Scribd
Upload
65 views3 pages

Subverting Philippine Literary Norms

This document discusses the works of Gemino Abad, Isagani Cruz, and Reynaldo Ileto on Philippine literary studies and their calls for subversion. It summarizes their views that Philippine literary production and criticism should resist hegemonic traditions through acts of unmaking norms and including marginalized voices. They argue for inhabiting adopted languages like English with Filipino sensibilities and studying literature from the perspectives of marginalized groups. These calls for experimentation and inclusion of othered voices aim to lead Philippine literature to new fronts of exploration.

Uploaded by

kairugaming10
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
65 views3 pages

Subverting Philippine Literary Norms

This document discusses the works of Gemino Abad, Isagani Cruz, and Reynaldo Ileto on Philippine literary studies and their calls for subversion. It summarizes their views that Philippine literary production and criticism should resist hegemonic traditions through acts of unmaking norms and including marginalized voices. They argue for inhabiting adopted languages like English with Filipino sensibilities and studying literature from the perspectives of marginalized groups. These calls for experimentation and inclusion of othered voices aim to lead Philippine literature to new fronts of exploration.

Uploaded by

kairugaming10
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

For SREWRIT Sample Argumentative Essay x Article Critique

Philippine Literary Studies: A Yearning for Form through Subversion

Production, reading, interpretation, and criticism of literature in the Philippines can be seen
as graceful and liminal, never transitory, lines of ideologies that move from the peripheries to the
center, from exclusion to inclusion, from below to the surface. Gemino Abad, Isagani Cruz, and
Reynaldo Ileto showed that to disturb the apparently stabilized hermeneutic process is an act of
subversion (Cruz 141), but not to dethrone, an unmaking of established norms and resistance to
hegemonic modes of production, reading, and interpretation. Philippine literary studies and
production are built on existing traditions, and at the same time through resistance to these
traditions – this entire process of unmaking is also a process of making – a yearning for a
constructed form.

Gemino Abad argues that we Filipinos read and interpret literature against a “sense of
country,” and as we read and interpret, we re-discover our inherent Filipino-ness, determined by
our being Filipino. At the very heart of every poem is a quest for “What is Filipino here?” that
leads to the poetic course’s creative struggle of the poet’s medium and the poet’s subject. This
double-edged sword struggle in Filipino poetry may not pose too much of a conflict for poems
written in Tagalog or in vernacular but has greater repercussions for poems written in a new,
foreign, “imperial [tongue]” language (Ventura in Abad 2) – English. “The poet discovers his own
distinctive subject in a special clearing of his own thought and feeling within some given natural
language (2).” In this sense, poetry in English seems to linger on the peripheries, creeping its way
to the center, when it comes to expressing the matter of Filipino sense and sensibility compared to
poetry in Philippine languages. The inherent Filipino-ness must be expressed in and through the
adopted language. Abad addresses this issue by suggesting that the English language has to be
colonized by inhabiting the new language so that our own ways of looking, thinking, and feeling in
our own historical circumstances, could become sinews and nerves of the adopted language (330)
for meaningfulness of a poem is a wrought form, be it in English or Tagalog, language comes
alive… not from the words already there and their meanings in daily usage, but from the tillage,
the particular uses to which they are put (327). In short, whichever is the language, one can still be
a nationalist, forging the “Filipino matter” – the mythology or imagination of ourselves (327).
For SREWRIT Sample Argumentative Essay x Article Critique

Isagani Cruz emphasizes the fragmentary effects of appropriating dominant Western


theories to Philippine studies as it is stripped of some of its elements that can only be accounted for
if within a framed perspective of the Filipino tradition. Western hegemony has excluded,
undertheorized, and relegated to the margins the indigenous critical traditions. This
undertheorization may seem as a mere decentering of literary theory in the Philippines but it stems
from the internalization of a universalized white patriarchy (131). Alternatively, he encouraged a
coming home to the more indigenous, more polemical, more marginalized mode of criticism – an
outset of Philippine literary theory and criticism that rejects its Eurocentric roots and explores its
post-colonial dimensions of thought (141). After all, he suggests problematizing the
unproblematized, to include what has been excluded, and subverting modes we have been
accustomed to.

In a similar sense, Reynaldo Ileto echoes the call for subversion in his attempts to deal with
history from below, by suggesting a study of literature from the perspective of the marginalized, to
view them in the light of their world (256). For Ileto, literature is an exercise in power, and the
voices from below are buried deep down by the dominant who gets to write the “culture”
exemplified in scholarship. As a measure to destabilize the dominant social order, he suggests a set
of conceptual tools, a “grammar,” that would help us understand the world of the marginalized (2).
To bring them to the surface, we must write a history from below, requiring proper use of
documents and other sources from below (10).

The texts of Abad, Cruz, and Ileto induced a radical shedding of light on the othered, an
inclusion of the marginalized, and the below voices have not been listened to. These acts of
subversion and experimentation of poetry and narratives have led Philippine literature to the
forefront of criticism and exploration. Traditions that seemed steady in their grasp may find
themselves fading at the boundaries of the emerging and challenging tradition, displacing each
other despite dissent.
For SREWRIT Sample Argumentative Essay x Article Critique

Bibliography

Abad, Gemino H. “Epilogue.” Our Scene So Fair: Filipino Poetry in English, 1905 to 1955.
Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press, 2008. 199-223. Print.

_______________. “One Hundred Years of Filipino Poetry, An Overview.” World Literature


Today. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press, 2000. 327-330. Print.

_______________ and Manalapaz, Edna Zapanta. “Rereading Past Writ: An Introduction.” Man
of Earth: An Anthology of Filipino Poetry and Verse from English, 1905 to the Mid-50s.
Quezon City: Ateneo De Manila University Press, 2008. 199-223. Print.

Cruz, Isagani R. “The Other Other: Towards a Post-Colonial Poetics.” The Alfredo E. Litiatco
Lectures of Isagani R. Cruz. Ed. David Jonathan Y. Bayot. Manila: De La Salle University
Press, 1989. 1-24. Print.

Ileto, Reynaldo Clemeña. "Towards a History from Below." Pasyon and Revolution: Popular
Movements in the Philippines, 1840-1910. Quezon City: Ateneo De Manila University
Press, 1979. 1-27. Print.

Common questions

Powered by AI

Philippine literary studies face the challenge of overcoming Western hegemonic influences that marginalize indigenous critical perspectives. These challenges include redefining existing frameworks to include native traditions and perspectives, and resisting entrenched Eurocentric methodologies that have historically excluded or minimized these perspectives .

Isagani Cruz and Reynaldo Ileto view subversion as essential for deconstructing colonial and hegemonic influences in Philippine literary criticism. Cruz emphasizes the need to subvert Western theories to regain indigenous perspectives, while Ileto focuses on writing history from the perspective of the marginalized, highlighting literature as an exercise in power dynamics .

The use of language, especially English, complicates the expression of Filipino identity. While poetry in local languages may more directly convey Filipino-ness, using English requires adapting and 'colonizing' it to reflect Filipino sensibilities. This involves reshaping and reinterpreting language to accommodate historical and cultural contexts specific to the Philippines .

Ileto argues that studying literature from the perspective of the marginalized is crucial to understanding the true power dynamics within culture. Such an approach sheds light on voices that have been historically excluded, thus challenging dominant narratives and contributing to a more nuanced understanding of cultural and historical complexities .

The concept reflects a dual process in which literary studies both build upon and resist existing traditions. This subversion seeks not to overthrow but to creatively reconstruct literary norms, allowing Filipino-ness to emerge through both inherited and adopted linguistic forms. This involves an ongoing negotiation between traditional forms and modern, often post-colonial, influences .

Gemino Abad argues that the tension lies in expressing inherent Filipino-ness through an adopted language. He suggests that English must be 'colonized' by Filipinos, meaning it should be inhabited with Filipino ways of looking, thinking, and feeling. This tillage of language allows the creation of a nationalist expression, thus merging Filipino identity with the English medium .

The 'sense of country' is significant because it underlies the rediscovery of Filipino identity through literary interpretation. It drives the quest to determine 'What is Filipino here?' which influences the interaction with the poet's subject and medium, particularly in reconciling the expression of Filipino-ness with language usage, whether vernacular or foreign .

Cruz critiques Western influence for marginalizing indigenous Philippine critical traditions, having decentered them in favor of Eurocentric views. He advocates for a return to indigenous modes of criticism to reframe such studies within a post-colonial context that acknowledges and includes marginalized perspectives .

Poetic expression in English navigates Filipino cultural sensibilities by attempting to imbed a foreign language with local historical and emotional contexts. While vernacular poems naturally align with Filipino sensibilities, English-written poems require an act of 'colonization' — adapting language to nurture Filipino identity and sensibility, which is inherently more challenging .

Reynaldo Ileto challenges dominant cultural narratives by proposing the creation of a 'history from below' — focusing on the marginalized perspectives rather than the dominant culture. He suggests utilizing conceptual tools to understand and elevate marginalized voices, thereby destabilizing the established cultural and literary order .

You might also like