary:
"Man's chief danger" today lies in the unruly forces of contemporary society itself, with its alienating methods of
production, its enveloping techniques of political domination, its international anarchy -- in a word, its pervasive
transformations of the very "nature" of man and the conditions and aims of his life.

It is now the social scientist's foremost political and intellectual task -- for here the two coincide -- to make clear the
elements of contemporary uneasiness and indifference. It is the central demand made upon him by other cultural
workmen -- by physical scientists and artists, by the intellectual community in general. It is because of this task and
these demands, I believe, that the social sciences are becoming the common denominator of our cultural period, and
the sociological imagination our most needed quality of mind

Questions

Use examples to explain what Mills means by "the sociological imagination."

Based on what Mills says, what do you think are differences between sociology and psychology?

According to Mills, how is addressing or solving a personal trouble different from addressing a public
problem.

1
5
 Unit 1. Introduction

Theories Essential in Understanding the Life and Works of Rizal

 A Theory is defined as a set of principles essential in explaining the occurrences of different

phenomena. In this unit, I will present different theories from sociology, anthropology, psychology,
and other related fields. This undertaking is to equip the learners with a theoretical lens to make
sense of the social world, particularly in contextualizing the course in the contemporary period and
exposing structural problems present in society.

 Social Science emerged as a reaction to scientific advances in the modern period. Scholars opted
to follow the scientific method to explain how societies are formed, what integrates societies, and
how societies can be changed? Early social thinkers followed Darwin's evolutionary theory to explain
how societies evolved from "primitive" ( the word primitive must no longer be used today to describe
culture and societies) to civilized societies. Morgan was the most prominent thinker at that time.
According to him, societies undergo three stages: savagery, barbarism, and civilization. Each stage
can be divided further to lower, middle and upper lever. Each stage has its defining characteristic
seen on the table below:

Type of Lower Middle Upper

Societies

Savagery Gathering of Fishing and Invention of

fruits and gained control bow and
nuts of fire arrow

Barbarism Use of Domestication Iron

pottery of plants and smelting
animals

Civilization WRITING AND PRINTING PRESS

 Functionalism- postponed the search of origin like the evolutionist and (HP), but focused on the role
of culture trait and practices of contemporary society.
- Human had a set of universal biological needs, the function of any practice was the role it played on
satisfying those needs
 Stucturalism- (Levi- Strauss)
-meaning of the item is not much on that particular item but on its relationship to others, the
srtucture of multiple items, location of any one in relation to others is most important
 Structural Functionalism- (R. Brown, Evan)
- According to Brown, “ The system has structure whose parts work or function to maintain the whole.
- -social functions of institutions that maintain social order
- Like anatomical and physiological system
- -not culture but social order
- Marxist Theory
- Historical Materialism 1
6
 Unit 1. Introduction

- Power struggle
- Antagonism between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie
- Hunting and Gathering- Feudalism- Capitalism-Socialism-Communism
- Communism as the end stage of Histoty (Utopian Society)

 Critical Theories and the concept of Nationalism

 FOR MARXISTS, nationality is an example of ‘false consciousness’, an illusion that serves to
mystify and confuse the working classes, preventing them from recognizing their genuine
interests.
 In emphasizing the bonds of nationhood over those of social class, nationalism serves to distort,
and conceal, the realities of unequal class power and prevent social revolution.
 SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISTS have been particularly critical of the primordialist image of
‘fixed’ ethnic and national identities,
 emphasizing instead that the sense of national belonging is ‘constructed’ through social,
political and other processes.
• nations are fashioned by nationalism itself, sympathizing with Eric Hobsbawm’s (1983) image of
nations as ‘invented traditions’.

 POSTSTRUCTURALIST and POSTMODERNIST approaches to nationalism tend to suggest

that at the heart of the nationalist project is a narrative, or collection of narratives
 Who is the storyteller? Whose story?
 That locates the origins of the nation in a time long ago and imbues the nation with special qualities.

C. Wright Mills
-Men’s private lives are series of traps
- Ordinary men are aware of their limitation, they do not know how to get away from the trap.
- Spectators
- The more aware they become, the more trapped they feel
- Underlying the private lives of ordinary men( trapped) ; there changes in the structure of “continent
“ wide societies
- However men seldom see the intricate connection of their personal lives to the wider society. They
failed to grasp the interplay of man and society, biography and history, self and the world.
- - They can’t cope or adjust with their personal troubles.
- -World changes very fast
- -history that affects every man is world history
- -older ways of thinking collapsed, and newer ways of thinking are ambiguous which leads to moral statis-
people becomes insensitive ( private men)
- -men thought that in order to solve their personal problems/ private concerns :
- 1.they need more information
- 2. Skills of reason
- What they need is a quality of mind that will help them use the information and to develop reason in
order to achieve lucid summations on what is going on in the world and what is going within
themselves.
- This quality of mind is called “ Sociological Imagination”
-ability to understand the connection of biography and world history
-biography and world history meet at the society
-possession of sociological imagination will let you know how you are affected with world history
-In order to remove and get away from the trap, we should know the trap and how to get away from
it.
- It is the society that creates the trap

 The first fruit of this imagination and first lesson of social science 1
7
 Unit 1. Introduction

 “individual can understand his own experience and gauge his own fate only by locating himself within
his period, that he can know his chances in life be becoming aware of those of all individuals in his
circumstances
 Sociological imagination enables us to grasp history and biography and the relation between the two
within society (task and promise of sociology).
 individual's values and actions do not occur in a vacuum. Rather, these values and actions are
situated in a particular society at a particular time in history (Kaufman, 1997).

Questions usually asked:

 What is the structure of this particular society? How is social order maintained?
 Where does this society stand in human history?
 What varieties of men and women now prevail in this society?
It is the capacity to range from the most impersonal and remote transformations to the most
intimate features of the human self- and see the relations between the two.
personal trouble to public issue
 Sociological imagination is the most fruitful form of self-consciousness
 Personal trouble/ personal concern becomes a public issue
Example:
Unemployment rate (political and economic)
War
Marriage

 Jung’s Collective unconscious and Individuation Process

 According to Jung, the collective unconscious is a wide array of possibilities accounting for the
psychic energy which he calls archetypes. Archetypes complexes of psychic elements in the
unconscious acting as a binding force to provide energy to influence the psychic life (Hall &Nordby
1973). It is the through the realm of the collective unconscious that the ego can be displaced. In this
case, a new reality of possibilities without the “egocentric” self is achieved. It is only in the realm of
the unconscious that creativity can be possible. The collective unconscious is also the seat of
spirituality where the genuine self exists. It can only be tapped through the individuation process. It
is through individuation that the conscious and unconscious are integrated together embracing the
fullness of being. This process allows the individual to embrace, and accept his or her weaknesses
and strengths. Eventually, this process yields to creation and transformation of the self to a more
authentic and creative actor.

RIZAL’s ANCESTRY

Jose Protasio Mercado Rizal Alonzo Y Realonda was born on June 19, 1861 in Calamba, Laguna.
Rev. Rufino Collantes baptized him in the Catholic church of Calamba on June 22, 1861. His
godfather was Rev. Pedro Casañas. He was named "Jose" by his pious mother, in honor of St.
Joseph. His father, Don FRANCISCO MERCADO RIZAL (1818-1898), was born in Binan,
Laguna, on May 11, 1818. He studied Latin & Philosophy in the College of San Jose in Manila.
After his parent's death, he moved to Calamba and became tenant-farmer of the Dominican-
owned hacienda. He was independent-minded, talk less but worked more. Don Francisco died on
January 5, 1898. Jose's mother, DONA TEODORA ALONZO REALONDA (1826-1911), was
born in Manila on November 8, 1926; She was educated at College of Sta. Rosa, a well known
school for girls. She possessed refined culture, literary talent, business ability and fortitude, spoke
Spanish, mathematician, and read many books. She died in Manila on August 16, 1911
Topic 4: Philippine National Hero or American Sponsored Hero?
Presentation of Contents

There were many controversies regarding Rizal's heroism. In this chapter, we will review the different
characteristics of a hero, why Rizal is worthy of being a National hero, and present some criticisms 1
8
 Unit 1. Introduction

regarding Rizal's heroism. We will try to answer if he is an American made hero or he rightfully earned
the credit being a national hero? What could be the possible implications of this if the Americans were
the ones who instigated Rizal to be the National Hero of the Philippines?

The concepts of "hero" and "heroism" have existed in all cultures on earth, in many forms and varieties
The word itself has probably appeared first in ancient Greece, where it was combined in the name of one
of the greatest heroes of all times: Heracles.

CONCEPT OF A HERO
According to Robert Graves, - an authority on Greek culture - the name Hero, is derived from that of the
great goddess Hera, so Hero means "Hera's Glory." • Heracles, then, lived, acted, and died in the name
and for the glory of that goddess.

Japan CONCEPT OF A HERO

Japanese Yamato Take, who was the son of a king, was accredited to slay a dangerous serpent of Omi.
The Hero then possessed the three main characteristics of heroism:
1. They performed outstanding deeds
2. They risked their very being for the sake of others rather than for their own glory
3. They were all victims CONCEPT OF A HERO
Rizal as a hero
1. Performed outstanding deeds - used the pen to fight
2. Risked his very being for the sake of his countrymen - he waged a non-violent crusade against the
oppressors of his countrymen
3. He is a victim - suffered political martyrdom
According to Palma, Rizal's self-denial and love for his country is something to be admired. He could
have chosen a life without any struggle. However, he has chosen to abandon his interest for his country's
sake.

Honors Accorded to Rizal as the Philippine National Hero

1. The day of his birth and day of his execution are fittingly commemorated by all classes of people
throughout the country and other Filipino abroad,
2. No other Filipino hero can surpass Rizal in the number of monuments erected in his honor, in towns,
barrios, and schools.
3. His name is a by-word in every home, and his picture is printed and used in postage stamps.
4. The paper money/coins with his image have the widest circulation that the poorest of the poor can take
hold.
5. Streets, boulevards, educational institutions, and persons were named "Rizal."
6. His noble thoughts and teachings had been frequently invoked and quoted by speakers.
One of the most prominent critics of Rizal is Professor Renato Constantino. In his writing, Veneration
without Understanding, he presented the following arguments:
 Rizal was not at the frontline of Revolution
 Rizal denied the Revolution
 Rizal condemned the uprising from below
 American sponsored

 Rizal was only voicing the aspirations of the middle class, he is a limited Filipino base
on education and property- he is not of the people
 His upbringing, class position, foreign education constituted a limitation on his
understanding of his countrymen,
 Elite felt that their education gave them the right to speak for the people, proposed an elitist form
of leadership, all the while believing that what the elite leadership decided was what the people
would and should follow
 Did not consider political independence as a prerequisite for freedom 1
9
 Unit 1. Introduction

 Yet people revered him, he died for certain principles that they believed in
 We need new heroes who can help us solve our pressing problems and not rely on Rizal alone
 The true hero is one with the masses
 When the goals of the people are finally achieved, Rizal, the first Filipino, will be negated by the
true Filipino

VENERATION WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING*

Prof. Renato Constantino

In the histories of many nations, the national revolution represents a peak of achievement to
which the minds of man return time and again in reverence and for a renewal of faith in freedom.
For the national revolution is invariably the one period in a nation’s history when the people
were most united, most involved, and most decisively active in the fight for freedom. It is not
to be wondered at, therefore, that almost always the leader of that revolution becomes the
principal hero of his people. There is Washington for the United States, Lenin for the Soviet
Union, Bolivar for Latin America, Sun Yat Sen, then Mao Tse-Tung for China and Ho Chi
Minh for Vietnam. The unity between the venerated mass action and the honored single
individual enhances the influence of both.

In our case, our national hero was not the leader of our Revolution. In fact, he repudiated that
Revolution. In no uncertain terms he placed himself against Bonifacio and those Filipinos who
were fighting for the country’s liberty. In fact, when he was arrested he was on his way to Cuba
to use his medical skills in the service of Spain. And in the manifesto of December 15, 1896
which he addressed to the Filipino people, he declared:

From the very beginning, when I first had notice of what was being planned, I
opposed it, fought it, and demonstrated its absolute impossibility.

I did even more. When later, against my advice, the movement materialized, of
my own accord I offered my good offices, but my very life, and even my name,
to be used in whatever way might seem best, toward stifling the rebellion; for
convinced of the ills which it would bring, I considered myself fortunate if, at
any sacrifice, I could prevent such useless misfortune…. I have written also (and
I repeat my words) that reforms, to be beneficial, must come from above, and
those which comes from below are irregularly gained and uncertain.

*
Third National Rizal Lecture, December 30, 1969.

2
0
Michael Charleston “Xiao” B. Chua, KasPil 1 / PhiHis 1 readings, DLSU- 2
Manila

Holding these ideas, I cannot do less than condemn, and I do condemn this
uprising-which dishonors us Filipinos and discredits those that could plead our
cause. I abhor its criminal methods and disclaim all part in it, pitying from the
bottom of my heart the unwary that have been deceived into taking part in it. 1

Rizal and The Revolution

Rizal’s refusal to align himself with the revolutionary forces and his vehement condemnation
of the mass movement and of its leaders have placed Filipinos in a dilemma. Either the
Revolution was wrong, yet we cannot disown it, or Rizal was wrong, yet we cannot disown him
either. By and large, we have chosen to ignore this apparent contradiction. Rizalists, especially,
have taken the easy way out, which is to gloss over the matter. They have treated Rizal’s
condemnation of the Katipunan as a skeleton in his closet and have been responsible for the
“silent treatment” on his unequivocal position against the Revolution.

To my knowledge, there has been no extensive analysis of the question. For some Rizalists, this
aspect of Rizal has been a source of embarrassment inasmuch as they picture him as the supreme
symbol of our struggle for freedom. Others in fact privately agree with his stand as evidenced
by their emphasis on the gradualism of Rizal’s teachings particularly his insistence on the
primacy of education. They would probably praise Rizal’s stand against the Revolution, if they
dared. Since they do not dare for themselves, they are also prudently silent for Rizal’s sake.
Others, careless and superficial in their approach to history and perhaps afraid to stir a hornet’s
nest of controversy, do not think it important to dwell on this contradiction between our
Revolution and our national hero and elect to leave well enough alone. Perhaps they do not
perceive the adverse consequences of our refusal to analyze and resolve this contradiction. Yet
the consequences are manifest in our regard for our Revolution and in our understanding of
Rizal.

The Philippine Revolution has always been overshadowed by the omnipresent figure and the
towering reputation of Rizal. Because Rizal took no part in that Revolution and in fact
repudiated it, the general regard for our Revolution is not as high as it otherwise would be. On
the other hand, because we refuse to analyze the significance of his repudiation, our
understanding of Rizal and of his role in our national development remains superficial. This is
a disservice to the event, to the man, and to ourselves.

Viewed superficially, Rizal’s reaction toward the Revolution is unexpected, coming as it did
from a man whose life and labors were supposed to have been dedicated to the cause of his
country’s freedom. Had someone of lesser stature uttered those words of condemnation, he
would have been considered a traitor to the cause. As a matter of fact, those words were
treasonous in the light of the Filipinos’ struggle against Spain. Rizal repudiated the one act
which really synthesized our nationalist aspiration, and yet we consider him a nationalist leader.
Such an appraisal has dangerous implications because it can be used to exculpate those who
actively

1
The full text of the manifesto may be found in Jose Rizal, Political and Historical Writings. Vol VII
2
(Manila: National Heroes Commission, 1964), p. 348.
Michael Charleston “Xiao” B. Chua, KasPil 1 / PhiHis 1 readings, DLSU- 3
Manila
betrayed the Revolution and may serve to diminish the ardor of those who today may be called
upon to support another great nationalist undertaking to complete the anti-colonial movement.

An American-Sponsored Hero
We have magnified Rizal’s role to such an extent that we have lost our sense of proportion and
relegated to a subordinate position our other great men and the historic events in which they
took part. Although Rizal was already a revered figure and became more so after his martyrdom,
it cannot be denied that his pre-eminence among our heroes was partly the result of American
sponsorship. This sponsorship took two forms: on one hand, that of encouraging a Rizal cult,
on the other, that of minimizing the importance of other heroes or even of vilifying them. There
is no question that Rizal had the qualities of greatness. History cannot deny his patriotism. He
was a martyr to oppression, obscurantism and bigotry. His dramatic death captured the
imagination of our people. Still, we must accept the fact that his formal designation as our
national hero, his elevation to his present eminence so far above all our other heroes was abetted
and encouraged by the Americans.

It was Governor William Howard Taft who in 1901 suggested that the Philippine Commission
to the Filipinos be given a national hero. The Free Press of December 28, 1946 gives this account
of a meeting of the Philippine Commission:

‘And now, gentlemen, you must have a national hero.’ In these fateful words,
addressed by then Civil Governor W. H. Taft to the Filipino members of the civil
commission, Pardo de Tavera, Legarda, and Luzuriaga, lay the genesis of Rizal
Day…..

‘In the subsequent discussion in which the rival merits of the revolutionary heroes
were considered, the final choice-now universally acclaimed as a wise one-was
Rizal. And so was history made.’

Theodore Friend in his book, Between Two Empires, says that Taft “with other American
colonial officials and some conservative Filipinos, chose him (Rizal) as a model hero over other
contestants - Aguinaldo too militant, Bonifacio too radical, Mabini unregenerate.” 2 This
decision to sponsor Rizal was implemented with the passage of the following Acts of the
Philippine Commission: (1) Act No. 137 which organized the politico-military district of
Morong and named it the province of Rizal “in honor of the most illustrious Filipino and the
most illustrious Tagalog the islands had ever known, “ (2) Act No.243 which authorized a public
subscription for the erection of a monument in honor or Rizal at the Luneta, and (3) Act No.
346 which set aside the anniversary of his death as a day of observance.

This early example of American “aid” is summarized by Governor W. Cameron Forbes who
wrote in his book, The Philippine Islands:

2
Theodore Friend, Between Two Empires (New Haven and New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1928),
p. 15.

3
Michael Charleston “Xiao” B. Chua, KasPil 1 / PhiHis 1 readings, DLSU- 4
Manila

It is eminently proper that Rizal should have become the acknowledged national
hero of the Philippine people. The American administration has lent every
assistance to this recognition, setting aside the anniversary of his death to be a
day of observance, placing his picture on the postage stamp most commonly used
in the islands, and on the currency …. And throughout the islands the public
schools tech the young Filipinos to revere his memory as the greatest of Filipino
patriots. (Underscoring supplied)3

The reason for the enthusiastic American attitude becomes clear in the following appraisal of
Rizal by Forbes:

Rizal never advocated independence, nor did he advocate armed resistance to the
government. He urged reform from within by publicity, by public education, and
appeal to the public conscience. (Underscoring supplied)4

Taft’s appreciation for Rizal has much the same basis, as evidenced by his calling Rizal “the
greatest Filipino, a physician, a novelist and a poet (who) because of his struggle for a betterment
of conditions under Spanish rule was unjustly convicted and shot…. “

The public image that the American desired for a Filipino national hero was quite clear. They
favored a hero who would not run against the grain of American colonial policy. We must take
these acts of the Americans in furtherance of a Rizal cult in the light of their initial policies
which required the passage of the Sedition Law prohibiting the display of the Filipino flag. The
heroes who advocated independence were therefore ignored. For to have encouraged a
movement to revere Bonifacio or Mabini would not have been consistent with American
colonial policy.

Several factors contributed to Rizal’s acceptability to the Americans as the official hero of the
Filipinos. In the first place, he was safely dead by the time the American began their aggression.
No embarrassing anti-American quotations could ever be attributed to him. Moreover, Rizal’s
dramatic martyrdom had already made him the symbol of Spanish oppression. To focus
attention on him would serve not only to concentrate Filipino hatred against the erstwhile
oppressors, it would also blunt their feelings of animosity toward the new conquerors against
whom there was still organized resistance at that time. His choice was a master stroke by the
Americans. The honors bestowed on Rizal were naturally appreciated by the Filipinos who were
proud of him.

At the same time, the attention lavished on Rizal relegated other heroes to the background-
heroes whose revolutionary example and anti-American pronouncements might have stiffened
Filipino resistance to the new conquerors. The Americans especially emphasized the fact that
Rizal was a reformer, not a separatist. He could therefore not be invoked on the question of
Philippine independence. He could not be a rallying point in the resistance against the invaders.

3
W. Cameron Forbes, The Philippine Islands (Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1928), p.
55.
4
Ibid. p. 53.

4
Michael Charleston “Xiao” B. Chua, KasPil 1 / PhiHis 1 readings, DLSU- 5
Manila

It must also be remembered that the Filipino members of the Philippine Commission were
conservative ilustrados. The Americans regarded Rizal as belonging to this class. This was,
therefore, one more point in his favor. Rizal belonged to the right social class — the class that
they were cultivating and building up for leadership.

It may be argued that, faced with the humiliation of a second colonization, we as a people felt
the need for a super-hero to bolster the national ego and we therefore allowed ourselves to be
propagandized in favor of one acceptable to the colonizer. Be that as it may, certainly it is now
time for us to view Rizal with more rationality and with more historicity. This need not alarm
anyone but the blind worshipper. Rizal will still occupy a good position in our national pantheon
even if we discard hagiolatry and subject him to a more mature historical evaluation.

A proper understanding of our history is very important to us because it will serve to

demonstrate how our present has been distorted by a faulty knowledge of our past. By
unraveling the past we become confronted with the present already as future. Such a re-
evaluation may result in a down- grading of some heroes and even a discarding of others. It
cannot spare even Rizal. The exposure of his weaknesses and limitations will also mean our
liberation, for he has, to a certain extent become part of the superstructure that supports present
consciousness. That is why a critical evaluation of Rizal cannot but lead to a revision of our
understanding of history and of the role of the individual in history.

Orthodox historians have presented history as a succession of exploits of eminent personalities,

leading many of us to regard history as the product of gifted individuals. This tendency is
strongly noticeable in those who have tried of late to manufacture new heroes through press
releases, by the creation of foundations, or by the proclamation of centennial celebrations.
Though such tactics may succeed for a limited period, they cannot insure immortality where
there exists no solid basis for it. In the case of Rizal, while he was favored by colonial support
and became good copy for propagandists, he had the qualifications to assume immortality. It
must be admitted however, that the study of his life and works has developed into a cult
distorting the role and the place of Rizal in our history.

The uncritical attitude of his cultists has been greatly responsible for transforming biographers
into hagiographers. His weaknesses and errors have been subtly underplayed and his virtues
grossly exaggerated. In this connection, one might ask the question, what would have happened
if Rizal had not been executed in December of 1896? Would the course of the Philippine
Revolution have been different? This poses the question of the role of the individual in history.
Was this historical phase of our libertarian struggle due to Rizal? Did the propagandists of the
19th century create the period or were they created by the period?

The Role of Heroes

With or without these specific individuals the social relations engendered by Spanish
colonialism and the subsequent economic development of the country would have produced the
nationalist movement. Without Rizal there would have developed other talents. Without Del
Pilar another propagandist would have emerged. That Rizal possessed a particular talent which
influenced the
5
Michael Charleston “Xiao” B. Chua, KasPil 1 / PhiHis 1 readings, DLSU- 6
Manila
style of the period was accidental. That he was executed on December 30 only added more
drama to the events of the period. If there had been no Rizal, another type of talent would have
appeared who might have given a different style to the historic struggle; but the general trend
engendered by the particular social relations would have remained the same.

Without Rizal there may have been a delay in the maturation of our libertarian struggle, but the
economic development of the period would have insured the same result. Rizal maybe
accelerated it. Rizal may have given form and articulation and color to the aspirations of the
people. But even without him, the nationalist struggle would have ensued. This is likewise true
in the case of present-day national liberation movements. The fundamental cause of mass action
is not the utterances of a leader; rather, these leaders have been impelled to action by historical
forces unleashed by social development. We must therefore not fall into the error of projecting
the role of the individual to the extent of denying the play of these forces as well as the creative
energies of the people who are the true makers of their own history.

Because Rizal had certain qualities, he was able to serve the pressing social needs of the period,
needs that arose out of general and particular historical forces. He is a hero in the sense that he
was able to see the problems generated by historical forces, discern the new social needs created
by the historical development of new social relationships, and take an active part in meeting
these needs. But he is not a hero in the sense that he could have stopped and altered the course
of events. The truth of this statement is demonstrated by the fact that the Revolution broke out
despite his refusal to lead it and continued despite his condemnation of it. Rizal served his people
by consciously articulating the unconscious course of events. He saw more clearly than his
contemporaries and felt with more intensity the problems of his country, though his viewpoint
was delimited by his particular status and upbringing. He was the first Filipino but he was only
a limited Filipino, the ilustrado Filipino who fought for national unity but feared the Revolution
and loved his mother country, yes, but in his own ilustrado way.

Though we assert that the general course of history is not directed by the desires or ideas of
particular men, we must not fall into the error of thinking that because history can proceed
independently of individuals it can proceed independently of men. The fact is that history is
made by men who confront the problems of social progress and try to solve them in accordance
with the historical conditions of their epoch. They set their tasks in conformity with the given
conditions of their times. The closer the correspondence between a man’s perception of reality
and reality itself, the greater the man. The deeper his commitment to the people’s cause in his
own time as evidence by his life and deeds. Hence, for a deeper understanding and a more
precise evaluation of Rizal as Filipino and as hero, we must examine at some length the period
during which Rizal lived.

Innovation and Change

Rizal lived in a period of great economic changes. These were inevitably accompanied by
cultural and political ferment. The country was undergoing grave and deep alterations which
resulted in a national awakening. The English occupation of the country, the end of the galleon
trade, and the Latin-American revolutions of that time were all factors which led to an economic
re-thinking by liberal Spanish officials. The establishment of non-Hispanic commercial
houses
6
Michael Charleston “Xiao” B. Chua, KasPil 1 / PhiHis 1 readings, DLSU- 7
Manila
broke the insular belt that had circumscribed Philippine life for almost two centuries and a half.
The middle of the 19th century saw 51 shipping and commercial houses in Manila, 12 of which
were American and non-Hispanic European. These non-Spanish houses practically
monopolized the import-export trade. The opening of the ports of Sual, Cebu, Zamboanga,
Legaspi and Tacloban, all during the second half of the 19th century, enabled these non-Spanish
interests to establish branches beyond the capital city, thus further increasing cosmopolitan
penetration.5

European and American financing were vital agents in the emerging export economy.
Merchants gave crop advances to indio and Chinese-mestizo cultivators, resulting in increased
surpluses of agricultural export products. The Chinese received loans for the distribution of
European goods and the collection of Philippine produce for shipment abroad. Abaca and sugar
became prime exports during this period as a result of these European and American
entrepreneurial activities. The Transformation of the sugar industry due to financing and the
introduction of steam- powered milling equipment increased sugar production from 3,000
piculs in mid-19th century to nearly 2,000,000 piculs in four decades.6

These economic developments inevitably led to improvement in communications. The infra-

structure program of the Spanish government resulted in a moderately functional road system.
The third quarter of the century saw the opening of railroad lines. The steamship effected both
internal and external linkages, postal services improved, the telegraph was inaugurated in 1873,
and by 1880, we were connected with the world by a submarine cable to Hong Kong. Manila’s
water system was modernized in 1870; we had street cars in 1881 and telephone and electric
lights in the metropolitan region during the same period. Material progress set the stage for
cultural and social changes, among them the cultivation of cosmopolitan attitudes and
heightened opposition to clerical control. Liberalism had invaded the country as a result of the
reduction of the Spain-Manila voyage to thirty days after the opening of the Suez canal. The
mestizo that developed became the crude ideological framework of the ferment among the
affluent indios and mestizos.7

The Ideological Framework

Economic prosperity spawned discontent when the native beneficiaries saw a new world of
affluence opening for themselves and their class. They attained a new consciousness and hence,
a new goal - that of equality with the peninsulares - not in the abstract, but in practical economic
and political terms. Hispanization became the conscious manifestation of economic struggle, of
the desire to realize the potentialities offered by the period of expansion and progress.
Hispanization and assimilation constituted the ideological expression of the economic
motivations of affluent indios and mestizos. Equality with the Spaniard meant equality of
opportunity. But they did not realize as yet that real equality must be based on national freedom
and independence. They were still in the initial phases of nationalist consciousness - a
consciousness made possible by the market situation of the time. The lordly friar who had
been

5
See Robert R. Reed, Hispanic Urbanism in the Philippines: A Study of the Impact of Church and State
(Manila: The University of Manila, 1967), Chapter VIII.
6
Ibid, p. 125.
7
For a discussion of cultural and social context of the period, see Edgar Wickberg, The Chinese in
7
Philippine Life, 1850-1898 (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1965), pp. 131-134.
Michael Charleston “Xiao” B. Chua, KasPil 1 / PhiHis 1 readings, DLSU- 8
Manila
partly responsible for the isolation of the islands became the target of attacks. Anti-clericalism
became the ideological style of the period.

These then were the salient economic and ideological features of this Rizal’s time. A true
historical review would prove that great men are those who read the time and have a deeper
understanding of reality. It is their insights that make them conversant with their periods and
which enable them to articulate the needs of the people. To a large extent, Rizal, the ilustrado,
fulfilled this function, for in voicing the goals of his class he had to include the aspirations of
the entire people. Though the aims of this class were limited to reformist measures, he expressed
its demands in terms of human liberty and human dignity and thus encompassed the wider
aspirations of all the people. This is not to say that he was conscious that these were class goals;
rather, that typical of his class, he equated class interest with people’s welfare. He did this in
good faith, unaware of any basic contradictions between the two. He was the product of his
society and as such could be expected to voice only those aims that were within the competence
of his class. Moreover, social contradictions had not ripened sufficiently in his time to reveal
clearly the essential disparateness between class and national goals. Neither could he have
transcended his class limitations, for his cultural upbringing was such that affection for Spain
and Spanish civilization precluded the idea of breaking the chains of colonialism. He had to
become a Spaniard first before becoming a Filipino.8

As a social commentator, as the exposer of oppression, he performed a remarkable task. His

writings were part of the tradition of protest which blossomed into revolution, into a separatist
movement. His original aim of elevating the indio to the level of Hispanization of the peninsular
so that the country could be assimilated, could become a province of Spain, was transformed
into its opposite. Instead of making the Filipinos closer to Spain, the propaganda gave root to
separation. The drive for Hispanization was transformed into the development of a distinct
national consciousness.

Rizal contributed much to the growth of this national consciousness. It was a contribution not
only in terms of propaganda but in something positive that the present generation of Filipinos
will owe to him and for which they will honor him by completing the task which he so nobly
began. He may have had a different and limited goal at the time, a goal that for us is already
passe, something we take for granted. However, for his time this limited goal was already a big
step in the right direction. This contribution was in the realm of Filipino nationhood - the
winning of our name as a race, the recognition of our people as one, and the elevation of the
indio into Filipino.

The Concept of Filipino Nationhood

This was a victory in the realm of consciousness, a victory in a racial sense. However, it was
only a partial gain, for Rizal repudiated real de-colonization. Beguiled by the new colonizer,

8
A fuller discussion of the developing concept of the true Filipino may be found in my book, The Making of
a Filipino (Quezon City: Malaya Books, 1969), Chapter 1.

8
Michael Charleston “Xiao” B. Chua, KasPil 1 / PhiHis 1 readings, DLSU- 9
Manila
most Filipinos followed the example of Rizal. As a consequence, the development of the concept
of national consciousness stopped short of real de-colonization and we have not yet
distinguished the true Filipino from the incipient Filipino.

The concept of Filipino nationhood is an important tool of analysis as well as a conceptual

weapon of struggle. There are many Filipinos who do not realize they are Fiipinos only in the
old cultural, racial sense. They are not aware of the term Filipino as a developing concept. Much
less are they aware that today social conditions demand that the true Filipino be one who is
consciously striving for de-colonization and independence.

Perhaps it would be useful at this point to discuss in some detail the metamorphosis of the term
Filipino not just as a matter of historical information but so that we may realize the importance
of Rizal’s contribution in this regard. Even more valuable are the insights we may gain into the
inter-dependence between material conditions and consciousness as manifested in the evolution
of the word Filipino in terms of its widening applicability and deeper significance through
succeeding periods of our history.

It is important to bear in mind that the term Filipino originally referred to the creoles - the
Spaniards born in the Philippines - the Españoles-Filipinos or Filipinos, for short. The natives
were called indios. Spanish mestizos who could pass off for white claimed to be creoles and
therefore Filipinos. Towards the last quarter of the 19th century, Hispanized and urbanized
indios along with Spanish mestizos and sangley [Chinese - rly] mestizos began to call
themselves Filipinos, especially after the abolition of the tribute lists in the 1880s and the
economic growth of the period.

We must also correct the common impression that the Filipinos who were in Spain during the
Propaganda Period were all indios. In fact, the original Circulo Hispano-Filipino was dominated
by creoles and peninsulares. The Filipino community in Spain during the 1880’s was a
conglomerate of creoles, Spanish mestizos and sons of urbanized indios and Chinese mestizos.9

This community came out with an organ called España en Filipinas which sought to take the
place of the earlier Revista Circulo Hispano Filipino founded by another creole Juan Atayde.
España en Filipinas was mainly an undertaking of Spanish and Spanish mestizos. The only non-
Spaniard in the staff was Baldomero Roxas. Its first issue came out in 1887. It was “moderate”
in tone and failed to win the sympathy of the native elements. In a letter to Rizal, Lopez-Jaena
criticized it in these words:

From day to day I am becoming convinced that our countrymen, the mestizos, far from working
for the common welfare, follow the policy of their predecessors, the Azcarragas.10

Lopez-Jaena was referring to the Azcarraga brothers who had held important positions in the
Philippines and in Spain, but who, though they had been born here, showed more sympathy for

9
Ibid., see also my essay, “The Filipino Elite,” in Dissent and Counter Consciousness.
10
Graciano Lopez-Jaena. “Letter to Rizal, March 16, 1887,” Rizal’s Correspondence with Fellow Reformists,
Vol. II, Book II (Manila: National Heroes Commission, 1963), p. 103.

9
Michael Charleston “Xiao” B. Chua, KasPil 1 / PhiHis 1 readings, DLSU- 10
Manila
the peninsulares. It is fortunate that a street which was once named for one of them has become
Claro M. Recto today.

Differences between the creoles and the “genuine” Filipinos as they called themselves, soon set
in. It was at this time that Rizal and other indios in Paris began to use the term indios bravos,
thus “transforming an epithet into a badge of honor.” The cleavage in the Filipino colony abroad
ushered in a new period of the Propaganda which may be said to have had its formal beginning
with the birth of La Solidaridad. Its leaders were indios. The editor was not a creole like Lete or
a Spanish mestizo like Llorente but Lopez-Jaena and later Marcelo H. del Pilar. La Solidaridad
espoused the cause of liberalism and fought for democratic solutions to the problems that beset
the Spanish colonies.

From the declaration of aims and policies the class basis of the Propaganda is quite obvious.
The reformists could not shake off their Spanish orientation. They wanted accommodation
within the ruling system. Rizal’s own reformism is evident in this excerpt from his letter to
Blumentritt:

….under the present circumstances, we do not want separation from Spain. All
that we ask is greater attention, better education, better government employees,
one or two representatives and greater security for our persons and property.
Spain could always win the appreciation of the Filipinos if she were only
reasonable!11

The indios led by Rizal gained acceptability as Filipinos because they proved their equality with
the Spaniards in terms of both culture and property. This was an important stage in our
appropriation of the term Filipino. Rizal’s intellectual excellence paved the way for the winning
of the name for the natives of the land. It was an unconscious struggle which led to a conscious
recognition of the pejorative meaning of indio. Thus, the winning of the term Filipino was an
anti-colonial victory for it signified the recognition of racial equality between Spaniards and
Filipinos.

The “Limited” Filipinos

But the appropriation of this term was not the end of the historic struggle for national identity.
While for Rizal’s time this was a signal victory, it was in truth a limited victory for us. For the
users of the term were themselves limited Filipinos based on education and property. Sincethis
term was applied to those who spoke in the name of the people but were not really of the people,
the next stage for this growing concept should be the recognition of the masses as the real nation
and their transformation into real Filipinos. However, the Filipino of today must undergo a
process of de-colonization before he can become a true Filipino. The de-colonized Filipino is
the real goal for our time just as the Hispanized Filipino was once the goal of the reformists.

Though Rizal was able to win for his countrymen the name Filipino, it was still as ilustrado that
he conceived of this term. As ilustrado he was speaking in behalf of all the indios though he was
separated by culture and even by property from the masses. His ilustrado orientation
manifests

11
1
The Rizal-Blumentritt Correspondence, Part 1: 1886-1889, Vol. II, January 26, 1887, p. 44. 0
Michael Charleston “Xiao” B. Chua, KasPil 1 / PhiHis 1 readings, DLSU- 11
Manila
itself in his novels. Though they are supposed to represent 19th century Philippine society in
microcosm, all the principal characters belonged to the principalia. His hero, Ibarra, was a
Spanish mestizo. The Spaniards, the creole, the mestizo, and the wealthy Chinese - these were
characters he could portray with mastery because they were within his milieu and class. But
there are only very hazy description of characters who belonged to the masses. His class
position, his upbringing, and his foreign education were profound influences which constituted
a limitation on his understanding of his countrymen.

Rizal, therefore, was an ilustrado hero whose life’s mission corresponded in a general way to
the wishes and aspirations of the people. He died for his people, yet his repudiation of the
Revolution was an act against the people. There seems to be a contradiction between the two
acts; there is actually none. Both acts were in character; Rizal was acting from patriotic motives
in both instances.

He condemned the Revolution because as an ilustrado he instinctively underestimated the power

and the talents of the people. He believed in freedom not so much as a national right but as
something to be deserved, like a medal for good behavior. Moreover, he did not equate liberty
with independence. Since his idea of liberty was essentially the demand for those rights which
the elite needed in order to prosper economically. Rizal did not consider political independence
as a prerequisite to freedom. Fearful of the violence of people’s action, he did not want us to
fight for our independence. Rather, he wanted us to wait for the time when Spain, acting in her
own best interests, would abandon us. He expressed himself clearly on these points in the
following passage from a letter which he wrote in his cell on December 12, 1896, for the use of
his defense counsel.
….. many have have interpreted my phrase to have liberties as to have independence, which are
two different things. A people can be free without being independent, and a people can be
independent without being free. I have always desired liberties for the Philippines and I have
said so. Others who testify that I said independence either have put the cart before the horse or
they lie.12
He had expressed much the same opinion earlier in his El Filibusterismo when Father Florentino
said:

I do not mean to say that our liberty will be secured at the sword’s point, for the
sword plays but little part in modern affairs, but that we must secure it by making
ourselves worthy of it, by exalting the intelligence and the dignity of the
individual, by loving justice, right and greatness, even to the extent of dying for
them - and when a people reaches that height God will provide a weapon, the
idols will be shattered, the tyranny will crumble like a house of cards and liberty
will shine out like the first dawn.13

12
Rizal, “Data for My Defense,” Political and Historical Writings, p. 340.
13
Rizal, The Reign of Greed, translated by Charles Derbyshire (Manila: Philippine Education Company,
1956), p. 360.

1
1
Michael Charleston “Xiao” B. Chua, KasPil 1 / PhiHis 1 readings, DLSU- 12
Manila
Yet the people revered him because, though he was not with them, he died for certain principles
which they believed in. He was their martyr; they recognized his labors although they knew that
he was already behind them in their forward march.

In line with their avowed policy of preparing us for eventual self-government, the Americans
projected Rizal as the model of an educated citizen. His name was invoked whenever the
incapacity of the masses for self-government was pointed out as a justification for American
tutelage. Rizal’s preoccupation with education served to further the impression that the majority
of the Filipinos were unlettered and therefore needed tutelage before they could be ready for
independence. A book, Rizal, Educator and Economist, used in certain Philippine schools,
supports this thesis by quoting a portion of Rizal’s manifesto of December 15, 1896 which
states:

…..I am one most anxious for liberties in our country and I am still desirous of
them. But I placed as a prior condition the education of the people that by means
of instruction and industry our country may have an individuality of its own and
make itself worthy of these liberties.14

The authors of this book then make the following comment:

Rizal intentionally avoided the use of the term independence, perhaps because he honestly
believed that independence in its true, real, and strict sense should not be granted us until we
were educated enough to appreciate its importance, and its blessings, and until we were
economically self-reliant.15

This statement not only supports the American line but is also an example of how our admiration
for Rizal may be used to beguile us into accepting reactionary beliefs, the products of colonial
mentality.

A people have every right to be free. Tutelage in the art of government as an excuse for
colonialism is a discredited alibi. People learn and educate themselves in the process of
struggling for freedom and liberty. They attain their highest potential only when they are masters
of their own destiny. Colonialism is the only agency still trying to sell the idea that freedom is
a diploma to be granted by a superior people to an inferior one after years of apprenticeship.

The Precursors of Mendicancy

In a way, Rizal’s generation is no different from the generation that was engaged in our
independence campaigns. Neither was his generation much different from those who today say
they stand for independence but do not want to hurt the feelings of the Americans. In a way,
Rizal and his generation were the precursors of the present-day mendicants. It may be shocking
to say that Rizal was one of the practitioners of a mendicant policy, but the fact is that the
propagandists, in working for certain reforms, chose Spain as the arena of their struggle
instead

14
Rizal, “Manifesto, December 15, 1896,” Political and Historical Writings, p. 348. 1
15
Hernandez, Ella, Ocampo. Rizal, Educator and Economist, (Manila, 1949), p. 94. 2
Michael Charleston “Xiao” B. Chua, KasPil 1 / PhiHis 1 readings, DLSU- 13
Manila
of working among their own people, educating them and learning from them, helping them to
realize their own condition and articulating their aspirations. This reflects the bifurcation
between the educated and the masses.

The elite had a sub-conscious disrespect for the ability of the people to articulate their own
demands and to move on their own. They felt that education gave them the right to speak for
the people. They proposed an elitist form of leadership, all the while believing that what the
elite leadership decided was what the people would and should follow. They failed to realize
that at critical moments of history the people decide on their own, what they want and what
they want to do. Today, the ilustrados are shocked by the spate of rallies and demonstrations.
They cannot seem to accept the fact that peasants and workers and the youth have moved
without waiting for their word. They are not accustomed to the people moving on their own.

The ilustrados were the Hispanized sector of our population, hence they tried to prove that they
were as Spanish as the peninsulares. They wanted to be called Filipinos in the creole sense:
Filipino-Spaniards as Rizal called Ibarra. They are no different from the modern-day mendicants
who try to prove that they are Americanized, meaning that they are Filipino-Americans. As a
matter of fact, the ilustrados of the first propaganda movement utilized the same techniques and
adopted the same general attitude as the modern-day mendicants and pseudo-nationalists, in so
far as the colonizing power was concerned.

Ilustrados And Indios

The contrast to the ilustrado approach was the Katipunan of Bonifacio. Bonifacio, not as
Hispanized as the ilustrados, saw in people’s action the only road to liberation. The Katipunan,
though of masonic and of European inspiration, was people’s movement based on confidence
in the people’s capacity to act in its own behalf. The early rebellions, spontaneous and sporadic,
could be termed movements, without consciousness. Rizal and the propagandists were the
embodiment of a consciousness without a movement. It was Bonifacio and the Katipunan that
embodied the unity of revolutionary consciousness and revolutionary practice.

The indio as Filipino rose in arms while the ilustrado was still waiting for Spain to dispense
justice and reforms. The ilustrado Filipino was now being surpassed by the indio in
revolutionary ardor. The indio had a more legitimate claim to the title of Filipino because he
was truly liberating himself. The revolutionary masses proclaimed their separatist goal through
the Katipunan. Faced with the popular determination, the ilustrados joined the Revolution
where, despite their revolutionary rhetoric, they revealed by their behavior their own limited
goals.

Though their fight was reformist and may be regarded as tame today, the historic role of the
ilustrados cannot be denied for they were purveyors of ideas which when seized upon by the
masses became real weapons. Today their ideas are orthodox and safe. However, the same
concepts when made relevant to present society again make their partisans the objects of
persecution by contemporary reactionaries.

The role and the contribution of Rizal, like that of the ilus trado class, must be evaluated in the
context of his particular reality within the general reality of his time. Rizal was a necessary
1
3
Michael Charleston “Xiao” B. Chua, KasPil 1 / PhiHis 1 readings, DLSU- 14
Manila
moment in our evolution. But he was only a moment, and while his validity for his time
amounted to a heroism that is valid for all time, we cannot say that Rizal himself will be valid
for all time and that Rizal’s ideas should be the yardstick for all our aspirations. He provided
the model of a form of heroism that culminated in martyrdom. He was a Filipino we can be
proud of, a monument to the race despite all his limitations. But we cannot make him out to be
the infallible determinant of our national goals, as his blind idolators have been trying to do.

We must see Rizal historically. Rizal should occupy his proper place in our pantheon of great
Filipinos. Though he is secure to be in our hearts and memories as a hero, we must now realize
that he has no monopoly of patriotism; he is not the zenith of our greatness; neither are all his
teachings of universal and contemporary relevance and application. Just as a given social system
inevitably yields to new and higher forms of social organization, so the individual hero in history
gives way to new and higher forms of heroism. Each hero’s contribution, however, are not
nullified thereby but assume their correct place in a particular stage of the people’s development.
Every nation is always discovering or rediscovering heroes in the past or its present.

Blind Adoration
Hero-worship, therefore, must be both historical and critical. We must always be conscious of
the historical conditions and circumstances that made an individual a hero, and we must always
be ready to admit at what point that hero’s applicability ceases to be of current value. To allow
hero-worship to be uncritical and unhistorical is to distort the meaning of the heroic individual’s
life, and to encourage a cult bereft of historical meaning - a cult of the individual shorn of his
historical significance. It is form without content, a fad that can be used for almost anything,
because it is really nothing. We must view Rizal as an evolving personality within an evolving
historical period. That his martyrdom was tainted by his attacks on our independist struggle is
not a ground for condemning him entirely. We must determine the factors - economic and
cultural - that made Rizal what he was. We must see in his life and in his works the evolution
of the Filipino and must realize that the period crowned by his death is only a moment in the
totality of our history.

It is a reflection of our lack of creative thinking that we continue to invoke Rizal when we
discuss specific problems and present-day society. This is also a reflection of our intellectual
timidity, our reluctance to espouse new causes unless we can find sanctions, however remote,
in Rizal. This tendency is fraught with dangers.

Limitations of Rizal
We are living in an age of anti-colonial revolutions different in content from those of Rizal’s
period. Rizal could not have anticipated the problems of today. He was not conversant with
economic tools of analysis that would unravel the intricate techniques that today are being used
by outside forces to consign us to a state of continued poverty. The revolutions of today would
be beyond the understanding of Rizal whose Castilian orientation necessarily limited his horizon
even for that period. He was capable of unraveling the myths that were woven by the
oppressors
1
4
Michael Charleston “Xiao” B. Chua, KasPil 1 / PhiHis 1 readings, DLSU- 15
Manila
of his time, but he would have been at a loss to see through the more sophisticated myths
and to recognize the subtle techniques of present-day colonialists, given the state of his
knowledge and experience at that time. This is not to say that were he alive today and subject
to modern experiences, he would not understand the means of our times. But it is useless
speculation to try to divine what he would now advocate.

Unless we have an ulterior motive, there is really no need to extend Rizal’s meaning so that
he may have contemporary value. Many of his social criticisms are still valid today because
certain aspects of our life are still carry-overs of the feudal and colonial society of his time.
A true appreciation of Rizal would require that we study these social criticisms and take
steps to eradicate the evils he decried.

Part and parcel of the attempt to use Rizal as an authority to defend the status quo is the
desire of some quarters to expunge from the Rizalist legacy the so-called controversial
aspects of his writings, particularly his views on the friars and on religion. We have but to
recall the resistance to the Rizal bill, the use of expurgated versions of the Noli Me Tangere
and the El Filibusterismo, and objections to the readings of his other writings to realize
that while many would have us venerate Rizal, they would want us to venerate a
homogenized version.

In his time, the reformist Rizal was undoubtedly a progressive force. In many areas of our
life today, his ideas could still be a force for salutary change. Yet the nature of the Rizal cult
is such that he is being transformed into an authority to sanction the status quo by a
confluence of blind adoration and widespread ignorance of his most telling ideas.

We have magnified Rizal’s significance for too long. It is time to examine his limitations
and profit from his weaknesses just as we have learned from the strength of his character
and his virtues. His weaknesses were the weaknesses of his society. His wavering and his
repudiation of mass action should be studied as a product of the society that nurtured him.

The Negation of Rizal

Today, we need new heroes who can help us solve our pressing problems. We cannot rely
on Rizal alone. We must discard the belief that we are incapable of producing the heroes of
our epoch, that heroes are exceptional beings, accidents of history who stand above the
masses and apart from them. The true hero is one with the masses: he does not exist above
them. In fact, a whole people can be heroes given the proper motivation and articulation of
their dreams.

Today we see the unfolding of the creative energies of a people who are beginning to grasp
the possibilities of human development and who are trying to formulate a theoretical
framework upon which they may base their practice. The inarticulate are now making history
while the the articulate may be headed for historical anonymity, if not ignominy. When the
goals of the people are finally achieved, Rizal the first Filipino, will be negated by the true
Filipino by whom he will be remembered as a great catalyzer in the metamorphosis of the
de-colonized indio.

1
5