Chapter 2 Nation and Nationalism

Intended Learning Outcomes: At the end of this chapter, the students are expected
to:

1. define nationalism in relation to the concepts of nation, state, and nation-

state;

2. explain the relevance of nationalism and nation-building at present.

The previous chapter stated that one of the major reasons behind the passage of the
Rizal Law was the strong intent to instill nationalism in the hearts and minds of the
Filipino youth. This chapter will now focus on nation and nationalism in the Philippine
context. It will explain the concepts of nation, state, and nation-state as a precursor to
understanding nationalism and the projects that lead to it. Likewise, the discussion will
touch on some of Rizal’s works that deal with nation and nationalism.

The chapter also aims to reflect on nation-building in the Philippines which is a major
force behind the passage of the Rizal Law.

bayan/banua – indigenous Filipino concepts of community and territory that may be

related to nationalism.

nation – a group of people with a shared language, culture, and history.

nation-building – a project undertaken with the goal of strengthening the bond of the
nation.

nation-state – a state ruling over a nation.

patriotism – a feeling of attachment to one’s homeland.

sovereignty – the authority to govern a polity without external interference/incursions.

2.1 Nation, State, Nation-State

To better understand nationalism, one must learn first the concepts of nation and
nationhood as well as state and nation-state. Refer to the following summary:

Nation Nation-State State

A group of A state governing A political entity
people that a nation. that wields
shares a sovereignty over a
common culture, defined territory.
history,
language, and
other practices
like religion,
affinity to a
place, etc.

Social scientists have fleshed out the nuances of nation, state, and nation-state. A nation
is a community of people that are believed to share a link with one another based on
cultural practices, language, religion or belief system, and historical experience, to name
a few. A state, on the other hand, is a political entity that has sovereignty over a defined
territory. States have laws, taxation, government, and bureaucracy – basically, the
means of regulating life within the territory. This sovereignty needs diplomatic
recognition to be legitimate and acknowledged internationally. The state’s boundaries
and territory are not fixed and change across time with war, sale, arbitration and
negotiation, and even assimilation or secession.

The nation-state, in a way, is a fusion of the elements of the nation (people/community)

and the state (territory). The development of nation-states started in Europe during the
periods coinciding with the Enlightenment. The “classical” nation-states of Europe
began with the Peace of Westphalia in the seventeenth century. Many paths were taken
towards the formation of the nation-states. In the “classical” nation-states, many
scholars posit that the process was an evolution from being a state into a nation-state
in which the members of the bureaucracy (lawyers, politicians, diplomats, etc.)
eventually moved to unify the people within the state to build the nation-state. A second
path was taken by subsequent nation-states which were formed from nations. In this
process, intellectuals and scholars laid the foundations of a nation and worked towards
the formation of political and eventually diplomatic recognition to create a nation-state.
A third path taken by many Asian and African people involved breaking off from a
colonial relationship, especially after World War II when a series of decolonization and
nation-(re)building occurred. During this time, groups initially controlled by imperial
powers started to assert their identity to form a nation and build their own state from
the fragments of the broken colonial ties. A fourth path was by way of (sometimes
violent) secessions by people already part of an existing state. Here, a group of people
who refused to or could not identify with the rest of the population built a nation,
asserted their own identity, and demanded recognition. In the contemporary world, the
existing nation-states continuously strive with projects of nation-building especially
since globalization and transnational connections are progressing.

Nation and Nationalism

As mentioned, one major component of the nation-state is the nation. This concept
assumes that there is a bond that connects a group of people together to form a
community. The origin of the nation, and concomitantly nationalism, has been a subject
of debates among social scientists and scholars. In this section, three theories about the
roots of the nation will be presented.

The first theory traces the root of the nations and national identity to existing and deep-
rooted features of a group of people like race, language, and others. Often called
primordialism, it argues that a national identity has always existed and nations have
“ethnic cores.” In this essentialist stance, one may be led to conclude that divisions of
“us” and “them” are naturally formed based on the assumption that there exists an
unchanging core in everyone. The second theory states that nation, national identity,
and nationalism are products of the modern condition and are shaped by modernity.
This line of thinking suggests that nationalism and national identity are necessary
products of the social structure and culture brought about by the emergence of
capitalism, industrialization, secularization, urbanization, and bureaucratization. This
idea further posts that in pre-modern societies, the rigid social hierarchies could
accommodate diversity in language and culture, in contrast with the present times in
which rapid change pushes statehood to guard the homogeneity in society through
nationalism. Thus, in the modernist explanation, nationalism is a political project.

The third theory – a very influential explanation – about nation and nationalism
maintains that these ideas are discursive. Often referred to as the constructivist
approach to understanding nationalism, this view maintains that nationalism is socially
constructed and imagined by people who identify with a group. Benedict Anderson
argues that nations are “imagined communities” (2003). He traces the history of these
imagined communities to the Enlightenment when European society began challenging
the supposed divinely – ordained dynastic regimes of the monarchies. This idea was
starkly exemplified by the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution. The nation
is seen as imagined because the people who affiliate with that community have a mental
imprint of the affinity which maintains solidarity; they do not necessarily need to see
and know all the members of the group. With this imagined community comes a “deep,
horizontal comradeship” that maintains harmonious co-existence and even fuels the
willingness of the people to fight and die for that nation. Anderson also puts forward the
important role of mass media in the construction of the nation during that time. He
underscores that the media (1) fostered unified fields of communication which allowed
the millions of people within a territory to “know” each other through printed outputs
and become aware that many others identified with the same community; (2)
standardized languages that enhanced feelings of nationalism and community; and (3)
maintained communication through a few languages widely used in the printing press
which endured through time.
 Nation and Bayan

In the Philippines, many argue that the project of nation-building is a continuing

struggle up to the present. Considering the country’s history, historians posit that the
19th century brought a tremendous change in the lives of the Filipinos, including the
actual articulations of nation and nationhood that culminated in the first anti-colonial
revolution in Asia led by Andres Bonifacio and the Katipunan. Furthermore, scholars
note the important work of the propagandists like Rizal in the sustained efforts to build
nation and enact change in the Spanish colony. As you continue to familiarize yourselves
with the concepts of nation and nationalism, it would be worthwhile to look at how
these ideas have been articulated in the past as well as how scholars locate these efforts
in the indigenous culture.

Many Filipino scholars who endeavored to understand indigenous/local knowledge have

identified concepts that relate to how Filipinos understand the notions of community
and, to an extent, nation and nation-building. The works of Virgilio Enriquez, Prospero
Covar, and Zeus Salazar, among others, attempted to identify and differentiate local
categories for communities and social relations. The indigenous intellectual movements
like Sikolohiyang Pilipino and Bagong Kasaysayan introduced the concepts of kapwa
and bayan that can enrich discussions about nationalism in the context of the
Philippines.

Kapwa is an important concept in the country’s social relations. Filipino interaction is

mediated by understanding one’s affinity with another as described by the phrases
“ibang tao” and “di ibang tao.” In the formation and strengthening of social relations,
the kapwa concept supports the notion of unity and harmony in a community. From this
central concept arise other notions such as “pakikipagkapwa”, “pakikisama”, and
“pakikipag-ugnay”, as well as the collective orientation of Filipino culture and psyche.

In the field of history, a major movement in the indigenization campaign is led by Bagong
Kasaysayan, founded by Zeus Salazar, which advances the perspective known as
Pantayong Pananaw. Scholars in this movement are among the major researchers that
nuance the notion of bayan or banua. In understanding Filipino concepts of community,
the bayan is an important indigenous concept. Bayan/Banua, which can be traced all the
way to the Austronesian language family, is loosely defined as the territory where the
people live or the actual community they are identifying with. Thus, bayan/banua
encompasses both the spatial community as well as the imagined community. The
concept of bayan clashed with the European notion of nacion during the Spanish
colonialism. The proponents of Pantayong Pananaw maintain the existence of a great
cultural divide that separated the elite (nacion) and the folk/masses (bayan) as a product
of the colonial experience. This issue brings the project of nation-building to a contested
terrain.

Throughout Philippine history, the challenge of building the Filipino nation has persisted,
impacted by colonialism, violent invasion during World War II, a dictatorship, and the
perennial struggle for development.

Summary

As stated in the first chapter, the imperative of instilling nationalism in the minds of
the youth was a major factor behind the passage of the Rizal Law. To have a basic grasp
of nationalism, the concepts of nation, state, and nation-state must be examined. This
chapter explained the basic definitions of nation (a community of people), state (a
political entity), and nation-state (a fusion of the previous two) and traced the
development of the nation-state. It then tackled the various ways by which social
scientists made sense of the concepts of nation and nationalism, their origins, and
development. Discussed were the primordialist, modernist, and social constructionist
approaches as lenses in which nationalism could be viewed. The chapter ended with a
brief discussion about nationalism in the context of the Philippines, particularly how
indigenous knowledge could be used to examine how Filipinos understand the concepts
of nation and nationalism. As you study the life of Jose Rizal, it is important to remind
yourself of the multiplicity of ideas during his time and beyond that will affect your
understanding of nation and nationalism.