Belaro, Jillian Lei V.

202050034

Bagong Pormalisasyong Filipino

1. What literary/cultural issue prompted the Filipino literary scholar, Virgilio S. Almario, to theorize

about Philippine literature and literary and cultural studies?

The miseducation of our history led to confusion in our “panitikan.” Almario believed Rizal’s

Morga set as proof that there is resistance on how Spanish written our early history; how Spanish

incorrectly labeled Indios as barbaric for their bloodline came from the Non-Latinos of pre-colonial. It

expands that the Colonized historical context itself is not just the core of Philippine criticism, for it is also

problematic, Influenced, and could be biased.

At present, Almario witnessed how Filipino scholars highly focus on Christianized context and

practice the western criticism that they’ve learned in western education. Because of too much spotlight

on the influence of previous colonizers, some present scholars did not risk taking more profound steps on

vernacular literature. (*) Instead of ancient epics that existed in the resisting era in Spanish rule, some

scholars focused on wealthy Christian narratives such as passion and oral religious verses injected to

filipinos by early friars.

In conclusion, Rizal’s annotation is similar to what Almario wants to do. They both seek a clearer

picture of our country that is not dependent on western influence narratives. Rizal’s love for his novels,

and reforms pushed him to seek for truth. While Almario’s love for pre-colonial culture, ethnic narratives

and nationalistic narratives pushed him to focus on Filipino literature (Filipino language) that exist before,

and was able to surpass time.

2. What is the theoretical statement or argument of the Filipino literary scholar Virgilio Almario?

“Kahit nakaharap na hindi natin nakikita ang ating sarili” Almario (*) The use of western

influence will not cause harm, however if too much, it will result to overshadowing the very own identity.

Almario reasoned that vernacular language became an option rather than prioritized because of a lack of

knowledge in history and the act of “belittling” the less popular language. Instead of hagdan-hagdang
Belaro, Jillian Lei V.
202050034

palayan the cultural heritage of banquet named as Rice terraces. And using western-influenced terms,

instead of using unpopular vernaculars that can suit in the needs of writers and critiques, (*) Or use of

tugma and taludtod that were used by early Filipinos instead of imposing the Spanish’s influenced verses.

“nakaharap na hindi nakikita ang ating sarili” shows that because of exposure to western literature, and

criticism, filipinos became more used in using it. And slowly as Filipinos dive into the influence of

western, they became unaware of what they have: vernacular language, local styles, and lens of Filipino

in narratives.

According to Hernando, J (2007), “Bagong Pormalismong taglay ay ang matalik na kaalaman sa

kasaysayan at katangian ng lipunan, bubungkalin dito ang panitikan bilang bahagi’t kaugnay ng

karanasang panlipunan. Subali’t ang layunin ay hindi upang patunayan lamang na bahagi’t kaugnay ng

lipunan ang panitikan kundi upang isiwalat din ang mga anyo’t salik ng pagiging panitikan nito ng

lipunan.” The theory argues that Philippine literature must not just show the history of our country or

narrate the history based on the western influence. It must also prove itself that the tropes, grammars,

styles and metaphors are also under by the influence of the “pambansa” or other regions of our

country, and by this vernacular is being used (tagalog, and other regional language and literature).

3. What critical principles or concepts (key terms) comprise this theory?

The theory of Virgilio Almario, Bagong Pormalismong Filipino critiques the literature in terms of

its forms—to how incorrect, or correct the words being used, or how a metaphor can be dissected which

aligned to the non-centralized western, but in the “Pagtinging Filipino.” The three words were discussed

by Almario, and can be seen as the critical principle of the theory: Bago (New), Pormalismo (Formalism),

Filipino.

The theory is new (bago), not because it is the first one who strived to analyze text away from

western approach, but because this theory improves the ideas of the early theories which suits the present

and provides new perspective towards Philippine Literature.

Ang Pormalismo bilang sigasig sa pagtukoy sa hubog at bighani sa panitikan bilang panitikan

(Almario *). The theory seeks for the visual of the text; how authors relates to the reader by implanting

their creative styles used by Filipinos.

According to Almario (*) the “Filipino” term is the limitation of his theory, yet it is not the end

but the beginning, beginning because it is needed now. “Kinakatawan ng Filipino ang kabuoang postura

na salungat sa dominasyon kanluran, at mithiing matatag ang tinging Filipino.” He strives to push the

Filipino lens; the use of “katutubong wika” and “Pagpapakahulugang Filipino”

Bago, Pormalismo, Filipino these set the very own scope and principle of the theory. The idea

that the theory works as a mechanism to understand and see the beauty and sole purpose of Philippine

literature away from “nakasanayan” and “kanlurang tingin.”

4. How did the literary scholar apply his own theory in critiquing a Filipino literary text or cultural

phenomenon?

The approaches Almario used are: meter of poems focus, pre-colonial context, and language use.

He included some poems made by early writers, one of them is the work of Fray Francisco De San Jose,

Al Nino, written in Tagalog. However, even the language is non-western, the style and rhyme meter are

both under Spanish. And like the work of Francisco, Almanio critiqued the prose of Nick Joaquin. He

said that the context of the works of Joaquin strives to show the “Identity” of the Filipinos—presenting

pre-colonial and colonial era. However, the language and approach lie in American modernism (*). These

phenomena have shown the attempt to combine the two cultures by presenting Western and Philippine

literature characteristics. He critiques by categorizing the components of the text; the use of language

(esp. katutubo and Tagalog), and how the text is being presented—from its rhymes, meters, tropes. And

last, the context of the text that is non-western, but in Filipino viewpoint (katutubong pagtingin).

5. What may be the strong and weak points of this theory?

The theory is in pre-colonial view the result is the increasing Filipino lens—many scholars will

be more familiar to the local tradition in writing of Filipino writers, and since non-western narratives is

not the core of this theory, many aspects could be discovered esp. non-popular literature. Since limited to

the grounds of Philippine history esp. narratives that resist the colonialism, scholars must have knowledge

about the history, because if not then, there would no basis of validity.

The less sources/documents for pre-colonial and resisting era is also a problem for the scholars,

thus practicing this theory is tricky esp. now in modern era, for we live in mix-culture society, where

education system still has influence of western. The theory is going back in time to retrieve the virgin

identity of Philippine literature—language term, and characteristics of pre-colonial. It is helpful however,

as our country’s culture progresses and change overtime together with language the use of terms and

practices may or may not suit to the present needs. Therefore, this theory rejects changes, and diversity—

causing positive (preserving) and negative outcome (lack of improvements for it only focus on tagalog

that already exist, and not the words that born after pre-colonial).

6. In what way(s) does this theory conform or differ with other theories, particularly those of other

Filipino scholars? “Napalitan ang katutubong gunita ang bagong kultura dulot ng kolonyalismo.” Manuel

(*) because of the generalization that Philippine literature only focus on the influence; the tradition of

passion in Mahal na araw, etc. The scholars mostly use Post-colonialism when critiquing a text depicting

the influence of western—the Christian traditions, beliefs and practices of the Filipinos. Some critiques

also give the moral of a specific literature, “Mahalin ang kapwa” in relate to the bible which is also an

influence. If not religion is the focus, some scholars focus on the historical context.

Epifanio San Juan, Bienvennido Lumabera, Nicanor Tiongson, among others is the close

connection between aesthetic and politics, between the text and historical forces. No literature work can

ever escape from its historical moment, for it is a product of labor. REYES, S. S. (1987). Just like

Almario, San Juan does not appear into be interested in historical personages as they given works but in

literature itself as independent. But they differ on limitation—other scholars esp. Lumbera, and San Juan
Belaro, Jillian Lei V.
202050034

were both possess modernism while critiquing tagalog literature, while Almario on his Bagong

Pormalisasyon strive to use the old and pre-colonial language.

7. What makes this theory Filipino or adapted to the Filipino context?

The theory of Bagong pormalismo is nativist for it believes that the language is fix and injected in

early age even before the influence. Simply, having the belief that it only focus on Filipino language

already made this as a theory of Filipino. As it seeks for “identity” it resists the existing influence to

support the old tradition. This theory is like a picture of an archeologist who found an artifact and he

wants that artifact to be used, for he knows if this artifact still exists and in other places are being use then

it can be preserve and put into use again. This theory in Filipino context wants us to revive our origin and

again put it into action by writing poems in pre-colonial perspective, and view literature forms away from

western’s view.

8. How does this theory construct “Philippine,” “Literary/Literature,” and “Criticism”?

(In other words, what does the scholar mean by the term “Philippine,” “Literature,” and “Criticism”? Or

what is covered by the term “Philippine,” “Literature,” and “Criticism”?)

“Ang krisistimo sa Filipino ay dapat magsimula sa wastong pagbasa ng kasaysayan nito; mula sa

panahong walang matutunghayang limbag kundi ang ulat na hinggil sa pagtatanggol ng katatutubo laban

sa paghihimasok ng kolonyalista” Almario (*). Criticism in his theory has one main goal and that is to

make a view point where the main focus is resisting the influence and holding the origin. It views

literature on its form—how it uses Filipino as a language, styles and context, etc. It criticizes a literature

base on its nationalistic approach, the non-influence context of a text, and how literature itself proves that

it is related to the country’s identity.

9. How can we apply this theory in Philippine literary and cultural studies?

The theory gives confusion, esp. on how it views that pre-colonial language and literature as the

basis of totality of our identity disregarding the years of influence. As mentioned the Rice terraces
Belaro, Jillian Lei V.
202050034

syndrome wherein some words that are being used are influenced by western instead of pre-colonial term.

But the question is, is some Tagalog words considered to be non-Spanish influence? And if the idea that

only pre-colonial language may be use then time will be a factor for some of these terms are already gone

or if not, there are new terms that emerged that is considered as “nakasanayan.” This theory will set as

attempt to decolonized by limiting the scope of language used, and styles.

As Almario used this approach to criticized poems, he identified which are considered

“influence” and “not” therefore this can be helpful if we categorized the characteristics of literature forms

between pre-colonial and post-colonial. It can act as a basis to perceive how much change factored by

time and influence we had as we study the early practices such as using Filipino meter in pre-colonial or

perhaps the non-Christianized context, etc.