Description:

Criticisms of the national language policy of the Philippines began during the drafting of the 1935 Constitution of the Philippines and still opposition continues to this day. What makes the arguments from the opposition interesting is that they question the assumptions of the policy makers, leaders and the general population regarding issues of Filipino nationalism and identity. The question of language and nationalism in the Philippines we find out is more than a cultural one, but as the early criticisms and the ongoing criticisms would show, actually is a political one as well. The most well- formed arguments against the national language come from two sides. The first we may label as the non-essentialist/utilitarian side which says that the correspondence between language and national identity is an exaggeration, that the essence of a person can be expressed in whatsoever language he or she uses. The second is from the regionalistic perspective, a much-maligned point of view among nationalist narratives. There is a continuing sense of marginalization that is felt by the various ethnolinguistic groups across the Philippines due to the perception of the elevation of one language among the numerous ones in the archipelago to the status of a national language. Though to a certain extent still essentialist, in that the advocates of the regionalistic point of view stress the importance of their ethnolinguistic identities, the feelings of marginalization still lingers and provides a major inspiration for serious criticisms of the national language policy which was and is still being seen as an imposition. To open new avenues regarding the issue, therefore, more than to rehash the old arguments, a new political consciousness must be realized. This is manifested by calls for changes in the prevailing Manila-centric political structure of the country, towards a more egalitarian orientation in the form of a federal decentralized government.