As part of the College of Social Sciences and Philosophy’s Rafael Palma Centennial Lectures, history professor Dr. Jaime B. Veneracion called for a consensus on historical milestones that would comprise a “master narrative” for Philippine history. According to him, it is history’s role to give the nation a clear narrative of its origins, its present condition, and where it is headed—questions whose answers are vital for nation building.
Veneracion
Delivered on August 26, 2008 at the Palma Hall Audio-Visual Room, Veneracion’s lecture served as the CSSP Department of History’s contribution to the lecture series, which aims to set directions for the college. Dr. Maria Serena I. Diokno of the same department and Prof. Roberto Tangco of the Department of Philosophy gave their reactions.
Dr. Diokno said that historiography is marked by a constant challenging of the master narrative, and from subversions, a new master narrative is formed. Thus, history is an issue of power contestations. A master narrative lends itself to the dominant power to the exclusion of—as in the case of American history—women, natives, and immigrants. A master narrative will not be formed by simply amalgamating their histories and will instead tend to gravitate toward centers. It even favors a certain methodology for evidence-gathering over others.
Prof. Tangco talked about the philosophy in the process of choosing milestones and for whom or what history should be written—whether this could constitute a law with invariable results. Or could milestones just be markers in an ideologically-determined series?
In suggesting a master narrative, Veneracion took the lead of Dr. Jose Rizal, Jose Palma, Isabelo delos Reyes, TH Pardo de Tavera, and other intellectuals of the Revolution in tracing Philippine history to its Austronesian—referring specifically to the language group—origins and in pointing to a future of Austronesia serving as a counter-balance to the power of China in the region.
Diokno doubted, however, whether the Philippines could return to its Austronesian origins. Even now the Austronesian world is not the same. She said the important question alongside the quest for a master narrative would be the historian’s ability to face the challenge of differences, such as those which characterize Philippine society.
Diokno
Veneracion reiterated that despite the differences, historians can gather around the common goal of building a nation. This was the idea of Apolinario Mabini who told his revolutionary group that differences were all right as long as they did not lead them astray from the common goal of independence. Veneracion said that histories will have points of intersection, which historians can negotiate. He mentioned that milestones could be arrived at through a survey of historians.
Veneracion mentioned a view that “people’s histories” and the hermeneutic approach—which allows various perspectives and interpretations—have led to claims of different homelands and blurred a unified vision for the future. It is precisely the responsibility of the historian to gather evidence, get the facts straight, and provide a national dimension to local histories.
According to Veneracion, without the historians’ consensus, Philippine history is open to interpretations from politicians, the media, poets, and artists—none of whom discount imagination. But according to Diokno, going back to poetry may in fact give a soul to history. She said that history’s medium is the narrative, which is characterized nowadays by a lack of humanism.
Veneracion has observed that Philippine historians have been focused on small and isolated events in contrast to colonizers who drew Philippine history in the context of their colonial projects.
|
