BANSA at BAYAN:

MUSINGS ON NATIONALISM, STATE, AND NATION

By Dennis N. Marasigan

Bansa and Bayan are two Filipino terms used to refer to the country, nation, or
Motherland. In contemporary usage, it would seem like Bansa is more often used to
denote the political state (as in Bansang Pilipinas) while Bayan denotes a more romantic,
almost elusive, concept (as represented by its use in the lyric “Ang Bayan kong Pilipinas”
that begins the anthem Bayan Ko).

In this essay, I shall discuss Bansa and Bayan in relation to the concepts of
nationalism, state, and nation. First, definitions of the terms found in the literature of
social science and even the arts will be recalled. Next, the concept of “nation” will be
given attention. A comparison between political or official nationalism and cultural
nationalism follows. Then, the issue of Bansa and Bayan will be revisited as the terms
apply to our unique history as a people.

NATIONALISM, STATE, AND NATION

Nationalism has been defined as “an ideology which imagines the community in a
particular way (as national), asserts the primacy of this collective identity over others,
and seeks political power in its name, ideally (if not exclusively or everywhere) in the
form of a state for the nation or the nation state (Spenser & Wollman, 2002, pp. 2-3).
Inherent in this definition is an ideology that is asserted over members of a populace,
and the drive towards political power in pursuit of an entity called the state.

Another definition is similarly, though quite simply, framed: nationalism exists

when there is “a collective yearning toward the formation or the betterment of nation”
 Dennis N. Marasigan BANSA at BAYAN: Musings on Nationalism, State and Nation

(Roxas-Tope, 1998, p.8). Instead of a state, this formulation speaks of a nation, the
desired result of the combined efforts of a population.

What is the difference between “state” and “nation”?

The state can be described as “the political institutionalisation of a society within

fixed boundaries as a necessary system to organize the social life of larger groups”
(Roxas-Tope, 1998, p. 153). As such, it has to do with sovereignty and the corollary
power and authority over a given area and population. (Spenser & Wollman, 2002).
Necessarily, the demands of organization result in the creation of a representative unit
that manages the affairs of society -- the government (Roxas-Tope, 1998).

Abinales and Amoroso (2005) list eight attributes of a modern state. First, it has
territoriality. Second, it is able to exercise power over its territory. Third, it has
jurisdiction over a population. Fourth, it enjoys sovereignty. Fifth, it has a legal
personality. Sixth, it plays a role on the world’s stage as an international actor. Seventh,
it can claim close association with the nation. Finally, its status as a state has compelling
ideological appeal.

A nation, on the other hand, has to do “with relationships between people, with
how they see themselves as connected over both time and space, as sharing some kind
of collective identity” (Spenser & Wollman, 2002, p. 2). A more elusive concept, it
“transcends the neutral and functional category of the state” and is represented by a
community. The assumption can be made that since the community prefigures the state,
thence, “the state is the culmination of an evolved nation” (Roxas-Tope, 1998, p. 154).

IMAGINING THE NATION

An oft-quoted definition of “nation” has been provided by Benedict Anderson
(1998) which describes it as “an imagined political community – and imagined both
inherently limited and sovereign.” A nation is considered imagined because “the

2
 Dennis N. Marasigan BANSA at BAYAN: Musings on Nationalism, State and Nation

members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members,
meet them or even hear of them; yet in the minds of each lives the image of their
communion.” It is deemed to be limited because even the largest of them “has finite, if
elastic, boundaries, beyond which lie other nations.” A nation is sovereign largely
because the concept was born in an age in which enlightenment and revolution “were
destroying the legitimacy of the divinely-ordained, hierarchical despotic realm.” And it is
regarded as a community because the nation is always imagined as a deep, horizontal
comradeship (Anderson, 1998, pp. 6-7).

For Anderson (1998), the beginnings of the nation lie “in the cultural roots of
nationalism.” He argues that the very possibility of imagining the nation only arose
historically when, and where, three fundamental conceptions from antiquity lost their
“axiomatic grip on open minds.” The first of these was the erosion of the idea that a
particular “script-language” offered “privileged access to ontological truth, because it
was an inescapable part of the truth” (p. 36). As soon as greater numbers of the
population began to communicate among themselves in a language different from that
used by the rulers, it is the rulers who found themselves needing to learn the language of
the majority in order to be able to govern them effectively (Anderson, 1998).

Second among these concepts that lost their luster was the belief that society
was naturally organized around and under “high centres – monarchs who were
necessarily hierarchical and centripetal because the ruler, like the sacred script, was a
node of access to being and inherent to it” (Anderson, 1998, p. 36). Once it became
evident that men have the will and the power to communicate to divinity without having
to pass through their rulers, the end was near for the latter and their absolutist rule.

Related to this is the conception of temporality “in which cosmology and history
were indistinguishable, the origins of the world and of men essentially identical”
(Anderson, 1998, p. 36). As men realized that the world continued on even with the
death of their rulers and their fellows, they were virtually weaned from the notion that

3
 Dennis N. Marasigan BANSA at BAYAN: Musings on Nationalism, State and Nation

human lives were virtually rooted in the very nature of things; henceforth, they became
aware of the possibility of self-determination over the previously-held notion of fatalism.

In sum, nothing perhaps more precipitated the search for answers that hastened
the demise of the old order than print capitalism “which made it possible for rapidly
growing number of people to think about themselves, and to relate themselves to other,
in profoundly new ways” (Anderson, 1998, p. 36). It was, thus, “the convergence of
capitalism and print technology on the fatal diversity of human language created the
possibility of a new form of imagined community, which in its basic morphology set the
stage for the modern nation” (p. 46).

POLITICAL / OFFICIAL NATIONALISM vs. CULTURAL NATIONALISM

Though the definitions given above seem to imply congruence between state and
nation, it has been propounded that this may not always be the case. The existence of
multinational states can be argued, and even that of stateless nations (Spenser &
Wollman, 2002, p.2). It is also possible to have different types of loyalties to the nation
and the state. Loyalty to the state can be considered as political or official nationalism,
while that to the nation is considered as cultural nationalism (Roxas-Tope, 1998). Official
nationalism can also be described as the “willed merger of nation and dynastic empire”
(Anderson, 2005, p. 86). It can be characterized as being “an anticipatory strategy
adopted by dominant groups which are threatened by marginalization or exclusion from
an emerging nationally-imagined community”. It has been observed as being, from the
start, “a conscious, self-protective policy, intimately linked to the preservation of
imperial-dynamic interests.” Being official, it emanates from the state and serves the
interests of the state first and foremost (p. 159).

Ideally, a confluence can exist between state and nation as well as the two
nationalisms, but this may not always be the case. There can be individuals who do not

4
 Dennis N. Marasigan BANSA at BAYAN: Musings on Nationalism, State and Nation

conform to “the state hegemonic desires” and will thereafter be regarded as anti-state
or enemies of the state. “As the state would like to regard itself as representative of the
nation, those who oppose the state are then regarded as anti-nation, unnationalistic,
unpatriotic and, as a result, deserve censure and prosecution” (Roxas-Tope, 1998, p.
154). Seemingly contradictory, official nationalism serves the interests of elites, working
through the concentration of “the symbolic capital necessary for the projection of
nationhood in the hands of those on top while repressing more egalitarian expressions
of nationhood from those at the bottom of the social hierarchy” (Rafael, 2000, p. 107).

BANSA o BAYAN?

As Anderson has posited, the development of nationalisms was historically

“impossible” until after the appearance of “popular linguistic-nationalisms” (Anderson,
2005, p. 109). In the Philippines, the rise of a common language that included words for
concepts understood by a great number of the population can be said to be an example
of this phenomenon. Arguably, the Western concept of nation came to be given
prominence and provenance in the nascent Filipino national language.

However, providing an equivalent to the notion of “nation” leads to the discovery

that both “Bansa” and “Bayan” have been used almost interchangeably as vernacular
counterparts. “Bansa´ appears in most official documents to denote the Philippine
nation. The titles of books by two Filipino National Artists are also revealing and can
perhaps be seen as providing a privileged perspective on the concept – Virgilio S.
Almario’s Muling-Pagkatha sa Ating Bansa O Bakit Pinakamahabang Tulay sa Buong Mundo
ang Tulay Calumpit (2010) and Bienvenido Lumbera’s Pag-akda ng Bansa/Wrting the
Nation (2000). These seem to indicate that in referring to the nation, “Bansa” is the
preferred term.

5
 Dennis N. Marasigan BANSA at BAYAN: Musings on Nationalism, State and Nation

A different view is espoused by Damon Woods (2008) who observes that, n the
course of Philippine history, “Bayan” has emerged “and remains a dominant part of
national, nationalistic and political discourse in the Philippines”. “Bayan” was and
remains a “remarkably fluid term” that can count four stages in its evolution, as
illustrated in Tagalog documents. Woods counsels that each of the four stages did not
necessarily mean the end of previous meanings but, rather, “the earlier meanings
continued to exist, to be understood, and to be used, while the new use and meaning of
the word entered into the vernacular” (p. 38).

The first stage of the evolution of “bayan” can be traced back to its use before
the arrival of the Spaniards up to the early Spanish period. During this era, “bayan” was
used informally, even while it was used along with place names. As it was, the term was
used to indicate location in a general sense, as in “bacod na bato nang Bayan. In later
documents, the term was also given as the equivalent of the Spanish “pueblo” as well as
a term to match the definition of the homeland of the Spaniards, as in “…sa totoong
Bayan nang manga Castila…”(Woods, 2008, pp. 38-39).

The second stage can be observed to comprise the Spanish Period up to the 17th
century, when the term came to be used in a more formal and even legal sense, though
not in a political sense. An example of its use are contained in documents where
residents used it to refer to a place of residence or domicile, as in “…acoy tauo sa Bayan
nang Calumpit…” and “…mga tauo sa Bayan nang Malit…”(Woods, 2008. p. 40).

The period up to the 18th century can be considered as the third stage, when the
term came to include, aside from location and community, the functions of governing, as
can be seen in the following examples: to indicate a specific town (“…Bayan nang
Silang…”), to indicate a community (“…cami ang boong Bayan nang Silang…”), and used
with reference to officials ( “…pinunong bayan…”) (Woods, 2008, pp. 42-42).

The “beginnings of perception of perception of a single political entity” in 19th

century Philippines coincided with the fourth stage of evolution of “bayan”. In this

6
 Dennis N. Marasigan BANSA at BAYAN: Musings on Nationalism, State and Nation

period, the term was employed to express Western or Spanish political concept of
“nacion” or “patria” as exemplified by “Bayan nang Castila...” and the beginnings of its
use to convey the idea of a national entity (“Inang Bayan) as well as the national entity
itself (Bonifacio’s “Haring Bayang Katagalugan”) (Woods, 2008, pp. 42-43).

According to Woods, a next stage in the evolution of “bayan” is not a reality, but
remains a possibility. Given the phenomena of the overseas Filipinos, “bayan” may be
used, in consonance with the words of the late Virgilio Enriquez (“Pilipino kahit saan,
kahit kailan”, or Filipino anywhere and anytime), to refer “not only to the population
living within the archipelago but those in the Diaspora as well.” For, after all, it is not
political systems that provide a sense of identity; “not even the foreign notion of nation,
as bansa, does so. it is the bayan that gives the sense of identity” (Woods, 2008, pp. 44-
45).

###

REFERENCES

Abinales, Patricio N. and Amoroso, Donna J. (2005). State and Society in the Philippines.
Pasig City, Philippines: Anvil Publishing Inc.

Almario, Virgilio S. (2010). Muling-Pagkatha sa Ating Bansa (O Bakit Pinakamahabang

Tulay sa Buong Mundo ang Tulay Calumpit). Quezon City: University of the
Philippines Press.

Anderson, Benedict (1998). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread
of Nationalism. Pasig City, Philippines: Anvil Publications, Inc.

Lumbera, Bienvenido (2000). Writing the Nation/Pag-akda ng Bansa. Quezon City:

University of the Philippines Press.

Rafael, Vicente L. (2000). White Love and Other Events in Filipino History. Quezon City:
Ateneo de Manila University Press/

7
 Dennis N. Marasigan BANSA at BAYAN: Musings on Nationalism, State and Nation

Roxas-Tope, Lily Rose (1998). (Un)framing Southeast Asia: Nationalism and the
Postcolonial Text in English in Singapore, Malaysia and the Philippines. Quezon
City, Philippines: University of the Philippines Office of Research Coordination.

Spenser, Philip and Wollman, Howard (2002). Nationalism: A Critical Introduction.

London: Sage Publications.

Woods, Damon L. (2008). “The Evolution of Bayan” in Philippine Studies: Have We Gone
Beyond St. Louis? Quezon City, Philippines: The University of the Philippines
Press.