identifying independence

The question of independence is both subjective and objective; it is, in fact, contrarian. In as much as one could argue sovereignty, political and social constructs inclusive, being evidence to the establishment of the case of independence and its palpable manifestation to our reality, our sense of either of these are not as fully developed or realized as some may surmise.

To be independent, as a nation or country, or as a collective at least, the ubiquitous synergy must be present. Not, of course, in the drone subservience of a totalitarian society, as we are a self-professed democracy, but that there must be present an underlying self-awareness of the collective. This self-awareness, matured into a sense of socio-cultural identity, allows individuals of any number to tap and relate directly, indirectly and associatively to the goals and objectives, albeit dreams, of the collective.

This Gestaltist view is neither novel nor alien. We have numerous examples in Asia to illustrate countries that are so culturally and socially evolved that the question of national identity is both absurd and rhetorical. In fact, economic standing has never been a deterrent or requisite in the development of a national identity; it is as extreme as comparing Japan and South Korea to say Thailand and Bhutan. Both equally culturally superior, yet the economic gulf couldn’t be any more vast.

Distressing, in the case of the proud Republic of the Philippines, that the sense of national identity is either false or induced by association with immigrants/ exceptional individuals who have successfully distinguished themselves in their new (or old, or borne unto) country of residence. Case in point, being Filipino does not make Jessica Sanchez vocally brilliant; nor does it make Manny Pacquiao instinctively competitive. In fact, excessive associative identification may actually dilute and weaken their successes, in that it distills the achievements of one to such an overly simplistic attribution as nationality. It’s akin to playing six degrees, without the degrees; merely ascribing something that is plainly non sequitur. If we, as a nation, actually did had a hand in the good fate that these exceptional and exemplary individuals have, then by and good share and bask in their victory, otherwise be content with complementing and supporting the accomplishments they’ve gained.

I think the primary problem in our lack of social unity and an absence of a national identity is that we are highly regionalistic. This, being a direct result of our country being archipelagic, thus leading to independent cultural strains throughout our history. But, even if we are regionalistic, it is not absolute that we remain as so. Take China for example; each of their provinces have their own rich cultural heritage, and even accents and lexicon vary per province and region, and yet they have a sense of a greater culture that encompasses all of these. This maybe from having an imperial/ royalist dominion, but that is beside the fact. Regionalism is not insurmountable.

Why is it that even when people from the provinces choose to transfer to the cities to work/ study/ or do business they remain as regionalistic and discriminating as they were at home? That squabbles between social classes occur because each demographic believes themselves superior from others. And moreso, that cultural and behavioral stereotyping occurs even in this modern day and age – Ilocano’s being thrifty/ greedy, Sugbuanon’s being feisty, Chavacano’s being antagonistic, and the list goes on.

Yet, when Filipinos, of whatever lineage, go abroad they do so usually with the best of behavior. An observation that baffles me more, that we need to be detached and distanced from our own country in order to feel the need to be good citizens, albeit become exemplary Filipinos. Why is that? But here, in our homeland, we would rather blindly take the word of a “kababayan” than trust one from another region. That “magkababayan’s” should stick together.

Rather than use the diversity of our cultural and social fabric to strengthen our sense of identity, it serves to weaken this bond and dilute social dynamics to something as banally simple as stereotyping and bandwagonism. Gossiping and badmouthing one another for the sake of a false esprit de corps.

We cannot have a national identity rooted on differences. To achieve any form of national identity, we must first be willing to identify with those whose cultural background is not our own. We have to be willing to find the commonalities in the variety of our regions. We have to identify what is not us, and become one of the same. We have to break the barriers of cultural pigeonholing and labeling, and find that we are all, essentially, one and the same.

That is what it means to be independent. Being able to break free from cultural misrepresentations, social typecasting, and behavioral stereotyping to find the equality and acceptance that centuries of colonial programming have stolen from us. We have to start thinking like a Filipino, and so as provinces, or colonial fiefdoms. There is no unity in this mentality. Archipelagoes are only as strong as their people.

Original image from here.