|
Marx starts his explanation of society in terms of conceiving it as a
totalizing entity with underlying structures that are external to and
constraining individual actions. The structures are self-governing entities that
pushes people through processes over which they have no control. Basic for
Marx�s analysis is the economic structure that determines the make-up of other
structures, i.e. the social institutions (Craib, 1997). Rizal has two divergent views about social
structure. His first conception of social structure as a totalizing entity is
more akin to Durkheim�s organic analogy and Parson�s structural
functionalism. San Juan (2004) discussed this in terms of Rizal�s
notion of the body politic. The internal organisation of the body politic is comparable
to an organism, that is, every part contributes to its well-being. Undesirable
parts may cause harm or make the body of an organism prone to diseases and may
impede its functional operations. In explaining the condition of the Philippine
society during the historical period where he was writing, Rizal treated the
administration of the colonial government and the frailocracy as barriers toward
the functional operation of the body politic � they are nothing but foreign
bodies that contribute to the diseases of the organism. Rizal�s second conception of social structure is
closer to Marx. Marx�s idea of a society as a constraining and limiting entity
is parallel to Rizal�s claim that the ruling assumptions of society thwart the
spontaneous growth of individual powers (San Juan, 1968:191). As pointed out in
the discussion of Rizal�s conception of human nature, these ruling assumptions
are the discursive rules set out by institutions such as religion. On
a different light, Rizal speaks of the primacy of social structures in his
assumption of human character as being shaped by societal organizations (San
Juan, 2004). For instance, Rizal discussed children�s moral character as being
shaped by the family institution (San Juan, 2004); individual�s moral
reasoning and conscience as influenced by the religious institution (See �Tunay/Bulaan: Ang Diyalektika ni Rizal sa Usapin ng
Pagkamakarelihiyon�); and individual�s knowledge as a function of the
educational institution (San Juan, 1997). Although Marx and (to some extent) Rizal view social structure as determining human action and character, their theories also take agency into account as a means of transcending and transforming those structures. For Marx, it is the collective agency that moves
history (Craib, 1997). This idea is the same as Rizal�s claim that the actions
of human beings simultaneously destroy and create their worlds. By this, Rizal
means that even though the structures are constraining (that they thwart the
spontaneous growth of individual powers), what is left is an appeal to
transcendence (San Juan, 1968). This idea celebrates
the individual as being free, rational and individual agent desiring for change.
Guided by rationality and civic virtues, individuals are able to challenge and
resist social forces and liberate themselves from the constraining structure
(San Juan, 1997); or in simplest terms, the individuals� desire to effect
changes in their society contributes to its realization. Let us suspend the
explanation for the moment and reserve it in explaining Rizal�s account of
social change. Basic for Marx�s account of agency is about actions reproducing structures or ideologies (Craib, 1997). Rizal offers the same account in this dictum, denouncing actions that propagate the dominant structure of oppression: �walang mang-aalipin kung walang magpapaalipin�� (San Juan, 2004). |
|
Copyright 2005.
|