**CHAPTER ONE: HISTORY AND HISTORIOGRAPHY: MEANING AND RELEVANCE** **LEARNING OUTCOMES**
**CHAPTER ONE: HISTORY AND HISTORIOGRAPHY: MEANING AND RELEVANCE** **LEARNING OUTCOMES**
At the end of this Chapter, you must be able to:
* Explain history as an academic discourse;
* Apply historical methodologies;
* Apply theoretical and methodological tools in the study of history;
* Discuss the development of historiography, particularly Philippine historiography; and,
* Discuss the importance of history in the creation of national identities and development and make it part of Filipino consciousness.
This Chapter will discuss the meaning of history (etymological development), historical methodology and historiography. Emphasis will be given to the effort of Filipino scholars to develop a Filipino philosophy as basis of historical interpretation. **Meaning and Importance of History**
Socrates in his dialectic argued the importance of coming up with terms before engaging in a discourse. In this way, there will be a common ground for the exchange of discussion. On the other hand, the appropriation of meaning is complicated for it has to consider several factors i.e. (historical and cultural). Aside from the reasons stated, the power that emanates from the one who controls the discourse is also a factor to consider. To quote Napoleon Bonaparte "what is history but a fable agreed upon."
Gottschalk posited that the term history has evolved from its present connotation. Etymologically, history was taken from the Greek word **iotopix** which means "to learn." At present the term denotes the past events.
Generally, history is concerned with the study of the human past. Specifically, we can give three attributions of meanings to the concept. First, it deals with the past events; second, the records of past events such as, chronicle, annals, official records like birth certificates, marriage certificates; third, history as an academic discipline.
Furthermore, Dr. Zeus Salazar defined history as *"mga pangyayari na may saysay para, sa grupo ng taong sinasaysayan nito"* . Salazar advocated the use of Filipino in historical discourse.
History as defined by a foreign scholar *"is the record of what one age finds worthy of note in another".* For Carr, history is a study of human achievements. Whatever differences historians may give, still the term suggests past events.
The term history although it means past, cannot be narrowed down to the records of past events only. Likewise, even though the subject of history is past events, nobody can deny that it connotes many implications that affect the life of the people and the future of a country. As defined by Medina, *history is not just the past but also and principally the present and future*. History is a forward projection. It is a social construction of a future reality. For these authors, the writing of history is a political endeavor. Since history is a continuous process, it is a good vehicle to use in directing the future of a country. This brings us to the question posed by Keith Jenkins about history and power. For Keith Jenkins, history can never be and will never be for one's self. It is always for one person. He added that *history is a form of power wherein the direction of the arrangement of the past is discussed*. In this case, the subjects that will be privileged and will be muted is based on the kind of discourse followed by historians. History as a discourse is a series of tactics of organizing and sequencing events and past systems according to individual outlook, interest, objective or goals.
A prominent historian, Samuel Tan defined history as the dynamic process of dealing with the past in which the stages or aspects of development are interrelated, brought upon by the understanding of the present and the future. Tan added that history is a collective interplay of events. Tan's view of history gives us a broader outlook in dealing with past events. His definition gives us a clue that history is the achievement of different people in a particular time and not just the work of a particular group of people in a particular place, thus debunking the Manila-centered history.
This view of Tan was supported by a prominent nationalist historian, Renato Constantino, who emphasized that *history is the achievement of man not the individual but the collective*. Therefore, we cannot assume that history is a primary work of an individual leader but a collective effort of the people. With this definition, Constantino strengthened the history from below. Following Marx's idea of history, Constantino views the masses as the real mover of history.
Why do we need to study history? This is a perennial question of a very inquisitive mind. As suggested by Sterns, history must be studied because it is significant both to society and people for it helps us better understand ourselves, our strengths, limitations and aspirations. Historical events remind us of the collective experience of the people, its suffering, joy and aspiration. All these things serve as glue towards the realization of a nation.
The study of history became possible with the development of writing. The invention of writing could be considered as one of the most important inventions of human civilization because it gave men the instrument to record their achievements. This important invention of human civilization ended the pre-historic age and marked the beginning of the historic era.
History can be divided into different branches as follows: general history which covers political, economic, diplomatic and military history; economic history, which includes economic thoughts and economic system; cultural history which covers local and ethnic history; social history and myth history. Although much of our history is devoted to political history, historians of today have included and emphasized economic and socio-cultural history as an important part of their discourse. **History and Philippine Historiography**
On the other hand, historiography is the art of writing. It also refers to the theory and history of historical writing. The term historiography is rooted from the Greek word **historia** which means past and **graphier** which means to write. Although the writing of history can be traced thousands of years ago, historiography, the scientific way of writing history, gained prominence only in the early nineteen hundreds. Recent developments in historiography broadened the bases of history. The new historicism pioneered by Michel Foucault provided new perspectives in terms of historical interpretation. Data like oral history, folklore, indigenous materials and the likes which traditionally cannot be considered as sources of history are now considered as possible sources of history. This trend also looked into the "silences" in history. Baktin noted that *silences, not just the voices in history are important*. These developments strengthened the effort of Filipino historians to write a history that will serve the Filipino people and a historiography that will offer a Filipino perspective.
In the Philippines, the dominance of the colonial discourse has challenged Filipino historians to write the history of the Philippines using a discourse that will privilege the Filipinos. Filipino historians like Agoncillo, Ileto, Guerrero, Diokno, Salazar and others, worked hard to counter the colonial historiography that dominated Philippine historiography for a long time. The accumulation of new data and the development of new theories gave Filipino historians many aspects of Philippine history that were left unexplained. Historians, with the help of other disciplines like archaeology,
anthropology, psychology, linguistics and other disciplines faithfully reconstructed the Philippines past using a Filipino perspective.
The post-EDSA period gave a new direction for Filipino historians. The move to use Filipino as medium of instruction had gained support from different historians. With this development, Zeus Salazar and the advocates of the pantayong pananaw gave new direction to the study of history. Using Filipino as medium, they defined history as ang kasaysayan ay isang salaysay tungkol sa nakalipas na may saysay sa isang grupo ng tao. With this definition, the study of Philippine history is redirected to what the people believe to be important to them. This is the reason for the study of oral traditions, culture and local history which are privileged in the discourse of the pantayong pananaw.
The Development of Philippine Historiography
The Development of Philippine Historiography
Historical consciousness is innate among the Filipinos. As reflected in a popular Filipino saying ang hindi marunong lumingon sa kanyang nakaraan ay hindi makakarating sa kanyang paroroonan. This is indicative that the Filipinos have an intrinsic love of their past.
For so many years, Filipino historians became followers of a very rigid tradition in writing history - a tradition based on positivism. Positivism holds that historical knowledge and interpretation ought to be based upon verifiable data gathered after examination of documents through internal and external criticisms. Because of the weaknesses of this tradition, a new historical approach, known as New Historicism emerged. It seeks the interpretation of facts from all perspectives, including those that do not concern history before.
In the Philippines, as early as the nineteen sixties, historians exerted efforts to broaden the bases of their historical sources, and provided new and fresh interpretations that challenged the traditional discourses in history. Leslie Bauzon, in his article entitled "Perspective on Contemporary Philippine Historiography" emphasized the need to develop a methodology for interpretative historical analysis within the context of Philippine society. He argued that what the social scientists are using was based on Western models which do not fit the Philippine setting. Under this condition, Filipino historians are constrained to view Philippine history on the perspective of the Filipinos.