Philippine Historiography
Filipino historians, for some time, followed a rigid tradition of Western standard of
historical writing that was based on Positivism. In Positivism, historical writing should be based
on written sources. But even though written sources were the basis of historical writing, only
primary sources were considered as reliable. A new historical approach was developed because
of the weaknesses of this traditional approach. This new approach is called New Historicism.
This approach draws interpretations based on materials from all perspectives, including those
that do not concern history before. Having Western models as the foundation of historical
writing, which are not fit in the Philippine context, constrained Filipino historians to view history
on the perspective of the Filipinos.
For Keith Jenkins, history can never be and will never be for one’s self. It is always
for one person. He added that history is a form of power wherein the direction of the
arrangement of the past is discussed. In this case, the subjects that will be privileged and will be
muted is based on the kind of discourse followed by historians. History as a discourse is a series
of tactics of organizing and sequencing events and past systems according to individual outlook,
interest, objective or goals (Sebastian, 2019). The biggest challenge of the first Filipino
historians was to write history that privileged the Filipinos despite the dominance of colonial
discourse.
, Renato Constantino, a nationalist historian, emphasized that history is the
achievement of man not the individual but the collective. Constantino regards the masses as the
real mover of history, following Karl Marx’s idea of history. Historiography, on the other hand,
refers to the theory and history of historical writing. Recent developments in historiography
widened the bases of history. New Historicism founded by Michel Foucault provided new
perspectives in the interpretation of history. New Historicists look at literature alongside other
cultural products of a particular historical period to illustrate how concepts, attitudes, and
ideologies operated across a broader cultural spectrum that is not exclusively literary. In addition
to analyzing the impact of historical context and ideology, New Historicists also acknowledge
that their own criticism contains biases that derive from their historical position and ideology.
Because it is impossible to escape one’s own “historicity,” the meaning of a text is fluid, not
fixed. New Historicists attempt to situate artistic texts both as products of a historical context and
as the means to understand cultural and intellectual history (Poetry Foundation, 2019).
Consequently, data like oral history, folklore, indigenous materials, and the likes are now
considered as sources of history.
After the EDSA Revolution, Filipino historians’ ardor in presenting a Filipino
perspective in writing history intensified. Zeus Salazar and other advocates of Pantayong
Pananaw presented studies using Filipino as the medium of their academic discourse. Pantayong
Pananaw is the brainchild of the UP historian Zeus A. Salazar. In “Ang Pagtuturo ng
Kasaysayan sa Pilipino” (1971) and “Ukol sa Wika at Kulturang Pilipino” (1973), Salazar
discusses the relation of language and culture as the basic thesis of Pantayong Pananaw
(Sebastian, 2019). Pantayong Pananaw opened the opportunity for historians to study themes that
discuss the culture of Filipinos.
Filipino historians, for some time, followed a rigid tradition of Western standard of
historical writing that was based on Positivism. In Positivism, historical writing should be based
on written sources. But even though written sources were the basis of historical writing, only
primary sources were considered as reliable. A new historical approach was developed because
of the weaknesses of this traditional approach. This new approach is called New Historicism.
This approach draws interpretations based on materials from all perspectives, including those
that do not concern history before. Having Western models as the foundation of historical
writing, which are not fit in the Philippine context, constrained Filipino historians to view history
on the perspective of the Filipinos.
For Keith Jenkins, history can never be and will never be for one’s self. It is always
for one person. He added that history is a form of power wherein the direction of the
arrangement of the past is discussed. In this case, the subjects that will be privileged and will be
muted is based on the kind of discourse followed by historians. History as a discourse is a series
of tactics of organizing and sequencing events and past systems according to individual outlook,
interest, objective or goals (Sebastian, 2019). The biggest challenge of the first Filipino
historians was to write history that privileged the Filipinos despite the dominance of colonial
discourse.
, Renato Constantino, a nationalist historian, emphasized that history is the
achievement of man not the individual but the collective. Constantino regards the masses as the
real mover of history, following Karl Marx’s idea of history. Historiography, on the other hand,
refers to the theory and history of historical writing. Recent developments in historiography
widened the bases of history. New Historicism founded by Michel Foucault provided new
perspectives in the interpretation of history. New Historicists look at literature alongside other
cultural products of a particular historical period to illustrate how concepts, attitudes, and
ideologies operated across a broader cultural spectrum that is not exclusively literary. In addition
to analyzing the impact of historical context and ideology, New Historicists also acknowledge
that their own criticism contains biases that derive from their historical position and ideology.
Because it is impossible to escape one’s own “historicity,” the meaning of a text is fluid, not
fixed. New Historicists attempt to situate artistic texts both as products of a historical context and
as the means to understand cultural and intellectual history (Poetry Foundation, 2019).
Consequently, data like oral history, folklore, indigenous materials, and the likes are now
considered as sources of history.
After the EDSA Revolution, Filipino historians’ ardor in presenting a Filipino
perspective in writing history intensified. Zeus Salazar and other advocates of Pantayong
Pananaw presented studies using Filipino as the medium of their academic discourse. Pantayong
Pananaw is the brainchild of the UP historian Zeus A. Salazar. In “Ang Pagtuturo ng
Kasaysayan sa Pilipino” (1971) and “Ukol sa Wika at Kulturang Pilipino” (1973), Salazar
discusses the relation of language and culture as the basic thesis of Pantayong Pananaw
(Sebastian, 2019). Pantayong Pananaw opened the opportunity for historians to study themes that
discuss the culture of Filipinos.
