Otherwise Maladroit

02 February 2000 Reaction Paper: Rizal and the Philippine Revolution by Teodoro A. Agoncillo

02 February 2000

Reaction Paper: Rizal and the Philippine Revolution by Teodoro A. Agoncillo

Rizal's prerequisite of education for the masses, and his preoccupation with order in society seems too boxed in bourgeois ideals. The type of education Rizal was seeking for his fellowmen was in my interpretation an expensive ilustrado education. As the conditions of the time lent, this was not possible since the colonial administration and the majority of the rich Filipinos, from whom the ilustrados were derived, were disinterested or not agreeable with educating their oppressed. The lower class was profitable as it was; gullible and helpless because of their ignorance of foreign laws and mores imposed upon them. Rizal's efforts to procure the money and materials to build institutions for education, through the abrupt life of the La Liga Filipina, failed precisely because of this disinterest or disapproval. The people who had the means to concretize this vision, were themselves more concerned with their own squabbles for intellectual sovereignty within their clique. These squabbles amongst the ilustrados deterred Rizal's vision.

Furthermore, I doubt that the oppressed class would have had the patience to stand the period of time needed to enlighten them. I think that it was wise of Rizal to be concerned about the orderliness of his ideal society, but he should have been flexible with his prerequisites for attaining this "moral society" considering the trends of that period. Because he failed to see that the enlightenment of the oppressed class was attainable without the type of education he received, as was seen in the fully conscious Bonifacio, he also failed to see the greater influence he could have had in the Revolution. If he recognized that the leader of a revolution should be a selfless, pure-hearted man that thought of nothing but the emancipation of his race, why did he look farther than himself? If he recognized and accepted these qualities, then he must have upheld them. If these qualities lived within him, then why not him?

It could be argued that he was so humble that the idea of such qualities existing in him never passed his thoughts. Or that even if he recognized that these virtues existed within him, he was too humble to take up the leadership himself. If the ideal leader is too humble, then how would he even recognize the leader in himself. Then it must be that the people themselves would recognize this man, and choose him as their leader. Which they did in Rizal, but which he did refuse.

At this point I am thinking of Ghandi. Ghandi was a bourgeois, an educated, and a professional. Unlike Rizal, who was supposedly a patriot upon birth, Ghandi was not empathic to the oppression of his people, until after he experienced it for himself. By then he was already a lawyer, and had, before that fateful event, fancied himself as a brown Caucasian. One of the things that was remarkable about Ghandi was that he changed, from a snob to a totally immersed sympathizer and champion of his oppressed fellowmen, entirely in his adult life. He was a man of action, who leaped to solve the problem he saw. My point is, with the length of time that Rizal incubated the oppression of the Spaniards to the Filipinos, especially to himself and his family, why was it that he did not evolve to that point that Gandhi did? Why was he still cross-guessing himself, torn by his Simoun persona and his Father Florentino persona? I suppose the circumstances were radically different. Or was it that Rizal himself doubted his sincerity. I suppose to each his own. Gandhi had his way, Rizal has his. Still, it stands that Rizal, through his seeming contradictions, did not consciously cross the threshold of his class's boundary. Simoun, or Ibarra, was chastised in the end. His views were tainted. He was not worthy of a true revolution based on Rizal's concept of it.

But a revolution does not involve just one man, even though that man has whipped the fervor of the people. It is the people, the masses, that are important and central in a revolution. Simoun, or whoever else he influenced, may have had selfish intentions, but what of the intentions of the people themselves who were waiting for the signal to attack?

This illustrates how ingrained in Rizal were the limitations of his class's thinking. Because for him, the faceless multitude is just that to him -- a faceless multitude. Faceless, in the sense that they are incapable of the creativity and initiative needed in launching a successful revolt, the comprehension of the larger aims of that revolt, and the nobility of striving for the ideal society. Faceless, in the sense that the masses were only brawn, and that any initiative for change coming from their ranks was mindless, and driven by the demands of their id.

posted by Otherwise Maladroit @ 5:17 PM