Decolonizing the Filipino: Cultural Intellectual Revolution
in Contemporary Phillippines
Erwin Soriano Fernandez / University of Philippines, Philippines
Abstract
Beginning 1946, the Philippines experienced independence as the United States withdrew from its
political life. Nonetheless and inevitably, American values and influence were still pervasive in the
political, economic and cultural spheres. Filipino intellectuals led by Claro M. Recto discerned the need
to reorient Philippine policies to cater to Philippine realities and interests. This paper shall trace and
sketch the development of this “decolonization movement” which Recto had unwittingly kicked off. In
this paper, I noted how Recto’s nationalist discourse would influence his disciples particularly Renato
Constantino, into engaging in a critique of the dominance of English as neocolonial tool in Filipino
consciousness, which led to the uncritical acceptance of foreign especially Anglo-American
perspectives. The latter’s influence can be seen in the indigenization movement in the academe when
Filipino academicians started to doubt the relevance of Western models of thinking. From the academe,
decolonization spread to and affected the arts – sculpture, painting and music – literature and popular
culture. Decolonizing the Filipino is a continuing project such that what Recto and others had
commenced fifty years ago has continuing validity and relevance to the present.
Keywords: decolonization, nationalism, indigenization
Centuries of colonialism made the Philippines the most westernized country in Asia. Spain ruled
for more than three hundred years but in 1896, the Philippine revolution, the first anti-colonial
revolution in Asia, broke out and succeeded in establishing the short-lived Malolos Republic for
an imperial power, the United States of America, intervened. A Judaeo-Christian civilization
was implanted with hispanization only superficial because Spanish did not replace the many and
diverse languages in the country. The US, however, was an exception. For less than fifty years,
McKinley’s “benevolent assimilation” constructed the Filipino from an American prototype –
English-speaking people but with brown skins, hence the popular expression: “Brown
Americans.” Thus when second independence came and was granted in 1946, politically the
Philippines became free to a certain extent but economically and culturally, Filipinos had to live
with the latent effects of American policies and values.
Hostage to American interests because of the ravages of the war, the Philippine government
signed iniquitous economic and military treaties, foremost of which were the Bell Trade Act and
the Military Bases Agreement respectively. The former extended the free trade status between
the two countries for eight years until 1954 when a gradual taxation in twenty years would end
the arrangement and at the same time giving the Americans the same right as Filipinos, known
as parity, to exploit the country while the latter gave the United States the right to maintain
Asia Culture Forum 2006 /
Asian Youth Culture Camp "Doing Cultural Spaces in Asia"
Session 14 “Memory, Narrative and Representation”
1
military bases in the Philippines for a period of ninety-nine years. In the years that followed
1946, the Philippines only had a semblance of independence for the United States, instead of
preparing its colony to a sovereign and self-respecting nation, was laying the groundwork for
the creation of a neocolony – a country seemingly free but not in reality.
Filipino intellectuals particularly nationalists were not ignorant to bewail and condemn the
blatant disregard for the national interests by pro-American Filipino policymakers. They were
the first to discern the scorn and distrust in the eyes of Asian neighbors wary to be associated
with a loyal American ‘satellite’ in Asia. In their effort to decolonize the Filipino, they had to
expose the defects in the national character; reveal the covert motives of foreign agents; attack
the vested interests of individuals and institutions; and so in effect, had started the movement
that from the recent past till the present slowly overturns and undermines sacred traditions in the
status quo, a revolution in the make. Before a cultural-intellectual revolution begins, they had to
first challenge the dominant and hegemonic apparatus in the realm of politics, diplomacy and
economy. Through educational institutions and the mass media, it slowly created an
undetermined impact on the collective psyche of the people and the Filipino society as a whole.
This paper shall trace the growth and development of a movement in the Philippines as it shall
recognize individuals, groups, institutions and policies responsible to and accountable for the
decolonization of the Filipino. I divided it into four sections starting with Claro M. Recto, the
foremost Filipino nationalist of his era, and his nationalist discourse, which his disciples notably
Leon Maria Guerrero and Renato Constantino carried on in their respective careers. On the
other hand, the academe especially in the University of the Philippines (UP) was, in my opinion,
responding to the challenges laid open by these intellectuals and thereby forced to recognize the
problem of Western canons of scholarship and research. I shall deal with this in the third and
last sections. In the conclusion, I will assess the enduring relevance of the struggle for an
emancipated Filipino on the bases of current political, economic and cultural conditions.
Recto: Decolonizing Filipino politics
Recto, the foremost apostle of Filipino nationalism during the era of communist witch-hunting,
gave directions to the aborted decolonization during the Philippine revolution postponed due to
United States imperial interventionism. Born in the waning years of Spanish regime, educated in
the early years of American occupation, Recto’s life would show the evolution of a colonial
from a conservative politician to a nationalist crusader (Constantino 1969, 218).
The conventional streak of a politician in Recto silenced whatever opposition he had over the
issue of parity rights and the concomitant amendment to the constitution, which he himself coauthored with other delegates in 1935 ((Constantino 1969, 128-29). This was contrary to what
was said that he together with Laurel opposed it as soon as it was announced to the public
(Agoncillo & Guerrero 1970, 500). He still cherished his close friendship with President Roxas
but when death claimed Roxas, he slowly began to reconsider his position of loyalty to the
Liberal Party. At this time, he was also becoming critical of graft-ridden Quirino administration
as well as taking a second look at America’s continued dominance in Philippine affairs with the
impositions inimical to the interest of his country. The latter was evident in his advocacy of
repealing the Bell Trade Act and abrogating parity when he issued statement on his intention to
run for the presidency (Constantino 1969, 138).
Beginning 1949, a radical departure from his position as opposition stalwart was apparent in his
first foreign policy address entitled “Our Asian Policy” after being conferred the degree of
Asia Culture Forum 2006 /
Asian Youth Culture Camp "Doing Cultural Spaces in Asia"
Session 14 “Memory, Narrative and Representation”
2
Doctor of Laws by Arellano University. It was a thorough attack on Quirino’s subservient
foreign policy and it was the beginning of his serious examination of Philippine-American
relations. Recto deplored the dependence on the United States, which Philippine foreign policy
has exhibited by putting much faith “in the might and generosity of America” and in the process
had “miscalculated America’s affection and sympathy for Asia.” America’s Europe-First policy
during the war was a clear indication, says Recto that the Philippines cannot rely on her and that
the military bases, instead of insuring protection, might attract outside aggression. He urged on
the need to redirect Philippine foreign policy towards Asia for “we have drawn so close to
America that we have placed Asia beyond our reach” (as quoted in Constantino 1969, 139).
Filipino diplomats were posted in London and Rome but no embassies were opened in New
Delhi, Karachi, Hanoi, Bangkok, Singapore, and Jakarta except Taiwan. Again, on a more
severe critique of the administration’s foreign policy, Recto categorically stated that “the
government has no foreign policy of its own at all” for “we… have…submitted to becoming
mere appendage to the United States” (142). However, Constantino correctly discerned Recto’s
caution of antagonizing the U.S. for political expediency; hence, “Recto’s nationalism was still
traditional” (145). Two years later, Recto delivered his “Our Mendicant Foreign Policy” in a
commencement address in U.P., in which he asserted the need to chart an independent foreign
policy for it is a myth that America will subordinate her interests over Philippine interests.
America and the Philippines, declares Recto had separate and distinct interests. The speech
echoes his first address on foreign policy on the danger of placing too much confidence on
America’s protection when in fact; he says with bitterness, America during the war deserted the
Philippines in favor of Europe.
Recto having carefully studied the intricacy of Philippine problems began pointing out the
imperative of a nationalist industrialization to break away from the foreign stranglehold of the
economy without missing to call attention to the fundamental problems of corruption, internal
disorder, poverty and dependence on the United States. He would zero in on the economic
relations between the Philippines and the United States with him arriving at the conclusion that
the special relationship would carry on and continue the “impoverished, lopsided, raw-material,
export and agricultural economy”; hence, he advocated readjustment on both sides on a
reasonable basis (Constantino 1969, 204). He would reach the pinnacle of his critical attitude
towards the United States during the pro-American presidency of Ramon Magsaysay as the two
clashed in several foreign and national policies.
The nationalist ferment that Recto had helped to generate was beginning to seep into the content
of national policies. Magsaysay’s election was a difficult political gambit that Recto, who has a
disclosed presidential ambition, took to prevent the election of Quirino as well as to have
control over the presidency particularly with the aim of infusing nationalist agenda into
government policies but Magsaysay proved to be a man to contend with as overwhelming
American support was behind him. Nonetheless, Recto’s influence had reached the Department
of Foreign Affairs although shortly through Leon Maria Guerrero, former associate attorney in
Recto’s law firm. Undersecretary Guerrero delivered an uncleared speech in which he reechoed
Recto’s plea to re-charting Philippine foreign policy toward Asia popularly known as “Asia for
the Asians” policy. Magsaysay bowing out to the pressure of the United States did not stand pat
with Guerrero but instead send him off to London as Ambassador to the Court of Saint James.
Recto, however, was consistent in his nationalist convictions, which were further strengthened
by his disagreements with Magsaysay leading to their “open hostilities.” He would put forward
his nationalist perspectives over controversial issues. On the Formosa Question with Magsaysay
Asia Culture Forum 2006 /
Asian Youth Culture Camp "Doing Cultural Spaces in Asia"
Session 14 “Memory, Narrative and Representation”
3
having committed the Philippines to its defense in support of the United States, he exposed the
folly behind the decision to commit the Philippines in an international obligation, which he
realistically thought she could not fulfill. In the Senate, he was the lone dissenting voice; thus,
the resolution was passed. Over the Laurel-Langley Agreement, which extended the free trade
status between the Philippines and the United States for twenty years, he recognized in its
provisions the seemingly covert American motive of perpetuating “the status of the Philippines
as an economic satellite” (Constantino 1969, 222). On similar vein, he would attack the
objectionable nature of the land tenure bill, the United States bases, the Foreign Investments Act,
Philippine foreign policy and Vietnam.
His collegues in the Senate namely Lorenzo Tañada and Jose W. Diokno carried on the
nationalist torch. Upon the death of Recto in 1960 from Rome on his way to Madrid, they will
spearhead the nationalist movement particularly on the U.S. military bases bringing it in the
mainstream of popular discourse and consciousness. The struggle over the continued stay of the
military bases in the Philippines has to wait for more than a decade when in 1990 the Philippine
Senate voted to reject their extension.
In the arena of Philippine foreign policy, Guerrero’s short-lived declaration of claiming an Asian
identity in Philippine foreign policy was gradually incorporated in the agenda of subsequent
administrations beginning with Presidents Carlos P. Garcia and Diosdado P. Macapagal until the
twenty-year dictatorship of Ferdinand E. Marcos when reorientation had finally took its full turn
to Asia (Fernandez 2006). In the field of the economy, Garcia, a moderate nationalist, who was
Recto’s choice for the presidency in 1957 should he himself lose, took a nationalist posture by
implementing the “Filipino First” policy, which gave preferential treatment to Filipinos in
owning and managing business enterprises. It drew sharp reaction from American businessmen
who were beneficiaries of the parity rights since 1947 and thus, the policy signaled the end of
the privileges that they had been enjoying.
In the field of education, shortly after the Guerrero interlude in 1954, the Institute of Asian
Studies at the College of Liberal Arts in the University of the Philippines, Magsaysay’s
brainchild, was established to have a “common ground in which to bring together scholars and
students in Asia…for joint endeavors…to preserve and advance their common cultural heritage”
(as quoted in Sobritchea 2002, 100). The Institute, now called the Asian Center since the late
60s, was a pioneering initiative to acquaint Filipino scholars to Asia.
Renato Constantino, one of Recto’s loyal followers, would engage in another wave of
decolonizing discourse but this time on the role of the English language and neocolonial
education in Filipino consciousness.
Constantino: The politics of language and education
It was to Constantino’s credit that the language problem was to reach its height of advocacy in
the public consciousness although the colonial state recognized this problem as early as the
1930s. Thus, in 1937, the Institute of National Language was organized with the prerogative of
researching, developing and disseminating Tagalog as the national language. Nonetheless, the
English language continued its dominance in literary and academic production. During the
Japanese occupation, there were efforts to make Tagalog one of the official languages along
with Japanese. Recto as Commissioner of Education took the cudgels of implementing this
policy as he saw that “having a common language of our own…it will keep us a united people
and invest us with that individuality and that national consciousness which only a common
Asia Culture Forum 2006 /
Asian Youth Culture Camp "Doing Cultural Spaces in Asia"
Session 14 “Memory, Narrative and Representation”
4
native language can give. For the culture, sentiments, traditions and ideals of a people cannot
live or flourish in a borrowed tongue” (as quoted in Constantino 1969, 120-21). From this
pronouncement as compared to Constantino’s, one can discern parallel ideas. However,
Constantino would unravel the complexity of the language problem within the compass of U.S.
cultural hegemony over Philippine intellectual and cultural scene.
As early as 1957, Constantino critically examined the role of English as medium of instruction
in Philippine education, which he would carry through in a number of his later writings, when
he said: “The imposition of the English language was the opening wedge to our cultural
domination. With English as the medium of instruction, our young people fell under the spell of
America. With the language barrier disposed of and system of education oriented to American
practices, American standards and values became an important part of our intellectual make-up”
(1966, 71). In another essay in 1958, he disabused his Filipino readers into thinking that English
made easy the world around them: “The truth, of course, is that the use of English has cut us off
from our cultural heritage but has not opened to our people the best cultural achievements of the
English-speaking world… On the other hand, we understand just enough English to make us
avid addicts of Western and gangster movies, vulgar song hits, and comics that have become
almost the reading fare of our youth” (1966, 87-8). The results were values that exhibit a
national inferiority complex that look up to American standards and practices but look down to
their own. By capturing the Filipino minds, thus their consciousness, it was not difficult for the
Americans to impose for they will not even be imposing because Filipinos would do bidding,
not only cultural but also economic hegemony in the form of American-made goods, books,
movies, magazines, soft drinks, cigarettes etc. (Constantino 1966, 17).
In a more expanded essay, “The Mis-education of the Filipino” that has now become a classic
text on the subject, Constantino (1966) ably demonstrated the inextricable link between
education and the English language in the perpetuation of neocolonial thinking. Although
nationalism made a significant mark in the national scene in which he acknowledged the crucial
role of Recto, he lamented the fact that in the field of education “we have yet to hear of a wellorganized campaign on the part of our educational leaders for nationalism in education” (39). In
this provocative work, he traced the origins of Filipinos’ neocolonial education in the Americanintroduced public school system whose implicit aim was to produce literate colonials consistent
with the objective of American colonial policy. He argued convincingly that the present
educational system was in no way different from the past; that instead of inculcating nationalist
values and attitudes, it has consistently followed the colonial framework as willing adjuncts of
American imperialist propaganda. Soon, Constantino found an ally in Arturo Tolentino, a
nationalist legislator, who four months after the publication of that essay in June, called for the
abolition of the English language as medium of instruction as its “continued use”… “has created
subconscious feeling that whatever comes from the United States is better than what we create
in the Philippines” (Agoncillo & Guerrero 1970, 652).
There were limited gains in the nationalist agenda for education. In the late fifties and early
sixties, because of the clamor for the use of local languages, Tagalog and other vernaculars were
used in the first two years of elementary education. Just as the demand for the use of Tagalog
and other local languages in education was becoming strong, educators and policymakers were
once in a while contemplating to go back again to using the English language (Agoncillo &
Guerrero 1970, 653). Since the 1935 Philippine Constitution, which in itself a colonial
document, a provision was laid down as to “the development and adoption of a common
national language based on one of the existing native languages”, which came to be Tagalog and
Asia Culture Forum 2006 /
Asian Youth Culture Camp "Doing Cultural Spaces in Asia"
Session 14 “Memory, Narrative and Representation”
5
to divest it of its regional character, was named as the Tagalog-based Pilipino. The 1973
Philippine Constitution carried over this prevision but instead of Pilipino, the national language
was called Filipino. Thus, during the seventies, Pilipino was instituted as the medium of
instruction in both elementary and high school in public and private schools while English
remained the medium of instruction in secondary and tertiary levels (Rubrico 1998). Finally, the
present constitution ironically written in English unequivocally named Filipino as the national
language but still cared to include English as one of the official languages unless repealed by
law.
In the late ‘80s with relevance to the present, American imperialism was all the more aggressive
in penetrating Philippine society to protect its strategic interests, which was done through
“investigating and studying a country’s indigenous culture, traditions, and folk beliefs so that it
can work from these as basis to firm up a more effective propaganda that it can use to legitimize
its projects” (Guillermo 1988, 9). Agencies such as the IMF-World Bank, the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA), the USIS or USIA, the Peace Corps, Ford and Rockefeller
foundations and Moonie religious group were identified as serving the interests of the United
States in the latter’s effort to intervene in Third World societies. U.S. influence in the field of
Philippine education was without letup as WB-IMF sponsored-Program for Decentralized
Education (PRODED) had a hold on the funding and monitoring of textbooks and even
curricular programs in the elementary and secondary levels.
However, decolonization as a discourse that was evident in Recto’s speeches and can also be felt
in the critical essays of Constantino and others did not fail to positively influence the academic
discourse dominated by foreign ways of seeing Filipino realities.
Indigenization/Localization/Translation in the Academe as Decolonization
Corollary to an educational system patterned after the American tradition was the easy and
uncritical use of foreign theories and paradigms in understanding Philippine realities. Guerrero,
writing in 1952 about the nature of Filipinos in his classic essay “What are Filipinos Like?”
uncannily observes, which at present still holds true: “It is to be hoped that we Filipinos will
become a little more discriminating. But it is still justifiable to say that we ‘accept western
standards at their face value.’ …The commonplaces of the contemporary world are epigrams
among us. We hail as original discoveries, theories in politics, economics, sociology and art that
are already discredited abroad…University professors do not tire of repeating the theories in
vogue when they were college students in the United States; they have not bothered to keep up,
and succeeding generations of teachers fall in their turn into the same rut. Since we have grown
accustomed to borrowing ideas, we have lost much of our capacity for independence and
originality of thought” (1984, 17-18). Constantino was blunt in stating: “Through the language
and the educational system, the Filipinos became almost a part of America…With the language,
too, came a veritable flood of written materials…So effective and all-inclusive is this avalanche
of information that, without hardly being aware of it, we have been seeing the world through
American eyes” [my emphasis] (1966, 71-2).
Constantino’s penetrating insights on the subtle role of the English language in promoting
neocolonial consciousness although he can also be faulted at for all of his works were written in
English, have made its way in Philippine academic discourse. One must not miss Recto’s
influence in popular and academic spheres. The place of this intellectual ferment had begun at
the state university, the University of the Philippines, where nationalist intellectuals were
Asia Culture Forum 2006 /
Asian Youth Culture Camp "Doing Cultural Spaces in Asia"
Session 14 “Memory, Narrative and Representation”
6
beginning to question the applicability of foreign theories to Philippine problems. However,
attempts to indigenize Philippine approaches to social realities were part of a larger movement
in Asia (Yogesh 1979 as cited in Enriquez 1982).
It was in the discipline of history that Agoncillo first discerned the need to rewrite Philippine
history from the “Filipino point of view” as he noticed among the various textbooks written the
predominance of the perspective of outsiders particularly American even of those written by
Filipinos (Agoncillo & Guerrero 1970, 679). In the discipline of psychology, Filipino
psychologists had started to veer away from the dominance of “Anglo-American perspective”
by indigenizing methodologies suited to Filipino psyche known as Sikolohiyang Pilipino which
“refers to psychological theory, knowledge and methods formed thru the Filipino culture as a
basis” giving emphasis on the use of local languages (Enriquez 1982, 1, 2). Thus, along with the
evolution of Filipino as national language was the growing assertions for its intellectualization
for advocates of indigenization in the academe did not miss the import that in order to break
away from the Western/foreign models, it was imperative to utilize local languages as means of
analysis and as a way of communicating with the people. Other disciplines in the social sciences
and exact sciences began to reconsider the virtues of indigenization and even started producing
textbooks written in Filipino.
It was not surprising then that Filipino intellectuals started considering the possibility of
conceiving a national discourse (or what they call civilizational discourse) based in Filipino.
Zeus Salazar, UP Professor of History and educated at Sorbonne, noted how English-based
discourse and consciousness created what he termed as the “Great Cultural Divide’, which
alienated the elite from the people and vice versa. He traced its origins in the Propaganda
Movement when Spanish was dominant discourse among Filipino expatriates while Filipino
revolutionaries like Bonifacio and Jacinto who belonged to the masses, were using Tagalog in
their discursive practices (Navarro et al 1997). Pantayong Pananaw (PP), roughly translated as
“from-us-for-us perspective”, “pertain[s] to any social collectivity which possesses a relatively
unified and internally articulated linguistic-cultural structure of communication and interaction
and/or a sense of oneness of purpose and existence” (Guillermo 2003). In this definition, the
Philippines as a social collectivity up to the present does not possess a unifying pantayong
pananaw because of the continued dominance and alienating effects of English-based and
Western-oriented discourse in government, academic and everyday life. PP as a school of
thought in history and later in the Philippine social sciences was composed of a small number of
UP professors advocating the use of local language and frameworks in research. PP as a
civilizational discourse does not only encompass Philippine social sciences as what Guillermo
(2003) had assumed but also includes the other disciplines in the exact sciences and the public
discourse in general. At present, PP had marginal influence in UP academe although in other
schools its basic philosophy was becoming popular.
The challenge of decolonization in academic discourse lies in the ability to use Filipino in
scientific and social science praxis. Corollary to localization and indigenization is the translation
of foreign literary and scientific texts into Filipino and write researches in Filipino in order to
create a database in the national language.
Emancipating Filipino Arts, Literature and Popular Culture
Filipino arts, which include painting, sculpture and music, had long been a pale imitation of
Western trends. Constantino (1966) was fully aware of this and in satirical vein depicted how a
Asia Culture Forum 2006 /
Asian Youth Culture Camp "Doing Cultural Spaces in Asia"
Session 14 “Memory, Narrative and Representation”
7
Filipino had americanized himself. Said he: “The Filipino is a creature of immense talent for
cultural acquisition. He has shown his discriminating taste by being receptive only to American
culture, selecting for avid consumption such outstanding American contributions as cowboy
movies, horror pictures, comics, rock and roll, soapbox derbies, beauty contests, teenage
idiosyncrasies, advertising jingles, cocktail parties and soft drinks” (4). Popular culture and
public education were the dual factors that promote the Americanization of Filipino values and
consequently, whatever cultural artifacts produced were modeled from the West. Constantino
observes the painful reality of Filipino cultural production, which also served both as a critique
and a challenge when he said echoing Guerrero: “Our [Filipinos’] slavish imitation of
Hollywood styles in dress, entertainment, songs and dances, and even haircuts, would all be
extremely laughable if we did not realize that our cultural captivity has robbed us of originality
and a distinct national personality” (131).
In the case of painting, Filipinos from Damian Domingo to Fernando Amorsolo were trained in
European fashion especially Spanish. In the mid-thirties, Filipinos who studied in American art
schools brought home the modernist style led by Victorio Edades, Diosdado M. Lorenzo,
Hernando R. Ocampo, Galo B. Ocampo and Vicente Manansala. It created a furor among
conservative painters, laymen and critics particularly the School of Fine Arts of the University
of the Philippines headed by Guillermo E. Tolentino, a noted Filipino sculptor. The debate,
which quieted down during the Japanese occupation, can also be seen as a clash between two
colonial models: European versus American. The so-called Modernists, soon after the war, in
the persons of Vicente Manansala, Cesar F. Legaspi, Hernando R. Ocampo, Romeo V. Tabuena,
Victor Oteysa, Ramon Estrella to name a few, founded the Neo-Realist school of painting,
which promoted the idea that painting is not a “medium for a story or literature or any
extraneous matter alien to plastic art” or the art-for-art’s-sake school. In the late 60s, Filipino
painters of modern bent were combining elements of Occidental and Oriental in which the latter
can be noticed in “rich brilliant colors, in the subject of the individual painter, in the decorative
tendency, and in the calligraphic technique” (Agoncillo & Guerrero 1970, 663-64).
The debate between modernists and conservatives did not insulate the field of sculpture from
the raging issue. Napoleon V. Abueva revolting from the classicism of Guillermo E. Tolentino,
established the modernist school in sculpture. Nonetheless, as observed by Agoncillo (1970),
unfortunately sculptures of modernist type earn scorn from viewers due perhaps from lack of
appreciation or simply ignorance of their beauty and meaning.
Filipino music was the most affected by the onslaught of American song hits heard in air lanes
although there were the pioneering moves by Nicanor Abelardo and Francisco Santiago on the
development of original and authentic Filipino music. Their steps were followed by Antonio J.
Molina, Felipe P. Padilla de Leon, Eliseo Pajaro, Antonio Buenaventura, Lucio San Pedro, Jose
Maceda and Hilarion Rubio, musicians and musicologists who were in the forefront of the
advocacy for the use of folk literature and folk songs as inspiration (Agoncillo & Guerrero 1970,
665).
Although there is truth in the pervasive influence of Western models in Philippine art production
and in Filipino way of life as a whole, it is not always the case that one can find only imitation
and mimicry without any streak of originality. Constantino might have been speaking for the
middle class and the elite but still he denies them of their capacity for subverting or assimilating
foreign influences into their own class culture particularly in arts. Filipinos belonging to the
lower classes, Fajardo argues, were shielded from “cultural pollution” “since exposure to
foreign culture is limited by a deprived opportunity for education, travel, or the luxury of going
Asia Culture Forum 2006 /
Asian Youth Culture Camp "Doing Cultural Spaces in Asia"
Session 14 “Memory, Narrative and Representation”
8
to the movies, viewing video tapes and so forth.” Fajardo continues: “Somehow, values remain
authentic and most of the art they create transmit value-images that their culture has of itself.
Even as they are prone to imitate models of alien cultures, whatever unfolds from them are still
more natural and naïve, more authentic as the expression of a people” (1985, 4). Thus, calling it
“people’s art,” she defines it as art made by common people, i.e. amulet-maker (Quiapo), native
mat weaver (Sulu and Samar-Leyte), lantern maker (Pampanga), basket weaver (Ifugao),
jeepney painter (Sarao, Cavite), wood carvers (Sulu, Paete, Betis), who comprised the lower
strata in Philippine society. Nonetheless, she recognized the growing menace of Westernization
as “people’s art” remained undocumented, understudied and ignored. Decolonization can be
achieved through documentation, preservation and dissemination of the various forms of
“people’s art”; by imbuing craftsmen a sense of pride of their work as artists of the people and
not only by incorporating “people’s art” as part of the curriculum but filipinizing the art
programs in the primary, secondary and tertiary levels (12, 20).
The development and vicissitudes of Philippine literature reflected the history of the Philippines
as a nation. Spanish colonialism and the Filipino reaction paved the way for the emergence of
nationalist and radical literature in Spanish by Filipino expatriates known as the Ilustrados (the
enlightened), which included Rizal, Del Pilar and other equally important propagandists. As
English was institutionalized as a result of American colonial policy, Filipinos dabbled into
writing poems, essays, short stories and novels that were basically an imitation of American
styles in the likes of Hewingway, Saroyan, Poe, Anderson, Faulkner and others (Agoncillo &
Guerrero 1970). After independence, Filipino literati continued writing in English with distinct
flavor and thus started to carve their places in Filipino literature in English. At UP, the form and
content of literature became a subject of literary debate and discussion with Jose Garcia Villa
emphasizing on form while Salvador P. Lopez, author of a prizewinning collection of essays
entitled “Proletarian Literature” gave importance to content. The growth of Filipino literature in
English in the past decades raised the possibility for some writers that it should be the national
literature. Writers in Tagalog, later in Filipino, were therefore forced to compete with writers in
English but the dominance of English literary canons made them somewhat marginalized. What
more of vernacular literatures but thanks to a local publishing company, which since the 1930s
encouraged the publication of short stories, poems and essays in local languages. However,
literary historians notably Bienvenido Lumbera with the help of his wife Cynthia in his seminal
work “Philippine Literature: A History and Anthology” (1983) remapped the avenues of Filipino
literary canons “freeing it from the control of dominant literary conventions and practices” by
including oral traditions, vernacular literatures and women and other forms of emergent
literature
besides
Filipino
literature
in
Filipino,
Spanish
and
English
(http://www.lumbera.ph/writer/writerindex.htm).
In the realm of popular culture, the Filipino language made some strides as mass media either
printed or broadcast were using it as medium of communication. Newspapers and magazines in
Filipino or in vernacular languages found their way in Filipino homes. Likewise, Filipino
comics eventually departed from the themes and values of imported U.S. comics culminating in
the 1950s as the “Golden Age of Philippine Comics.” Mars Ravelo created characters like Darna
and Lastikman that became known and embedded in the popular imagination (Cueto 2005).
Filipino films during the 1950s although bearing Hollywood imprints propagated the use of the
Filipino language and even got accolades from international film critics. In the so-called
“Second Golden Age of Philippine Cinema” from the 70s to early 80s, Filipino avant-garde
filmmakers produced a number of landmark films that tackled Philippine themes and values
Asia Culture Forum 2006 /
Asian Youth Culture Camp "Doing Cultural Spaces in Asia"
Session 14 “Memory, Narrative and Representation”
9
clearly departing from Hollywood styles. Nonetheless, with the influx of Hollywood films, this
contributed to the slow death of Philippine cinema industry.
Conclusion
The impact of the nationalist stirrings that Recto inspired reached not only Philippine politics
but also in the academic and cultural spheres. It arrived at its culmination during the Garcia
administration when a nationalist economic program, the “Filipino First” policy was
implemented. In the area of diplomacy, Leon Maria Guerrero, a loyal partisan of Recto with a
patriotic character of his own, endorsed the “Asia for the Asians” policy in 1954 as
Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs obviously an influence of Recto’s nationalist stand on foreign
policy. Although, he was meted out with punishment as he was pressured to take his post as
Ambassador to the Court of Saint James, more than ten years later, his ‘return-to-Asia’ advocacy
in foreign policy was reflected in the agenda and direction of Philippine foreign policy.
Constantino, another of Recto’s trusted adherent, provided the stimulus for an exciting debate
on the function of English either as neocolonial tool or as tool for national liberation in which I
find him siding on the former as it was apparent from his writings. From the political to the
economic arena, from economic to cultural space, decolonization had inevitably reached the
halls of the academe. The discipline of history initiated the rethinking of complacently accepting
foreign perspectives followed by psychology with the development of Sikolohiyang Pilipino or
indigenous Filipino psychology. PP, meanwhile, conceptualized a broader nationalist
perspective, giving emphasis on the use of Filipino, as a means of decolonizing Philippine
society as a whole embracing all aspects of it from political to cultural.
Nonetheless, decolonization is an ongoing process in the Philippines. It still has a long way to
go as long as reactionary and anti-nationalist forces are present to undermine its gains. The
context of Iraq war and the Lebanon crisis resurrected the myth that there is an identity of
interests between the Philippines and the United States. Philippine President Gloria M. Arroyo
in the wake of the 9/11 bombing was quick to lend support to U.S. President George W. Bush’s
declaration of war against terrorism and thus included in the “Coalition of the Willing.” The
present crisis in the Middle East, which dearly affected the national interest as thousands of
OFWs (Overseas Filipino Workers) were threatened by the loss of safety, security and
employment, did not even elicit a condemnation from the Philippine government perhaps for
fear of gaining the enmity of the United States. The present administration, too, under the
banner of “Strong Republic” neglected to include national industrialization as one of the pillars
for national progress and development but was merely contented with the promotion of
agricultural modernization and made economic free enterprise as its cornerstone. What Recto
had chided before as mendicancy was back with vengeance as liberalization, privatization and
deregulation were invoked as magic words for economic progress. In her recent SONA (State of
the Nation Address), Arroyo offered five strategies for global competitiveness and flaunted the
five “super-regions” without citing them under the rubric of national industrialization. Words
like “agribusiness” “agricultural” “fisheries” were casually mentioned but in the case of
“industry”, “industrialization”, they seemed to be consciously evaded.
The language problem is still unresolved. Although the present constitution states that Filipino
is the national language, English dominates the discursive practices in education, law and
jurisprudence, commerce and popular culture. To a certain extent, there were some gains in
mass media as Filipino was becoming more and more acceptable among the common people
Asia Culture Forum 2006 / 10
Asian Youth Culture Camp "Doing Cultural Spaces in Asia"
Session 14 “Memory, Narrative and Representation”
and the middle class. There were, however, some drawbacks. In Congress, there is a proposal to
make English the medium of instruction from elementary to college. The reason behind it is an
indication of a misplaced priority of the government by placing premium on becoming
proficient in English as it supposedly gives Filipinos global competitiveness so that later on they
will work as either nannies abroad or what Arroyo envisions as “super-maids” or call center
agents at home.
As globalization penetrates every village and town in the Philippines through mass media and
global corporations, westernization becomes a formidable factor to take into account
(Constantino 1977). Hollywood films continue to dominate local cinema houses and in turn,
Filipino filmmakers ape American films (Torre 2003). Among Filipino youth, American pop
songs and pop culture are so popular that they become the standards for imitation.
The struggle for decolonization in the Philippines today, which is attendant to the modern
project of nationhood, continues and the big role of Filipino intellectuals in the creation of truly
national culture in the midst of the onslaught of globalization cannot be discounted. Filipino
intellectuals, as members of their society must always be the conscience of the people, freed
from the constraints of neocolonial mindsets and be able to transcend personal and private
interests for the welfare of the people. But intellectuals cannot do it alone for decolonization
must also be a part of the Filipino people’s everyday struggle for national emancipation. Let me
quote at length Renato Constantino:
“The Filipino intellectual’s acquaintance with and understanding
of the people is part of his effort to liberate that part of his being
which is a captive of the colonial condition. His liberation is part
of the people’s struggle for freedom. He cannot be truly free and
creative if the people are not free and creative. National culture
is a manifestation of the nationalist struggle and is at the same
time a condition for the struggle itself, for nationalism needs a
cultural form which is shaped and within the struggle. Therefore
national culture starts as a culture of struggle and the resulting
victory then becomes the sanction for the further cultural development
of a free people” (1970, 46).
References Cited
Agoncillo, Teodoro A. & Milagros C. Guerrero. 1970. The History of the Filipino
People. Quezon City: Malaya Books.
Arroyo, Gloria Macapagal. 2001-2006. “State of the Nation Address (SONA)” in
www.gov.ph
Constantino, Renato. 1966. The Filipinos in the Philippines and other Essays. Quezon
City: Malaya Books.
________________. 1969. The Making of a Filipino: A Story of Philippine Colonial
Politics. Quezon City: Malaya Books.
________________. 1970. Dissent and Counter-consciousness. Manila: Erehwon.
________________. 1977. Westernizing Factors in the Philippines. Quezon City.
Cueto, Eric. 2005. “Mars Ravelo” The New Official Mars Ravelo’s Darna Web Site in
http://marsravelodarna.tripod.com/id15.html
Asia Culture Forum 2006 / 11
Asian Youth Culture Camp "Doing Cultural Spaces in Asia"
Session 14 “Memory, Narrative and Representation”
Enriquez, Virgilio G. 1982. Decolonizing the Filipino Psyche: Philippine Psychology in the
Seventies. Quezon City: Philippine Psychology Research House.
Fajardo, Brenda V. 1985. Decolonization through People’s Art. Quezon City: Department of
Humanities, College of Arts and Letters, UP Diliman.
Fernandez, Erwin S. 2006. “Claiming an Asian Identity and Forging New Ties: The Shaping of
Philippine Foreign Policy from Macapagal to Marcos, 1961-1972” unpublished
manuscript.
Guerrero, Leon Maria. 1984. We Filipinos. Manila: Daily Star Publishing.
Guillermo, Alice G. 1988. “American Intervention in Philippine Culture” in Culture: A Force for
Change. Manila: Socio-Pastoral Institute.
Guillermo, Ramon. 2003. “Exposition, Critique and New Directions for Pantayong
Pananaw” Kyoto Review of Southeast Asia 3 (March) in
http://kyotoreview.cseas.kyoto-u.ac.jp/issue/issue2/article_247.html
Navarro, Atoy, Mary Jane Rodriguez and Vicente Villan, eds. 1997. Pantayong
Pananaw: Ugat at Kabuluhan. Mandaluyong: Palimbagang Kalawakan.
Republic
of
the
Philippines.
The
1935
Philippine
Constitution
inhttp://www.lawphil.net/consti/cons1935.html
Rubrico, Jessie Grace U. 1998. “The Metamorphosis of Filipino as National Language” in
http://www.language-links.org/fil_met.html
Sobritchea, Carolyn I. 2002. “Reflections on the Development of Philippine Studies in the
Philippines: The U.P. Asian Center Experience” Asian Studies 38 (1): 99-107.
Torre, Nestor. 2003. “The Hollywoodization of Filipino movies” Philippine Daily Inquirer July
21 in http://www.inq7.net/ent/2003/jul/22/ent_20-1.htm
“Writing the Nation” in http://www.lumbera.ph/writer/writerindex.htm
Asia Culture Forum 2006 / 12
Asian Youth Culture Camp "Doing Cultural Spaces in Asia"
Session 14 “Memory, Narrative and Representation”