Reynaldo Ileto’s “Pasyon and Revolution” sets one hand to the dissimilarity of ideologies between the Ilustrados and the Katipuneros. He certainly made a rational approach concerning his perspective and insights of the Katipuneros about the true meaning of revolution. We may all assume that the Ilustrados’ tenets on revolution and independence are influenced and shaped by the Westerners; nevertheless, we fail to comprehend the Katipuneros’ intention with regard to their will to fight for their independence. Ileto predominantly keynotes David Sturtevant’s postulation relevant to the Katipuneros’ persistence of revolution.
Ileto primarily opposes Sturtevant’s notions on the Katipuneros’ objectives on their revolts up to the variations in Philippine social structure such as the “Little Tradition” which explains to the peasant unwritten law distinct from the “Great Tradition” of the elites. Ileto argues that it would have been a coherent step for Sturtevant to pertain his classification to the revolts and expound the “Little Tradition” aspects of the Katipunan. However, Ileto was convinced that Sturtevant avoids any discussion of the revolution itself largely because he accepts the Ilustrados’ or the Filipino elite’s definitions of nationalism, independence and revolution and he led to a conclusion that the peasant-based, religious challenges to the republic were antinationalist, irrational and doomed to fail. Because of his inability to decode the language and gestures of peasant rebels, Sturtevant could at best interpret them in the light of psychological responses to social breakdown.1
“He says, for example, that they were “blind” responses to social breakdown. In contrast, he ascribes “rational” and realistic” goals to elite—led movements. In his effort to classify each peasant movement according to its proportionate ingredients of the religious or secular, rational or irrational, progressive or retrogressive, nationalist or anarchist, he explains away...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document