0% found this document useful (0 votes)
1K views14 pages

05 Hau - Necessary Fictions Introduction

This document provides an introduction to the book "Necessary Fictions: Philippine Literature and the Nation, 1946–1980" by Caroline S. Hau. It discusses how a 1956 law known as the Rizal Bill mandated teaching Jose Rizal's novels in schools to foster nationalism among Filipino youth. The bill positioned literature as central to shaping Filipino national identity and culture. However, the document notes the bill obscured linguistic diversity and social heterogeneity in the Philippines. It also conceded to pressure from the Catholic Church, showing the law emerged from competing interests rather than neutrality. The introduction examines how the bill framed literature and reading as crucial to linking universal ideals of freedom and nationalism to the Philippine context, but in a

Uploaded by

claire yows
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
1K views14 pages

05 Hau - Necessary Fictions Introduction

This document provides an introduction to the book "Necessary Fictions: Philippine Literature and the Nation, 1946–1980" by Caroline S. Hau. It discusses how a 1956 law known as the Rizal Bill mandated teaching Jose Rizal's novels in schools to foster nationalism among Filipino youth. The bill positioned literature as central to shaping Filipino national identity and culture. However, the document notes the bill obscured linguistic diversity and social heterogeneity in the Philippines. It also conceded to pressure from the Catholic Church, showing the law emerged from competing interests rather than neutrality. The introduction examines how the bill framed literature and reading as crucial to linking universal ideals of freedom and nationalism to the Philippine context, but in a

Uploaded by

claire yows
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 14

Necessary ​Fictions

Philippine ​Literature
and ​the ​Nation​, ​and ​the ​Nation​,
1946​–​1980

Caroline ​S​. ​Hau

ATENEO ​DE ​MANILA ​UNIVERSITY ​PRESS

Introduction
n ​the mid​-​1950s​, ​nearly ​sixty ​years ​after ​his ​execution ​and ​seventy ​years
after ​the ​publication ​of ​N​oli ​me ​tangere​, ​José ​Rizal ​became ​the subject ​of ​a ​political
controversy ​that ​pitted ​the ​Philippine ​state ​against ​the ​Roman ​Catholic ​church ​over ​the ​issue
of ​including ​this ​national ​hero​'​s ​life ​and w​ orks ​in ​the ​curricula ​of ​public ​and ​private
schools​, ​colleges​, ​and ​univer ​sities ​(​Constantino ​and ​Constantino ​1978​, ​296​-​98​;
Totanes ​1987​, ​22​-​25​)​. ​The ​eventual ​compromise​, ​Republic ​Act ​No​. ​1425 ​(​the ​so​-​called
Rizal ​Bill​) ​(​1956​, 2971​-​72​),​ ​was ​a ​piece ​of ​landmark ​legislation ​that ​brought ​litera ​ture ​and
nationalism ​together ​in ​the ​state​'​s ​attempt ​to ​decolonize ​the ​"​culture​" ​of ​the ​Philippines​:
the ​bill ​was ​an ​important ​example ​of ​the ​state​'​s ​effort ​to ​use ​literature to ​foster ​national
consciousness ​among ​the Fili ​pino ​people a ​ nd ​make ​"​good​" ​citizens ​of the ​Filipino ​youth​.
| ​By ​singling ​out ​Rizal​'​s ​two ​novels​, ​the ​Noli ​and ​its ​sequel​, ​El f​ ilibus ​terismo​, a ​ s ​"​a
constant and ​inspiring ​source ​of ​patriotism ​with ​which ​the ​minds ​of ​the ​youth​, ​especially
during ​their ​formative ​years​, ​should ​be ​suffused​,​" ​the ​Rizal ​Bill ​attested to ​the ​existence ​of ​a
disciplinary ​space​, ​an ​ensemble ​of ​discourses ​and ​practices ​constituting ​the ​field ​of ​literary
education ​over ​which ​the ​Philippine ​state ​sought ​continually ​to ​extend ​the ​scope ​of ​its
nation​-​building ​projects​.
More ​than ​that​, ​by ​commenting ​this ​way ​on ​the ​novels​, ​the ​Rizal ​Bill ​laid ​down ​a
​ nd ​Fili​. ​Rizal​'​s n​ ovels ​were ​described ​as ​"​a
set ​of ​instructions ​on ​how ​to ​read ​the ​N​oli a
constant ​and ​inspiring ​source ​of ​patriotism​,​" ​which ​must ​be ​read ​in ​their ​original ​or
unexpurgated ​editions​..​.​or ​their
2
Necessary ​Fictions
Introduction
3

English ​translation​.​" ​Conjuring ​up ​a ​newly ​independent ​Filipino ​people ​whose ​"​national
character​" ​is ​"​shaped​" ​by ​literary ​works ​and ​the ​act ​of ​reading ​these ​works​, ​the ​bill
accorded ​Rizal ​and ​his ​novels ​a ​central ​place ​in ​the ​state​'​s ​nationalist ​project​, ​and
recognition ​of ​their ​vital ​role ​in ​enabling ​Filipinos ​to ​grasp ​the ​ideals ​of ​freedom ​and
nationalism​.
In ​fact​, ​by ​stating ​that ​the ​heroes​' ​lives ​and ​works ​were ​responsible ​for ​"​shap​[​ing​] ​the
national ​character​,​" ​the ​bill ​suggested ​that ​the ​heroes​, ​especially ​Rizal ​and ​his ​novels​,
originally ​represented​, ​if ​not ​embodied​, ​the ​nationalist ​ideals ​of ​virtue​, ​patriotism​, ​and
self​-​sacrifice​. ​These ​ide ​als ​formed ​the ​"​content​" ​of ​their ​lives ​and ​works​. ​Thus​, ​by
reading ​Rizal ​and ​his ​novels ​as ​symbols ​of ​these ​nationalist ​ideals​, ​and ​above ​all ​as
exemplary​, ​inspiring ​stories ​that ​could ​be ​"​applied​" ​to ​everyday ​life​, ​the ​Filipino ​was
presumably ​inspired ​to ​live ​by ​these ​ideals​. ​The ​bill ​there ​fore ​made the ​act ​of ​reading
literature ​an ​act ​of ​(​re​)​discovering ​the ​nation​'​s ​origins ​in ​ideals ​embodied ​by ​the ​life ​and
works ​of ​the ​nation​'​s h​ eroes​.
An ​equally ​important ​assumption of ​the ​bill ​held ​that ​present ​and ​future ​generations ​of
Filipinos ​could ​remake ​the ​national ​character​, ​which ​earlier ​generations ​of ​Filipinos ​had
"​shaped​" ​in ​the ​past​. ​Such ​a ​notion ​of ​Filipinoness​, ​of ​a ​Filipino ​culture ​that ​was ​fixed ​yet
flexible​, ​historical ​yet ​history​-​making​, ​had ​the advantage of ​being ​attuned ​to ​social ​and
his ​torical ​processes​, ​to development ​and ​change​. ​Yet ​the ​very ​distinctiveness of ​this
malleable ​national ​character ​served ​only ​to ​render ​its ​instability ​as ​a ​concept ​more
apparent​. ​It ​is ​one ​thing ​to ​assume ​that ​the ​nation ​is ​the ​most ​widespread ​and
significant ​political ​phenomenon ​of ​the ​mod ​ern ​age​, ​and ​another ​to ​subscribe ​to ​the
idea ​that ​specific ​"​cultures​" ​are ​embodied ​and ​particularized ​as ​"​nations​, ​each ​endowed
with ​its ​own ​"​national ​character​.​"
Given ​the ​linguistic ​diversity ​and ​social ​heterogeneity ​of ​the ​"​Filipino ​people​,​" ​it ​would
be simply impossible ​to ​take ​the ​link ​between ​culture ​and ​nation ​for ​granted​. ​W​hich
culture​? ​W​hose c​ ulture​? ​W​ho​se ​history​, ​for ​that ​matter​, ​do ​we ​consecrate ​and
celebrate​? ​The ​vexed ​question ​that ​is ​the core ​of the ​Rizal ​Bill ​is ​ultimately ​a ​question ​of
and ​about ​the ​link ​between ​nation ​and ​culture​: ​What ​is ​"​Filipino​" ​culture​? ​And ​how ​do
we ​go ​about ​preserving ​or ​reshaping ​"​it​"​?
The ​answer ​offered ​by ​the ​Rizal ​Bill ​was​: ​Literature. ​Literature ​came ​to ​occupy ​a
mediating ​position ​between ​the ​"​universal​” ​ideals ​of ​free ​dom ​and ​nationalism​, ​on ​the
one ​hand​, ​and ​their ​realization ​within ​a ​specifically ​Philippine ​context​, ​on ​the ​other
hand​. ​Literature ​assumed ​a ​mediating ​function ​precisely ​because ​Rizal​'​s ​novels ​served ​as
artifactual​,
concrete ​examples ​of ​a ​“​Filipino ​culture​" ​that ​was ​conceived ​as ​the ​sum ​total ​of ​all ​the
​ nd ​aspirations​. ​At ​the ​same ​time​, ​these ​works ​were
products ​of ​a ​society​'​s ​creative ​labor a
the ​means ​by ​which ​other ​(​later​) ​Filipi ​nos ​could ​acquire​, ​preserve​, ​and ​reshape ​such ​a
culture​. ​In ​this ​manner​, ​the ​relationship ​between ​literature ​and ​Philippine ​nationalism ​was ​ce
mented ​through ​the ​paradoxical ​notion that ​literary ​works ​both ​embodied ​culture ​and
helped ​create ​that ​culture​.
This ​literary paradox ​was ​an ​important ​wellspring ​of ​the ​state​'s ​na ​tion​-​building
project​. ​The ​state​, ​not ​surprisingly​, ​claimed ​a ​privileged ​role ​in ​the ​nationalist ​project
of ​preserving ​and ​developing ​Philippine ​culture​. ​By ​making ​reading ​the ​subject ​of
supervision​, ​the ​state ​arrogated ​to ​itself ​the ​role ​of ​mediator​, ​the ​main ​conduit ​in ​the
transmission ​of ​ideals ​from ​their ​abstracted ​sources ​in the ​nation ​(​i.​ ​e​.​, ​the ​history ​of ​the ​heroes
who ​"​lived ​and ​died​” ​for ​their ​ideals​) ​to ​their ​putative​, ​concrete ​recipients ​(the
"​minds ​of ​the ​youth​"​)​. ​In ​essence​, ​the ​state ​claimed ​to ​stand​, ​like l​ itera ​ture
​ ​, ​between
the ​universal ​ideals ​and ​their ​particular ​embodiments​, ​and ​provided ​the ​crucial​,
institutional ​relay ​between ​them​. ​In ​so ​doing​, ​it ​imputed ​the ​nation​'​s ​origin​, ​and ​its
own ​justification ​for ​existence ​as ​a s​ tate​, ​to ​the ​w​ritin​g ​o​f ​nationalism​. ​In ​the ​act ​of
locating ​Rizal​'​s ​texts ​within ​a ​national ​fantasy ​of ​origins​, ​the ​Rizal ​Bill ​established
nationalism​'​s ​origins ​in ​literature ​at ​the ​same ​moment ​that ​it ​claimed ​to ​regulate ​lit
erature ​in ​the ​name ​of ​the ​nation​.
This ​move ​on ​the ​part ​of ​the ​state​, ​however​, ​could ​not ​appear ​as ​a ​full bridging ​of
the ​gap b
​ etween ​nationalist ​ideals ​and ​Philippine ​reality ​because ​these p
​ ositive ​values ​of
freedom ​and ​nationalism ​always ​need ​to ​be ​invoked​, ​rededicated​, ​and i​ nculcated ​in ​the
minds ​and ​actions ​of ​different ​generations ​of ​Filipinos​. ​Moreover​, ​writings ​are ​subject ​to
the ​working ​of ​language​, ​which ​generates ​multiple ​readings ​over ​generations​. ​In ​the ​face ​of
the ​destabilizing ​effects ​of ​history ​and ​language​, ​each ​gen ​eration ​can ​only ​find ​itself ​a
potential​, ​rather ​than ​actual​, ​bearer ​of ​values ​that ​have ​to ​be ​reaffirmed​, ​and ​that ​can
end ​up ​being ​challenged​, ​by ​intermittent ​rereadings o ​ f ​the ​"​constant ​and ​inspiring
source ​of ​patrio ​tism​.​" ​What ​the ​law ​inaugurated ​was ​therefore ​not ​a ​single ​reading​, ​but
constant ​reading​, ​a ​history ​of ​certain ​kinds ​of reading​.
Furthermore​, ​the ​bill​'s​ ​concession ​to ​the ​"​external​" ​interests ​the ​Church
represented​—​which ​accounted ​for ​the ​provision ​in ​the ​bill ​that ​exempted ​"​students
[​from ​reading ​Rizal​'​s ​novels​) ​for ​reasons ​of religious belief​"​-​-​was ​solid ​evidence ​of ​the
fact ​that ​the ​law​, ​far ​from ​being ​neu ​tral​, ​was ​engendered ​from ​competing​, ​antagonistic
interests​. ​This ​is ​ironic ​given ​that ​the ​entire ​Filipino ​nation​, ​and ​not ​just ​factions ​comprising ​the
4
Necessary ​Fictions
Introduction ​a​u ​5

nation​, ​was ​supposed ​to ​"​remember ​with ​special ​fondness ​and ​devotion​" ​the ​dead
heroes ​who ​had ​lived ​and ​died ​for ​the ​ideals​.
Memorializing ​"​fondness ​and ​devotion​” ​implied ​a ​positive ​evaluation ​of ​the ​present ​over ​the
past ​(​cf​. ​Koselleck ​1985​, 233​-​46​)​; ​they ​also ​envi ​sioned ​an ​as​-​yet ​indeterminate ​future
for ​the ​nation​, ​a ​future ​that ​nevertheless ​represented an ​improvement ​over ​the ​present​.
Yet ​this ​op ​timistic ​view ​of ​the ​Filipino ​nation​'​s ​present ​and ​future ​was ​also ​shadowed ​by
a ​sense ​of ​deep unease ​about ​the ​very ​promise ​of ​transcendence ​and ​freedom ​on
which ​the ​progress ​of ​the ​nation ​was ​premised​. ​The ​move ​to ​institutionalize ​the ​reading
of ​Rizal​, ​in ​fact, ​quickly ​became ​an arena ​where ​the ​newly ​"​independent​” ​Philippine
state ​attempted ​to ​intervene ​in​, ​and ​shape​, ​public ​debate ​over ​the ​nation​'​s ​status ​and
meaning ​in ​the ​face ​of ​the ​visible ​presence ​and ​power ​of ​the ​Church ​in ​Filipino ​politics​;
in ​the ​face ​of ​continued ​American ​influence ​on ​Philippine ​economic​, ​interna ​tional​, ​and
domestic ​policies​; ​and​, ​most ​tellingly​, ​in ​the ​face ​of ​the ​still ​vivid ​memories ​of ​the ​direct
challenges ​posed ​by ​the ​popular ​national ​ism ​of ​the ​Huk ​movement ​(​Schirmer ​and
Shalom ​1987​, ​87​-​103​; ​T​. ​Rivera ​1994​, ​110​-​24​; ​Payer ​1974​, ​61​; ​Kerkvliet ​1979​, ​249​-​69​;
Taruc ​1953​; ​Pomeroy 1 ​ 963​; ​Lachica ​1971​)​.
The ​Rizal ​Bill ​was ​the ​legal ​handmaiden ​of ​a ​Philippine ​state ​that ​sought ​to ​regulate
education ​to ​accomplish ​its ​declared ​task of ​develop ​ing ​“​moral ​character​, ​personal
discipline​, ​civic ​conscience ​and​.​.​. ​teach​[​ing​] ​the ​duties ​of ​citizenship​.​" ​Strangely ​enough​,
making ​Rizal ​and ​his ​ideas ​compulsory ​reading ​seemed ​at ​once ​urgent ​and
superfluous​, ​given ​a ​"​national​” ​space ​that ​was ​already ​quite ​literally ​filled ​with ​signs o ​ f
Rizal ​and ​other objectified ​"​products​” ​of ​national ​culture​. ​The ​government ​had ​already
spent ​thousands ​of ​pesos ​building ​monuments ​in ​Rizal​'​s ​honor​, ​naming ​streets ​and ​a
province ​after ​him​, ​declaring ​his ​death ​anniversary ​a ​public ​holiday​, ​and ​presiding ​over
celebrations ​in ​his ​memory​. ​Rizal​'​s ​photographs ​graced ​every ​classroom​, ​and ​appeared
on ​money​, ​stamps​, ​and ​buses​.
The ​sad ​fact ​was ​that ​Rizal ​was ​visible ​everywhere​, ​but ​largely ​un ​read​. ​The ​Rizal ​Bill
was ​clearly ​aimed ​at ​closing the ​last ​frontier​—​the ​"​content​" ​of ​Rizal​'​s ​life ​and
works​—​which ​needed ​to ​be ​mapped ​by ​a ​state ​that ​had filled ​every ​space ​of ​national
life with signs ​of ​Rizal ​(​Locsin ​1956a​, ​70​)​. ​The ​bill ​was​, ​in ​an ​important ​sense​, ​the
logical ​outcome ​of ​an ​apparent ​paradox ​that ​underlay​, ​and ​continues ​to ​inform​, ​literary
production ​in the ​Philippines​: ​Literature ​has ​no ​place ​in ​Philippine ​ev ​eryday ​life ​and
culture​, ​since ​few ​Filipinos ​read ​it​; ​yet ​literature ​is ​invested ​with ​a ​great ​deal ​of ​social​,
indeed ​subversive​, ​significance ​since ​it ​is
viewed​, and ​taught ​in ​the ​schools​, ​as ​a ​document ​of ​the ​achievements​, ​development​, ​and
transformation ​of ​Philippine ​society​, ​culture​, ​and ​nation​. ​Literature​'​s ​"​radical​"
potential ​is ​premised ​on ​the ​ability ​of ​liter ​ary ​works ​to ​offer ​new ​insights ​into ​a ​given
society​, ​on ​the ​power ​of ​literature ​to ​illuminate ​a ​set ​of ​issues ​or ​questions ​central ​to ​the
Filipino ​people​'​s ​experience​.
But ​in ​extending ​the ​disciplinary ​boundaries ​of ​state ​action ​into ​the ​tenching ​of ​literature​,
Filipino ​lawmakers ​had ​to ​confront ​the ​danger i​ nherent ​in ​reading ​Rizal​. ​This ​danger ​lay ​in
two ​things​: ​to ​be ​read ​meant ​being ​read ​unavoidably ​in ​different ​ways​; ​and ​different ​ways ​of
reading ​are ​ideological​, ​and ​therefore ​political​.
The ​debate ​over ​Rizal​'s ​readability ​arose ​from ​the ​Church​'​s ​insistence ​that ​Rizal​'​s
satirical ​jabs ​at ​friar ​abuses​, ​simony​, ​Purgatory​, ​and ​other ​practices ​and ​beliefs ​were ​the
rantings ​of a​ ​heretic​. ​One ​of ​the ​ways ​in ​which a​ dvocates ​of the ​Rizal B
​ ill ​managed ​to
curtail ​this a​ ttack ​was ​by ​arguing ​that ​Rizal​'​s ​novels ​belonged ​in ​the p​ ast​, ​and ​spoke
​ bout ​the ​past​. ​Wrote ​journalist Teodoro ​M​. ​Locsin​:
essentially a

Many ​of ​the ​passages ​in ​Rizal​'s​ ​novels ​which the ​Catholic hierarchy ​finds ​so
shocking​, ​so ​objectionable​, ​would ​take ​on ​a ​new​, ​a ​more ​comfortable ​meaning ​if ​read ​in
the ​context ​of ​the ​novels​, ​against ​the ​background ​of ​the ​life of ​the ​hero​. ​“​These ​are ​the
conditions ​that ​estranged ​Rizal ​from ​the ​Church​,​" ​a ​Catholic ​instructor ​might ​begin
a ​course ​on ​the ​writer​. ​"​These ​conditions ​no ​longer ​exist​. ​The ​abuses ​are ​gone​. ​In ​his ​place ​you
​ e ​wrote​.​" ​(​Locsin ​1956d​, ​63​)
might ​have ​felt ​as ​he ​did​, ​written ​what h

(​A ​"​radio ​wit​" ​was ​quoted ​as ​saying​: ​"​Rizal ​is ​dead​. ​Why ​should ​he be ​roused ​from ​his ​sleep​?
Let ​him ​rest ​in ​peace​" ​(​see ​Locsin ​1956c​, ​70​]​)​. ​bo ​The ​Filipino ​reader ​was ​asked ​to ​identify
with ​Rizal ​by ​relocating ​herself, ​and ​Rizal​, ​in ​the ​distant ​past​: ​"​Rizal​, ​after ​all​, ​is ​not ​so
dangerous ​to ​read​; ​he ​is ​not ​as o ​ verpowering ​as ​he ​seems​. ​He ​wrote ​of ​other
times​, ​other ​things​.​.​.​No ​man​, ​reading ​the ​novels ​of ​Rizal​, ​would ​confuse ​the ​humble
missionary ​laboring ​among ​the ​heathen ​or ​comforting ​the ​lepers ​with ​the ​degenerate ​friars
of ​Rizal​'​s ​time​" ​(​Locsin ​1956d​, 62​)​. ​These ​re ​marks ​were ​clearly ​intended ​to ​neutralize
the ​more ​upsetting ​strands ​of ​thought ​in ​Rizal​'​s ​novels ​and ​locate ​the ​"real​" ​Filipino
(​now ​viewed ​as ​an ​ethnic​- ​"cultural​”​—​entity​) ​outside ​the ​ambit ​of ​criticism a ​ nd
satire​, ​which ​are ​now ​reserved ​for ​degenerate ​foreigners ​and f​ ormer ​colonizers​.
Yet ​the ​memorializing ​impulse ​inevitably ​came ​up ​against ​the ​issue ​of ​Rizal​'​s
continued ​relevance​, ​for ​how ​would ​his ​novels ​remain ​a ​"​constant ​and
6
Necessary ​Fictions
Introduction ​o​n ​7

inspiring source ​of ​patriotism​” ​if ​the ​degenerate ​foreigners ​and ​friars ​were ​no ​longer
around​?
Where ​Locsin ​would ​seek ​to ​dissociate ​Rizal ​from ​the ​disquieting ​present​, ​Manila ​mayor
Arsenio ​Lacson ​imagined ​"​a ​new ​breed ​of ​Filipi ​nos​”​-​the ​"​descendants ​of ​the ​frailes ​and
the ​guardia c​ ivil”​ ​(​Locsin ​1956a​, ​71​)​, ​"​colonial​-​minded ​people ​who​, ​fronting ​for ​their
alien ​masters​, ​would ​shackle ​the ​minds ​of ​our ​youth ​with ​the ​fetters ​of ​artificial
prejudice​, ​of ​artificial ​ignorance​, ​and ​of ​artificial ​imbecility​.​.​.​The ​evils ​that Rizal ​de
nounced ​exist ​very ​much ​to ​this ​day​, ​though ​it ​[​si​c​] ​may be ​in ​a ​modified ​form​, ​and
those ​countrymen ​of ​his ​who ​set ​such ​a ​high ​premium ​on ​their ​animal ​comforts ​are ​very
much ​alive ​and ​with ​us ​today​, ​together ​with ​their ​alien ​masters ​still ​as ​bigoted ​and
intolerant ​as ​of ​old​” ​(​Locsin ​1956b​, ​34​)​. ​The ​idea ​here ​was ​to underscore ​continued
foreign ​domination​, ​in ​however ​“​modified​" ​a ​form​, ​and ​its ​threat ​to ​national ​sovereignty​.
The ​controversy ​over ​how ​to ​read ​Rizal ​points ​up ​the ​salient ​but ​problematic ​coupling ​of
literature ​and ​nationalism ​because ​it ​discloses ​the ​antinomies ​of ​the ​national ​attempt ​to
memorialize​, ​and ​at ​the ​same ​time ​engage ​with​, ​Rizal ​and ​his ​works​. ​For ​to ​admit ​the
continuing ​rele ​vance ​of ​Rizal ​and ​other ​national ​heroes ​to ​the ​present ​is ​to ​admit ​that
the ​vicissitudes of ​the ​nation​'​s ​history ​necessarily ​complicate ​the ​ideals ​of ​freedom ​and
progress ​to ​which ​the ​nation ​aspires​. ​In ​attempting ​to ​locate ​the ​origin ​of ​the ​nation​, ​the
Rizal ​Bill ​only ​testifies to ​the ​impos ​sibility ​of memorializing ​the ​"​beginning​" ​o​f ​a
Philippine ​nationalism ​that​, ​like ​the ​writing ​of ​that ​nationalism​, ​is ​haunted ​by ​Philippine
history​.
This ​book ​argues ​that ​the ​importance ​Philippine ​nationalism ​accorded ​to ​literature​, ​and ​vice
versa​, ​is ​founded ​on ​two ​presuppositions​: ​the ​ca ​pacity ​of ​literature ​to ​represent ​history
truthfully​, ​and ​the ​capacity ​of ​literature ​to ​intervene in ​history​. ​But t​ here ​is ​also ​something
about ​ev ​eryday ​life ​and ​experience ​that ​is ​always ​in ​excess ​of ​the ​systems ​of ​thought ​and
​ nd ​organize ​it​. ​In ​this ​sense​, ​we ​can ​speak ​of
sociopolitical ​action ​that ​seek ​to ​apprehend a
life ​as ​contingent​, ​as ​being ​subject ​to ​chance ​and ​circumstance​. ​Yet ​the
contingencies ​of ​everyday ​life ​neither ​vitiate ​the ​need ​for ​decision​-​making ​and
political ​action​, ​nor disable ​us ​from ​having ​to ​deal ​with ​what ​can ​happen ​and ​what ​actually
does ​happen​. ​This excess​, ​rather​, ​is ​the ​condition ​of ​possibility ​of ​both ​literature ​and ​politics
because ​no ​writing ​or ​political p​ rogram ​can exhaust ​the ​possi ​bilities ​of ​the ​social
reality ​it ​seeks ​to ​engage​. ​The ​nationalist ​project ​is ​always ​unfinished ​because
literature ​and ​politics ​can ​only ​generate ​more ​writing ​and ​action​. ​The ​space ​in ​which
writing ​and ​action ​unfold ​is ​opened ​up​, ​if ​not ​necessitated​, ​by ​the ​excess ​that ​slips ​their ​grasp​.
Be c​ ause ​the ​excess ​exists​, ​writing ​and ​action ​cannot ​end​.
Although ​nationalist ​thought ​and practice ​generate ​"​excesses​” ​that ​necessarily
complicate ​the ​project ​of ​theorizing ​literature as ​an ​impor ​tant ​means ​of ​representing
and ​realizing ​Philippine ​history​, ​this ​book ​goes ​against ​the ​grain ​of
"​poststructuralist​" ​disavowals ​of ​the ​nation ​(​Bhabha ​1990​, ​1​-​7​)​, ​because ​its ​main
arguments ​entail ​the ​recognition ​that ​these ​excesses ​are ​not ​just ​engendered by ​the
productive ​violence​" o ​ f ​the ​nationalist ​project ​in ​the ​sense ​that ​they ​are ​the ​necessary
by ​products ​of ​different ​nationalist ​projects ​of ​imagining ​and ​making ​community​. ​Instead​,
these ​excesses ​are ​a ​constitutive ​feature of ​nation ​making​, ​an ​irreducible ​component of ​the
nationalist project ​of ​making ​community​.
Theorizing ​this ​excess ​demands ​nothing ​less than ​looking ​into ​the ​conditions ​of
possibility ​of ​the ​nationalist ​project ​and ​the ​ethical ​impera ​tive ​toward ​social ​change
that ​is ​its ​core ​principle​. ​Transcribing ​the ​logic ​of ​nationalist ​"​excess​” ​enables ​us ​to
plot ​the ​career ​of ​various ​intellectual ​and ​sociopolitical ​projects ​undertaken ​by ​Filipino
nationalists ​after ​the ​Second ​World ​War​. ​The ​term ​"​excess​,​" ​therefore​, ​does ​not ​simply
refer ​to ​the ​contradictions ​or ​ambivalences ​at ​the ​heart ​of ​nationalist ​discourse​. ​Rather​,
these ​conceptual ​"​failures​" ​(​often ​taking ​the ​form ​of ​"​contamina ​tion​" ​of ​one ​idea ​by
what ​it ​excludes​)​, ​point ​to ​irreducible ​claims exercised ​on ​us ​by ​our ​history ​and ​our
implication ​in ​a ​world​, ​both ​of ​our ​making ​and ​not ​of ​our ​making​. ​This​, ​in ​turn​, ​demands
a ​more ​rigorous ​examina ​tion ​of ​the ​Filipinos​' ​capacities ​and ​limits ​as ​subjects ​of ​history ​and ​a
This ​book ​deals ​with ​the ​problem ​of ​freedom ​in ​postindependence ​Philippines​, ​and ​with
the ​role ​played ​by ​"​culture​” ​in ​positing ​social ​change ​as ​a ​historical ​possibility ​and
imperative​. ​In ​particular​, ​it ​is ​concerned ​with ​the ​ways ​in ​which ​Philippine ​literature
formulated ​and ​worked ​through ​the ​historical ​legacies ​of ​the ​colonial ​past ​and
historically ​deter ​mined ​problems ​of ​the ​present​.
Necessary ​Fictions ​argues ​in ​favor ​of ​a ​long​-​standing ​affinity ​between ​literature ​and
nationalism ​on ​the ​basis ​of ​a ​common ​fund ​of ​ideas and ​concerns ​dealing ​with ​the
possibility ​and ​necessity ​of ​social change​. ​It ​also ​examines ​the ​intimate ​connection
between ​literature ​and ​national ​ism ​through ​the ​notion ​of ​"​excess​,​" ​a ​term ​that ​will ​be
used ​in ​this ​book ​to ​refer ​to ​the ​heterogeneous ​elements​—​"​the ​people​,​" ​"​the
indigenous​,​" ​"​the ​Chinese​,​" ​"​the ​political​," ​and ​"​error​"​—​that ​inform​, ​but ​also ​exceed​,
nationalist ​attempts ​to ​grasp​, ​intellectually ​and ​politically​, ​the ​complex ​realities ​at ​work
in ​Philippine ​society​.
8
Necessary ​Fictions
Introduction
9

more ​nuanced ​conception ​and ​analysis ​of ​the ​shifting ​material ​forces ​within ​which ​the
Philippine ​nation​-​state ​takes ​shape​.
The ​concept ​of ​"​excess​" ​has ​important implications ​for ​literary ​pro ​duction​, ​not ​least
because ​for ​a ​country ​that has ​lived ​through ​nearly ​four ​centuries ​of ​Spanish ​rule​, ​fifty
years ​of ​American ​"​tutelage​,​" ​and ​five ​years ​of ​Japanese ​occupation​, ​formal
independence ​makes ​the ​question ​of ​social ​transformation ​a ​real ​theoretical ​and
practical ​problem​. ​More ​over​, ​it ​is ​a ​theoretical ​and ​practical ​problem ​in ​which ​"​culture​"
plays ​a ​crucial​, ​enabling role​. ​That ​is​, ​the ​multifarious ​meanings ​of ​"​culture​" ​provide ​a
way ​of ​talking about ​the ​problem ​of ​effecting ​social ​change ​and​, ​more important​,
"​culture​" ​itself ​is ​often ​held ​to ​provide ​a ​potential ​solution ​to ​that ​problem​.
What ​is ​and what ​should ​be ​the ​basis ​of ​political ​action ​that ​aims ​at ​transforming
society​? ​How ​does ​culture ​(​and ​literature​) ​formulate ​an ​account ​of ​political ​action ​and
help ​to ​actualize ​it​?
Two ​things ​can ​be ​said ​about ​the ​way ​in ​which ​the ​question ​of ​social ​transformation ​has
been ​understood ​in ​the ​Philippines​. ​First​: ​this ​ques ​tion ​is ​usually ​conceived ​in ​terms ​of
a ​specific ​ordering ​of ​the ​relationship ​between ​truth ​and ​action​. ​The ​imperative ​for ​social
change ​is ​often ​posed ​as ​a ​"​problem ​of ​nationalist​) ​consciousness​,​" ​that ​is​, ​it ​posits ​a
nation ​that can ​be ​actualized ​by ​a ​subject ​whose ​capacity ​to ​tranform ​her ​so ​ciety ​is
informed ​by ​her ​knowledge ​of ​her ​country​'​s ​"​true​" ​history​, ​condition​, ​and ​course ​of
development​. ​Second​: ​social ​change ​is ​premised ​on ​powerful ​norms ​of ​freedom​,
self​-​determination​, ​and ​development​, ​most ​often ​encapsulated ​in ​the ​pedagogical
associations ​surrounding ​the ​term ​"​culture​.​" ​These ​two​, ​interrelated ​ways ​of ​conceiving
of ​political ​agency ​are ​fairly ​common ​motifs ​in ​nationalist ​discourses ​(​Bennett ​1991​;
Eagleton ​1988​, ​28​–​29​)​.
Anticolonial ​nationalist ​literature​, ​in ​fact​, ​yokes ​together ​two ​power ​ful ​imperatives​—​the
imperative ​to ​truth​, ​and ​the ​imperative ​to ​action​. ​These ​twin ​imperatives ​informing
nationalist ​literature ​also ​circumscribe nationalist ​understanding ​of ​history​. ​Not ​only ​is
history ​a ​matter ​of ​rep ​resentation​, ​of ​how ​to ​write ​and ​construct ​the ​country​'​s ​past​;
history ​is ​also ​a ​matter ​of ​action​, ​of making ​that ​history ​and ​constructing ​the ​country​'​s
future​. ​The ​relationship ​between ​literature ​and ​history ​is ​from ​the ​beginning ​more ​than
just ​a ​matter ​of ​congruence​—​theirs ​is ​a ​mutu ​ally ​determining ​relation​, ​one ​taking ​shape
in ​and ​through ​the ​other​.
But​, ​for ​that ​very ​reason​, ​theirs ​is ​also ​a ​relation ​that ​is ​fraught ​with ​considerable ​anxiety
and ​ambiguity​, ​for ​how​, ​precisely​, ​does ​one ​move ​from ​knowledge ​to ​action​? ​How ​does
truth ​relate ​to ​action​? ​Elaborating
the ​link ​between ​truth ​and ​action ​has ​important ​implications ​for ​theo ​rizing ​the
connection ​between ​literature ​and ​history​. ​What ​is ​the ​relationship ​between ​the
real ​and ​fictional​? ​the ​historical ​and ​literary​? ​historical ​truth ​and ​fictional ​truth​? ​This
book ​is ​itself ​an ​attempt ​to ​specify ​the ​link ​between ​literature ​and ​history​. ​It ​focuses ​on
literary ​texts ​because ​literature ​crystallizes ​the ​above ​issues​, ​because ​its ​"​content​" ​often
explicitly ​deals with ​or works ​through ​these ​questions​, ​and ​be ​cause ​literature ​itself ​has ​been
historically ​deployed ​in ​various ​ways t​ o ​organize ​and ​interrogate ​the ​relationship
between ​thought ​and ​action ​in ​contemporary ​Philippines​.
This ​book ​is ​structured ​according ​to ​a ​set ​of ​intertwined ​ques ​tions​: ​How ​does
reading ​literature ​operate ​as ​part o ​ f ​an ​“​ethical ​technology​" ​for ​making ​proper
historical ​subjects ​out ​of t​ he ​Filipino p ​ eople​? ​How ​does ​literature “​represent​” ​(​in
both ​artistic ​and ​political ​senses ​of ​the ​word​) ​the ​"​true​" ​Filipino ​national
community​? ​How ​does ​literature ​address​, ​and resolve​, ​the ​problem ​posed ​by ​the
foreign​, ​es ​pecially ​colonial​, ​"​influences​" ​on ​Philippine ​national ​culture​? ​How ​does
literature ​imagine ​the ​"​foreigner​" ​within ​the ​Filipino ​nation? ​How ​does ​literature
forge ​the ​link ​between ​the ​personal ​and ​political​? ​How ​does ​literature ​rethink ​the
relationship ​between ​revolutionary ​theory ​and ​practice​?
Since ​each chapter ​will ​explore ​one ​question ​or ​aspect ​of ​the ​issue​, ​this ​book
does ​not ​pretend ​to ​offer ​a ​genealogy ​of ​modern ​Philippine ​fiction​. ​The ​literary
chronology ​of ​this ​book ​begins ​with ​Rizal​'​s ​N​oli ​me t​ anger​e ​and ​ends​, ​almost ​a
century ​later​, ​with ​Posadas​'s ​Hulagpos.​ ​Hulagpos'​ ​s ​reformulation ​of ​the
relationship ​between ​nationalist ​con ​sciousness ​and ​transformative ​action ​represents
both ​a ​culmination ​of ​the ​literary ​tradition​, ​of ​which R
​ izal​'​s ​novels ​are ​considered ​the
founding ​work​, ​and ​a ​significant ​departure ​from t​ he ​mode ​of ​literary ​production
and ​reception ​hitherto ​obtaining ​in ​the ​Philippines​.
It ​should ​be ​noted ​that ​with ​the ​possible ​exception ​of ​the ​under ​ground ​novel
Hulagpos​ ​, ​the ​literary ​texts ​under ​discussion ​were ​written ​by ​people ​whose ​works
enjoyed ​canonical ​status ​in ​the ​Philippine ​liter ​ary ​and ​educational ​scene​. ​The
longest ​shadow ​is ​no ​doubt ​cast ​by ​José ​Rizal​, ​whose ​two ​novels​, ​required
reading ​in ​every ​high ​school and ​col ​lege ​in ​the ​country​, ​occupy ​a ​privileged
position ​in ​the ​popular ​imagination ​as ​the ​progenitors ​of ​modern ​Philippine
nationalism ​and ​literature​. ​The ​other ​writers​, ​though ​not ​as ​universally ​exalted ​as ​Rizal​,
have ​solid ​public ​reputations​: ​Amado ​Hernandez ​and ​Nick ​Joaquin enjoy ​official
recognition ​as ​national ​artists​, ​while ​Kerima ​Polotan​, ​Carlos
10
Necessary ​Fictions
Introduction
11

Bulosan​, ​Edgardo ​Reyes​, ​and ​Ricardo ​Lee​, ​are ​critically ​acclaimed ​Filipino ​writers ​who
are ​often ​anthologized ​and ​taken u
​ p ​in ​literature ​classes​.
The ​importance ​of ​these ​writers​' ​works​, ​though​, ​does ​not ​rest o ​ n ​their ​canonical
status ​but ​on ​their ​ability ​to i​ lluminate​, ​even ​define​, ​some ​of ​the ​central ​concerns
and ​motifs ​of ​the ​so​-​called ​Philippine ​literary ​tradition ​among ​them ​the ​commingling ​of
literature​, ​history​, ​and ​na ​tionalism​; ​the ​need ​for ​transforming ​consciousness ​and ​society​; ​and
the ​truthful​, ​realistic ​depiction ​of ​Philippine s
​ ociety​. ​This ​is ​not ​to s​ uggest ​that ​all
Philippine ​literary ​works ​are ​preoccupied ​with ​these ​questions​, ​or ​that ​they ​formulate ​these
questions ​in ​the ​same ​way​. ​Nevertheless​, ​there ​exists ​an ​influential ​critical t​ radition ​of
reading ​Philippine ​litera ​ture ​in ​terms ​of ​its ​nationalist ​"​content​" ​and ​its ​"​realistic​" ​depiction
​ hilippine ​society​. ​This ​book ​should ​be ​read ​as ​an ​intervention ​within ​that ​tradition​.
of P
The ​idea ​that ​literature ​is ​necessarily ​shaped ​by ​social ​processes ​and ​has ​a ​social
function ​is ​as ​truistic ​as ​it ​is ​unexamined​. ​Chapter ​one ​looks ​at ​the ​mechanisms
regulating ​a ​concept ​of ​literature ​that ​links ​the ​"​national​(​ist​)​" ​literary ​text​'​s ​truth​-​telling
capacity to ​its ​political ​efficacy​. ​Literature ​is ​deployed ​in ​the ​field ​of ​public ​and ​private
education ​for ​the ​formation ​of ​a ​"​Filipino​" ​subject ​whose ​ability ​to ​act ​in​, ​and ​transform​,
her ​society ​is ​dependent ​on ​her ​acquisition ​of ​knowledge ​pertaining ​to ​her ​nation​'​s
history​, ​present ​condition​, ​and ​future ​course ​of ​development​. ​One ​of ​the ​central
issues ​in ​Philippine ​literature ​has ​been ​the ​question ​of ​whether ​literary ​texts​, ​their
producers​, ​and ​their ​consumers​, ​are ​able ​to ​fulfill ​the ​practical ​social ​function ​of ​rewriting
Philippine ​history ​by ​transforming ​collective ​consciousness ​and ​spurring ​political ​action
aimed ​at ​social ​change​. ​This ​notion ​of ​literature​'​s ​role ​in ​representing ​and ​making ​history
draws ​its ​main ​impulse ​and ​rhetorical ​charge ​from ​the ​foundational ​premise ​of ​nationalism​,
which ​builds ​on ​a ​"​grand​" ​narra ​tive ​of ​moral ​development ​to ​posit ​a ​self​-​determining ​subject
of ​history​. Such ​an ​assumption ​charts ​the ​nation​'​s ​development ​in t​ erms ​of ​the ​progressive
perfectibility ​of ​human ​faculties ​and ​abilities​, ​and ​the ​tran ​scendence ​of ​nature ​and ​naturalized
constraints​, ​whether ​material​, ​historical​, ​or ​cultural​.
In ​the ​Philippines​, ​however​, ​the ​positing ​of ​a ​self​-​determining​, ​sov ​ereign​, ​and
transcendent ​subject ​of ​history ​is​, ​from ​the ​beginning​, ​complicated ​by ​the ​country​'​s
postindependence ​history​, ​which ​renders t​ he ​rhetoric ​of ​freedom ​and ​sovereignty
especially ​fragile ​and ​dubious​. ​The ​recalcitrance ​of ​Philippine ​"​history​" ​and ​the
material ​constraints ​that ​such ​a ​history ​poses ​on ​the ​Filipino ​national ​subject​'​s ​capacity ​for
trans
formative ​thought ​and ​action ​haunt ​the ​literary ​texts ​under ​discussion ​José ​Rizal​'​s ​N​oli
me t​ angere​, ​Amado ​V​. ​Hernandez​'​s M ​ ga ​Ibong M ​ andaragit,​ N​ ick ​Joaquin​'s ​A ​Portrait o ​ f
the A​ rtist ​as F​ ilipino,​ ​Ricardo ​Lee​'​s ​"​Huwag​! ​Huwag ​Mong ​Kukuwentuhan ​ang ​Batang ​si
Wei​-​fung​!​", ​Edgardo ​Reyes​'​s ​S​a M ​ ​ga K ​ uko ​ng ​Liwanag,​ K ​ erima ​Polotan​'​s ​The H ​ and o ​ f
the E ​ nemy,​ ​Carlos ​Bulosan​'​s ​The ​Cry a ​ nd t​ he D
​ edication​, a
​ nd ​Mano ​de ​Verdades
Posadas​'​s ​Hulagpos.​
Succeeding ​chapters ​will ​take ​up ​and ​elaborate ​on ​this ​"​haunting​" ​of ​Philippine ​literature
by ​Philippine ​history​. ​Chapter ​two ​focuses ​on Rizal​'​s ​Noli m ​ e ​tanger​e​, ​and ​how
subsequent ​generations ​of ​scholars ​have ​used ​Rizal ​and ​his ​novel ​to ​address ​Rizal​'​s
fictional ​delineation ​of ​a ​“​Filipino​" ​knowable ​c​ommunity ​that became ​the ​conceptual
basis ​of the ​Filipino ​nation​. ​Critical ​reception ​of ​the ​Noli​, b ​ oth ​in ​Rizal​'​s ​time ​and
beyond​, ​principally ​concerns ​itself ​with ​the ​problem ​of ​appropriating ​a ​"​modern​" ​that ​is
seen ​as ​having ​a ​“​foreign​" ​and ​"​external​" ​provenance​. ​Rizal​'​s ​nov ​els​, ​by ​deliberately
destabilizing ​the distinction ​between ​the ​real ​and ​fictional​, ​between ​literature ​and
history, ​provided ​the ​basis ​for ​an influ ​ential ​formulation ​of ​the knowable community ​as
an ​indispensable ​component​, ​both ​the ​means ​and ​ends​, ​of ​radical ​political ​imagination
and ​transformation​.
Yet ​Rizal​'​s ​narrative ​project ​of ​rendering ​the ​Filipino ​national ​com ​munity ​knowable ​was
also ​unstable ​and ​tentative​, ​largely ​because ​Rizal​'s ​literary ​project ​of
depicting​-​representing​—​the ​people ​who ​inhabit ​the ​Philippines ​compelled ​the
recognition ​that ​writing ​"​about​" ​the ​Philippines ​always ​meant ​writing ​from ​a p ​ osition.​
That ​is​, ​the ​idea ​of ​writing ​from ​a ​specific ​social ​location necessarily ​implied ​the
existence ​of ​other ​com ​peting ​knowledges and ​perspectives​. ​Furthermore​, ​the ​existence
of ​heterogeneous ​perspectives​, ​embodied ​by ​individuals ​and ​groups ​of ​people​, could
not ​be ​fully ​recuperated ​by ​the ​universalist ​rhetoric ​of development ​and ​freedom ​that
Rizal ​invoked ​in ​his ​depiction ​of ​Philip ​pine ​conditions ​and ​in ​his ​call ​for ​action ​and
self​-​sacrifice​.
Rizal​'​s ​novels ​are ​a ​kind ​of ​“​master​-​narrative​" ​within ​or ​against ​which ​modern ​Philippine
fiction ​attempted ​to ​work ​through ​a ​set ​of ​unresolved ​issues ​relating ​to ​the ​problem ​of
truth ​and ​action ​in ​a ​so ​ciety ​that ​was ​split ​into ​different​, ​contending ​groups ​for ​whom
"​Independence​" ​had ​always ​been ​a ​tendentious ​issue​. ​Chapter ​three ​subjects
nationalist ​theorizing ​of ​the ​“​foreign​" ​provenance ​of ​Filipino ​culture ​to ​closer ​scrutiny
through ​a ​reading ​of ​Jose ​Rizal​'​s ​Noli m​ e ​tan ​gere ​and ​Nick ​Joaquin​'​s ​A P
​ ortrait o
​ f t​ he
Artist ​as F
​ ilipino.​ ​The ​exposition ​in ​Portrait o
​ f ​a ​theory ​of ​art​—​the ​exemplary
embodiment ​of ​culture ​that ​provides ​the ​"​solution​" ​to ​the ​tendentious ​issue ​of ​the
"​foreign
12
Necessary ​Fictions
Introduction
13

influences​" ​on ​Filipino ​national ​culture ​resonates ​with ​the ​so​-​called ​lin ​guistic ​and ​cultural turns
in ​the ​field ​of ​historiography ​in t​ he ​social ​sciences​. ​The ​historiographical ​turn ​toward
increased ​attention ​to ​the ​study ​of ​culture ​and ​language​-​of ​which R
​ eynaldo ​C​.
Ileto​'​s ​Pasyon ​and R
​ evolution ​is ​an e ​ xemplary ​articulation​—​was ​instrumental ​in
proposing ​the ​idea ​of ​a ​reinvigorated ​(​and ​reinvigorating​) ​Philippine ​"​culture​" ​as ​a
solution ​to ​the ​problem ​of ​social ​divisions t​ hat ​haunt ​Philippine ​reality ​and ​the ​writing ​of ​its
history​. ​Historiographical ​scholarship ​after ​the ​war ​thus ​shared ​with ​Joaquin ​an ​abiding
faith ​in ​the ​ability ​of ​"​Filipino ​culture​" ​to ​heal ​the ​rift ​created ​by ​social ​divisions ​and
the ​historical ​experience ​of ​social fragmentation ​and ​conflict.
What ​is ​especially interesting ​about ​the ​travails ​of ​nationhood during ​the ​postwar ​years ​is ​the
extent ​to ​which ​they ​were ​internalized ​and ​given ​a ​specifically ​local ​or ​"​native​" ​cast ​in
literary ​works ​such ​as ​Nick ​Joaquin​'s​ ​Portrait o ​ f t​ he A
​ rtist a
​ sF
​ ilipino (​ ​and ​Kerima ​Polotan​'​s
The ​Hand ​of ​the ​Enemy​ ​, ​which ​will ​be ​discussed ​in ​chapter ​five​) ​so ​that ​the ​problem ​of
modern ​Philippine ​history ​consists ​not ​only ​of ​the ​Philippines​' ​continu ​ing ​subordination ​to
American ​domestic ​and ​foreign ​policies​, ​but ​the ​internal ​haunting ​of ​the ​Filipino ​nation ​by ​its
​ y ​the ​heterogeneous ​elements ​within t​ he ​Philippine
suppressed ​"​others​"​, b
nation​-​state ​that ​have been ​excluded ​or ​marginalized ​in ​the ​name ​of ​the ​nation​.
Chapter ​four ​pro ​vides ​one ​such ​case ​study ​involving ​the ​"​alien ​Chinese​" ​and ​offers ​a
historical ​elaboration ​and ​theoretical c​ ritique ​of ​the ​discursive construc ​tion ​of ​the
"​Chinese​" ​in ​Philippine ​literature​. ​It ​argues ​that the ​literary ​figure ​of ​the ​"​Chinese​" ​is
fundamentally ​shaped ​by ​a ​set o ​ f ​unresolved ​questions​-​focusing ​mainly ​on ​the
conflictive​, ​ambiguous ​relationship ​be ​tween ​citizenship ​and ​class​, ​between ​formal
political equality ​and ​actual economic ​inequality​—​that ​define ​and ​organize ​nationalist
discourse ​and ​practice​. ​This ​conflictive ​relationship​, ​in ​which the ​state ​plays ​a ​deter
mining ​role​, ​is ​principally ​expressed​, ​both ​inside ​and ​outside ​literature​, ​in ​terms ​of ​the
nationalist attempt ​to ​"​fix​" ​the Chinese​'​s ​problematic ​re ​lationship ​to ​the ​Philippine ​state
and ​their ​equally ​ambivalent ​position ​within ​the ​Filipino ​nation​. ​This ​chapter ​limns ​the
trajectory ​of ​literary ​interventions ​that ​seek ​to ​work ​through ​the ​"​placing​" ​of ​the ​Chinese ​both
within ​and ​outside the ​imagined ​“​unity​" ​of ​the ​Filipino ​nation​.
Chapter ​five ​proffers ​a critique ​of ​authorial ​discourse ​and ​the ​way ​it ​theorizes ​and
organizes ​the r​ elationship ​between ​the ​individual ​and ​so ​ciety​. ​Through ​a ​reading ​of K
​ erima
​ he H
Polotan​'​s T ​ and o​ f ​the ​Enem​y ​and ​of ​Kerima ​Polotan ​herself ​as ​an ​author w ​ hose
career ​is ​haunted ​by ​her ​active ​collaboration ​with ​the ​Marcos ​regime​, ​this ​chapter ​examines
the
mutual ​constitution ​of ​the ​personal ​and ​political ​and ​its ​implication ​for ​reconceiving ​the
boundaries ​that ​separate ​the ​author ​from ​her ​text​, ​and ​the ​writer ​from ​the ​society ​in
which ​she ​lives​.
Chapter ​six ​discusses ​an ​alternative ​formulation ​of ​the ​same ​relation ​ship ​between ​the
personal ​and ​political ​in ​the ​discourse ​of ​the ​"​unfinished ​revolution​,​" ​using​, ​as ​its ​guide​,
Carlos ​Bulosan​'​s ​unfinished ​novel ​The ​Cr​y ​a​nd ​the ​Dedication.​ B ​ ulosan​'​s ​novel
provides ​a ​richly ​suggestive ​render ​ing ​of ​the ​need ​for ​a ​program ​of collective ​struggle
for ​social ​change ​that ​in ​nevertheless ​sensitive ​to ​the ​contingencies ​of ​concrete
practices ​in ​everyday ​life​. ​Bulosan​'​s ​novel ​provides ​a ​powerful ​argument ​for ​a ​con
text​-​specific ​and ​nonidealized ​account of ​the ​struggle ​for ​national ​liberation ​and ​the
naturalized ​constraints ​and ​possibilities ​of ​thought ​and ​action ​that ​are ​the ​bases ​of
revolutionary ​struggle​.
Chapter ​seven ​concentrates ​on ​the ​underground ​nove​l H ​ ulagpos,​ w ​ hich ​locates ​itself
within ​the ​Rizal ​tradition ​and ​deals ​with the ​question ​of ​intellectual ​work ​and ​political
activism ​within ​the ​historically ​specific ​context ​of ​collective ​struggle ​against ​the ​Marcos
regime ​during ​the ​late ​1970s ​and ​early ​1980s​. H ​ ulagpos'​ ​s ​Marxist​-​inspired ​reformulation
of ​the ​relationship ​between ​knowledge and ​political ​action ​is ​couched ​in ​the ​language ​of
a ​"​corrective​" ​theory ​of ​pedagogy ​and ​political ​practice ​not ​unlike ​the ​"​ethical
technology​" ​at ​work ​in ​classrooms ​during ​the ​post ​war ​period​. ​But ​Hulagpos c​ an ​also ​be
read ​as ​a ​critique ​of ​the ​dominant ​conception ​of ​the ​relationship ​between ​truth ​and
action​, ​a ​conception ​that ​presupposes ​an ​idealized ​account ​of ​human ​agency​. ​The
question ​of ​human ​error ​the ​novel ​raises ​and ​the ​specific ​literary ​practices ​within ​the
underground ​movement ​that ​produced ​the ​novel ​provide ​insights ​into ​how ​a
reconceptualized ​theory ​of ​literature ​can ​be ​deployed ​in ​a ​way ​that ​can ​potentially
redefine​, ​by ​offering ​a ​more ​rigorous ​account ​of​, ​the ​social ​mature ​and ​function ​of
literature​.
Analyzing ​the ​social ​nature ​and ​function ​of ​Philippine ​literature forces ​us ​to ​attend ​to ​the
ways ​in ​which ​truth ​and ​action ​are ​conceived​, ​and ​by ​specific ​classes ​of ​people. ​It ​also
traces ​the ​contours ​of ​various ​discursive ​regimes​, ​and ​the ​procedures ​and ​institutions
that ​regulate ​literature​'​s ​mediating ​role ​in ​organizing ​the ​relationship ​between
knowledge ​and ​action​. ​These ​determine​, ​in ​crucial ​ways​, ​the kinds ​of ​action ​and ​theoriz
ing ​available ​to ​Filipinos ​at ​a ​given ​period ​of ​time​. ​By ​advancing ​these ​arguments​,
N​ecessary ​Fictions ​aims ​to ​reconstruct ​the literary ​text​'​s ​place ​in ​society ​and ​ascertain
the ​difference ​literature ​makes ​in ​transforming ​Filipino ​understanding ​of ​the ​past ​and
present​, ​and ​in ​transforming ​Fili ​pino ​society ​itself​.
14
Necessary ​Fictions

To ​this ​effect​, ​I ​have taken ​the ​liberty ​of ​expanding ​the ​concept ​of ​literary ​analysis
by ​concentrating ​not ​just ​on ​the ​study ​of ​literary ​texts ​but ​of ​literary ​reception​, ​and ​on
tracking ​Philippine ​"​literary ​theory​" ​to ​its ​sources ​inside ​and ​outside ​the ​discipline ​of ​literary
studies​. ​The ​inten ​tion ​behind ​this ​book​'​s ​deliberate ​juxtaposing ​of ​textual​, ​theoretical​,
and h​ istorical ​analyses ​is ​to ​highlight ​the ​interconnection ​between ​literary ​studies
and ​other ​disciplines ​and ​show that ​the writing ​and ​theorizing ​of ​literature ​do ​not ​take ​place ​in
a ​social​, ​political​, ​and ​theoretical ​vacuum​.
As ​Raymond ​Williams ​has ​argued​: ​“​[​W​]​e ​need ​a ​more ​than ordinary ​awareness of ​the ​presence
​ ented ​entirely ​by ​description ​as ​'​background​.
of ​active ​and ​general ​life ​which ​is ​misrepre s
There ​are ​no ​backgrounds ​in ​society​; ​there ​are ​only ​relations ​of ​acts ​and ​forces​"
(​Williams ​1953​, ​245​)​. ​Literature ​can ​teach ​its ​readers ​much ​about ​Filipino ​society
even ​as ​it ​is a
​ lso ​a ​social ​artifact s​ haped ​by ​the ​society ​it ​seeks ​to ​represent​. ​Demon ​strating
an ​alternative ​practice ​of ​reading ​literature ​that ​is ​sensitive ​to ​the ​complex ​interactions
among ​the ​textual​, ​conceptual​, ​and ​historical ​dimensions ​of ​analysis ​is ​the ​inevitable
first ​step ​of ​any ​endeavor ​seeking ​to ​question ​the ​assumptions ​informing ​the ​very
boundaries ​that ​deter ​mine ​what ​is ​"​inside​" ​and ​"​outside​" ​the ​literary ​text​.

You might also like