By Artchil B. Fernandez
In a span of two weeks, the University of the Philippines (UP) – Diliman hosted two prominent Malaysian scholars who are experts on our national hero Jose Rizal. The first is Syed Farid Alatas and the other is Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim.
Alatas is a sociologist currently teaching at the National University of Singapore (NUS). His areas of interest are sociological theory, the philosophy of social science, the sociology of religion, and interreligious dialogue. He is also focused on eurocentrism in the social sciences, decolonial thoughts, and autonomous and indigenous knowledge where Rizal’s works are important sources. He lectured on decolonial knowledge at UP.
I first heard of Alatas few years back when to my great surprise Rizal’s “The Indolence of the Filipino” is one of the required readings in Classical Sociological Theory course. “What is Rizal doing here?” I wondered considering that the founding fathers of sociology were all white, male Europeans (Durkheim, Marx and Weber). That was my introduction to Alatas who extensively studied Rizal and excavated sociological kernels in the works of the Filipino national hero.
Rizal is not a sociologist (sociology is not yet an established discipline during his time) but Alatas insisted there is sociology in his works. Like the founding fathers of sociology who studied modernity through their own perspectives, Rizal also has his own take on modernity Alatas proposed.
The indolence of Filipinos is a way of understanding colonial society and Rizal studied modernity through the lens of colonialism. “The theme of indolence in colonial scholarship is an important one that formed a vital part of the ideology of colonial capitalism… The basis of Rizal’s sociology is his critique of the myth of the indolent Filipino… Rizal’s important sociological contribution was his raising the problem of indolence to begin with as well as his treatment of the subject, particularly his view that indolence was not a cause of the backwardness of Filipino society. Rather it was the backwardness and disorder of Filipino colonial society that caused indolence” (Alatas 2011).
In constructing a sociological theory from the works of Rizal three things can be broadly discerned according to Alatas. “First, we have his theory of colonial society, a theory that explains the nature and conditions of colonial society. Second, there is his critique of colonial knowledge of the Philippines. Finally, there is his discourse on the meaning and requirements for emancipation” (Alatas 2011).
The encounter with Alatas view on Rizal was the beginning of my re-thinking and re-evaluation of Rizal. There is sociology in Rizal? This is not only innovative but original. Steeped and heavily influenced by Renato Constantino, such take on Rizal is fresh and refreshing.
Ever since reading Constantino’s “Veneration Without Understanding” my attitude towards Rizal was bordering on the negative and fringes on derision and disdain – an American sponsored hero who rejected the revolution. But the work of Alatas prompted a re-assessment of Rizal and looking at him in a new and different light. True, the Americans used Rizal to serve their own colonial agenda but he was long dead at that time and had nothing do with US imperial designs on the Philippines.
It is rather awkward that Malaysians more than me saw Rizal in a novel way.
Long before he became the 10th Prime Minister of Malaysia, Anwar Ibrahim has been charmed by Rizal. Aside from being an internationally renowned expert on economics, democracy, freedom, governance, Islam and democracy, he is also a leading Rizal scholar. He delivered a lecture at UP upon conferment of an honorary doctorate.
During his lecture at UP – Diliman, Anwar Ibrahim reiterated that “Dr. Rizal… remains truly an Asian Renaissance Man.” As he leads Malaysia today and engages Asean as leader of that country, Rizal stays as his moral and intellectual anchor.
Horrified by horrendous human rights violations today in Burma (Myanmar), Ibrahim in his lecture asserts that Asean must not shy away from the issue. “I believe that non-interference is not a license for indifference,” he told the audience. “When I mentioned in Bangkok recently about the need to temporarily carve out Myanmar, on account of the blatant human rights violations, it was said in the larger context of the imperative to stay true to one of the key ideals of ASEAN, which is nothing less than to stand for the cause of justice and the rule of law.”
Citing Rizal for his position, Ibrahim emphasized the Filipino hero’s view on justice. “It bears repeating these immortal lines from Dr. Rizal, who I must reiterate, remains truly an Asian Renaissance Man, that ‘Justice is the foremost virtue of the civilising races. It subdues the barbarous nations, while injustice arouses the weakest.” Indeed, it is captivating that Rizal drew the fascination of these Malaysian scholars who consider him the pride of the Malay race and found close affinity with him and his ideals. For Alatas and Ibrahim, Rizal is a Great Malayan, an Asian intellectual giant.
In Philippine academic community, Rizal and his ideals remain contentious as his positions and decisions toward the end of his life particularly during his final hours are still hotly debated. Complicating the disputation is his utilization by the Americans for their selfish end. Much has to be done to clear the air and place Rizal in proper perspective in Philippine history and society. A sociologist Rizal is worth exploring.
Views of Malaysian scholars and other academics in Southeast Asia are important inputs in the current re-thinking, re-evaluation and re-assessment of Rizal and his works. There is much that the Filipino academic community can learn from their neighbors.
