Character Formation, Patriotism and Nationalism

Chapter 1

Fundamentals of Patriotism and Nationalism

“Kay sarap mabuhay sa sariling bayan Kung walang alipin at may kalayaan. Ang bayang sinisiil, babangon
lalaban din! Ang silang ay pupula sa timyas ng paglaya.”

How much do we understand or desire freedom? What does it take for a nation to be genuinely free?
Apolinario Mabini, the so- called “brains and conscience” of the Katipunan, wrote about this:

“Marami ang nag sasalita ng tungkol sa kalayaan nang hindi ito naiintindihan. Marami ang naniniwala na
ang pagiging malaya ay nangangahulugang maari ng gawin ang ano mang maibigan, ito man ay para sa
mabuti o sa masama na isang malaking pagkakamali. Ang kalayaan ay para lamang sa mabuti at kailan
ma’y hindi para sa masama at itoy palaging naka ayon sa katwiran at sa matuwid at marangal na budhi
ng tao.”

Similarly, the late Gen. Antonio Luna viewed “freedom” as something that was not that easy to achieve,
“...sabihan mo ang mga Pilipino [na] hindi nakakamit ang kalayaan sa pagaaruga sa kanilang mga mahal
sa buhay, kailangan nilang magbayad [ng] dugo at pawis...”

In light of recent events and challenges faced by the Filipino nation, “freedom” has become a significant
concept discussed in all sectors of society. It has been mentioned more than ever perhaps due to the
variety of issues and concerns that haunt the motherland— even extending to environmental concerns
and corruption. The idea of “freedom” might be seen as insignificant, an abstract concept that is difficult
to prove, or worse, a topic reserved only for rhetorical discussions. This notion seems to be valid given
the complexities of the social, cultural, economic, and political aspects of our nation. This is
compounded by the fact that the opportunities to discuss freedom are very rare.

However, before one dismiss the validity and practicality of the issue, have we ever asked ourselves the
fundamental question? How well do understand freedom? What if the discussion on freedom is the
missing component that would make our nation great? S.K. Tan opined a concept of “primitive liberty,”
which created a progressive and bountiful period that helped lay down the foundation of different
cultures and belief systems as well as the governments and the laws that regulate the civilization of the
Filipino people. What was it that Magellan and the other conquistadores saw, which provoked them to
enslave a nation of great people? Magellan, along with the simple premise national interest,
sovereignty, and identity more than the economics of things, can be substantial topics worth discussing.
However, no one would have the absolute capacity and the moral right to deliberate upon the
aforementioned topics unless one understands the essentials of freedom.

“Freedom is not free” is a passage written on the Korean War Memorial located in Washington DC in the
United States. During the Korean War from 1950–1953 a group of Filipino soldiers was sent to South
Korea as part of the United Nations contingent. Arguably, this could be the best contribution that we
could have offered because we were known to be a nation of great warriors. In fact, Gen. Douglas
MacArthur once famously said, “give me ten thousand Filipino and I will conquer the world.” MacArthur
was really fascinated with the gallantry of our Filipino soldiers during the World War II and, once again,
this characteristic was demonstrated in the midst of the Korean War. On the border of North and South
Korea, there were many contingents from different countries, including the Philippines, to protect South
Korea from North Korea. When the approximately 70,000 North Korean and Chinese soldiers attacked
the border, some contingents abandoned their post, but not the Filipinos. According to records, there
were about 4,000 members of the Filipino contingent, including non-combatant ones, but all of them
were able to hold the line until the reinforcements came. Gen. Fidel V. Ramos, former Philippine
President, can attest to what happened because he was part of said contingent

Arguably, the Republic of Korea would not be enjoying peace, democracy, and economic prosperity
today if not for the noble and great sacrifice of many soldiers, including Filipino and Korean War
veterans. The heroism of the Filipinos is worthy of remembrance, especially today. The world is fast
becoming globalized and new dangers and challenges have replaced the era of imperialism and the
nuclear destruction of civilization. Many issues, such as terrorism and separatism, religious extremism,
drug trafficking and organized crimes, the threat of the spread of weapons of mass destruction (WMD),
financial and economic crises, ecological disasters, and epidemics, pose risks to national and
international security. How should the world community overcome these threats? In particular, what
should we, as Filipinos, do to contribute to these efforts?

Understanding Freedom: An Attempt to Contextualize

The discourse on the indigenization of the social sciences— particularly where anthropology,
psychology, and sociology are concerned—along with the experiences, values, as well as fundamental
and associated ideals, have been in existence for a little over twenty years. Indigenization was and
continues to be a response to what many non-Western social scientists perceive as the inability of Euro-
American social science to constitute a relevant and liberating discourse in the context of Asian, African,
and latin American societies (Van Bremen et al., 2004).

This problem is exacerbated by the fact that much of social science literature in this field, which tackle
the core values and fundamental principles, have been assimilated uncritically outside of their countries
of origin by students, lecturers, researchers, and planners. While the problem of irrelevance and its
concomitant issues raised in the discourse on indigenization had been recognized by non- Western
scholars as early as the beginning of this century, the term “indigenization” has only become more
popular since the 1970s. It could be said that indigenization is a relatively new term, which addresses a
problem that has already been recognized quite some time ago (Van Bremen et. al., 2004).

Throughout much of Asia and Africa, the formative periods of the various disciplines of the social
sciences and the institutions in which they were taught were initiated and sustained by colonial scholars
and administrators since the eighteenth century. These were also taught by other Europeans—both
directly and indirectly—in vicariously colonized areas.
In the Philippines, the first social science to be taught, history, was introduced as early as in the
seventeenth century, with anthropology, economics, political science, psychology, and sociology
emerging during the American colonial period (Feliciano, 1984). The Philippine system was patterned
after the American educational system, and in the early part of this century, many Filipinos were sent to
the united states for graduate studies, further strengthening the American influence in social science
education (Talib and Cardinal, 2016). Hence, it is important that the discourse(s) on the concepts of
“freedom,” “nationalism,” and “patriotism” (and the like), which are offered through the Filipino lens,
are either weak or rare, present but not substantive.

The sacrifices that our ancestors had to make in the name of freedom, democracy, and peace during the
333 years of spanish occupation serve as proof that, indeed, we are a nation of heroes—great people
who cherish these values. The indomitable desire to liberate our country emanates from a deep sense of
“patriotism” and “nationalism.” However, because of the different interests and daily hurdles that
exhaust our energies most of the time, we tend to forget these social values. Now, it is time that we
inculcate in our youth the values that we hold dear in order for them to appreciate the freedom they are
experiencing today—freedom paid by the blood of our ancestors.

Self-identity is an essential aspect of our life. Humans need others not just for the development of basic
functions, but also for the formation of their identity, psychological being, and self-concept. Cooperation
serves an essential role in the evolution of the species, as human beings maintain and create themselves
by living in groups. Even before individuals become aware of their larger group, they already internalize
beliefs and values, adopt a perspective of life, and learn customs and rituals that characterize their
group. In other words, they are shaped and formed by their connection to other people who share their
life space, the people who raised them, their friends, and/ or those with whom they interact in the
business of everyday life. How human think and feel, as well as their conceptions of themselves, are
formed by their membership in their extended group. The experiences of group living serve as the basis
for the emergence of patriotism.

Civic bonds with civic duties towards the nation and the state have come to be recognized and rated as
supreme among individuals’ social loyalties. Patriotism in a nation-state has become a central value and
a motivational force that is potentially involved in a wide range of important processes, such as political
participation, supportive and critical evaluation of the leadership and relevant policies, political
mobilization, societal conformity and obedience, conflict management and resolution, and even
international trade. Nations are relatively modern inventions, and patriotism is not tied to them. In fact,
patriotism could probably be found in every ethnographic group that had settled on a particular
territory. “Attachment,” in this case, is a binding affection between a person and his/her group and its
land. It reflects a positive evaluation of one’s emotions toward a group and its territory, and is expressed
in beliefs and feelings that connote love, pride, loyalty, devotion, commitment, and care. In addition,
“attachment” implies behaviors that benefit the group. In a sense, the core definition of patriotism is
“attachment by the group members to their group and the land in which it resides.”

What is “patriotism?”
“Patriotism” is defined as “love of one’s country” or one’s “country of birth” because it is the land of
one’s forefathers. This concept includes the love of country of one’s “naturalization” and a “devotion of
one’s country.” It derives from the Greek word patriot, which means “fellow countryman” and patrice,
which means “fatherland” or “country.” The term also derives from the word pater, which means
“father.” A patriot is someone supports and acts in defense of his/her country and the term generally
refers to a concept of national loyalty.

Historically, “patriotism” refers to one’s connection to the land of his/her origin. When political
ideologies emerged, the notion of what patriotism meant began to take on a political connotation.
Although the strong feelings toward the land continued and, by extension, toward the people inhabiting
those lands, further developments took place. Customs and traditions were included in the historical
pride. According to Washington Times, there are two orientations of patriotism: a traditional and
postmodern perspective (retrieved from: https:// www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/7/the-
patriotism-gap/ on october 11, 2018). Traditionally, patriotism comprises love, loyalty, defense, sacrifice,
and support of one’s country. The postmodern conception, however, approaches patriotism from a
subjective, emotional viewpoint leading to love of one’s country.

Patriotism is considered to have different meanings according to the history, context, and location.
However, it is universally fundamental to liberty because pride in one’s nation-state—and the
willingness to defend it if necessary—is the basis of national independence. Patriotism is the courage of
national self-determination. Johnson (1990) views patriotism as a predisposition to behave altruistically
on behalf of the most comprehensive social system of which an individual is a member, and emphasizes
its inborn nature and independence of short-term incentives and sanctions. In other words, patriotism
consists of acts and beliefs based on securing one’s identity or self-benefits. It is one’s “civic devotion” to
the state as a political entity while expressing commitment towards it, thus emphasizes processes of
political loyalty and political commitment to the state. Finally, patriotism can be defined as a person’s
“identification” with social values that are anchored in the historical experience and, in the present, on
the existence of a given country.

In Maslow’s motivational theory, the needs of belongingness, love, and self-esteem are necessary in one
person’s life, and patriotism plays a significant part in fulfilling such needs. Specifically, these are the
needs for security, positive identity, effectiveness and control, and connection to other people.
Connection to one’s identified group has the potential to contribute to the satisfaction of each of these
needs. Even when chaos and social disorganization within the group frustrate the basic need for
comprehending the world and one’s own place in it, initially individuals tend to turn to the group in the
hope that new vision and comprehension will emerge (staub & Bar-Tal, 1997).

Patriotism is the consequence of the development of the collective system of meaning, which is
determined primarily by social values and social identification. Patriotism is based on the acquisition of
common social values that are reflected in traditions, rituals, historical events, and other aspects of a
collective system of meaning, which serves as a source of social identity for group members. According
to Reykowski (1997), certain group conditions and individual variables affect feelings of patriotism.
Among group conditions, he includes salient similarities of group members, clear boundaries between
in-groups and out- groups, and the existence of unifying factors.

The roots of patriotism are even deeper than love and pride in the group, they reach even further: the
individual’s self-concept and self- identity. The group becomes part of individuals and they experience
themselves as part of the group. As the group often acquires a special status, something larger, greater,
and bigger than individuals—their devotion and service to the group—can help them take on a selfless
quality that they usually do not experience when they act to promote their own welfare. Their actions
on behalf of the group, and even their very devotion to the group can be considered a moral, even
quasi- religious experience.

According to Turner (1987), once individuals “categorize” themselves as group members, awareness of
their membership becomes part of their self-concept, thereby forming their social identity. The partial
rootedness of individuals’ identities in the group is their self-categorization as group members, and that
social identity derives from their membership and their desire to elevate the group. Their love for the
pride in the group, and the group’s expectations from them, which they internalize and experience as an
obligation, all fuse together to create a sense of patriotism. In short, patriotism provides the glue that
binds together the individual, the group, and the territory in which the group resides. In a nutshell, this
can also be explained as follows: “karanasan, kaisipan, kamalayaan, kalayaan at pagiging makabayan.”

Filipino Social Thinkers

Historically manifestos and articles regarding the expression of our ancestor’s ideas and aspirations had
always been present. This articles and authors, though arguably scant, are neither inferior nor frail in the
intellectual enterprise. Their writings in one way or the other contributed to the awareness and later to
the consciousness of the many if not all Filipinos which challenged the conventional ideas of submission,
od inferiority, of weakness and of false brotherhood by the foreigners own construction of truths during
their time [and maybe of our time too].

Prior to the coming of the spaniards (and other colonizers) and before the existence of the Christian and
Non-Christian categorization of our ancestors, they were able to come up with a set of codes/ guidelines
of socially relevant teachings. These were enriched by the fusion of different influences, resulting in an
elaborate, almost mystical aspect of doctrine proceeding through life. Warriors and women were
tattooed with distinct designs all over their bodies—a form of ornamentation to symbolize their status in
their community. For some tribes, like the Matigsalog of Mindanao who wear their statements into a
kind of “woven history,” and the T’boli’s of south Cotabato with their Tinalak fabric, these features of
daily life can be related to the spiritual world. In all tribes, there are written and unwritten laws that
must be observed and followed.

If the early signs of communism are attributed to Plato’s The Republic and globalization started when
tribes begun trading with other kingdoms from around the world, then there would be no harm in
saying that ideas and concepts regarding society are enforced in the Philippines by the doctrines of
cultures present in every tribe. Way before the coming of the domineering colonizers, long before our
ancestors were forcefully oriented on the former’s way of thinking, we already had our methods of
influencing society. By this, I mean to say that the manifestations of the first socially relevant articles are
already present in our culture. The tattoos, fabrics, weapons, designs, and ornaments (visual arts),
music, stories, and folktales all carry with them a social message that a member of a tribe must be able
to decipher personally or with aid from his/her elders.

Every individual was schooled in reading these encrypted messages. However, these were not yet called
“socially relevant articles” although this system existed in which one or the other held the components
of our ancestors’ way of culture during this era in the Philippine history. For our ancestors, their
“articles” were written in their skin or woven in their clothing and are, therefore, manifested in their day
to day activities.

Socially relevant articles (formalized academically) proliferated in the 1800s, especialaly during the latter
part of the said century. For its formal distinction, such articles may be classified as an instrument of
communication specifically written to address social issues, such as corruption, poverty, and abuse,
among others, or to emphasize a point about a thing or two in the society. In Philippine history,
education has been noted as one of the factors that bolstered the cry for independence. What
contributed to the gallant actions of our heroes (the propagandistas, Katipuneros, nationalistas,
columnists, and the like) was the fact that they had read (or personally crafted philosophies) with
societal impacts, and the course of actions that followed next can be considered as historical milestones
for our people. This rectified the truth that it was not violence that we favored. On the contrary, it
demonstrated that spilling blood in an attempt to liberate ourselves was not a mindless act nor were we
passive in the face of abuse for in actuality, we reacted and fought back. It was a battle not void of
emotions or charged only by disgust. Rather, it was a war waged because our heroes believed that
anything true was worth dying for. In this light, individuals are recognized as heroes because they are
willing to sacrifice for their cause, their principles, and their beliefs.

Propagandists and revolutionists alike left a trail of what they stood and died for. Their acts were not
just a struggle against the oppressors or within themselves, but their actions and struggles sprung from
their apprehension of their understanding of the realities surrounding them. It is in this light that we
explore their ideas, thereby necessitating that we gain a better understanding of the “why’s” of the
actions taken. Actions, after all, are fueled by ideas; it then follows that great actions spring from great
ideas. Now, we orient ourselves to the people behind these articles, the ones who fueled the quest for
the liberty of our nation.

In the attempt to understand Filipino behavior (ugali, kamalayan, pagpapakahulugan and diwa) in the
context of the social sciences, specifically nationalism and patriotism, perhaps we can ask how much
have we tried to understand the crevasses and curves of the Filipino notion of pagkatao and its
peculiarities and biases. Could it be that the practitioners who are experts on human behavior have
veered too far from the concept of pagkataong Pilipino, hence taking an inimical stance against the
Filipino identity. Historians have always presented the idea that “we are products of history.” At this
point, allow me to define history in the words of Professor S. Tan: “History is a record of man’s struggle
against nature [and] man’s struggle against himself.” What I am trying to say here is basically more than
just plain behavior and bias (this has nothing to do with bigotry nor does it justify it) is also rooted in the
historical development of a nation forming its traits and characteristics (i.e., katangian at
pakakakilanlan). Ignoring these significant socio-cultural determinants could undermine an
organization’s ability to achieve its goals—be it in the public or the private domain.

The contextualization of behavioral understanding is necessary for recognizing what needs to be done to
fully empower the Filipino professional. In this way, the professionals can efficiently participate and
fulfill their expected functions in an organization. Let us bear in mind that institutions actually
orchestrate collective activities for the individual stakeholders. Human behavior is an inevitable subject
of management, leadership and institutions; it is also an important element in ensuring the success of an
institution’s collective endeavors. studying the wholeness of the nature of the Filipino personhood is
vital in filling the gap of foreign origin. Enriguez and De Leon, Maceda in music are just some of the
distinguished Filipino authors whose work focused on thoroughly exploring the Filipino’s kamalayan at
diwa. They proposed a kind of Filipino psychology that emphasized the need to evaluate how the
Filipino concept of kaalaman at dunong utilized social science (not the other way around). Their concept
of pantayong panananaw refers to our distinct way of actively adopting the modes of knowledge from
external sources and subjecting the idea into a process of constant recalibration to complement and suit
our needs. Indeed, we are often seen as passive recipients of knowledge from the West. Nevertheless,
their study has shown that the Filipino ingeniously engages with these kinds of “foreign knowledge,”
which De leon calls “spontaneous creativity,” thereby revealing the Filipino brand of dexterity.

The process allows the localization of these ideas, which then find their way to the daily activities of the
common tao and are incorporated into their behaviors. For example, a farmer would say pilyur instead
of “failure.” other examples would be the motorcycle (single) re- engineered to carry five or more
people by craftsmen who only know basic welding and metal work, and the Jeepney, which is a post-war
token. These examples actually abound in our material culture, which has always been generative even
at times of suppression. The apparent conscious (usually unconscious) indigenization of ideas leads to
the flourishing of the Filipino way of life and, ultimately, its endurance. However, if not academically
stabilized, the process would be more of a disadvantage than an advantage for us. Hence, the ideologies
of nationalism and patriotism, which are central in the fields of social sciences and public service, are
necessary because of their academic, historical, and essentially practical role in society. The
understanding of the fledgling school of thought is a step towards empowerment.

The academic understanding of the indigenous self is proven to have uplifted the bar of camaraderie,
nationalism, people’s participation, and involvement amongst nations, as exemplified by great historical
figures, such as Leonidas of Sparta, Mao Tse Tung of China William “Braveheart” Wallace of scotland,
george Washington and Abraham lincoln of the united states, and Bonifacio, luna, and Rizal in the
Philippines. Their legacies are an affirmation of the impact of these internalized beliefs and articulation
given their indigenous understanding and practice (pagka-makabayan) on institutions. Such an impact is
reflected by their experiences in their indigenous conception(s) while forming their unique and
appropriate responses to certain historical events.

For instance, one of the main reasons of the Propaganda and Katipunan movements was secularization,
even though religious beliefs helped form one’s identity and self-determination. In his paper entitled
Combat Liberalism, Chairman Mao relied on the Chinese personhood to maintain discipline and loyalty
to an army battered by man and nature (The Long March) to help them hold their ground despite the
seemingly insurmountable odds against them: one man uniting one million. leonidas and the mighty
spartan had full grasp of their indigenous self, enabling them to operate and achieve goals in the gates
of Thermopile. What is certainly assuring is the fact that indigeneity is sufficient, sustainable, and
available and is present in all the processes of decision-making, ways of thinking, response, goal-setting
and other vital and peripheral processes of social and institutional life.

The approach of making an annotation of the pagkataong Pilipino seem to look unconventional, but how
many books contain the phrase “...for Filipinos?” We must consider whether it suits the Filipino psyche
and is descriptive of the Filipinos’ predilections towards management, leadership, politics, governance,
finance, argumentation, debate, and a myriad of other subjects and topics in the academe and in the
industry. Conscious and deliberate steps must be taken to provide what are deemed necessary for the
proliferation and cultivation of Filipino understanding, especially in the context of nationalism and
patriotism. How do we, as a nation, relate to such a doctrine and how much of it do we understand?
How good are we in the praxis of the aforementioned ideas? Common questions, yes, but their
relevance is but a common sense if we ought to be one nation.

“Negosyo o kalayaan? Bayan o sarili?

Pumili ka!” - Heneral Luna

Every society sets an important objective to inculcate patriotism among citizens using all available
cultural, educational, societal, and political mechanisms. literary works, sculptures, and paintings are
often used to eternalize a country’s patriots. Educational systems explicitly attempt to impart patriotism
as a value by glorifying the lives of patriots, by presenting history and geography in ways that shed
positive light on the group and country, and by emphasizing the importance of patriotism through
national holidays that commemorate the birth and/or death anniversaries as well as the achievements
of national heroes. Patriotism—both as a slogan and a symbol—exerts a strong influence on human
behavior. There is a constant call for patriotic sacrifice in every group of nation. Group members may
even be asked to give up their personal convenience, the pursuit of their goals, and the fulfillment of
their needs for the benefit of their country and group.

Ethnicity is instrumental if we are to clearly concretize the feel of nationalism. With the way one
becomes loyal to his/her ethnic group and the pride and sense of identity one has in being the person
he/she is, it is safe to assume that the flames of nationalism starts as a glint of ethnic fervor.

Cultural identity, according to Felipe De Leon, Jr., “is the sine qua non for being active in the world. It is
the fundamental source of social empowerment [the unique totality of the world views and values, core
principles and ideas, belief systems, knowledge, skill, and practices shared by a society’s core cultural
identity].” With this being said and recognizing the diversity of ethnicity, would it not endanger the very
existence of patriotism and nationalism? let us put it this way, if every tribe works for the glory and
honor of the Filipino race, if every tribe commits its genius, wisdom, and ethos for the attainment of the
common good (such as peace, order, and progress), persevere in its affairs, and conduct business
morally, then it can pass on the understanding of how to revere the land and how to respond to the
issues in defense of the land and community. Indeed, ethnicity, is an important component in attaining
nationalism and patriotism. Someone who is deemed makabayan is one who has a mature sense of
one’s ethnicity and must surpass or exceed the same.

Patriotism is one of the most fundamental forces of nature—one that benefits people across
generations. On the one hand, Johnson (1990) presents three mechanisms that help explain patriotic
behavior:

a. Association between familiarity and kinship;

b. Matching between genotype (kin selection and is a product of natural selection) and phenotype
(individuals who are not related but engage in altruistic exchanges); and

c. Connection between kinship and location.

The development of patriotism is not solely in terms of evolutionary forces, rather, it also features
socialization, which is an important instrument in forming feelings of “kinship” and reciprocal altruism.
As mentioned earlier, societies develop social responsibility through such mechanisms as language,
customs, monuments, collective memory, literature, symbols, and ceremonies.

On the other hand, Nathanson, as cited by staub and Bar-Tal (1997), elaborates that patriotism is a
combination of four attitudes:

a. A special affection for one’s country;

b. A sense of personal identification with one’s country;

c. A special concern for the well-being of one’s country; and

d. A willingness to sacrifice in order to help to promote a country’s good.

Patriotism has two different phases of development. In the first phase, when nation-states are being
established, patriotism as an inclusive force is considered a kind of “civil religion” that serves to
strengthen the cohesiveness of the nation.

Patriotic acts require devotion, are motivated “by a concern for the good of one’s country,” and are
endowed with hope for a better future. Motivation is a crucial criterion for judging an act as patriotic,
but this must be based on a voluntary role obligation and must stem from a conscious and rational
decision. While the state entails political obligations that mean ongoing civic concern for the welfare and
interest of one’s state, the nation enlists national obligation, which implies “the reflective acceptance of
an ongoing commitment to participate in a critical debate about the nature of the national culture.”

The nation is the unit within which patriotism develops. Patriotism typically develops within a group of
people as a result of the state’s deliberate efforts to idealize common cultural characteristics and
experiences and to mobilize people around them. This process is designed to create a deeper and
broader sense of loyalty, which extends even to people who are not part of one’s immediate community
but are part of the larger nation. In addition, patriotism can serve as a major source of legitimacy and
popular support for a group’s leadership.

In economic terms, patriotism means protecting domestic trade and industry by minimizing imports. Not
only should the state maintain high duties on imported goods, but its citizens should also demonstrate
economic responsibility by preferably buying domestic goods and minimizing the consumption of
imported, luxury products. Furthermore, members of the patriotic societies aim to increase productivity
in all professions in order to ensure the state’s self-sufficiency in the long run. In the past, no element
was considered too big or too small with regards the overriding goal of promoting the economic
progress of the country. In fact, it was considered patriotic to cultivate flax, hemp and potatoes; to
weave linen; to set up beehives; produce soap from fish, bread from bone meal; to skin dead animals;
and to use peat as fuel, among many other things.

Moreover, the multifaceted nature of patriotism requires interdisciplinary study. Patriotism is a

psychological phenomenon that has cognitive, affective, and behavioral components. Individuals acquire
it, maintain it, and express it in the service of their personal needs. They differ in the nature of their
patriotism and may change the object of such emotion. For example, people migrate to new states, form
new social identities, and develop new patriotic attachments. Someone who was a patriot in one state
may become a patriot in another, even fight with patriotic fervor against fellow countrymen of one’s
former homeland. The need for identity, the fulfillment of other needs that patriotism serves, and the
demand of a new country and fellow countrymen for allegiance all contribute to this realignment of
attachment.

To better understand patriotism, two concepts are considered essential: civic virtue and deeds for the
fatherland. The citizen should have the proper disposition and also be mindful when it comes to using
his/his abilities for the state. Citizenship gave an obligation to commitment and enthusiasm, whereas
patriotism was contrasted to apathy and selfishness. Thus patriotism can be understood as an activity
and one could not be passive and patriotic at the same time. The citizens’ love of country could only
unfold if they could bring their influence to achieve fruition and if the government allows them to be
actively engaged in the affairs of the state.

In other words, patriotism provides the glue that binds together the individual, the group, and the
territory in which the group resides.

What is Nationalism?
Nationalism and patriotism show the relationship of an individual towards his/her nation. The two are
often confused and frequently believed to mean the same thing. However, there is a vast difference
between these concepts. For one “nationalism” means to give more importance to unity by way of a
cultural background, including language and heritage, whereas “patriotism” pertains to the love for
nation, with more emphasis on values and beliefs.

According to Feshback and sakano, as cited by staub and Bar-tal (1997), nationalism is a feeling of
national superiority, in contrast to patriotism, which refers to love of nation. Johnson defined
nationalism as a “commitment, principle, sentiment, or ideology that nations should be self-governing,”
suggesting that it overlaps with patriotism only when the members of a state are coterminous with a
particular homogenous ethnic group. Meanwhile, Worchel and Coutant (1997) differentiate between
the psychological nature of nationalism and patriotism, suggesting that nationalism is defined as “an
attachment to a nation characterized by a desire to enhance one’s personal welfare and thus is
inherently selfless.”

Patriotism is preceded by the development of national consciousness, which fosters common elements
that represent special bonds tying the group members together. A basic assumption of patriotism differs
fundamentally from the romanticized notion of this concept. Nationality is believed to be a natural part
of a person’s identity, as revealed in both material culture (clothes, food, and national symbols) and in
the character and behaviors of the individual. In this concept of nationalism, self-image is not an “ism”
or an ideology, but a basic condition for human existence. The nationality of the individual is perceived
as inevitable, fixed, and determined from the moment of birth; it cannot be acquired nor can others
disclaim a person’s national identity. The nationalist movement is far more descriptive and maintains
that the national character has existed since time immemorial.

Most nationalists assume that their country is better than any other, whereas patriots believe that their
country is one of the best but can still be improved in many ways. Patriots tend to believe in friendly
relations with other countries, while some nationalists do not hold the same belief. Nationalism gives a
feeling that one’s country is superior to another in every aspect; hence, it is often described as the worst
enemy of peace according to the great thinker george orwell. Another important difference between
nationalism and patriotism is that patriotism does not pave the way for enmity towards other nations,
rather, it actually helps strengthen the admiration towards one’s own country.

The concept of “nationalism” refers to several phenomena. First, it refers to the within-group motivation
for actions aimed at creating a state. This type of nationalism arises from a past history of suffering and
aims to create self-determination and a new, better identity. second, it refers to the motivation to
enhance the group’s power, wealth, and influence. Third, it refers to identity-building actions other than
the creation of a state.

Keilman, as cited by Staub and Bar-Tal (1997), identifies the two types of attachment to a nation:
sentimental and instrumental. The former is based on the perception that the group represents (i.e.,
reflects, extends, or conforms) personal identity, whereas the latter is based on the perception that the
group meets the needs and interest of its members. Specifically, the attachment to the homeland
reflects the need for self-protection (i.e. security, food, personal space) and self- transcendence (i.e.,
power, wealth, stability, and continuity), both of which are fulfilled by patriotism.

The claim to nationhood is addressed not only to putative members of the nation, but also to those who
are in a position to validate such a claim. The power to validate claims to nationhood resides above all
with the state, although influential non-state actors may also play important roles. The basic work is
done by the category “nation” in the context of nationalist movements—ones that create a polity for a
putative nation. In other contexts, the category “nation” is used in a very different way, that is, it is used
not just to challenge the existing territorial and political order, but to create a sense of national unity for
a given polity. This is the sort of work that is often called “nation-building,” of which we have heard
much of late. It is this sort of work that has been undertaken—with varying but not particularly
impressive degrees of success—by leaders of post-colonial states who won independence, but whose
populations remained deeply divided along regional, ethnic, linguistic, and religious lines.

Why should we study patriotism and nationalism?

“Upang maitindig natin ang bantayog ng ating lipunan, kailangang radikal nating baguhin hindi lamang
ang ating mga institusyon kundi maging ang ating pag-iisip at pamumuhay. Kailangan ang rebolusyon,
hindi lamang sa panlabas, kundi lalo na sa panloob!”

- Apolinario Mabini

La Revolucion Filipina (1898)

It is difficult to “teach an old dog with a new tricks.” According to Bob Proctor a famous inspirational
speaker, the uneducated individuals in the twenty-first century are those who cannot learn, unlearn,
and re-learn. We have so much information that is available today, thus causing information overload
for the casual audience. However, what is lacking in us is “wisdom,” which emanates from ourselves, in
particular, from having a deep knowledge of our identity. This is the essence of patriotism and
nationalism.

The goal of a good citizen should be to practice the virtue of patriotism. Our country, next to god and
our parents, is our greatest benefactor. Being the land of our birth and the land where we live, our
country deserves our love and devotion. We should love our motherland not only because it is the
source of our very own existence, but also because we owe allegiance to her in the same way as we owe
loyalty to our god and our parents.

While it is true that the concepts of patriotism and nationalism emanate from Europe and our ancestral
frame of thinking is based on their idea because we were under Spanish and American colonial rule, its
nature is innate in any civilized society. However, we only learn from them, but we are ultimately not
like them. It is like a person being raised and imbued with certain values by his/her parents. Since our
birth, our parents have been responsible for molding us to become humans; however, as we mature, we
become responsible for creating our own identities. Countries like the United Kingdom, the United
States and even ancient Greek and Rome are just our role models, and their experiences can be used as
we reflect on ourselves as a nation.

Indigenous Community and Early Filipino Concept of Patriotism

“We own the land and mock us saying, ‘Where is your title?’ when we ask the meaning of your words
you answer with taunting arrogance, ‘Where are the documents to prove that you own the land?’ Titles?
Documents? Proof of ownership? Such arrogance to speak of owning the land when we instead are
owned by it. how can you own that which will outlive you? Only the race owns the because the race
lives forever.”

-Macli-ing Dulag

Kalinga Chief, Defender of the Cordillera

To claim a place is the birthright of every man. If the lowly animals have claimed their place, how much
more can be said of man’s ability to do the same? Man is born to live. According to the beliefs of some
of our ancestors, Apo Kabunian, loved us all, gave us life, and placed us in the world to live human lives.
Where then shall we obtain life? From the land. Hence, to work is an obligation and not merely a right.
In tilling the land, you possess it; land is a grace that must be nurtured. In fact, to enrich the land and
make it productive are the eternal exhortations of Apo Kabunian to all his children. Land is sacred, land
is beloved, and from its womb springs our Kalinga life.

The following excerpt is taken from a presentation of Bro. Carl Gaspar entitled The Quest for a
Mindanaoan Indigenous Philosophy:

“[In] the words of Datu Kajogjog of the respected Manobo tribe, ancestral domain is the life and blood
of our race. This was given to us by the Magbabaya so that our race will live on. Thus, we are ordered by
the Magbabaya to care for, defend our lands just as the Magbabaya cares for us and defends us. When
we speak of the right of of self-determination, this is related to our ancestral land. What else will we
manage or care for if our lands are lost, not respected, [and] not recognized? How will we ensure the
customs and traditions our very people will live on? As a nation, have we asked ourselves this question?
Do we enter the uniformed service for the protection of our motherland or do we do all endeavors for
the benefit of our country and for the betterment of the Filipino nation?”

In this light, one wonders what could have been the outcome of our country if we have applied the
indigenous wisdom of Datu Kajogjog and Datu Dulag on how to relate to the land (ang tahanan ng ating
lahi na kumupkup at tumulong upang maging malagaya, malakas at kapakigpakinabang). This is
tantamount to embracing a serious effort to discipline one’s self and dedicate ones’ efforts to attaining a
good amount of competencies and skills that are necessary in the conduct of service (bilang ganti),
which are tangible, meaningful, moral, and transformative and are done for the love of country (para sa
bayan).Such an indigenous understanding must be the fountain of one’s desire to serve and protect
his/her motherland beyond regional boarders and ethnicity. In other words, though ethnicity must be
the source of love for one’s country, it should not be the limit of such love; if we are to be true Filipinos,
we must act as one and move as one ethnicity. Moreover, regionalism should enliven nationalism and
patriotism. We can be one family under such an orientation if we are to achieve great feats as a nation.
As a great general once said “Ang sumumpa ng katapatan sa rehiyon at tribo, yan ang patunay na hindi
pa tayo handa sa ating sariling kalayaan.” The question now arises,are we ready to become more than
just a tribe and more than just a “family?” Are we prepared to become Filipinos?

We have to learn from other countries’ experiences, particularly on how they demonstrated their
patriotism and nationalism and how these contributed to nation-building as a whole. Moreover, we
must re- learn our history so that we can better internalize and appreciate the freedom that we have
now and give credit to those who sacrificed their lives to achieve the freedom we are enjoying. We must
also unlearn different practices that weakened our nation and caused fragmentation. We are “Filipino”
by birth and by blood and “Philippines” is our beloved country. Therefore, it is our duty to defend our
country from internal and external threats as this is the only way for us to preserve our democracy and
our identity as “Filipinos.”

We can learn so much from our first people (indigenous people) for they had deep intimacy with the
land, which was ingrained in their way of life—almost like second nature to them. We can also gain
insights from their tradition so that we can re-orient ourselves to values that are fundamental in
allowing us to demonstrate the makabayan spirit among civilians, most especially in serving the
government. Nothing is far noble a profession than public service; if you love your country, you will look
after its welfare and the welfare of its people. For this, we must attain a decent degree of admiration.

Mga Aral Nang Katipunan [ ng mga A.N.B. ]

Emilio Jacinto

1. Ang kabuhayang hindi ginugugol sa isang malaki at banal na kadahilanan ay kahoy na walang lilim,
kundi damong makamandag

2. Ang gawang magaling na nagbubuhat sa pagpipita sa sarili, at hindi sa talagang nasang gumawa ng
kagalingan, ay di kabaitan.

3. Ang tunay na kabanalan ay ang pagkakawang gawa, ang pagibig sa kapua at ang isukat ang bawat
kilos, gawa’t pangungusap sa talagang Katuiran.

4. Maitim man at maputi ang kulay ng balat, lahat ng tao’y magkakapantay; mangyayaring ang isa’y
higtan sa dunong, sa yaman, sa ganda...; ngunit di mahihigtan sa pagkatao.
5. Ang may mataas na kalooban inuuna ang puri sa pagpipita sa sarili; ang may hamak na kalooban
inuuna ang pagpipita sa sarili sa puri.

6. Sa taong may hiya, salita’y panunumpa.

7. Huag mong sasayangin ang panahun; ang yamang nawala’y magyayaring magbalik; nguni’t panahong
nagdaan na’y di na muli pang magdadaan.

8. Ipagtanggol mo ang inaapi, at kabakahin ang umaapi.

9. Ang taong matalino’y ang may pagiingat sa bawat sasabihin, at matutong ipaglihim ang dapat
ipaglihim.

10. Sa daang matinik ng kabuhayan, lalaki ay siyang patnugot ng asawa’t mga anak; kung ang umaakay
ay tungo sa sama, ang patutunguhan ng iaakay ay kasamaan din.

11. Ang babai ay huag mong tignang isang bagay na libangan lamang, kundi isang katuang at karamay sa
mga kahirapan nitong kabuhayan; gamitan mo ng buong pagpipitagan ang kaniyang kahinaan, at
alalahanin ang inang pinagbuhata’t nagiwi sa iyong kasangulan.

12. Ang di mo ibig na gawin sa asawa mo, anak at kapatid, ay huag mong gagawin sa asawa, anak, at
kapatid ng iba.

13. Ang kamahalan ng tao’y wala sa pagkahari, wala sa tangus ng ilong at puti ng mukha, wala sa
pagkaparing kahalili ng Dios wala sa mataas na kalagayan sa balat ng lupa; wagas at tunay na mahal na
tao, kahit laking gubat at walang nababatid kundi ang sariling wika, yaong may magandang asal, may
isang pangungusap, may dangal at puri; yaong di napaaapi’t di nakikiapi; yaong marunong magdamdam
at marunong lumingap sa bayang tinubuan.

14. Paglaganap ng mga aral na ito at maningning na sumikat ang araw ng mahal na Kalayaan dito sa
kaabaabang Sangkalupuan, at sabugan ng matamis niyang liwanag ang nangagkaisang magkalahi’t
magkakapatid ng ligaya ng walang katapusan, ang mga ginugol na buhay, pagud, at mga tiniis na
kahirapa’y labis nang natumbasan. Kung lahat ng ito’y mataruk na ng nagiibig pumasuk at inaakala
niyang matutupad ang mga tutungkulin, maitatala ang kaniyang ninanasa sa kasunod nito.