Abellanosa: The understanding and deconstruction of history

HISTORY is “just” a matter of perspective. This was a reaction I got from someone who does not believe that Marcos was a dictator. It is a disappointment to hear such a remark especially from a teacher of history. True, there can never be an absolutely objective reconstruction of the past. This does not mean though that our histories are not reliable. Neither should we believe that we could just revise histories the way we want them to be reinterpreted.

The question concerning the reliability of history can be better answered not by history itself but by philosophy. Presupposing the issues of historicity are philosophical questions such as “human understanding.” To what extent do we have the capacity to understand and interpret?

Interpretation is not just the gathering of facts and data. Data no matter how abundant are useless if they are not read as one meaningful whole. Events are not just happenings whether in isolation or as a series of occurrences. History is in itself an interpretation of humanity’s dramas. Therefore, it is not just about facts, figures, nor repetitions of descriptions about the past. More importantly it is an interpretation and the articulation of a coherent human understanding.

It is important and necessary to keep these things in mind. Social analysts are now telling us that many people are into historical revisionism. I think we have to use a more politically correct term. What these so-called revisionists are doing is not really “revisionism” but “deconstruction.” Thus, we better call them historical deconstructionists rather than revisionists.

Revisionists are those who read history from a different angle. They retain however the important elements of the narrative. They don’t lie and neither do they destroy the story. Deconstructionists on the other hand destroy the whole system of interpretation. They are more dangerous. At the onset, they do not proceed from understanding. Thus, totally absent in their enterprise is “understanding.”

But a more serious issue with deconstructionism is the lack of seriousness. How can there be earnestness if the interpreter, at the outset, does not believe in meaning. We just have to say what must be said: trolls and loyalists of the Marcoses and the current administration apparently lack understanding. This is understandable because basically they also do not want people to understand.

The need for political support requires propaganda not understanding. History therefore does not have a place in a context where the only goal is the acquisition and retention of power.

The remark of Senator Juan Ponce Enrile is perhaps the most perfect example we may have in the light of the foregoing discussion. As a living fossil in Philippine politics, Enrile does have the rightful claim to possess more data compared to anyone who was not born during the Marcosian period. Enrile being a minister of the late dictator can very well tell young activists that they are noisy brats who lack knowledge of the past.

There are a few questions though. Does Enrile’s age make him a much better interpreter of history? Do his experiences constitute all the needed credibility – so that in the end we will have to believe in him on the basis of the length of his existence in this planet? On the contrary, the more serious question is “who is Enrile” and why should he be believed in the first place? What is his social location and who was he during the martial law years?

So which version should be believed? Shall we give in to the deconstructionist interpretations? This is where people, especially the young should be careful. Our choice of a narrative reveals not only who we are but also the very core of our understanding.

Trending

No stories found.

Just in

No stories found.

Branded Content

No stories found.
SunStar Publishing Inc.
www.sunstar.com.ph