INTRODUCTION:

'm

What is Filipino?
m;
u,—

5 we celebrate the Centennials of the Philippine Revolution of 1898 and the

First Philippine Republic which was inaugurated in Malolos on January 23,
1899, we also note the marked increase in discussions on Filipino identity and
the Philippine nation; in other words, questionings regarding who we are as a peolje
and what has become of our nation. The usual source that we draw from to answer
these questions has been Philippine History. What I would like to suggest through this
Filzp'ima'na Reader is that non-traditional materials like Philippine Theater, Philippine

NOIlGflGOHlNl
Literature, Philippine Art and Philippine Popular Culture can also be rich sources for
a oifferent understanding of our cultural identity as Filipinos and of the nature of the
Philippine nauon.

Filipino-nos: or the cultural identity of the Fili'pino are conventionally associated

with the rhetoric of traditional politicos, nationalists, and academics. This rhetoric on
Filipino-mess assumes the existence of an essential Filipino belonging to a homoge-
neous Filipino community, belonging to one Filipino nation. In contrast to this view of
homogeneity, I would suggest instead that Filipino-mess or the “feeling” and “knowl-
edge” that one belongs to a nation has- been produced through representations, through

AX
cultural practices like literature, theater, the arts, the mass media, etc. This alternative
assertion that the notion of Filipino-ness is a product of culture assumes instead that
concepts like identity and nation are functional categories (i.e., a function of political
articulation) not ontological categories. This means that identity is not a given; some-
thing we acquire at birth. A person’s Filipino identity is overdetermined by factors like
province of origin, class location, religious affiliation, political ideology, education/
triu'ning, sexual preference, age, etc. Therefore, Filipinos occupy different subject-po~
sit‘ions because of those multiple determinations. And yet these different types of
Filipinos have been constructed to imagine themselves as sharing a common history
and a common culture, as well as having common aspirations, and a common vision
for the future. Such notions of homogeneity have been effected mainly through the
State and its ideological' apparati or the hegemonic social institutions. The nationalist
groups (e.g., national democratic forces) have also pushed their own understanding of
F1l'ipm'o-ness which they assert as more representative of the Filipino than the notion
of Filipino identity being purveyed by the dominant fractions.

Ferdinand Marcos, realizing the need to legitimize his seizure of state power
through the imposition of Martial Law in the Philippines during the early seventies
was critiqued for his employment of overt modes of coercion. and political repres-
sion. However, he also sought legitimizt'ttion of his one-man rule by anchoring his
vision of his New Society to images of pre-colonial barangganic/community life, his
revolutionfrom the center to conunonly-held reps c-‘sentations of past revolutions especially
the Philippine Revolution of 1896, and his feat of quelling the rebellionfrom the lfet to
other actsol heroism. ,oncealing his personal agenda under the guise of revivifying
C
 '1' 2

our history and tradition of radic.-tlism, the Marcos state effectively exercised control
over the print media, radio, film, television and the schools through various presiden-
‘532".

tial decrees and established a network of cultural institutions like the Cultural Center
i-R EAST"

of the Philippine-s under the gutu'dianship of his wife, Imelda.

;, 1:3,“. . 1y.“
ya€£nfi
,.

The national democratic forces was lilu‘wise cognizant of the value of cul-
m
1g.“

tural warfare/propaganda in the style of the Chinese Cultural Revolution, the Philip-
.j‘n
I -

',:3}_,’¢,-_j'~

pine Revolution of' 1896 and the other peasant revolutions of the pre-World War II
‘
,,

“A..-

4.. .i a-

period. Therefore, they sought to counter the Marcos stranglehold over ideological
, .I
’ _ ,-L;i l i'=imAMi
'r.

practices/cultural institutions and to sustain a solidarity across diverse groups and

2.).

sectors through a virulent anti-Marcos campaign.

p.-

Cory Aquino at the EDS/1 revolution of 1986 and after her ascent to power
capitalized on a similar anti-Marcos strategy (the buzz word then was peoplepower) in
31'} attempt to keep her tenuous rainbow coalition and the differing anti-Marcos forces
from th'sintegrating.

Finally, Fidel Ramos (1992-1998), Cory’s anom'ted successor who initially rode
on the residual popularity of the EDSA revolution, later produced his own claim to
Phili'ppine history by inaugurating his Plailzpp'ines 2000 economic program as his way of
leading the nation to the let century.

From the seventies to the-nineties, therefore, the State (from the authoritarian
regime of Marcos to the democratic centrist governments of Cory and Ramos) was
dissenu'nating its own understanding of the Filipino identity and vision of the Filipino
nation and passing these off as absolute and true for all Filipinos and for the entire
country. Those, particularly from the Left, who pointed to specific determinants of
this state ideology (e.g., the ambitions and materiah'st interests of Marcos, Cory, Ramos
and their cronies) became the objects of state repression.

However, during these same periods, there were other perceptions of who
the Filipino was, what the materials conditions under which he/she lived were and the
shape the Filipino nation was in. These alternative perceptions can be gleaned from a
study of Philippine literature, Philippine art, Philippine movies, Philippine theater, etc.

Philippine culture has always been a dynamic site for the dissemination of
oppositional' discourses against these hegemonic notions of Filipino identity and na-
tion.
The essays included in this Filipinz'ana Reader resonate the multiple perspec-
tives that now inform the study of Philippine culture. The collection includes histories
and critical surveys of traditional and non-traditional, canonical and minoritized cul-
tuial practices, metacritical studies of the state of an of Filipinituia studies on particu-
lar aspects of culture, and close. readings/inierpretations of texts. And in all these
studies, we get differing perceptions regarding the nature of Filipino identity and the
Pl‘lLlJprln-C nation.

The plumliity and particularity of Philippine cultural practices, and the varie-
gated experiences, issues, concerns, aspirations, visions of the different “communi-
ties” which they represent run counter to the claims of the hegemonic culture, from
the Marcos regime to today, regarding the supposedly unproblematic existence of the
authentic Filipino and of one large but homogeneous nation moving towards Philip-
pines 2000.

It would seem therefore that Philippine culture can serve as calculus of the
diversity of Filipinos and Filipino communities (e.g., the ilustrados, the capatirans, the
Filipino burgis, working class, peasantry, lowland Christians, Filipino Muslims, the.
lumad, Filipino Chinese, Ilokan'os outside the Philippines, women, gays and lesbians,
“literary barkadas”; note the varied modes of classification represented in this list.) A
study of the productions of these groups can demonstrate the differing subject—posi-
tions/varied life situations that constitute the Filipino and the likewise diverse histo-
ries/stories that can be told about the Philippine nation.

One can look at this phenomenon of plurality and particulan'zation present in

Philippine cultural practices and texts and resonated in other areas of Philippine
social' life as a sign of fragmentation. However, I would rather View this in a positive
light. Recognition of the specificities of one’s own community as well as acceptance
of these differences by other Filipino communities are prerequisites for the construc-
tion of a negotiated unity amongst :lit'verse communities and for the re-am'culation
of a broader construct of Filipino-hood. This broadness of mind and spirit is needed
to enable hitherto invisible communities to mark their spaces and make their contri-
butions to the formation of the Filipino and the Philippine nation.

PRISCELINA PATAJO-LEGASTO, Ph. D.

Professor of Comparative Literature
Department of English 8: Comparative Literature
College of Arts 85 Letters
University of the Philippines
Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines