Irony and Subversion in Rizal’s Writing: Challenging Colonial Narratives

Jose Rizal’s Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo are not only political novels but also masterful works of
irony and satire. Rizal’s use of these literary techniques allows him to critique Spanish colonial rule while
navigating the dangers of direct confrontation. His satirical portrayal of religious hypocrisy, corrupt
officials, and even the failures of the Filipino elite subtly undermines the colonial order. However, this
very complexity makes his works difficult to fully canonize within a singular nationalist framework.
Rather than offering a straightforward revolutionary narrative, Rizal’s novels expose contradictions
within both the colonial system and the Filipino resistance itself.

Irony as a Tool of Resistance

Irony is central to Rizal’s critique of colonial power. By presenting characters who outwardly conform to
colonial expectations but inwardly expose their absurdity, Rizal forces readers to question official
narratives.

1. Ibarra/Simoun as an Ironic Hero

• In Noli Me Tangere, Ibarra embodies the idealized reformist—wealthy, educated, and respectful
of authority. However, his ultimate downfall reveals the lie of colonial benevolence. Despite his
good intentions, he is still treated as a threat, proving that assimilation into the Spanish system is
an illusion.

• In El Filibusterismo, Ibarra returns as Simoun, now adopting the violent methods that the
Spanish once accused him of. Ironically, the system that punished him as a reformer is the same
one that forces him to become a revolutionary. His transformation exposes the hypocrisy of
colonial rule—it rejects peaceful change but fears rebellion.

2. The Church as a Source of Hypocrisy

Rizal’s sharpest irony is directed at the Spanish friars, who claim to be moral leaders but are often the
most corrupt figures in his novels.

• Father Dámaso (Noli Me Tangere) preaches virtue but fathers an illegitimate child (María Clara)
and uses his position to control and abuse others.

• Father Salvi (El Filibusterismo) is supposedly devoted to God but engages in manipulation,
violence, and lustful desires.

• The friars, who justify Spanish rule as a "civilizing mission," are themselves the greatest obstacles
to progress.

By exposing this hypocrisy, Rizal turns the Spanish justification for colonial rule against itself. He forces
readers to see that the supposed “moral authority” of the colonizers is a lie.

3. María Clara’s Fate: A Subversion of the Ideal Filipina

María Clara is often misunderstood as a passive and submissive character. However, Rizal uses irony in
her portrayal to critique the colonial and patriarchal oppression of women.
 • She is the supposed ideal Filipina—modest, religious, and obedient—but her suffering reveals
the cruelty of these expectations.

• Her tragic fate (forced into a convent, ultimately losing her agency) is an ironic commentary on
how the colonial system romanticizes the suffering of women while offering them no real power.

• Unlike the stereotypical Spanish heroine, María Clara does not find salvation in faith or love;
instead, she becomes a symbol of how the system consumes and discards those who try to live
by its ideals.

Satire as Political Weapon

Satire allows Rizal to criticize both Spanish rule and Filipino society without directly calling for rebellion.
His comedic exaggerations make the flaws of colonial rule undeniable while also revealing the
shortcomings of the Filipinos themselves.

1. The Corruption of Colonial Officials

Rizal’s depiction of government officials exposes the incompetence and greed of Spanish authorities.

• The Captain General in El Filibusterismo is more concerned with personal wealth than governing
the colony. His character mocks the idea that Spain was providing good governance to the
Philippines.

• Padre Camorra, a lecherous friar, represents the abuse of power in both the church and state.
His character serves as a satirical attack on the unchecked power of the clergy.

By making these figures ridiculous, Rizal strips them of their authority. The reader is encouraged not to
fear them but to see them as fools.

2. The Satirical Portrait of the Filipino Elite

Rizal does not spare the Filipino upper class from criticism.

• Characters like Capitán Tiago represent Filipinos who willingly submit to Spanish rule for
personal gain. He is rich but spineless, a clear mockery of those who betray their own people for
colonial approval.

• Don Custodio, a supposed intellectual, offers absurd solutions to social problems, representing
the ineffective leadership of the local elite.

This satirical portrayal forces Filipinos to reflect on their own role in their oppression. Rizal suggests that
Spanish rule is not the only problem—the failures of the Filipino elite also contribute to the country’s
suffering.

The Challenge of Canonization

Rizal’s use of irony and satire makes his novels complex and open to multiple interpretations. This very
complexity has contributed to the difficulty of fully canonizing his works within a straightforward
nationalist framework.

1. No Clear Hero, No Clear Solution

• By refusing to provide an easy solution, Rizal’s novels challenge readers to think critically rather
than follow a single ideology. This makes them harder to use as straightforward nationalist
propaganda.

2. Criticism of Both Colonizers and Filipinos

• Rizal does not only attack the Spanish; he also criticizes the Filipino elite, religious institutions,
and even the masses for their inaction.

• This makes his works uncomfortable for nationalist movements that prefer clear-cut enemies
and heroes. While Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo are central to Philippine history, they do
not fit neatly into a simple patriotic message.

3. The Danger of Misinterpretation

• Because of their irony and satire, Rizal’s novels can be read in multiple ways.

• Some have argued that El Filibusterismo is a warning against revolution, while others see it as a
call to arms.

• The ambiguity of Rizal’s message means his works continue to spark debate rather than serve as
fixed national doctrine.

Conclusion: Rizal’s Genius in Irony and Satire

Rizal’s mastery of irony and satire allows him to challenge colonial narratives in a way that is both
subversive and deeply insightful. By exposing the hypocrisy of Spanish rule, the failures of reform, and
even the flaws of Filipino society, he forces his readers to confront uncomfortable truths. However, this
very complexity makes his works difficult to fully integrate into a singular nationalist framework. His
novels resist simple interpretations, ensuring that they remain relevant not just as historical artifacts but
as living texts that continue to provoke critical thought and debate.

Rather than offering a fixed ideology, Rizal’s works invite Filipinos to question, analyze, and redefine their
own path to nationhood. This is perhaps his greatest legacy—not just as a writer, but as a thinker who
challenged both his enemies and his own people to rise above complacency and demand something
greater.