Discipline: Philosophy
The author interprets Lopez’s work as a case of mythologizing a historical figure for the Filipino masses. It is therefore a protelarian myth in contrast to bourgeois myths which Roland Barthes talks about. Myth indeed is a language—a metalanguage—and Lopez made use of it to express the theme of emulation and the responsibility of the proletarian man through traits that endure in the Filipino psyche: his loob (inner self), budhi (conscience), hiya (shame), and sense of responsibility. The author agrees with Barthes that history and myth do not mix. Where a piece of work does not portray historical facts faithfully, it should not be taken as a historical document but—in the context of Lopez’s awit—a piece of literary work that must be enjoyed.
Â
Myth deprives the object of which it speaks of all history. In it, history evaporates. [History] is a kind of ideal servant: it prepares all things, brings them, lays them out, the master [myth] arrives, [history] silently disappears: all that is left for one to do is to enjoy this beautiful object [the myth] without wondering where it comes from.
Â
—Roland Barthes
Mythologies, 1973