. . . national consciousness is a thoroughly modern form of consciousness, though it assumes a pseudo-natural appearance. The idea of national history was an academic construct made possible by historians, folklorists, and literary critics. It was introduced into the educational process via the school and family, disseminated through mass communication, and anchored in the outlook of generations primed for war through the mobilization of conscripts.
Habermas, DW: 76-77.
Habermas sounds like Foucault here, doesn’t he?
Posts
1 comment:
Consciousness of Filipinos as Construction and the Global reconstruction?
If Habermas view that national consciousness is just a construction and was introduced into the educational process via the school and family, disseminated through mass communication, and anchored in the outlook of generations primed for war through the conscript, therefore how about those culture or cultural minorities who do not have their written literature, history, folk tales etc be part of a consciousness?
Significantly, if the Filipino consciousness is just a convergence of pre, actual and post colonial interactions of people what therfore is our consciousness as well as the consciousness of each nation states that divide them and continously divide the world as well?
Is it important to reconstruct our own consciousness not only on the context of what is Filipino but also for what is humanitarian in universal or general form?
How about the so called divine consciousness? Is it real, imagined or also a product of construction, de-construction and re-construction as well.
I guess what is important is for humanity to find their commoness and construct a global consciousness that is more favorable to all culture if not encourage peaceful co-existence as it also promote growth in diversity without greater institutional coercion and with a wider space for tolerance, freedom and voices especially for the minority.
albert banico
manila, philippines
Post a Comment