Towards an Epistemological Understanding of Filipino Revolts

In his study on revolutions, Sociologist Walter Goldfrank summed up his observations by listing four prerequisites for revolutions to occur: a favorable world context, an administrative and coercive crisis of the state, widespread rural rebellion and dissident elite movement(s). The first three, says Goldfrank, synthesized to form a revolutionary situation. The fourth, given the near-automatic existence of alternate contenders, emerges to effect political and social transformation after military superiority is proved.

Political scientist James Davies meanwhile said that revolutions occur during a short period of sharp reversals; when people are jolted from their seats and realize the imminent threats to their very lives caused by ineffective governance. Various statistics—as on rural uprisings, industrial strikes, unemployment and cost of living—may serve as crude indexes of popular moods. Yet, these are pre-eminent indications of a rising undercurrent of dissent among affected classes.

However, we find in history that such conditions, though existing, did not necessarily lead to a revolution. In the Philippines, such preconditions only ripen to a full-blown revolt only when led by the intellectual classes. Marx theory of the leadership of the proletariat and Theda Scocpol’s agrarian uprisings do not apply in the Philippine context. Our history is replete with pseudo-revolutions or roughly incomplete revolutions that explain why we are still unable to truly progress towards complete state development.

Less I be accused of distorting history, yes, we do find pockets of agrarian-based revolts in our historical experience; but these are aberrations rather than stages in a continuing revolution. Idealists among us are quick to say that such incidents are interlinked. Close study reveals that causes may be the same, but we find no unified agenda among groups who led these incidents. Our failure to grasp this historical realities is the true cause of our failure to launch genuine revolutions of such magnitude as to effect real change in our society.

Towards an Epistemological approach to revolutions

True revolutions, as Clifford Kroeber wrote, need a comprehensive and general theory or strategy. The lack of such a model causes disruptions and failures in effecting strategy. We may launch thousands of rallies against the state but it will not lead to total change. We may organize the Filipino proletariat, yet, this will not lead to their emancipation nor the establishment of a dictatorship of this class.

Our present situation calls for an epistemological examination of our history through what I call the "synthesis of causes." We are caught, as Thomas Kuhn described, in our own individualized world views or “paradigms” that reflect on invididual accumulations of social norms and reward processes that prevents us from considering certain actions for change. We are being held back by our very situation to truly push for a liberating strategy against this parasitic state.

A re-examination of what is Filipino and what is his concepts of change may contribute towards an epistemological solution. However, we need to create social cycles that would lead to a psycho-social evolution marked by the dominance of the intellectual entrepreneur. It is this class that would lead a genuine People's Revolution. A social cycle allows one collective mindset--a class--to emerge, set up and assume a dominant position whenever a former collective mindset or class has been corrupted or has degenerated. The exigency of such a strategy is pre-eminent given the present condition of the Philippine state.