Sample Critique Paper

On Making Spaces for Philippine Oral Literary Traditions
in Southeast Asia: A Critique

(Estella B. Barbosa)
The paper ‘Southeast Asian Literary Traditions and the Philippines’ by

Bienvenido Lumbera describes the significance of establishing a linkage between
literary traditions found in the Philippines and the traditions described in its ASEAN
neighbors. The oral literature of the Philippines, being indexical to the country’s
‘precolonial’ past serves as an important vehicle in shaping cultural bridge with its
ASEAN neighbors. The paper is framed from the idea that there is a need, for the
Philippines, to link up with the cultures in Southeast Asia for survival in the so-
called ‘era of globalization.’ And being one of the countries in the periphery, the
Philippines needs to maintain its firm hold on a sense of identity and the national
interest it represents in the larger socio-political, cultural and economic
landscapes. It is through the country’s oral literature to be intellectualized in its
national language, Filipino, that the process of reclaiming its place in the cultures
of Southeast Asia might partially be carried out.
The strength of the paper lies in its attempt to establish a cultural bridge
between the Philippines and other ASEAN-member states and its recognition that
the ‘decolonization’ of Filipino consciousness is a process which remains to be
completed. In the process of linking up with Southeast Asia, the paper specifically
describes affinities between the forms and functions of Philippine oral literature
and the literary culture of its neighboring Southeast Asian countries. This affinity is
established further by mentioning similarities of literary traditions in the region,
such as the religious content of the traditions owing to the influences of Hinduism,
Buddhism, Islam and Christianity. Another motif observed by Yabes (cited by
Lumbera in Hall & Tope, 1999) is that folk narratives of animist provenance abound
in the region. In the same vein, the author also discusses various forms and
functions of Philippine oral literature ranging from riddles and proverbs to songs
and epics. These oral literary traditions serve as ‘indexes’ to the cultures of the
communities. After all, oral literature is one of the ways people in the community
shape their own worlds, value their traditions and ‘perform’ their ethnic/cultural
identity.
Another strength described in the paper is its emphasis on the effects of
globalization in the Southeast Asian region, particularly the Philippines.
Globalization is a double-edged sword. There are winners and losers. And most
likely, the winners are those rich industrialized countries and economic
powerhouses while the losers are those countries in the periphery, like the
Philippines. The paper takes a firm hold on recognizing that the decolonization of
the Filipino consciousness is a process which remains to be completed. This
process of ‘decolonizing’ or ‘dehegemonizing’ is an attempt to collectively firm up
the country’s relations with its neighbors. In the tension between sense of
belonging (being in ASEAN) and loss of national identity, the paper offers a partial
2
resolution by devising a strategy for survival: recovering oral literature through the
national language, Filipino.
This partial resolution offered in the paper is, however, still problematic. By
using the national language, Filipino, it disenfranchises local or minority languages.
Philippines is a multilingual and multicultural country. As to recent report in
Ethnologue, there are 187 known languages in the Philippines. Both English and
Filipino enjoy considerable prestige in the language hierarchy of the country. But,
the move of using Filipino has the potential to excite accusations of ethnic/cultural
favoritism, which in turn, threatens national unity. But, as argued further by
Bamgbose (cited by Ferguson, 2006), in achieving sociocultural cohesion and
political unity in our multi-ethnic, multilingual and multicultural societies, “a
common language cannot in and of itself unify…” (p. 4).
At the outset, another tension between national and local identity is going
to take place. As remarked by Wright (cited by Ferguson, 2006), in the multilingual
context like the Philippines, monolingual alternatives ‘are no better, leading, in one
direction toward confinement and parochialism and in the other toward the loss of
diversity and possible anomie (p. xi). In the same vein, Fishman (cited by
Ferguson, 2006) remarked that the cultivation of a national identity (by using
Filipino in teaching Philippine oral literature in the country’s
multilingual/multicultural contexts) may supersede ‘ethnic–cultural particularisms’
(p. 4).
My critical stand on the issue comes in twofold: I agree with the author in
his attempt to establish linkage between the Philippine literary traditions and the
other traditions in other ASEAN-member states. It is because that is all we need in
this period of, as described by Held and McGrew (cited by Ferguson, 2006),
inclusivity, deterritorialization, ‘action at a distance’, time-space compression, the
increasing mobility of people and capital, and the weakening of the nation state.
After all, the Philippines needs Southeast Asia. This sense of belonging within
ASEAN equally needs a ‘bottom-up’ approach by valuing cultural legacy that these
oral traditions represent.
Secondly, I disagree on the idea that Philippine oral literature should be
intellectualized using the national language alone, for this may disenfranchise
languages in the marginalized communities. As remarked by Lorente (cited by
Cruz & Mahboob, 2017), making space for mother tongues “acknowledges the role
of local communities and how local knowledge can be valued in the classroom with
the use of the mother tongues” (p. 197). Cruz & Mahboob (2017) added that “when
local languages remain marginalized as languages of local purposes and
identities, then they may have not have developed the registers needed for the
specialized discourses of high social distance…(p. 6).
In the Philippine context as a point of departure from Lumbera’s proposal,
there is still a need to document, to describe and to legitimize local languages in
the Philippines prior to incorporating Philippine oral literary traditions in the basic
education system. As argued by Cruz & Mahboob (2017), there is a need to
develop these local languages to make people perceive them as equally useful as
English. Likewise, with the global spread of English and the growing field of
translation studies, there shall be complementation between the local language
3
(emphasizing the creativity and ingenuity of the communities) and the target
language (e.g. English, being the language of research in the Philippine academe).
This calls for legitimacy of the translations of the texts.
To wrap up, in the context of a time-space when Philippine oral literature is
embedded and taught in the basic education system in the language(s) of the
community of origin, along with reasonable translations of the texts reflective of the
cultural fabric of the community for wider accessibility of these accurate renditions
of the oral literary work, reconnecting with Southeast Asia through Philippine oral
traditions fortifies the Filipino by having both democratization of access and
protection of national/cultural/ethnic identity. #
REFERENCES
Cruz, P. & Mahboob, A. (2017). Mother-tongue based multilingual education in the

Philippines: Perceptions, problems and possibilities. In J. Choi & S.
Ollerhead (Eds.) Plurilingualism in Teaching and Learning: Complexities
Across Contexts. New York: Routledge.
Del Castilo, T. & Medina, B. (2002). Philipine Literature: From Ancient Times to the
Present. Philippine graphic and Arts, Inc, Caloocan City, Philippines.
Enriquez, D. (2012). Philippine Literature: A Regional Approach. National

Bookstore, Mandaluyong City, Philippines.
Ferguson, G. (2006). Language Planning and Education. Edinburgh University

Press.
Joaquin, N. (2017). Culture and History. Anvil Publishing, Inc., Manila, Philippines.
Mabanglo, R.E. & Galang, R. (2010). Essays on Philippine Language and

Literature. Anvil Publishing, Inc., Manila, Philippines.
Mallari-Hall, L. & Tope, L. R. (1999). Texts and contexts: Interactions between

literature and culture in Southeast Asia. UP Diliman.
www.sil.com
Zaide, G. & Zaide, S. (2011). History of Asian Nations. All-Nations Publishing Co,
Inc., Quezon City, Philippines.

Sample Critique Paper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sample Critique Paper

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sample Critique Paper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

On Making Spaces for Philippine Oral Literary Traditions

in Southeast Asia: A Critique

The paper ‘Southeast Asian Literary Traditions and the Philippines’ by

Cruz, P. & Mahboob, A. (2017). Mother-tongue based multilingual education in the

Enriquez, D. (2012). Philippine Literature: A Regional Approach. National

Ferguson, G. (2006). Language Planning and Education. Edinburgh University

Mabanglo, R.E. & Galang, R. (2010). Essays on Philippine Language and

Mallari-Hall, L. & Tope, L. R. (1999). Texts and contexts: Interactions between

You might also like