Nationalism Is A Destructive Socio-Cultural Phenomenon
Before I start this essay, I would like to make a disclaimer to all my readers, that I will be writing in the socio-cultural context of the Philippines, my birth country, and of Spain, my adopted country and my current residence, as my references.
This topic may cause a stir within the aforementioned communities, as it is not easy to admit bad habits nor rectify them. However, it is a constant process of reflection: first on the part of the intellectuals, then on the part of the collective. This is necessary in order for us to evolve as a society and move forward, and in order to do that, we must talk about the topics that make us uncomfortable as a society and try to offer solutions to change ourselves, first as individuals, then as a society.
As you may infer from the title itself, this is a reflection on Nationalism. Nationalism is a socio-cultural and political phenomenon from the 19th century as a revindication to express his love for his own country. It is a byproduct of the French Revolution and Romanticism. One could also say that this is a reaction towards the Enlightenment philosophy prevalent in Europe during that time. Nationalism promoted national unity by making a homogenous language, culture and patriotic identity. However, most societies are complex and diverse. And so, governments during that time needed to impose this homogeneity.
In the case of the Philippines, nationalistic ideas penetrated during the 19th century, but its effect is widely felt during the first few decades of the 20th century. As a country that was colonized twice, it is understandable why Filipinos would want to create an identity that is distant from Spain and the United States. The same phenomenon also happened in Hispano America, but not as far as creating a homogenous indigenous national identity. With that said, during the 50 years of Uncle Sam’s rule in the country, Filipinos reacted in three ways: 1) those who used Spanish as a tool to express their love for Spain, 2) those who used the Philippine languages such as Tagalog and Cebuano, fostering a more indigenous view of what a Filipino is, and 3) those who favored and adopted the English language as an expression of progress. As a first attempt towards homogenization, the Philippine government, under Manuel Quezon’s administration, created the Commission on the National Language, whose responsibility was to choose an indigenous language to be the national language of the country (Ironically, Manuel Quezon spoke Spanish and most of his speeches were in Spanish). The said commission, with 8 representatives representing the 8 major languages: Ilocano, Kapampangan, Tagalog, Bikolano, Cebuano, Hiligaynon, Waray and Pangasinense, chose Tagalog to be the national language and was renamed as Filipino. However, by standardizing Tagalog, the commission disparaged the other languages as dialects, thus creating an environment full of discrimination towards non- Tagalog speakers.
This is the first problem of Nationalism; imposing a language for the sole purpose of promoting national identity. While it is true that language is a window and soul of a culture, one must not forget that the Philippines is ethnically and linguistically diverse society with more than a hundred languages, and by imposing a standardized form of Tagalog over those who do not speak it, will eventually lead to diglossia, and then linguistic discrimination by labelling those ethnic groups as not “authentic Filipinos”.
As an effect of this linguistic imposition and identity towards other ethnic groups, they are forced to assimilate into the new identity and thus, leading to language death like most linguistic minorities are facing now. Furthermore, as this type of politics proliferates, it will lead to national insecurity and cultural protests as minorities fight for their right to the use of their language and just being themselves. The fact that this imposition starts from the very beginning of formal education, preschool teachers shaming their students for speaking in English, or worse, shaming them for speaking their mother tongue. This will lead to more serious consequences such as language anxiety and social isolation.
The second problem of Nationalism is cultural discrimination towards ethnic groups. As I said before, with the imposition of this linguistic homogeneity comes cultural homogeneity. Ethnic groups are being discriminated against, not only for the use of their own mother tongue, but also for being culturally different from the dominant culture. This is what happened to Spain during the regime of Francisco Franco throughout the latter half of the 20th century, and its effects can still be seen in areas where Spanish is not spoken. This is also true back home in the Philippines, where discrimination against the Visayans is prominent (mainly mocking their accents when speaking Tagalog or English). Aside from cultural discrimination towards the ethnic groups, the problem of a homogenized national cultural policy is the tendency to discriminate foreign cultures.
The third problem that I see in this social problem is the resistance to social change. As an example, I would use the example of extreme-right wing political party Vox, as most of its members still cling to the glorious imperial past of Spain and support fascism. Most of its members are conditioned to believe that Spain’s history has been altered by the English, Dutch, and Protestants in a sociopolitical event called the “Black Legend’’. Although, in a contemporary perspective, Spain was one of the most “progressive” powers, creating laws to protect the natives and better treatment of slaves. However, social reality is far different from what it is written on paper. Most of these nationalists defended the utopian idea that Spain was the best empire and that their enemies destroyed their empire through black propaganda, ignoring the fact that their external policies have always been making themselves look good in front of other European powers, and thus spending money on useless wars, which eventually led to the empire’s downfall. Aside from this blaming culture, most of them would defend the institution of the caste system or the racial mixes which is called mestizaje. While it was Spanish policy that Spaniards marry the natives, the caste system produced a social hierarchy based on the percentage of European blood. The more an individual has European blood, the individual has more privileges and prestige. To summarize the caste system. the natives and the African slaves are at the bottom of the social pyramid.
Last but not the least, the denial of minorities’ narrative and perspective. Most nationalists would try not to even read them nor consider. This is very true, when we discuss most of Spain’s colonial history, most of the indigenous narratives were silenced when it did not favor their image. However, this is also the case when minorities now have the power and disregard the good contributions of the colonizers, like in the case of the Spanish colonies where cultural assimilation was prevalent and mutual, the indigenous practices never disappeared, it just changed social context.
To conclude this article, we must remember that no society is simple, it is very complex. Furthermore, we also need to remember that human history is a history of migration and movement, and to promote the idea of “national pride” is very absurd because no culture is pure, as humans are social animals and have the constant need to be in contact with other human beings. In fact, it is through cultural contact that we, as a species, were able to evolve and dominate landscapes. Now that we live in a more globalized world, we must develop a culture of empathy, sympathy, and mutual respect.
