Beyond Heroism
Originally published in The Sentinel PH.
Our first introduction to Philippine history in school probably consisted of us learning about our national heroes. History is therefore introduced to us as a series of events leading to independence and life as a new nation, serving as a background for heroes to take charge of the nation’s destiny.
Over the past decade or so there has also been a resurgence of revisionism concerning the character---or the heroism---of the men we consider as heroes today. We can think of a few examples, ranging from Jose Rizal and Emilio Aguinaldo to Ninoy Aquino---a man whose death we commemorated last Thursday.
Indeed, popular history’s emphasis on heroes serves a similar function to mythology, insofar as it allows people to identify with a concrete “someone” who embodies the abstract ideals and hopes of ordinary people which are all so often trampled upon by powerful people. A consequence of this, however, is that our dependence on heroes tempts us to excuse the evils they are capable of in the name of heroism itself.
Taken to the extreme, heroism can excuse murder itself. We must only read historical accounts of those atrocities committed by Katipuneros---or the continued popular support enjoyed by Mr. Duterte---to understand what I mean. Indeed, our idea of heroism is not as much built on solid virtue as it is on the ability to fight for some reified concept of “the people” or “the nation” which is as fluid as it is vague.
Indeed, I would go so far as to argue that our primarily heroistic notion of history goes hand in hand with our emphasis on patronage. We are not a nation of entrepreneurs. A mix of geography, food, climate and free will disposes our peoples towards a collectivistic and matriarchal social structure which places a premium on hiya, pakikisama and a dependence on strong, centralized authority. It is therefore not surprising that our civic interactions are highly personalistic.
And yet many of us rail against such paradigms. But for us on the Right who seek to elevate culture, society, and politics, we must take the initiative to change the way we view all of the above. If we want a society deeply anchored in values and principles, we must take the effort to go beyond the immediately obvious and look at history in terms of those long, enduring processes which affect us to this very day.
We must start viewing history not as a mere chronological playground of national heroes, but rather as the interplay of social, environmental, political and cultural dynamics which made it possible for people to act the way they did. And these dynamics do not appear ex nihilo: rather, they are longstanding: “the longue duree.”
To this end, I would recommend readers to introduce themselves to political theory and elite theory. In doing so, one may obtain a more dynamic worldview of our national heroes, many of whom were local elites thrust into the whirlwinds of statecraft. I have found the following authors particularly helpful: Gaetano Mosca, Bertrand de Jouvenel, Neema Parvini, James Burnham, and Samuel Francis (the last two being most useful for analyzing the rise of the technocratic/managerial elite).
Especially relevant today is the discourse surrounding the Aquino legacy. The historian Joseph Scalice (although a Marxist) wrote a very insightful dissertation, Crisis of Revolutionary Leadership: Martial Law and the Communist Parties of the Philippines, 1957-1974 (UC Berkeley, 2017), which detailed Ninoy’s involvement with the Communist Party of the Philippines (and Marcos Sr.’s involvement with the PKP-1930).
The truth of the matter is that Philippine history contains more nuances than we can stomach. To insist on a simplistic, hero-centered view at the expense of an authentic understanding of persons and institutions would be an injustice not only to history itself---but to the men and women who make it.
Daniel Tyler Chua is the founder and president of the Collegium Perulae Orientis. He is also a contributor to the Philippine Daily Inquirer and The Sentinel PH.
