What to encourage of arts and letters

Media

Part of Panorama

Title: What to encourage of arts and letters
Creator: Lansang, Jose A.
Language: English
Source: Panorama Volume XII (Issue No. 11) November 1960
Year: 1960
Subject: Nationalism and literature; Art and literature
Rights
Fulltext: What to encourage of Arts and Letters by Jose A. Lansang distinction needs to be J * made at the start. The writer who is cognizant of the social functions of literature and art is not exactly the same as the writer who is, conscious of the organic relationship that should exist be tween literature and national growth. Better yet, one must dis tinguish between literature and art which have social functions and literature and art that have pertinence and significance to na tional growth. To fix in the mind in concrete terms what is meant here, let us consider that Ivanhoe, for instance, or Treasure Island, or Hamlet, or to come down to recent headlines, Pasternak’s Dr. Zhivago represents literature which has important social func tions; it entertains, it ennobles, it deepens one’s understanding of the appetites, the aspirations and daydreams, the personal problems of certain characters in the story, which is to say, more or less, in relation to the society in which the characters live. The literature, on the other hand, which has relevance to what, in contemporary language, we call national growth is easily recognizable as rather much dif ferent from the works that have just been cited. Dickens’ novels depicting the exploitation and de gradation of adult and child work ers in the early decades of the English factory system, the essay of Emerson entitled The Amer ican Scholar, some stories of the 10 Panorama French writer Alphonse Daudet, and certain novels of our own foremost literary figure, Jose Rizal, come readily to mind when one thinks of literature that has im portance to the concept of na tional growth. In the novels of Dickens alluded to, one feels the growing pains, as it were, of British industrial greatness; in Emerson’s essay which has been called "the American declaration of cultural independence,” one thrills to the conscious assertion of a distinctive national purpose by the American poet-philosopher; in Daudet’s stories, one catches a little of the passion of many Frenchmen for national greatness which, it may be noted, is the reported obsession of Charles de Gaulle today; in the Zola works meant here, like Germinal or The Debacle, the memorable point made is that perversities of hu man passioris, especially among the leaders of a society, can and do undermine the forces that make for healthy national growth: and, of course, in Rizal’s Noli and Fili, unique among the lit erature of nations, one finds a ri gorous and noble self-examination and self-criticism, “sacrificing everything in the interest of truth, including self-pride itself,” in or der to bring forth the primary essentials a nation must have in order to begin to grow. N| iw, if the state and private institutions are to encourage the arts—and the arts, as used here, obviously include literature— and since the theme of this con ference is “The Filipino Writer and National Growth,” then the kind of literature I have just cited is the kind our writers to day should be encouraged to emu late. What kind of literature the state and private institutions should encourage twenty or fifty years from now on may be left to future speakers in future con ferences of this sort to determine. For the here and now the kind of writing which should be en: couraged, whether in English or in Tagalog, should be that which has pertinence and relevance to our problems of national growth. This is not to bend the neck of literature to the yoke of a parti cular purpose. To change meta phor, this is not to open the floodgates to the unsettling and destructive waters of propaganda. This is merely to render sensible and humble obeisance to the cs tablished relation between litera ture and life, or as some w’ould prefer to put it, between life and literature. ^Life today in the Philippines is, as undoubtedly it also is else where, hard pressed but full of expectations. It is harassed pre cisely by problems of national growth and problems of adjust ment to an international order November 1960 11 that has changed much from what it was when today’s 30-year-olds were young; and which is chang ing with a dizzying pace from vear to year, even from month to month. The problems of growth are stark, unrelenting, and cla morous. The population increases with the regularity of the tides, the expansion of the means of subsistence lags far behind, per capita • income is chronically low, unemployment is increasing by the month, and all essential serv ices from telephones to barrio roads and schools have long been outstripped by the surge forward of population growth and of hopes and desires for a better life. Dis content and confusion are natu rally rife, though a stubborn hope that something could be done to improve matters persists in the breasts of more and more Fili pinos who have begun, or arc beginning, to look at reality with more hide-open eyes and, per haps, clearer understanding. It is beginning to be seen by many Filipinos that widespread povertv exists in their midst because their country is undeveloped economi cally. It is beginning to be under stood likewise by an increasing number of Filipinos that their country, with its rich and varied natural resources, remains under developed and poor in terms of per capita income and genuine material and cultural progress be cause the nation, as a whole, has not completely shaken off its co lonial habits of thinking and of doing things which naturally de veloped during four centuries of subjection by Western peoples. Thus, it became inevitable that the great awakening now taking place among Filipinos concerns the rcassertion of their national ism, the increasingly firm deter mination to shake off colonial habits of thinking and of doing. Like all other peoples that are newly sovereign, Filipinos now want to practice and live by the principles of self-determination which, ahead of them by centu lies, Western sovereign peoples have practised and lived by, with great benefits to such Western peoples in terms^nf material and cultural progress.^! IT he question to ask at this point is: What is meant by national growth? And what as pects of the problem of achiev ing it have pertinent relations with art and literature? The sub stance of national growth is cco nomic development and cultural progress. When one speaks, there fore, of the relation between the Filipino writer and national growth, one actually speaks of the relation between the Filipino writer and the problems of eco nomic development in the Philip pines today with which Filipino artistic or literary work may have, or must have, some connection or 12 Panorama relation. The answer to the ques tion, though rather a complex one, may be simplified by going to the core of the problem of eco nomic development itself. It may be said, I believe, with fidelity to known facts,, that the major obstacles to economic development and cultural progress in the Phil ippines today are two. First, the overwhelming dominance of alien interests in the national economy, and second, the prevailing lack of knowledge and understanding among Filipinos of the necessary measures and policies, or pattern of citizen behavior, which could be adopted by them in order to correct that anomalous situation. Figures released by a research team of the National Economic Council only a couple of weeks ago revealed starkly how dispro portionately large alien interests are in the Philippine economy. In round figures, the research team said, about 80% of the coun try’s foreign trade was dominat ed by aliens, and about 70% of domestic commerce was similarly controlled. Now, from various Fi lipino quarters have come all sorts of suggestions and proposals on how this foreign dominance over the economy may be corrected, and the very variety of the correc tives offered, some of which in deed are contradictory to one another, is striking evidence of the general lack of knowledge and understanding of the mea sures which, with fairness and justice to all concerned, could and must be undertaken in order to reduce effectually the control of foreign elements over Philip pine economic life. Remembering at this juncture De Quincey’s well-known differ entiation between what he called “the literature of knowledge and the literature of power,” I may say that both the state and pri vate institutions in the Philippines today should encourage and sup port the production of more Fili pino writing which serves to in form truthfully and objectively, as well as comprehensively, on the intimate and complex rela tions between economic activities and interests on the one hand and social and cultural develop ment on the other. Through such writing, more Filipinos will in time acquire sufficient knowledge of a few fundamentals, which are commonplace in the science of economics, such, for instance, as the elementary fact that a pre dominantly merchandising econo my, together with a high con sumption tendency, must remain unbalanced because basic produc tion activities are not sufficiently profitable in such a type of eco nomy. But, too, what De Quincey meant by what he called “the literature of power” needs to be encouraged and supported also by the state and private insttiutions because this is the literature November 1960 13 which enlightens the emotions and moves the wills of men. In short, there must be more Fili pino writing which serves to in crease our people’s knowledge of the nature of their economic and social problems and difficulties, and at the same time, also more Filipino art and literary efforts along lines of what de Quincey called “the literature of power,” for it is this which could gen erate or inspire the emotional and volitional drives that are necessary so that the Filipinos, after getting to understand va rious aspects of the problem of national growth, may have the will and the determination to undertake those necessary mea sures and undergo the requisite self-discipline which could bring about their true economic deve lopment and cultural progress. It is one thing, however, to 1 say that the state and private institutions should encourage cer tain lines of art and literary ef forts and productions and entire ly another thing to expect that such kinds of efforts and produc tions would, in fact, be encour aged and actually attempted and their cautious maneuvers to re duce the dominance of foreign interests over their respective na tional economies. It may be not ed, at this point, that perhaps the most relevant force for closer friendship and understanding be tween Filipinos and Indonesians has been the revelation made by President Sukarno himself during a visit to this country some years ago that the life and writings of our Jose Rizal, the very speci mens of literature of national growth mentioned earlier in this paper, were required studies in the schools in Indonesia. In other words, Filipinos and Indonesians may come to know and under stand each other’s native dances and songs quite well, but that would not necessarily make them mutually loyal friends. Rather, it is common knowledge of a litera ture of national self-criticism and of protest and dignified fulmination against the abuses of foreign interlopers, such as Rizal essayed in his writings, which can create binding friendship and genuine mutual sympathy between the In donesian and the Filipino. It is pertinent, likewise, to note that Rizal succeeded in writing impor tant specimens of both “the litera ture of knowledge” and the "lit erature of power,” in accordance with De Quincey’s definitions, and such writings have demons trated their validity and efficacy not only in increasing the Fili pinos’ national consciousness, and perhaps also the Indonesians’ own national consciousness, but also— and this is most relevant to the argument of this paper—in in creasing solid foundations of mu tual understanding between the 14 Panorama Indonesians and Filipinos. If, then, the state as well as impor tant private institutions in the Philippines truly desire—as they profess to desire—a genuine de velopment of understanding and cultural closeness among neigh bors, it should certainly be con sistent and logical for them to encourage and support, nay, ac tively sponsor, the production or writing by Filipino artists and literary men of the kind of arts and letters that can be effectively promotive of such understanding. And the works of Rizal can well serve as among the models for such efforts. The second of the compellino " forces that virtually demand state as well as private institu tional encouragement of the kind of art and letters I have cited is the drive which all advanced democratic countries todav pur sue, the drive to readjust the tra ditional institutions of democracy to the demands and unprecedent ed requirements of the space age. One notes, for instance, in Ame rica a frantic overhauling of edu cational practices and postulates, in England a vigorous campaign to re-setablish the free trade sys tem of an earlier time, in France drastic constitutional reforms which resulted in the emascula tion of parliamentary powers. This is not exactly a sign that demo cracy as a system and a way of life is facing a crisis, but it surely indicates that important readjust ments are being made in its tra ditional institutions and practices, all because of the challenge of the Soviet system thrown in all undertaken. On the one hand, the state and private institutions must first have compelling mo tivation and justification for giv ing support and encouragement to the kind of art and literary efforts desired and, on the other hand, the artists and writers themselves must also derive strong inspiration from some compelling source which would move them into attempting and executing artistic and literary works of the kind, or along lines deemed to be relevant and useful to national growth. Fortunately, one may note, there are compelling forces in our society today, as there un doubtedly are in other societies similar to ours, which demand that state and affluent private in stitutions alike promote arts and letters of the type suggested here for encouragement. There are at least two distinct forces which one may note offhand. One is the natural drive today among neighbor nations, especially if they be of similar economic and political predilections, to culti vate closer cultural relations and mutual understanding. With the annihilation of space and time by present-day electronic communica tions and jet transport facilities, November 1960 15 closer and mutual understanding among nations has become in dispensable to the progress, the prosperity, and the security of each. It is the same force which compels all peoples to prepare themselves for an international order which can only prosper and become stabilized through a re duction of all causes of serious suspicions and misunderstandings. For the Filipinos at present, one of the urgent imperatives in their national life is the development, as rapidly as they can manage to attain it, of closer and mutual understandings with neighbor peoples in Asia. When and as they do begin to act seriously and constructively in pursuance of the dictates of such an imperative, they will naturally find perhaps that the principal avenues towards mutual understanding lie precise ly along the massive similarity' of the problems of national growth,1 which all of them indi vidually as nations have been wrestling with since the return of their independent sovereign ties. The Filipino and the Indian, just as the Indian and the Indo nesian, or the Burmese and the Filipino, can best promote mu tual closeness and understanding among themselves on the basis of increased knowledge about each other’s particular difficulties in the struggle for progress and growth. It may also be observed that perhaps it is not mutual knowledge and understanding be tween, say, Filipinos and Cey lonese, of their respective tradi tional dances and ancient tribal songs which will truly bring them closer as friends, but rather a mutual appreciation and thorough knowledge of the problems and difficulties now being experienced by these peoples, first, in their parallel efforts to achieve national homogeneous cultural integration; second, in their similar aspira tions to derive better returns in the world market for their copra and coconut oil, and third, in fields to the older and, until re cently, dominant world powers. Now, then, a deeper understand ing on the part of Filipinos of the reasons for, as well as the nature of, such readjustments which are being made in the traditional institutions of older democracies should at least be of important and urgent concern to both state and private institutions in our countrv. And how may the people attain that deeper un derstanding unless more and more works by Filipino writers of the type that belongs to "the litera ture of knowledge” and dealing with such readjustments are pro duced in abundance, with comDetence and analytical power? To put the matter in another way, one may say that for the preserva tion and invigoration of the de mocratic system itself, both the state and private institutions must 16 Panorama actively concern themselves with the promotion of “the literature of knowledge,” because it is this type of literature which can most speedily increase popular under standing of the issues on which freedom itself is fighting for sur vival. There remains to consider now the possible source of inspiration for Filipino artists and writers. The state and private institutions may be disposed to provide sup port and encouragement for the creation of certain kinds of artis tic and literary works, but what if the artists and literary men themselves lack the inspiration to produce such works? In the view of this observer, one of the strong est sources of inspiration for art ists and writers is nationalism. I may even hazard the surmise that perhaps most Filipino works of art and literature in recent decades lack the vigor of origin ality and the polish of conscien tious craftsmanship because it is only recently that Filipino na tionalism has begun to reawaken. At any rate, a casual look at the history of the literature of Eng land, France, Russia, the United States and our own would indi cate that many of the master pieces produced by these nations are not only infused with the nationalistic spirit, but were cre ated during periods of hiqh na tional pride and confidence, which are important ingredients of what we call nationalism. One need not dwell on the master pieces produced during what have been called “the spacious days of Queen Elizabeth” or on the al most chauvinistic literature of the long self-confident period of Queen Vicotria or on the pas sionate love for France and all things French that shines forth from most French literary master pieces. It would be more striking and more instructive to consider perhaps that one of the lasting impressions one gets after reading Tolstoy’s War and Peace is that of the mvstic indestructibility of Russia, which the great novelist somehow managed to convey, be cause obviously such was his na tionalistic faith. I mentioned casuallv Pasternak’s Dr. Zhivago ear lier. If one ponders on the merits of this work, what comes off as the work’s most outstanding at tribute? In the view of this read er, though his perusal was hur ried and inattentive, it is the Russian author’s obvious deep pride in the Russia that was, and his passionate concern over the ultimate fate of the Russian peo ple and their traditional values that give the novel its power and strongest appeal. In other words, it is the nationalism of Pasternak, rather than his acid observations against the mores of collectivism, which gives weight and substance to this particular work of his. November 1960 17 The validity of nationalism in deed as a protean source of in spiration for art and literary mas terpieces may be elaborated upon at length, but this is neither the occasion nor the time for it. The only question which needs to be asked finally is: Assuming nation alism to be a powerful motiva tion for the artist’s and the writ er’s work, will its inspiration necessarily bring forth “the litera ture of knowledge” and “the lit erature of power” which are most pertinent and relevant to the prob lems of national growth? The answer, I am sure, is yes. For the truest and greatest force of enlightenment and understanding is always love for freedom and love for one’s own people and land is the simplest, though the largest, element of nationalism. In sum, then, the state and pri vate institutions in the Philip pines today would do well to support and encotfrage, simply and forthrightly, but to the ut most of their resources available for the purpose, the production of nationalistic arts and letters. The Filipino writer and national growth can only become most meaningful to each other in the inspiring, many-colored light of nationalism. So, at least, I be^ lieve. * ¥ * Me, First Two Texans visiting California soon vied with each other in the novel ways of spending their mo' ney to make an impression. After several rounds of gala entertainment, one suggested: “Let’s take a taxi from Hollywood to New York City.” The other ag reed immediately. They hailed a cab and said, “Take us to New York City.” As they started into the cab, one Texan said: “Let me in first—I’m getting off at Fifth Avenue and Forty-Second Street.” Poor Luck A pair of Texas ranchers were riding the range when they stopped for a bit of chow. As one clear ed some ground for a fire, he scraped the sod back from what turned out to be a rich deposit of gold. “Clem,” remarked the other, “we better remember this place in case the price of cattle goes down.” 18 Panorama
pages: 10-18