Rizal's Refusal: An Alternative Explanation*

By Roseanne Ramirez [2008-10910]

During a lecture on enlightenment philosophy two semesters ago, I learned about the Philosophes du Salon, based in Paris and Barcelona, and marveled at the lives of those men (I use the term consciously, there were apparently no women among them). It was a powerful movement; the Age of Reason could perhaps be encapsulated in the Immanuel Kant quote, “Dare to know.” But I am bringing it up because it could provide an alternative explanation for why Jose Rizal, and perhaps even the other Spanish-educated Ilustrados, did not want to join the Katipunan.

During our class discussion with Professor Nemenzo, the explanation was simple and logical: the Ilustrados were landowners who had their own interests in keeping the status quo; they were also unwilling to join the superstitious, uneducated peasantry in their plight for a more equal society. This is a good explanation, but there could be another one.

Enlightenment philosophy was the product of a movement of intellectuals in continental Europe, drawing on the assumption that men (sic) are reasonable. That there should be rule by consent, that legal order was the most important aspect of society, that the rule of law is higher than the rule of man. It was the time of the vilification of friars, of the rise of Science as truth, of the freethinkers and the liberals through the Masonic Movement. Their claim to enlightenment was knowledge based on experience (due in large part to the contribution of Locke and the concept of tabula rasa), and they valued government by representation. This was, at the time, a subversive idea.

“The philosophes were united in support of tolerance, the rule of law, social welfare, and secular education, and in their hostility to privilege. They were not, however, opposed to the state as such: They viewed it as a crucial instrument for the realization of their ideals, as long as the ruler respected reason and natural law. Especially in central Europe and Italy, Enlightenment thinkers were more interested in strengthening the state so that it could do its job properly than in limiting its power. The main targets of their hatred were the church and the nobility.” (M.E., 2007)

Among the Paris Philosophes was Francois Marie “Voltaire” Aroeut. He fought against the monarchy and religious tyranny but rejected violent means of gaining political control. Like other enlightenment theorists he thought that it was not the path towards genuine representation. And then I remember distinctly what my professor said after that: Rizal was a lot like Voltaire in repudiating revolution because it is contrary to liberal democratic thought.

Let us, for a moment, give Jose Rizal the benefit of the doubt. What if he was acting not according to his elite interests but within the framework of liberal democracy? I thought this explained his, and maybe even the other Ilustrados', reluctance to join the Katipunan. It was not because of superciliousness or condescension but a matter of principle. Idealistic principle, but beyond personal interests nonetheless. There was after all a resurgence of enlightenment theory in the nineteenth century. I am inclined to believe that as the educated (possibly over-educated) minority, they would have been completely immersed in this European way of thinking and as a consequence desired to achieve freedom in a non-violent, non-revolutionary way. This explanation also fits in with their objective to gain representation in the Spanish courts instead of desiring independence. Ideology is a powerful tool, and it could have easily structured their judgment.

Ironically, the brand of enlightened reason espoused by the Philosophes du Salon temporarily became irrelevant because of an event it triggered in the first place: The French Revolution. But Jean Jacques Rousseau and the fervent Jacobins are fascinating stories for another time and place.

By refusing to join the Katipunan and the bloody revolution it entailed, was Rizal upholding his own elite interests or adhering to liberal democratic thought? I am uncertain which account is more accurate but I am partial towards the latter. I am unwilling to discount the role of ideas and ideology just yet.

*Written based on notes from Political Science 193: Modern Political Thought

PS: A sophomore currently taking Kas 1 told me that the explanation given to them was that the Ilustrados thought it was a valiant idea but their resources were far too little to make any difference. What do you guys think?

Reference:

"Age of Enlightenment." Microsoft® Encarta® 2007 [CD]. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Corporation, 2006.