Course: CHARACTER FORMATION, NATIONALISM AND PATRIOTISM

Course Code: CFLM 1

Course Credit: 3 UNITS
Course Description:

Module No.1

Title: Fundamentals of Patriotism and Nationalism

Topic: Understanding Freedom: An Attempt To Contextualize

Time Frame:

INTENDED LEARNING OUTCOME: At the end of this chapter, the student can be able to:

Pre Test: (this will be available in the LMS)

Content:

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.”