|
Marx conceives consensus (or social order) in terms
of people within classes sharing the same ideologies that interpellated them.
While people are acting out these ideologies, they are in turn reproducing them.
In Marx�s terms, these ideologies misrepresents reality to the people and in
effect, the dominant order of oppression is reproduced without the actors being
conscious about it � seeing things as part of the natural order (Craib, 1997);
hence, a negativistic conception of ideology. Rizal on the other hand accounts
for consensus in terms of a more optimistic way as he suggests an ideology that
(although it is interpellating in a sense) fosters morality. Rizal only regards
ideology as negativistic when it is constituted by
�immoral� agents, i.e. the discourse of the inauthentic religion that he
criticized as an impediment to a sound and moral reasoning (that can also lead
to the reproduction of the hegemonic power of the frailocracy). In his theorizing about socialization i.e. the
social process in which social values and beliefs are internalized by the
members of society, Rizal is optimistic about agency (individual actions) in his
claim that social order is realized through inculcating the �ideals of moral
values� to the next generation; in this case, the �ideals of moral values�
is ideological in character. In his Letter
to the Women of Malolos (as discussed by San Juan, 2004), Rizal pointed out
the importance of mothers, being the administrators of education; and through
their efforts, the �ideals of moral values� are passed on to their children
� a very example of how ideology is being circulated and reproduced. Rizal
believes that the foundation of an orderly society is morality. Being aware that
what is being taught to a child in the process of socialization will eventually
become his reality, Rizal prescribes: �ituro
ang lahat ng kagandahang asal�. This idea is close to Durkheim�s notion
of moral order. Aside from what is mentioned, Rizal also employs an
ideal-typical construction (like what the social theorist Max Weber employ in
organizing empirical realities) in his idea of a united community. Rizal�s
utopic vision is to shape an image of the Filipino race as a community with a
historical destiny (San Juan, 1968) and a precondition for the attainment of
this �obsession� is the existence of a collective agency that promotes
ideological/ political solidarity among its members (San Juan, 2004). Rizal�s
analogy of the family and country/community (as presented by San Juan, 1968)
resembles the idea of Parsonian structural functionalism in the sense that for
Rizal, the constitution and structure of the whole Filipino community (a system
in its own right) should mimic the constitution and structure of the family (as
a subsystem). In the family, harmony (or in Parsonian terms, equilibrium) is
achieved through members recognition that they are united by blood, valuing
their dignity and respecting each other. For Rizal, the Filipino community must
constitute a �family� in these terms. Through unity and shared (consensual)
identity, the members of the community are able to realize their agony and
oppression (San Juan, 2004). And following the logic of organic
analogy/functionalism, the system must be devoid of the dysfunctional
colonial intervention � of those idols and icons within the system that have
lost their organic vitality (San Juan, 1968; 2004). Obviously, Marx prioritizes the conflict side of
the consensus/conflict dualism by analyzing society in terms of conflicting
classes � the bourgeoisie and the proletarian classes. Although carrying the
same idea, Rizal�s theory, being specific to a colonized society, puts
emphasis into the division of classes in terms of the colonized people versus
the colonial elite; and in a closer class definition to Marx, of exploited
peasant workers versus the despotic Spanish bureaucracy/church (San Juan, 1997).
For Rizal, the very structure of the society provides conflict between these interlocking positions. These material conflicts include inequalities, domination and denied liberty. These conflicts will eventually arouse the dominated (or the colonized) class to struggle in order to redeem their humanity and individuality from the Other (i.e. colonizers). Class struggle therefore is the name of the people in becoming a nation (San Juan, 1997). |
|
Copyright 2005.
|