Thoughts on Society

On Real Heroes, Nationalism and Wars
December 11, 2011
Diliman

This article establishes the concept of history as being driven by the force known as the social factor. What is it exactly? It was clarified by the author even through the discussion of Greenbook that “the national struggle—the social struggle—is the basis for the movement of history”. Contemporary individuals would argue that this social factor should not be made complicated by calling it other than nationalism. But then again, what is this concept ? Various meanings and dimensions were given in the whole semester that the class has met and discussed the works of authors. Some (Mastura, Routledge) say it is that intense passion for the country which is mostly manifested through the offering of one’s life for the ultimate good of his compatriots while others(Arcellana, Tanada) would contend that its display is fluid depending on the environment and would not necessarily be shown through bloody actions. Still, others (Del Rosario) would say that this is already a stale concept due to its inapplicability to the present setting and characteristic of nations which are highly globalize.

            In 1948 the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was created with 120 countries as members. It had the aim of changing the world’s economic order. Through this agreement tariffs were lessened and economic barriers were removed. The immediate effect that it had upon us is the almost free entry of foreign products to our market. This produced an unhealthy competition between our local products and the imported ones. One prominent example of the negative effects that the agreement brought upon us is the closing of the BEPZ or the Bataan Export Processing Zone. Since products from outside the country are far cheaper and added to our colonial mentality which hails almost anything foreign, local producers specifically those in the Ready-To-Wear business are left to succumb to other means to trim down the cost of their products. Some dismissed half of their workers, others employed on contractual basis while still some devised a consignment type of production. All these had a huge impact not only on the producers but more so to the laborers. Unemployment had been a fad. (Del Rosario: 1999) If this is the current situation in our own country what shall the lower and even middle class Filipino do? One thing, that is to leave the country and work overseas.

It is a known fact that the country’s leading sector today with respect to quantity is that which is composed of overseas workers. It is evident even here in our province, through the flocking of aspirant nurses and caregivers that many of our countrymen desire to be part of this sector. There are varied reasons to this but it all boils down to the inefficacy of the government to provide the citizens with their basic needs and some of the comforts of life. Given this fact the question that must be addressed now is whether nationalism is still an applicable concept or it is already a myth.

It is said that a hero is he or she who fights for his land or for something other than his own interest. The hero fights the war that is set before him/her in relation to that which he/she holds dear. Who now is the hero? Rizal is surely our proclaimed national hero but there also those who are less popular. Some will argue that Bonifacio should be our hero while others would side with Mabini. Either way, meaning to this would be lost if they remain as figures of the past instead of models for today. Shall we follow Rizal, Bonifacio, Mabini or Qudarat? Are they still applicable? These are essential questions that must be answered in order to provide our contemporary society the necessary link between them and our significant past. Without such link as I have already stated our countrymen will not find any meaning to the revolutionaries and reformists’ efforts to free the land. And even more, they might not be able to view themselves as part of a greater society, their own country.

In all actuality, these supposed possible repercussions of indifference to our country are already happening. Just by talking to a common individual in this country you will see the gravity of this lack of sympathy for the country. In fact, many would like to be citizens of other countries, anywhere but here. Why is this so? Again the answer is their inability to make a connection between them and their history as a nation, though this term is still subject to further arguments.

This problem of indifference and even utter distaste for the country has not only been present in our age. It has been around since the Spanish colonization. Many Indios during that period wanted to become Spaniards for so many reasons and purposes. They wanted to be anything else except be an Indio. This is of course understandable. With all the hardships and sufferings that being an Indio could give one, it is but normal to hope and desire to be out of the “caste”. I do not intend to justify this act rather I am giving a possible reason why Indios, soon to be Filipinos, hated to be who they were, a very familiar episode even today.

I have entitled this work as Real Heroes, Nationalism and Wars because it is my aim in this work to provide an argument which is basically rooted on the applicability of the history that I have learned in class, and which has always been present, to existing systems of economy, politics and culture. The creation of the phrase Bayaning Third World has spawned a new set of perspective, or if I may say justification, for migrant workers. It is said that the only reason why the country is still able to pull itself together economically would lie on the contribution of the overseas workers through their remittances. It is further proposed that the modern-day hero does not include those long-dead individuals like Rizal and Bonifacio, instead it would be that domestic helper or care giver, or entertainer who is sending dollars to his/her family in the country. The war that they fight would not be bloody but it is a matter of survival and of countless swallowing of pride. How about nationalism? They argue that it is actually evident in their act of remembering their motherland through remittances. Acceptable? Just maybe.

At this juncture, I would like to present a rather simple yet nevertheless, alternative manner in viewing our history. From the first struggle to the last that our ancestors did against oppressors and colonizers, I have seen that there is one main theme for which they have shed blood and lost their lives and that is embodied by the word power. Power according to Robert Dahl, a political scientist, is the ability of a person to make another person do what the latter would not necessarily do. It is the ability to command and be followed. I believe that power, the act of possessing and utilizing it, has been the greatest motivation that our countrymen had. In psychology, there is the proposition of Alfred Adler known as Superiority and Compensation Theory. This states that the “most important motive is superiority and power which is a form of compensatory behavior”. (Kahayon: 1979)

The Indios after being dominated by the Spaniards for hundreds of years have developed a keen desire to end their afflictions by seizing power. They have realized, through the display of the colonizers, that superiority breeds good life. And that is exactly what they needed to have, superiority and power. Some of them resorted to disowning their nationality while others took more drastic methods like launching uprisings and hence commencing wars. The gathering of Indios and Muslims for one cause, knowingly or unknowingly, has brought forth the realization of a greater self. They did not fight for the achievement of solitary power but for a collective one. I believe that this has been the root of their nationalism. This is supported by Jose Ma. Sison’s discussion of the subversive Rizal. He said that the nationalism that the hero and his contemporaries had was developed in the process of struggle, a power-oriented one. Again, this should be qualified as a repercussion of the idea that the seizing of power from the colonizers would be the bridge through which better life could be achieved. (Sison: p.19)

Two questions remains. The first is, is nationalism still applicable? My answer is definitely a yes. However it is necessary to define what type of nationalism it is. Since our time is no longer the battle of weapons and armies, and that it is already the battle of cultural displacement and economic manipulation, I shall suggest a rather similar interpretation as I have already presented above. I am referring to the idea of gathering together to attain power not only for personal satisfaction but chiefly for the common good. I do not have exact propositions as to how we could topple foreign products and investments but I do suggest that we do so by ensuring that our products are of better quality than theirs. If our economy soars again, this would lead us to further achievement of power and superiority. How about our migrant workers? I suggest that there must be a limit to our sending of our own people to work abroad. Since this country is almost hanging on the last rung of the international ladder, it would be totally unwise to goad the phenomenon of brain-drain. We cannot afford to lose our intellectual members. I do discount the fact that these people needs to go abroad to fulfill their personal and their families’ ambitions. But then again this is just like achieving power solitarily with benefits that are not lasting as compared to a collective action.

The second question is who are the heroes of our times? I shall say that aside from our declared heroes who relentlessly fought for the attainment of national pride through the acquisition of power and superiority, they would be those people who despite discomfort remains in the country to serve and even just live here. Why do I see them as heroes? Simply because without these people, especially those who take active civic roles, the government would not be checked and balanced properly. It is the prying of the citizens that the government would be cautious of their decisions and actions. This is to say vigilant citizens produce good government which leads to societal advancement. With heroes like this, dominance shall not be as far-fetched as it may seem for us to have.

I will conclude my arguments by saying that in all the discussions in and even outside the class, the greatest concept that I have learned would be that of nationalism. Though this concept has so many varied explanations, I stick with the idea that in our situation today there is no other way for us to be saved from self-ruin but to be nationally conscious and thereby practice nationalism. It is only through vigilance that we could alleviate our government’s performance which is the root of most of our problems, from the increase of migrant workers to the apathy of most.

Reference:

Aquino, Gaudencio and Alicia Kahayon. General Psychology. National Bookstore Mandaluyong City, 1999.

Curtis, Michael. The Great Political Theories. Avon Books, NY, 1981.

Del Rosario, Rosario . Ang Globalisasyon at Ang Pilipinas. 1997.

Sison, Jose Ma., “Rizal the ‘Subversive,’” in Nationalist Literature: A Centenial Forum

---