Veneration Without Understanding : A Book Review

A Book Review

by 

Dr. Rodolfo John Ortiz Teope
Founder and National President
1st Philippine Pro-Democracy Foundation

Reading a book involves more than just flipping through the pages; it involves engaging in a dialogue with the author, questioning their ideas, discovering aspects of ourselves within the story, and occasionally, confronting truths we frequently overlook. In this review, as an advocate and mover of a progressive, responsible, and organized democracy, Renato Constantino's "Veneration Without Understanding" offers a powerful and provocative re-evaluation of José Rizal, the Philippines' national hero. It challenges the conventional, almost hagiographic, portrayal of Rizal as a flawless and undisputed symbol of the Filipino struggle for freedom. Instead, Constantino presents a more nuanced and, arguably, more humanized view of the man, positioning him as a product of his specific historical context—the educated, Spanish-speaking elite known as the ilustrados.

Constantino's central argument is that the Philippines' veneration of Rizal is often "without understanding," a blind adoration that glosses over his most significant contradiction: his outright repudiation of the Philippine Revolution led by Andres Bonifacio. He highlights Rizal's own words from his December 15, 1896, manifesto, where he condemns the uprising, calling its methods "criminal" and disclaiming any part in it. This is a stark and uncomfortable truth that many Filipinos choose to ignore, as it creates a dilemma: was the revolution wrong, or was Rizal wrong?

The paper further argues that this uncritical reverence for Rizal was not an accident but a deliberate act of American colonial policy. Constantino explains how American officials, led by Governor William Howard Taft, actively sponsored Rizal as the national hero. The reasoning was simple and strategic: Rizal was "safely dead," and, more importantly, he was a reformer, not a revolutionary. He advocated for reforms "from within" and never for armed independence. By elevating Rizal, the Americans could conveniently sideline other, more militant heroes like Bonifacio and Emilio Aguinaldo, whose revolutionary ideals posed a direct threat to American rule. This sponsorship helped to shape a hero who fit the American narrative of a gradual, peaceful transition to self-government, rather than a hero who embodied the radical, armed struggle for complete independence.

This analysis forces us to confront the uncomfortable reality that our national hero, chosen in part by our colonizers, embodies a spirit of gradualism and reform rather than the radical, revolutionary fervor that ultimately secured our independence. Constantino's critique, however, is not an attempt to diminish Rizal's greatness. Rather, it is a call to view him with historical clarity. Rizal's life and works, particularly his novels, were instrumental in awakening a sense of national consciousness and identity among Filipinos. He was a hero in his time, a "catalyzer" of the nationalist movement, who helped to transform the derogatory term "indio" into the proud name of "Filipino."

However, Constantino insists that Rizal's heroism was "limited." His ilustrado background meant that his class and cultural upbringing constrained his vision. He held the belief that one must earn freedom through education and industry, not as an inherent right that revolution could seize. Despite his love for his country, he ultimately feared the violence of the very people he aimed to uplift. The fact that the revolution continued after his death, despite his opposition, demonstrates the truth of his belief. The work proves that while Rizal was a powerful individual, he was not the sole determinant of history; rather, he was a product of the historical forces of his time. Bonifacio led the people themselves, who were the "true makers of their history."

In the end, Constantino's paper critiques a national consciousness that colonial influence and a lack of critical self-reflection have stunted. He argues that the uncritical veneration of Rizal has prevented us from fully embracing the revolutionary spirit of Bonifacio and the Katipunan, which represents the true culmination of the anti-colonial struggle. Constantino challenges us to move beyond a "limited" view of Filipino nationhood—one defined by the Hispanized elite—and to embrace a concept of a true Filipino who is actively engaged in decolonization and the pursuit of genuine independence.

The paper concludes with a powerful call for intellectual liberation. By re-evaluating Rizal's role and acknowledging his limitations, we free ourselves from the intellectual timidity of constantly seeking sanctions from the past. We can then produce new heroes who are capable of addressing the complex problems of our present, heroes who are "one with the masses" and who embody the creative energies of a people striving for genuine liberation.