1.

The fundamental cause of mass action is not the utterances of a leader; rather, these
leaders have been impelled to action by historical forces unleashed by social
development. Analyze and discuss this idea in the context of Jose Rizal’s heroism and
his milieu. Be able to cite at least three specific and concrete examples to support your
answer. (30 pts)

Leaders or heroes are considered to be the reason behind mass action. Why people
proceed to take charge and move. They are put on a pedestal to celebrate an end or a
beginning of an era. Their names are chained to the period when they lived and the
period is chained to them because they are considered to be the defining moment of
that part of history. But they are only pawns to the impending forces, cogs that turn to
strike a beginning of another period in time. The historical forces unleashed by social
development are the main reason for a beginning or an end of an era. The people who
notice these forces are the ones who urge and are impelled to take action.

These forces were brought upon by the social conditions and development of the time.
International relation with countries in Europe and Asia provide a wider point of
view. The economic status and developments also impacted the conditions of life in
the country. With these factors a number of people will be able to know whether these
conditions and social norms are acceptable by the public or not. The assessment of
these conditions can provide a cause for mass action. If the relationship between the
Philippines and Spain were in a good condition, the people wouldn’t take action.

But in Rizal’s time the relationship between the Philippines and Spain is hanging by a
thread. Only time will tell when a move will be done to try and stop the cruelty and
tyranny of the Spaniards. With this statement, with or without a Rizal,a Del Pilar or a
Lopez- Jeana action will be made. The conditions of the time period are predictive to
the outcome. This means that even if there was no Jose Rizal there will be somebody
or someone who will appear.Another type of “leader” would surface .The approach
might be different but the results will yield the same outcomes.

Also , unbeknownst to some people,Rizal never wanted a revolution.Rizal turned

down the offer to join the Katipunan. He even stated that the Filipinos are not ready
and they lack the adequate amount weaponry and funding. Even though he highly
advised not to go through the plans of revolt, the revolution still took placed. This
means that even if the “leader” does not side with the kind of solution given. There is
great possibility that action will still occur one way or another.

This doesn’t mean that Rizal wasn’t a part of our struggle for independence because
he is. In his own way he did take part in the liberalism and struggle of the
Philippines.With out him, there would have been a delay in our historic struggle but
the forces unleashed by social development already insured the same result. Rizal saw
what most of his countrymen didn’t, and saw the underlying problems that his country
faced. His role in all this was opening a window and letting others see what he has
seen, even if his social status limited him to see further.