FILOCRACIA 2:1 (February 2015) 34-46

What does Faith Exclude? Catholic

Hegemony and the Construction of
Ilustrado Nationalism
Michael Roland F. Hernandez, Ph.D. (Cand.)
Ateneo de Naga University

Abstract:
This paper traces the conceptual resources of Philippine
ilustrado nationalism in the specific concept of Filipino
identity given by Father Jose Burgos in his acclaimed
Manifiesto. It argues that the racial and social exclusivism
essential to ilustrado nationalist ideology can be traced to
the essentially religious character of Burgos’ anti-friar
polemic. By tracing this essential connection between
Filipino identity and Catholicity, we are reminded of the
dangers connected with the emancipatory promises
ushered by nativist and ethnocentric thinking.
Keywords: Jose Burgos, ilustrado nationalism, Catholic
religion, secularization controversy, Filipino identity

Every nationalism is metaphysically

an anthropologism, and as such
subjectivism.1

The Problem of an Essentializing Discourse

I
t is a generally accepted conclusion in studies in Philippine history that
the emergence of Philippine Ilustrado nationalism owes much of its
spirit to the 1872 execution of the priests Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos,

1
Martin Heidegger, “Letter on Humanism” in Basic Writings, ed. David
Farrell Krell (New York: Harper and Row, 1977), 221.
ISSN: 2362-7581
© 2015 Michael Roland F. Hernandez
http://www.filocracia.org/issue3/Hernandez_Feb2015.pdf
 What does Faith Exclude? Catholic Hegemony and Ilustrado Nationalism 35

and Jacinto Zamora.2 Following the secular clergy’s lead in the fight for
reforms within Spanish colonial ecclesiastical politics, the ilustrado class,
under the leadership of Jose Rizal and Marcelo del Pilar, transformed what
was merely an intra-clerical dispute for the administration of the parishes
into the national struggle for liberation from Spanish colonial hegemony.
This transformation was made possible by the ilustrado appropriation and
elevation of what was essentially a political (and not religious) discourse by
the local secular clergy into the status of an over-arching essentialist
nationalist propaganda. Such intellectual maneuver amounts to the
effective constitution of the whole nationalist agenda as borne from the
heart of the Christian religious paradigm itself and makes clear to us how
the Ilustrado appropriation of the concept of the “Filipino” betrays a
religious and specifically Christian bias that has subtly and unwittingly
translated the Ilustrado nationalist movement into an exclusivist and
totalizing discourse. In this vein, it is possible to understand why Ilustrado
nationalism, as it has been perceived by Rizal, del Pilar, and other members
of the Ilustrado class, is itself involved within the circular problem of
violence that lies at the root of any socio-political institution. By aligning
itself with a specific political ideal of “what the Filipino should be” as basis
for its reformist and later, separatist ambitions, the conduct of ilustrado
nationalism is itself captured within that framework of epistemic violence3
that is in essence repetitive of, if not entirely complicit with, the
perpetuation of the hegemonic structures of Spanish colonial society. By

2
Jose Rizal himself opines that without the “event of 1872,” there would
have been no Propaganda movement and he would have been a Jesuit. The injustice
and cruelty of this event deeply affected Rizal even as a child and this would
eventually define Rizal’s drive for vengeance against the colonial masters. (See Jose
Rizal, Epistolario Rizalino Volume 2 [Manila: Bureau of Printing, 1930-8], 166). Being
proximate, we do not claim that the event of 1872 serves to be as the only singular
starting point; rather, it is what served, in the words of Fr. John Schumacher, as the
turning point, the “catalyst which brought together the liberal reformist elements in
Philippine society with the growing self-awareness of a people into a movement
that before long would be directed at independent nationhood.” (John Schumacher,
Father Jose Burgos: A Documentary History [Quezon City: Ateneo University Press,
1999], 1).
3
I have taken this idea from Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak’s description of
epistemic violence in her “Can the Subaltern Speak?” in Marxism and the Interpretation
of Culture, edited by Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg (Champaign: University
of Illinois Press, 1988), 271-313.
ISSN: 2362-7581
http://www.filocracia.org/issue3/Hernandez_Feb2015.pdf
36 Michael Roland F. Hernandez

epistemic violence, I refer to that “silent programming function” that

effectively maps out spaces for exploitation4 by transforming the structures
of consciousness in terms of the distinctions operative within an
inside/outside economy. In this inside/outside economy, the possession of
an episteme belonging to a privileged socio-political class carries with it that
inescapable exclusionary violence that effectively discriminates against
those who did not possess this knowledge.
It is my contention in this paper that the construction of ilustrado
nationalism, inasmuch as it grounds itself in a certain essentialist
conception of what a Filipino is or should be, exhibits itself as an example of a
western intellectual production complicit with the colonial society’s elite
bourgeoisie economic interests. Such complicity happens when the social
struggles undertaken as political responses to colonial oppression form
themselves out of—and pass through—an economy of liberal interests and
the influence of religious motives. When these socio-political struggles
crystallize through concrete political actions, they become assumed into
the economy of violence necessarily present at the institution of any socio-
political authority.
In concrete context therefore, the conduct of ilustrado nationalism
was superficially a political agenda propelled by the economic interests of
the elite Filipino bourgeoisie. In order to advance its social, economic, and
political agenda, recourse to an essentialist conception of what the Filipino is
must underlie the construction of the nationalist project. Such conception
of the Filipino upon which all subsequent ilustrado efforts were to converge,
however, is determined by a religious ideology which ultimately endows it
with an exclusionary character. This religious ideology, provided by Roman
Catholicism, is what gives the concept of a “Filipino identity” its exclusivist
and hegemonic character.
In what follows then, I will trace the development of the concept
of “Filipino Identity” from its roots in the 19th century struggle of the native
secular clergy for reforms in the administrative conduct of assignment of
the Philippine parishes.5 In particular, I will examine the concept from the

4
Ibid., 280-1.
5
Given the limits of space allowed for the presentation of this paper, I
cannot anymore proceed to the intricate details that this development has
undergone within the differing conceptions of “what the Filipino is” by the
Ilustrados themselves. For example, Jose Rizal himself attempts to conceptualize
ISSN: 2362-7581
Filocracia 2:1 (February 2015)
 What does Faith Exclude? Catholic Hegemony and Ilustrado Nationalism 37

perspective of Fr. Jose Burgos’ appropriation of the term “Filipino” when he

takes the simple and clearly defined category as applicable no longer only
to “Spaniards born in the Philippines” but also to already include the native
indio, and the Spanish [and Chinese] mestizo. From this appropriation, a
widened process of inclusion or assimilation is possible which tends, at the
same time, toward the complimentary process of social exclusion. In other
words, the process of assimilating the indio and other social groups into the
category of the “Filipino” is also what tended to exclude what is not
included in the conceptual definition of who the Filipino is. This process of
inclusion/exclusion unwittingly presents itself as violent inasmuch as it
erases what is different while at the same time excluding what is not
contained in its definition. As will become clear, the distinctive feature
which separates the Filipino from what it/he is not is precisely its Christian
character.6 It is this cue from which we can finally found an answer to the
question “What does Faith exclude?”

the “Filipino” in terms of a theory of racial origin in his annotations and

commentaries on Antonio de Morga’s Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas (Paris: Garnier, 1890;
originally published in Mexico [1609]). Also Isabelo de los Reyes’ El folk-lore Filipino
(Manila: Tipo-Lithografia de Chofré y C., 1889) represents one of the first most
sustained attempts to account for the “Filipino” in terms of a common origin
regardless of the language they presently speak or the differences in their customs
and religious beliefs. This common origin is something that cannot be framed
within Spanish colonial history and can be construed as the source of authentic
“Filipino culture and identity” (See Benedict Anderson, Under Three Flags: Anarchism
and the Anti-Colonial Imagination [Manila: Anvil, 2006], 14). The reader may also wish
to refer himself to Dr. Filomeno Aguilar’s “Tracing Origins: Ilustrado Nationalism
and the Racial Science of Migration Waves” (in The Journal of Asian Studies 64, no. 3
[August 2005]: 605-37) where an excellent discussion of the complex problem of
Filipino identity in terms of how the ilustrados attempted to arrive at a clear and
definitive description of who the Filipino is is given.
6
Benedict Anderson insightfully claims that both colonizer and colonized
were Catholics and not merely generally described as Christians—a testament to
the fact that Christianity in the Philippines had been propagated by Catholics and
during the Spanish colonial period as synonymous with Roman Catholicism in the
Philippines (See Anderson, Under Three Flags, 17).
ISSN: 2362-7581
http://www.filocracia.org/issue3/Hernandez_Feb2015.pdf
38 Michael Roland F. Hernandez

Padre Burgos’ Appropriation of the term “Filipino”

In his Manifiesto,7 Padre Jose Burgos anonymously signed himself as
one of and as belonging to the class of Filipinos. By signing himself as one of
the “Los Filipinos,” Burgos was clearly assigning himself to a category in
which he is not really a part: he was a mestizo.8 Un filipino on the other hand,
refers to a Spaniard born in the Philippines, a class called the insulares and
also designated by the term creole or criollo—“the locally born but “pure
Spanish” social stratum.” 9 What is therefore designated by the Filipino-
insular-creole is a class clearly distinct from the peninsulares, i.e., those
Spaniards born in Spain; the mestizos, i.e., the mixed bloods born of
Spaniards and other races; and more importantly from the indios, i.e., the
colonized class treated with contempt and generally comprised by the
native inhabitants of the Islas.
Burgos was de facto a mestizo but he doubtlessly considers himself
as a Filipino, i.e., a Spaniard born in the Philippines. This appropriation
constitutes an act of social and political identification by which the secular
clergy, of which Burgos was a part, would be able to rally in their fight for
ecclesiastical rights before the Spanish political authority. 10 Against the
Spanish religious friar’s nationalism, the secular clergy—which included

7
See José Apolonio Burgos, “To the Nation,” trans. by John Schumacher in
Philippine Studies 54, no. 2 [2006], 168-209. This article was a translation of the
original 1864 document that appeared in La America, VIII, 17 (12 Sept. 1864):11-3. Fr.
Schumacher has previously published the 1888 version of this article under the title
“Manifesto which the Loyal Filipinos address to the Noble Spanish Nation in
Defense of their Honor and Loyalty gravely wounded by the Newspaper La Verdad of
Madrid” in his Father Jose Burgos, 56-105.
8
Schumacher, Fr. Jose Burgos, 44. Schumacher explains that Burgos was
considered a mestizo (with one-eighth Filipino blood) on account of his father
being a Spaniard and his mother being a mestiza. This characterization of Burgos as
having one-eighth Filipino blood is of course confusing since the word “Filipino”
clearly refers to the social class of Spaniards born in the Philippines. What
Schumacher refers to actually is Burgos having one-eighth “Indio” blood.
9
Anderson, Under Three Flags, 15.
10
It must be noted at this point that the Catholic Church in the
Philippines is specifically under the jurisdiction of the Patronato Real, a decree by the
Holy See which granted exclusive and absolute power to the Spanish government
over ecclesiastical matters in her territories both in Spain and her colonies.
ISSN: 2362-7581
Filocracia 2:1 (February 2015)
 What does Faith Exclude? Catholic Hegemony and Ilustrado Nationalism 39

not only Spaniards born in the Philippines but also indios and mestizos—
must undertake a collective imagining of their struggle in order to
articulate an effective political demand for justice. In this context however,
the appropriation of the term “Filipino” in the Manifiesto was devoid of the
nationalist sense in the way Rizal, del Pilar, and the other Ilustrados would
assign to it. In fact, the Manifiesto’s use of the word “Filipino” not only
eschews any reference to liberal political ideas of revolution from Spain but
clearly rules out any thought of nationalist separation. Defending the
Filipinos against the religious friars, Burgos writes:
The loss of these Islands, the ideas of emancipation . . . are
nothing more than a trick with which they [the friars]
aim to frighten the government. . . . There is nothing
further from our [Filipino] imagination than those ideas
of theirs. . . .11
On the contrary, here, what is clearly revealed is Burgos’ rabid
insistence on the element of deep gratitude and unwavering loyalty to
Spain, considered as patria grande or Madre Patria, that defines the
“Filipino.”12 He continues:
For we know and understand very well that, away from
the Spanish name and from the flag that waves over us,
we will be nothing, and perhaps worse than nothing. (…)
It is to our own interest, then, to uphold that flag,
sheltering ourselves under its great shadow, a source of
protection and of the highest culture. 13
This loyalty of the Filipino to Spain, on the basis of which the
strength of the Manifiesto’s whole reformist discourse rests, has already been
proven with “the enthusiasm with which we [i.e., the Filipinos] resisted the
English invasion.” It is this loyalty that shows “what we [Filipinos] can be
and are.”14

11
Burgos, “To the Nation,” 195.
12
See Fr. Schumacher’s explanation of the distinction between patria
grande and patria chica in footnote no. 44 (see ibid., 196).
13
Ibid., 195.
14
Ibid.
ISSN: 2362-7581
http://www.filocracia.org/issue3/Hernandez_Feb2015.pdf
40 Michael Roland F. Hernandez

Consistent then with the assimilationist agenda brewing in the

events leading to 1872, a Filipino is therefore one whose loyalty will not
desire his “emancipation from the Mother Country,” 15 [i.e., Spain]. This,
however, does not mean that he will be content being a victim of injustice.
In order to address the deplorable errors and distorted policies that burden
his plight, the Filipino must demand that he be treated as an equal. This the
Manifiesto does by appealing to that universal sense of the “unity of the
human species”16 and that experience of equality that should be present in
any genuinely civilized or modern nation. If Spain is to be considered a
progressive modern nation, then she must see to it that every person taken
her under care must be accorded the various liberties of the modern
world—a feature which, the Manifiesto suggests, is not afforded the
Filipinos. This grant of equality and guarantee of a more just society can
only be facilitated more by the fact that the Filipinos, though different by
birth, consider themselves “[s]paniards by conviction and sentiments.”17
By addressing their grievance to Spain as the Nacion and letting it
decide over their collective fate, the Filipinos were unwittingly recognizing
the legal validity of the hegemony of the Spanish colonial enterprise and as
a consequence, of subjecting themselves to the colonial system of justice. As
the last paragraph of the Manifiesto says:
Now nothing remains for us to do but, first, to ask God
that he give us a heart capable of bearing insults and
enduring calumnies. Secondly, we ask the magnanimous
and generous nation, to whom we address our words, to
do justice to our loyal sentiments. 18
Such willful submission to the power of the Nacion represents the
conscious desire of those who have endeavored to include themselves into
the class of Filipinos—mestizos, and indios included—to stand at par with
the privileged Spanish subject: first, with the creole and ultimately, the class
of the peninsulares. In the Manifiesto, this inclusion of native secular priests
into the class of Filipinos was an appropriation made possible only because
of their deep loyalty to the Spanish Nation and to the Catholic Church,

15
Ibid.
16
Ibid., 174.
17
Ibid., 197.
18
Ibid., 209.
ISSN: 2362-7581
Filocracia 2:1 (February 2015)
 What does Faith Exclude? Catholic Hegemony and Ilustrado Nationalism 41

excellent learning due to the Spanish system of education, 19 ability to speak

well the Spanish language,20 and ultimately, in their being “Spaniards by
conviction and by sentiments.”21
In this institution of the native indigenous clergy [cura indigena] as
a Filipino Clergy and the reverse identification of the Filipino clergy as a
native clergy,22 it now becomes possible for the indio secular priest to stand
at par, in the pure dignity of the Catholic priesthood, not only with Spanish
creoles and mestizos but also, and more importantly, with the Spanish
peninsular priests themselves and the religious friars. For the native or
mestizo priest, then, one belongs to the class of Filipino clergy not only by
sharing the fight for administrative reform but in becoming the equal of the
Spaniard. This can only be possible insofar as the indio conforms himself to
the standard set for him by the colonial society—an ideal described by and
set for him by the Manifiesto. As it is, the Filipino is the one who thinks,

19
One of the purposes of the Manifiesto was to exalt the quality of the
native secular clergy in terms of their high intelligence, zeal, integrity and many
other virtues necessary for the execution of their Church duties (see for instance
ibid., 187). This capacity for learning in turn was supplemented by the effort of the
Spanish colonial government to educate the local population. This implies, at the
least, that the education of the natives should not be attributed to the religious
orders as the friars would claim it. No instance in the document, however, was
given to justify the extent to which the Spanish government had carried out the
task of education (see ibid., 193, 195).
20
The ability to speak the Castilian language was one defining feature of
the educated class. Education during the Spanish colonial period was largely carried
out in Castilian Spanish and only those who can speak the language can really be
called educated. The native clergy, especially those mentioned for their excellence in
virtue and knowledge in the document, has shown exceptional ability to learn (and
thus speak Castilian) and for this reason can only rightly claim the status of being a
Filipino.
For an extended discussion of the issue of the Spanish language in
colonial Philippines see Albina Peczon Fernandez, “The politics of language and the
language of politics: a preliminary study of the Spanish Language in Colonial
Philippines” in Imperios y Naciones en el Pacifico Volume II, eds. Ma. Dolores Elizalde,
et. al. (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 2001), 219-234.
21
Ibid., 197.
22
See Horacio dela Costa, “The Development of the Native Clergy” in
Studies in Philippine Church History, ed. Gerald Anderson (Ithaca: Cornell University,
1969).
ISSN: 2362-7581
http://www.filocracia.org/issue3/Hernandez_Feb2015.pdf
42 Michael Roland F. Hernandez

feels, speaks, and acts like the Spaniard. Indeed he is the one whose
Hispanization and Christianization was complete, the one hispanized and
Christianized to the highest degree.23
The Filipino as a Christian Concept
From the above, it becomes easy to see why the emergent Filipino
identity, considered historically, is essentially a Christian, specifically,
Catholic identity. Nascent within the context of secular clergy’s reaction to
their specific experience of marginalization, the Filipino, as an identity,
contains in itself an irresolvable ambivalence: it must set itself against
Spanish friar nationalism while, at the same time, utilizing its conceptual
resources from within so as to clearly constitute itself as a Spanish and
Catholic identity. Such parasitism infects the supposedly moral aim of
Filipino identity construction with the same ethnocentric bias that has so
deeply characterized friar nationalism. For if one considers oneself as a
Filipino, loyal to Spain and to the Holy Catholic Church, then one must set
oneself against the non-Christian groups in the colonial society. In this
separation, the circular and inescapable fact of ethnocentric racism is
betrayed by the subjectivism inherent in any nationalist discourse. As
subsequent Philippine history would show, the Ilustrado continuation of
the reformist struggle and their transformation of the secular clergy’s
conception of the Filipino into a “class concept” into which the idea of an
entire modern nation can be embraced 24 or “imagined,” as Benedict
Anderson puts it, 25 would concretely instantiate this exclusivist or
marginalizing tendency.
It would be up to Rizal and the other ilustrados to construct the
center upon which this fictive unity of idealized characteristics called
Filipino identity could ground itself. In this task, however, the Christian
origin of Ilustrado nationalism becomes increasingly clear: only those
indios “who have underwent religious conversion” 26 are possible to become

23
Hispanization, of course, was the highpoint of the Spanish experience
of imperialism. For a relevant example see John Phelan, The Hispanization of the
Philippines: Spanish Aims and Filipino Responses, 1565-1700 (Madison: University of
Wisconsin, 1959).
24
See Aguilar, “Tracing Origins,” 610.
25
See Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities (Pasig: Anvil, 2003), 5-7.
26
Aguilar, “Tracing Origins,” 620.
ISSN: 2362-7581
Filocracia 2:1 (February 2015)
 What does Faith Exclude? Catholic Hegemony and Ilustrado Nationalism 43

Filipinos. But indios here do not mean all the inhabitants living in the
country. Rather, the term “indios” is restricted only to what the Spaniards
describe as “the already-colonized lowland inhabitants.” 27 If the indios are
those that have already labeled as Christians, then, this means that
“Filipinization” is possible only as an exclusive privilege of those who
already possess the Catholic Christian religious episteme.
The possession of this privileged episteme is what led the
ilustrados into an all-exclusive path in the determination of those who
should be included in their conception of the nation. Rizal, for instance,
claimed that only those “Catholicized Malays” can be “filipinized.”28 Those
who resisted Christianization—the Muslims and those who fled into the
mountains—were not to be considered as indios and therefore cannot
become Filipinos. For this reason, ilustrado nationalism reveals itself as a
bounded and restricted view of what the modern Filipino nation-state
should be all about. The ilustrados were conscious of the fact that they have
limited the “imagined community” by excluding those who did not fit into
their Catholic worldview: the Igorots, Tinguians, Zambals, Chinese, Negros
[Aetas], and countless others which the Spaniards collectively call as tribus
independientes. 29 Such ethnocentrism revealed itself obstinate when, on
several instances, the ilustrados were enraged at being called “chinos,
chinitos, negros, igorrotes” to the point that they asked: “Why do these
Spaniards not comprehend that “Chinese, Chinks, blacks, and Igorots” are
not Filipinos?”30
Here, it is easy to see how the privileged possession of a Christian
worldview, as the source of exclusion, becomes in itself an occasion for the
emergence of epistemic violence. On account of this heritage, the ilustrado
search for a clearer definition of what or who the Filipino is becomes not
only a reformist struggle for equal rights but also, by an unavoidable
necessity, a violent act of exclusion, of other-ing, or of marginalization by
establishing one’s own identity as “superior” over other non-Christian
tribes. Further influenced by social evolution, the ilustrados also thought

27
Ibid., 621.
28
See ibid.
29
William Henry Scott, The Discovery of the Igorots: Spanish Contacts with the
Pagans of Northern Luzon (Quezon City: New Day Publishers, 1974), 3.
30
Graciano Lopez Jaena, Diskursos y Articulos Varios (Selected Speeches and
Articles) [Manila: Bureau of Printing, 1951], 171.
ISSN: 2362-7581
http://www.filocracia.org/issue3/Hernandez_Feb2015.pdf
44 Michael Roland F. Hernandez

that there exists innate intellectual and moral differences between the
“indio-filipino” and the non-indio groups that any cultural exchanges
between them would be impossible—in manifest contradiction with the
theory of human nature espoused in the Manifiesto.31
This paradoxical situation in which the conduct of ilustrado
nationalism finds itself leads us into the question of that inescapable
violence that lies at the root of the struggle for freedom from Spanish
colonial hegemony. If the construction of Filipino identity was the
necessary avenue by which the anti-colonial project can be commenced,
and such construction is shown, in itself, to repeat the language of
discriminatory violence and oppression, what guarantee is there that the
language of ilustrado nationalism will not recede back into the problematic
of power relation and violence? Such a double-bind clarifies to us the
impossibility of ever-escaping the relations of power and violence present
in all our relations—be they social, economic, or political. Vicente Rafael, in
a commentary on Schumacher’s Burgos Manifiesto, illustrates this paradox
succinctly:
Here then lies the other side of nationalism’s Christian-
colonial origins; it is infused as much by an originary
cosmopolitanism—the sense of a certain foreignness at its
foundation—as it is contaminated by an intractable
racism.32
What does Faith exclude?
Any attempt to conduct a critique of imperialism from the
perspective of the West is always bound to misrepresent the varied
movements for emancipation by the oppressed colonial subject. Western
intellectual production, it may be argued, has almost always nourished
itself in complicity with western economic interests and for this reason, is
incapable of fully articulating a theory of desires and interest that
empathically represents the marginalized “other.” In the conduct of
Ilustrado nationalism, the struggle for nationhood and self-determination
have always been cast in the language of the elite, i.e., a language which is
itself alien to the life and interests of the oppressed native [indio]. Even if

31
See Aguilar, “Tracing Origins,” 621.
32
Vicente Rafael, “The Gift of Nationalism: Comments on John
Schumacher’s “The Burgos Manifiesto” in Philippine Studies 64, 305-11; 310.
ISSN: 2362-7581
Filocracia 2:1 (February 2015)
 What does Faith Exclude? Catholic Hegemony and Ilustrado Nationalism 45

one traces its roots to the Secularization Controversy, one can still
recognize with ease that the attempt to appropriate a Filipino identity
itself reveals the problem of exclusionary violence. Having its roots in the
language of religious struggle, the construction of a “Filipino” national
identity has ingeniously mapped out the space for the possibility of neo-
colonial exploitation and subtly solidified Filipino nationalism’s complicity
with the orientalism of Western emancipatory discourse.
In this context, what faith excludes, by its own internal (non)
logic, is the infidel, the non-believer. It should not surprise us that a
nationalist ideology that is itself grounded on the premises of the Catholic
religion should partake of the same exclusivism essential to all faiths
understood as institutions. Faith, as an experience, reminds us that
salvation from God is open to all—Spaniards, creoles, mestizos, and indios
alike. Yet, when institutionalized into a religion, faith divides the inside
from what is the outside; thus revealing that the outside—the nation’s
external and internal others—can only “join” the inside through the
experience of social and epistemic violence. It is an irony reminding us that
Filipino ilustrado nationalism and the nationalist discourse that
subsequently fed on it must always acknowledge this fateful Catholic
heritage and forever be haunted by it.
References
Aguilar, Filomeno. “Tracing Origins: Ilustrado Nationalism and The Racial
Science of Migration Waves.” Journal of Asian Studies 64, no. 3
(August 2005): 605-37.
Anderson, Benedict. Under Three Flags: Anarchism and the Anti-Colonial
Imagination. Pasig City`: Anvil, 2006.
Heidegger, Martin. “Letter on Humanism.” In Martin Heidegger: Basic Writings,
189-242. New York: Harper and Row, 1977.
Ileto, Reynaldo. Pasyon and Revolution: Popular Movements in the Philippines, 1840-
1910. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1979.
Lopez-Jaena, Graciano. Diskursos y Articulos Varios (Selected Speeches and
Articles). Manila : Bureau of Printing, 1951.
Rafael, Vicente. “The Gift of Nationalism: Comments on Fr. John
Schumacher's "The Burgos Manifiesto".” Philippine Studies 54, no. 2
(2006): 305-311.

ISSN: 2362-7581
http://www.filocracia.org/issue3/Hernandez_Feb2015.pdf
46 Michael Roland F. Hernandez

Schumacher, John. Father Jose Burgos: A Documentary History. Quezon City:

Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1999.
—. The Propaganda Movement, 1880-1895. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila
University Press, 1997.
Scott, William Henry. Looking for the Prehispanic Filipino. Quezon City: New
Day Publishers, 1992.
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. “Can the Subaltern Speak?” In Marxism and the
Interpretation of Culture, edited by Cary Nelson and Lawrence
Grossberg, 271-313. Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 1988.

ISSN: 2362-7581
Filocracia 2:1 (February 2015)