To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”
Save to my list
Remove from my list
In Benedict Andersen's Imagined Communities, he discusses the term nationalism by bringing up many definitions on the word itself. From different sources and of different backgrounds. First was from the definition of Seton-Watson, he said that it can't be scientifically defined, but it exists as a phenomenon. His take on this definition was that Nationalism, in this case, was nothing but an uncomfortable anomaly for the Marxist Theory.
Next up was the definition or the three paradoxes of nationalism of the Theorists of Nationalism. Andersen's take on this definition is that Nationalism takes into account the historical context of the country, Nationalism is a concept of sui generis or unique to one another, and Lastly that Nationalism doesn't produce its grand thinkers (like Hobbes, Marx, or Weber.) In the end, Andersen's take on this definition is that these kinds of definitions differ to one another and it will always remain a matter of a long-standing dispute.
Andersen formed Nationalism through Imagined Communities because they are both inherently limited and sovereign.
Verified writer
Proficient in: Examination
4.9 (247)
“ Rhizman is absolutely amazing at what he does . I highly recommend him if you need an assignment done ”
It is limited because it is no matter how large a community is because no nation imagines itself having the same boundaries with other nations. However, it is sovereignty because imagined communities were a concept born from the age of Enlightenment and Revolution, where everyone destroying with each other because we have different beliefs.
He explained that nationalism is an imagined community, since not everyone in a community knows each other to the fullest But in their minds, they consider themselves as a part of their communities. A community is only a nation if only a significant number of themselves formed a nation. Geller made a point that Nationalism is not the self-consciousness awakening of nation but it invents itself a nation from nothing. Regardless of the inequality and exploitation that happens inside a nation, the nation will always have the notion of horizontal comradeship. A Fraternity if you will, that is ready to die for the sake of the nation.
I think it is applicable to certain to degrees of the situation, ever since before, we as a nation are fragmented. Down to the concept of the Barangays, to the geography where we are separated by multitude of islands. But no matter how far and wide we are as a nation, we are always when it comes down to oppression, our sense of Filipino Nationalism grows whenever we suffer injustices, like the Spanish Colonialist or around the time Marcos, Martial Law, we always we are united in one banner whenever we need to. But sometimes that is not the case, even if we fill together, we are always separated not in terms of geography, but in terms of wealth and economy. Looking back at the reformist, they never really cared about the masses, they only cared about themselves. Trying to earn the respect of its Spanish colonizers, instead of funding the revolutionaries, they stay upon a grey area to avoid losing their wealth or worse their class standing. Even today that can be applicable, for when China starts to take over, we will not be united fully, for those who have the money, the first thing they will do is not to stand one another and fight back but to escape the country. Imagined Communities can be a good way to develop one's Filipino nationalism but only in selected circumstance.
According to Agoncillo, the reform movement wasn't necessarily needed for a revolution. Since even if they have the same goals: Liberation. Entirely their definition is entirely different from one another. The reformist didn't want to be separated into an independent state but to be assimilated to be a province of Spain. Since the Reformists were of a higher social class, they were in a sense revolutionary. They passionately demanded reforms in the colonial government, reforms that would usurp the Philippines into a province of Spain and they will be respected in the eyes of the Spaniards. They failed however, they were conservative, trying not to agitate on the separation Spain. They were too polite and concerned with their social and economic standing in their community. It didn't help that Spain was preoccupied with their own domestic and international problems to listen to the reformists.
On the other hand, revolutionists succeeded because they believed that the way of freedom and independence is through force. Unlike the Reformists, this movement consists not of the educated elite, but the masses who witnessed the injustices of the Spaniards. Andres Bonifacio felt that the reformist movement failed and useless. He founded the Katipunan with separatist aims. Due to the injustice of they felt, their aims were realistic, unlike the reformist who thought that they can assimilate the Philippines as a province of Spain, the reformist, apart from Del Pilar, are politically naive. Bonifacio was a realist, became a symbol of the suffering masses, and a skeptic to the Spanish colonial administration to begin with. Their approach to this movement is through violence. Even without the help from the elite, although there were few who did, continued to charge against the well-armed Spaniards. Only armed with Bolos, Bamboo Spears, Brute Strength, Sheer Will, and Unflinching Courage. This became worse when they executed Rizal, believing if he was killed, the revolution would die down. But it only made Filipinos made Rizal a symbol of their struggle for freedom and Dignity. In the end, the Revolutionist were successful, resulting in independence. All of this can be summarized on the table below:
Recto dubs the Revolution is the "Finest hour of our history" because this is where in our time that is the time when we stand together as one and fight against our oppressors. Their Nationalism is what made us today, an Independent country. They fought for our freedom and independence; it is what Recto considers our finest hour. We are truly fortunate because we can learn from our past and adapt to it today. Because without them, we would still be colonized by some other superpower without the independence and freedom we enjoy today.
To better explain the concepts of nationalism of Agoncillo, Dela Costa, Recto. A table will be provided to better compare and contrast their concepts:
Considers Rizal, Del Pilar, Bonifacio, Aguinaldo, and Mabini as the Filipino Nationalist. A Man is nationalist, or an upholder of nationalism, when we mean nothing more than that he has affection for his country or community. is loyal to the government, and is prepared to make sacrifices in its defenses.
One of the things that Agoncillo, Recto, and Dela Costa have in common is that their concept of their Nationalism is all based around the nation itself. They also believed that Nationalism is a driving force to that unites us or enables us to achieve the things that we thought were impossible possible. But all of them have different approaches on how a person is a nationalist. In Agoncillo's concept of Nationalism is that it can be both Defensive or Offensive, but it is mostly defensive in the case that is protects our national identity. It will only become offensive when colonizers use it to colonize other people. But if one uses nationalism in a hateful manner. It becomes chauvinism. Agoncillo's concept is more to protect, rather than to go on the offensive. But all of them have one goal: To Liberate. On the other hand, in Recto's case, his concept is based around on love for one's country and to look back and learn from our Heroes and Martyrs. He also considers that Nationalism is the way to fight back against colonialism. Lastly in Dela Costa point of view, his concept on Nationalism is based in loyalty to the government. A sense of patriotism, since he considers Nationalism as a particular form of Patriotism. It can be compared to Recto's concept of Nationalism, focusing on its devotion for one's country. And unlike Agoncillo's concept of Nationalism where he said that Nationalism is a sentiment, Dela Costa claimed that Nationalism is more than just a sentiment. But Nationalism is a construct of the intellect, or an Ideology.
For me, Rizal's nationalism is not appropriate for Dela Costa, since his concept on nationalism is that for the love of the country. One might say that what Rizal did is for the love for the country, making the Philippines into a province of Spain. It is still a very elitist way of thinking or what Agoncillo put it as politically naive. Now Agoncillo on the other hand, makes it very clear that he is against Rizal. Explaining how the reform movement is useless and a failure, compared to revolution of Bonifacio, that was successful in claiming its independence through force. The only one that is appropriate in Rizal's nationalism is Recto himself. Since he considers the acts of Rizal, Mabinin, Aguinaldo, Bonifacio, and Del Pilar an exemplary example of what a Filipino Nationalist. Even if Rizal wanted assimilation and not the separation of Spain. Recto's concept of his Nationalism is love for the country, and as a way to look back at the past and learn from the sacrifices of its Heroes and Martyrs. Giving the execution of Rizal and everything about him a sense of looking back and learning from him as he is considered a National Hero who died for his country.
Preliminary Examination. (2019, Dec 03). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/preliminary-examination-essay
👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!
Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.
get help with your assignment
