END OF METANARRATIVES

In his article, Do we really need a “Global View of History”?[1], Wu Xiaoqun discussed the entry of globalization in the field of history in China, through the so-called global view of history. Xiaoqun viewed globalization and the global view of history as a machination of the West imposing itself to the East, which the former perceived as an unsophisticated based on their definition of civilization. History, thus, is written from the point of view of the westerners, who conquered, colonized the non-westerners, to educate and civilize them. It is a form of exploitation by west to the detriment of east. Xiaoqun proposed the abolition of this metanarrative imposed by the west to the east. In this post-modern era, after all, discussions have become multi-centered. None has the monopoly of the center stage, for every one may have his own stage, presented in his own way. Xiaoqun advocated the promotion of local knowledge and history in contrast from the grand narratives of the west. 

In the Philippines, historians had long rejected this global view of history together with the grand narratives of the west and proposed local, regional narratives as norms in tackling the accounts of the Filipino people. Teodoro Agoncillo, Reynaldo Ileto, Renato Constantino, to name a few, present an alternative reading of the events that took place in the past and had long been discussed through the framework from the west. Theirs are history written from the Filipino point of view, by the Filipinos themselves. The instruments and materials used by these authors may not be able to fit to the western standard of writing history, or might appear to be totally new to them. Ileto, for example, in his book Pasyon and Rebolusyon, rendered the story of Philippine Revolution through the hymns, and prayers of the Katipuneros. He also analyzed the amulets, and various talisman of the Katipuneros decoding their beliefs during the Revolution. Ileto relates what used to be an unknown aspect of the Philippine Revolution, revealing a new understanding of the Filipino people through interpretations that deviated from the western-sponsored Philippine History. 

Globalization may had helped in the study of history in making sources available to researchers via Internet, improvement of transportations, technology used in carbon dating materials, etc. However, globalization too had become a means to promote ideologies, propagandas, and in the case of history, metanarratives. Globalization becomes a means for a “superior” culture to impose its own history to a perceived “inferior” culture, making the former the protagonist in a history it has written for the other. A truly globalized world, conversely, provides voices for both the superior and inferior, west and east. The east can indeed talkback to the west, who may might be imposing itself and his own grand history. The advent of local histories and narratives manifests the true globalization of the world in a postmodern era, sounding the drums, announcing the end of metanarratives. 

[1] Wu Xiaoqun, “Global View of History”?, in Chinese Studies in History, vol. 42, no. 3, Spring 2009, pp. 45-50.