We have been made accustomed to think that truth is a rational truth that is, as the maxim that can be held as universal and can be accepted by all. However, there are also others who wish to entirely reject the truth of reason saying that ‘reason is the root of injustice and manipulation.’ Reason is being understood as the totalizing tendency to include everything into a unified understanding or perception. Reason has the drive to simplify everything and reduce its perception into a unified concept or system.
In my own understanding of Jaspers’ reflection about philosophy, I began to understand that philosophy for him can only be authentic if it addresses the actual existence of man. Hence, he calls it as Existenz philosophy.[1] He clarifies this Existenz philosophy saying: “in Existenz philosophy, out of the decisiveness of our fundamental bases, the clarity of a life related to Transcendence should again become communicable in thought, as a philosophizing with which we actually live.”[2]
Reflecting on these words, I think Jaspers tries to argue that philosophy can no longer be a single, complete system to be brought out as a presentation of concepts that represent the thought of great thinkers. Jaspers warns us against this tendency to create a system of philosophy. He believes that a system destroys philosophy. There can only be a philosophy of an individual person. A philosophy is a person’s articulation of a particular encounter with the world.[3] It is an attempt to name that which s/he discovers as s/he faces his/her own existence. This does not however mean that the truth is not shared or could not be a product of communication. Rather, Jaspers only says that we refrain from talking about concepts as if the concepts that we attach to a philosopher is his philosophy. Philosophy to be real should not be conceptual, and it should never be reduced to a system. In his autobiography he says, “Concepts which were originally reality pass through history as pieces of learning or information. What was once life becomes a pile of dead husks of concepts and these in turn become the subject of an objective history of philosophy.”[4] Jaspers believes that philosophy has to proceed in the manner that Kierkegaard and Nietzsche[5] developed their own. It has to be a product of one’s confrontation with his world, even painfully, rather than staying complacent with the already accepted sets of truths or concepts.[6] Real philosophy is born in the actual struggle through life, in seeing that in life, there are events that may not be defined and fully comprehended but still need to be articulated. It is in this encounter with life itself that we should do our philosophizing.
The tension between the rational and its opposite (the non-rational)
Jaspers has noted that the history of philosophy reveals the tension between the realm of the rational and that of its opposite, the non-rational. He cited as an example the highly rational articulation of the Greeks of Ancient philosophy who are also at the same time confronted by the irrationality of Fate. Jaspers said that this tension has gone further even until the time of Christianity where the desire to rationalize the faith through theology is also accompanied by faith’s assent to mystery. Christianity has articulated the irrational especially in the language of Providence whereby a Christian openly accepts that there are things that are beyond his capacity and understanding, but fall within the providence of God, and hence have to be accepted and obeyed.
In other words, in man’s tendency to rationalize the environment, the reality of the non-rational also emerges at the same time. “All philosophizing which would like to dissolve Being into pure rationality retains in spite of itself the non-rational.”[7] And further he says, “even in the most radical defiance of reason, there remains the minimum of rationality.”[8] The human person could never really escape his/her tendency to employ the use of reason as s/he confronts the world around him/her, as s/he wants to understand that which lies beyond him/her. Yet, at the same time also, it is a fact that the human person would also obviously fail to rationalize everything in his/her world. There would always be something that goes beyond ones comprehension.
The invitation of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche
In the history of philosophy, Jaspers noted, there are two thinkers (Kierkegaard and Nietzsche) who have endeavored to establish the balance of reason and the non-rational. Jaspers said that the emergence of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche was also accompanied by a particular turn in the reality of the Western man: “a destruction of all authority, a radical disillusionment in an overconfident reason.”[9] Hence, one striking character of the two is their doubt towards the so-called scientific men (the experts). Jaspers noted that “both suspect truth in the form of scientific knowledge.”[10] The experts have the tendency to believe that everything in the world can be explained, and can be subjected to experiments and scientific investigation. The experts hold that the world is comprehensible. But Jaspers lament over the experts’ incapacity to experience the “maturity of that critical point where everything turns upside down.”[11] What the experts, ironically, fail to understand is the fact that there are things that escape man’s absolute comprehension.
However, despite their critique against reason, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche are not also abrogating reason altogether. They too agree that to perceive Being happens only through interpretation and so Being comes to man also only through reason. But such interpretation cannot be total. It cannot be so comprehensive as if it can speak the entirety of Being. Whereas they believe that reason interprets the existence of man, they also posit that interpretation is continuous and even endless.[12] For Jaspers then, man confronts his existence and articulates it through his use of reason. But the human person has to be made aware that the interpretation, even if it seems to be decisive, is but temporary and it can change anytime. With the finite nature of every interpretation, the philosopher is cautioned to be incessantly vigilant of his own existence because he knows that his articulation of it continues through time.[13]
The Need to Interpret through the exception
Jaspers has noted that Kierkegaard and Nietzsche are not really the exemplars of their time. They are even sometimes ignored by their contemporaries. They too have not left a particular school of thought or a particular philosophical system. But they are studied even long after their death. They continue to haunt the minds even of the contemporary men. For Jaspers, these two, though they are the exceptions of their era because they dared to think differently, can serve as our inspirations in the way we do philosophy today.[14]
Philosophy has to cease from being a mere naming of concepts (from mere handing on or passing down of a philosopher’s doctrine (content) from one generation to the next). Philosophy has to transform into a real reflection (interpretation) of existence. A philosopher has to become constantly attentive to what he calls as the ciphers, as those which can point to the human person the possibilities for his/her future. The task of the philosopher is to confront the Encompassing, the Infinite possibilities, to which s/he could project herself/himself, and to begin a journey towards transcendence. With this kind of philosophizing, we must not forget to discern and decide for our purpose, for our direction, for our reasons. In journeying towards the unknown future, we must continue to ask: what else could come from here? Where would I like to proceed? What would I like to do? For us to become authentic philosophers, we have to constantly push ourselves in order to make decisions that can bring us beyond our boundaries. To philosophize is to journey toward the beyond, toward our Existenz.
Jaspers describes his lecture on Reason and Existenz as follows: “this lecture has no intention of surveying the whole, but rather of making the present situation perceptible by reflecting upon the past. No one knows where man and his thinking are going. Since existence, man, and his world are not at an end, a completed philosophy is as little possible as an anticipation of the whole.” He further says, “the contemporary problem is not to be deduced from some a priori whole; rather it is to be brought to consciousness out of a basis which is now experienced and out of a content still unclearly willed.” (48)
In short, when Jaspers reflected about the possibilities of the contemporary way of doing philosophy, he was insistent on the philosopher’s attentiveness to his present. The present is where man lives and creates his life. This is the non-rational part of philosophy: to be engaged, as it were, in what is happening at present. It is part of philosophizing to feel the agony of those who suffer, to rejoice with those who are in triumph, to fight the cause of the oppressed, to seek for justice for those who are marginalized, to experience the beauty of art and music, and I think, even to practice the faith of a believer. One has to be fully conscious of his present, of his situation, of his context.
However, Jaspers also realized that those who are so emphatic about the present also missed an important aspect of philosophizing. He admits that every mode of philosophizing could not totally dispense the use of reason. The present is so varied and enigmatic. Part of philosophizing is to create a whole, a unity, out of the multiplicity of the present. This is where reason plays its role. Reason however should not be conceived as mere objective thinking.[15] Reason is one’s grasp of beings that bring out the latter’s existential significance. It is that which pushes the variety and multiplicity of Existenz towards a kind of unity, even if such unity can never really be achieved.[16]
Jaspers believes that philosophy has to be rooted in the selfhood of the human person. The philosopher perceives Being as the Encompassing, which is a horizon of infinite possibilities. When Jaspers was said to contend that philosophy is “primarily an activity in which people gain illumination into the nature of their existence and that content and doctrines are relatively unimportant,”[17] he probably means that philosophizing is simply an articulation of humankind’s journey towards freedom and authenticity. The future of mankind surely depends on the kind of interpretation that we give to the ciphers of the encompassing. Our future depends on the decisions that we presently assume as part of our own journey toward our Existenz.
[1] Reason and Existenz, 128
[2]Reason and Existenz, 128.
[3] Jaspers said, “philosophical activity is fully real only at the summits of personal philosophizing… objectivized philosophical thought is a preparation for, and a recollection of, it.” http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/jaspers.htm. Retrieved last December 16, 2007.
[4] http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/jaspers.htm
[5] “Their (Kierkegaard’s and Nietzsche’s) earnestness and absoluteness overpower us as standards although we do not follow them in their content. That we owe something new to Kierkegaard and Nietzche – the possibility of laying the deepest foundations – and yet that we do not follow them in their essential decisions, makes up the difficulty of our philosophical situation.” (Reason and Existenz, 129 – parenthetical notes added).
[6] Jaspers himself said, “It is as though we again sought on these paths of philosophizing the quietude of Kant and Spinoza, of Nicolas of Cusa and Parmenides, turning away from the ultimate unrest of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. But still these latter philosophers remain as lighthouses still burning, perpetual indicators of directions, without which we would relapse into the deception of supposing there were teachable philosophic doctrine or contents, which as such are without power.” (Reason and Existenz, 130).
[7] Reason and Existenz, 20.
[8] Reason and Existenz, 20.
[9] Reason and Existenz, 23.
[10] Reason and Existenz, 25.
[11] Reason and Existenz, 26.
[12] Jaspers said, “The age of reflection has, since Fichte, been characterized as reasoning without restraint, as the dissolving of all authority, as the surrender of content which gives to thinking its measure, purpose and meaning, so that from now on, without hindrance and as an indifferent play of the intellect, it can fill the world with noise and dust… reflection cannot exhaust or stop itself. It is faithless since it hinders every decision.” (Reason and Existenz, 31).
[13] “Philosophy as thought is always a consciousness of Being which is complete for this moment, but which knows it has no final permanence in its form of expression.” (Reason and Existenz, 48).
[14] Jaspers said, “through them, we have become aware that for us there is no longer any self-evident foundation. There is no longer any secure background for our thought.”(Reason and Existenz, 46).
[15] John K. Roth, ed., World Philosophers and their Works. (California: Salem Press, Inc., 2000), 950.
[16] Roth 2000: 951.
[17] Roth 2000: 945.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Friday, January 18, 2008
WAYS OF PAKIKIPAGKAPWA: Journeying towards a National Consciousness
FILIPINO VALUES ARE AMBIVALENT
Corruption has become so rampant in the country that Philippines has even been named as the most corrupt country in Asia in a survey conducted by the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) early this year.[1] Many people have found this to be ironic given the fact that the Philippines is known to be a Catholic country, and thereby expected to observe the just teachings of Christ.
There are varied explanations offered attempting to explain the puzzle enveloping the Philippine situation. Among the commonly invoked explanation is the Filipinos’ lack of the sense of nationalism[2] that results from the ambivalent nature of our Filipino values. It is reasonable to argue that some of our values that can either be helpful or dangerous in communal life. An example could be the value of utang-na-loob. This can be vaguely translated as debt of gratitude. The Filipinos believe that a good deed once offered, especially in times of great need, places the recipient in a situation of a lifetime debt from the one who gives. This value clearly emphasizes the Filipinos’ gratefulness to the help given them especially when such aid is urgently needed. However, this very same value lend itself to possible abuses. One’s utang na loob can be used as a tool to manipulate the one who is in debt (ang may utang). It has become a cultural practice that he who is in debt with utang-na-loob accommodates the requests of the benefactor regardless of the unlawfulness or impropriety of the nature of the latter’s requests. There are varied examples about this especially in politics. It is not uncommon in the Philippines that there are politicians who owe favors from certain rich men through the support given by the latter especially during elections. In return for such favors, when the politician gets elected, he feels compelled to grant some gifts to his/her benefactor as an expression of gratitude (bilang pagtanaw ng utang na loob). This becomes problematic when some of these favors would require bending some of the laws and policies of the State resulting to several abuses, which are at the root of corruption cases. Furthermore, the Filipinos believe that the utang-na-loob cannot be actually repaid (hindi nababayaran ang utang na loob) and it lasts even a lifetime (tatanawin mo ang iyong utang-na-loob habambuhay). Hence, if a politician acquires an utang na loob, such debt is insatiable. It cannot be satisfied even in granting to the benefactor the very same gift received by the beneficiary. The favors that he has to give in return far exceed the gift that he once received.
THE NEED TO PURIFY THE FILIPINO VALUE SYSTEMWith these abuses then, several writers are ready to argue that there is a need to purify the Filipino value system. Rev. Fr. Leonardo Mercado calls for a re-engineering of the Filipino value systems through discouraging its negative tendencies. One example that he usually cites as an effective tool for social re-engineering is the program Hoy Gising![3] which was aired several years back by one prominent TV Network in the country, and whose main agendum was to highlight social problems in many forms. The program works under the premise that when the ones responsible for the neglect or anomalies are exposed, they would be pressured to properly fulfill their work because they would not want to lose face from the people. Such reasoning was based on the understanding and utilization of one Filipino value, the hiya.[4]
Flowing from his concern on social re-engineering that is, a kind of working out the culture of the Filipino race in order to make it serve the good of a greater number of people, Fr. Mercado proposes a deeper look on the Filipino concept of the sakop.[5] The sakop, Fr. Mercado notes, is a trait common among many Asians foremost of those are the Filipinos and the Japanese. He has also noted that the sakop mentality is manifested by the strong bonds exhibited by Filipino families. Filipinos have extended families which can even be established through the use of several mechanisms. For example, it may be noted that for a Filipino, a family is not only constituted by the parents and the children, but also by the grandparents, the cousins, the uncles and aunts and even other distant relatives. It is also observable that a housemaid who serves a family for a long period of time oftentimes addresses her employers not as ‘Sir’ or ‘Madam’ but as Kuya and Ate (an elder brother and elder sister respectively). In the same way, the children of the household address the housemaid as an Ate, or the houseboys and family drivers as Kuyas.[6] This suggests that even the house helpers are treated as part of the Filipino household.
Furthermore, another mechanism of enlarging the Filipino sakop is through the sacramental celebrations especially weddings and baptisms. Thus, one has an inaanak sa kasal, inaanak sa kumpil, and inaanak sa binyag.[7] In effect, the godchild becomes the kinakapatid of the legitimate children of the godparents. “The compadrazco system makes the parties quasi-relatives.”[8] This then results to better communication and closer bonds between the parties. Thus, in important celebrations, the kumpare and kumare are normally invited together with the mga inaanak. The inaanak is expected to treat the godparents as the second parents, and in return, the godparents are expected to render guidance and gifts to the inaanak.
However, this relationship of the sakop in the compadrazco system can even also be manipulated in order to strengthen political influences of the person. It is quite normal in the Philippines that a mayor and other government officials are often invited to several wedding occasions and baptisms to serve as a ninong or a ninang. The sakop in this case is utilized to acquire power for the family or the individual. Hence, the Filipinos have the penchant to say: “malakas yan kasi kumpare yan ni mayor” (He is bestowed with power because he is close to the mayor). It is expected in the Filipino society that a family member, a close friend, and even a compadrazco are to be favored or given preference by powerful persons. Hence, the former normally brags of a certain power simply because he has ties with (a member of the sakop of) somebody who is in power.
For Fr. Mercado, the sakop mentality of the Filipinos can serve as a powerful tool to improve the political and economic situations of the country. However, it cannot also be denied that when the sakop is narrowed and abused, it can lead to several excesses and problems in the larger community. Let us examine closer the possible implications of the Filipino sakop system.
THE NARROW FILIPINO SAKOPWe can reasonably argue that the sakop system, when abused and narrowed down to merely include families, close friends and relatives, can lead to corruption. A president of the Philippines once said that his term in the presidency shall be characterized as: “walang kai-kaibigan, walang kapa-kapamilya, walang kama-kamag-anak” (no friends and no relatives). He intended to say that friendship, family and blood relations could never be taken as reasons for bending the law. The nobility of the statement rests supposedly on the ideal that the narrow sakop should never compromise the good of the nation. However, only a few years after his term began, he has been accused of plunder. Just recently, he was convicted guilty though pardoned of his penalty soon after. One cited reason for his commission of the crime was his fondness to provide luxury for his families (many families at that) and close relatives and friends.[9] Such tendency to favor the members of the sakop at the expense of the non-sakop members is quite observable among Filipinos, and this has been the cause of several abuses in the country. The report of the Philippine Center of Investigative Journalism, as cited by the BBC News,[10] reveals that of the total number of government employees in the year 2000, “about 2% of state employees - about 6000 individuals - were presidential appointees. They included posts in education and social security as well as senior armed forces officers and employees of two state banks. The report suggests that he used his power of appointment to advance his business interests.”[11] This report is a clear indication that the narrow sakop mentality in the Philippines has been used negatively that is, abused by those who have the privilege to gain power in the political seats of the country. This culture is so engraved in the Filipino psyche that one House Speaker in the 1950s was accused of nepotism and had innocently remarked: “what is wrong with helping my relatives.”[12] This reaction is a product of a particular reasoning that says: ‘I am justified to look into the welfare of my immediate and narrow sakop members even if it is at the expense of the country that I serve.’
Noting the limitations of the Filipino sakop, Fr. Mercado believes that there is a need to enlarge or broaden its scope in order to address the problems of the Philippine society. He noted that, “if one of the causes of corruption in the government is our weakness in our national consciousness, then there should be some efforts to strengthen the national sakop.”[13] This is the same recommendation that Bishop Bacani gives when he spoke about the need to grow in the meta-personal dimension[14] of the Filipino person. There is a need to educate the people to look into that sphere beyond oneself and of others that is, the sphere of the public. A national consciousness is hardly achieved if Filipinos would not learn to take care of the public domain. The Filipinos have to outgrow his kanya-kanya attitude.[15] One example is a famous slogan for environmental cleanliness which was promoted several years back: “tapat ko, linis ko” (I am responsible for cleaning my own front). While this encourages responsibility among the citizens, this remains to be an implicit admission that for Filipinos, the consciousness of my responsibility to that which is the public domain, or that which is beyond what is mine, still needs to be cultivated.
Dr. Armando de Jesus also observed that in his exposure with many poor Filipinos, strengthening the notion of the sakop was also found helpful. He said that, “when [the sakop is] harnessed for the promotion of the common good, it could be a very powerful instrument for the fight against poverty.”[16] He agrees that in the fight against poverty, the dictum ‘united, we stand, divided, we fall,’ is especially applicable. “What is lacking in the individual is supplemented by common and organized actions. Stories of success using bayanihan as a principle of poverty alleviation abound.”[17]
Hence, we see from these studies of the Filipino culture that there is a big potential seen in purifying the ambivalent values of the Filipinos, and in promoting the positive implications of the rich culture which can offer plausible solutions to address our problems. Rather than look at our situation with hopelessness and mourn in the negativity of the Filipino culture, which was attacked by many as the source of poverty and rampant corruption in the nation, we are invited to take our stand, look at ourselves and discover our giftedness. Looking courageously at who we are and what we can do, there are many reasons for our jubilation for being a Filipino and we can positively hope for the betterment of our lives.
Our next interest for this study then is to look into our culture of kapwaan and to see how the Filipino practice of pakikipagkapwa-tao can contribute to the call for broadening our sakop and developing in us a national consciousness that can hopefully restore the well-being of our sick nation.[18]
THE FILIPINO AND THE COMMUNITY[19]
The Filipino culture also admits that a person is by nature a social being. This is already evident in the earlier claim about the tendency to relate with the sakop. The sakop mentality is even reinforced by the concept of the loob which Dr. Jose de Mesa calls as the core of one’s personhood where the true worth of the person rests.[20] This loob is necessarily open to others.[21] In fact we define our loob in terms of our relationship with others. [22]
The loob of persons exhibits similarities. Fr. Miranda even says that the loob of another person is in a sense the same as my loob. “It is the same in essential nature (structurally, in having the same essential elements) and basic processes. This would mean that the processes within each element and level are basically the same in any loob.” [23]
Hence, in the Filipino culture, one treats the other not in the context of alterity but in terms of kapwa which can loosely be translated as the “fellow.” The kapwa, in the view of Fr. Miranda, connotes both attributes of sameness and difference. He claims that the “kapwa is a concept that embraces both myself as well as the other.”[24] The root, however, of this sameness between me and my kapwa is the similarity of our loob since our personhood is in our niloloob. This then allows us to see that in one’s authentic relationship with the other, the ultimate basis is the loob of the person or that which constitutes the entirety, the core, of the person. To do otherwise allows a degree of superficiality and duplicity (kababawan at kaplastikan o pagkukunwari).
However, even the similarity of loob may become ambivalent and hence may need purification. One danger of the admission of my sameness with my kapwa is the onslaught of inferiority complex.[25] Quite often, the talk about the similarity of each one’s loob would end with the resignation that both are weak, fragile and limited (kapwa sila mahina, marupok at may pagkukulang). This ultimately ends with a fatalistic resignation to our weakness as mere humans beings (sapagkat tayo’y tao lamang). This then results to toleration of shortcomings, failures, and even moral abuses like corruption. This causes additional blow to the already narrow sakop (social group) of the Filipino. The sinner is ignored not just because he is part of my sakop but also of his inherent limitations which is also present in my own person. Such promotes the thinking that ‘I would not have the right to judge over the moral deficiencies of a person because I too have my own shortcomings’ (Wala akong karapatang manghusga dahil maging ako man ay makasalanan din).
This will be a sad scenario in the Filipino community. A social relationship that is hinged on inferiority complex, or the wrong notion of pakikipagkapwa-tao, may become tolerant and permissive of the moral deficiencies of the person. However, we should not degrade our loob as a mere mahina na loob (a weak being). There has to be a better way of pakikipagkapwa-tao, the way which can aid in the promotion of the much needed national consciousness of our people. There is a need for a conversion of our hearts in the way we treat our relationship with our neighbors.
Filipino Empathy
One way of improving our pakikipagkapwa-tao is to practice empathy. Fr. Alejo invites us to reflect when he asks the question: why is it that while I am reading the news about the misery, hunger and poverty of others, I am shaken and disturbed? What could account for such experience inside me? He concludes that there has to be a sort of relationship between me and the people I read in the news. Otherwise, I would not feel the pain that they have experienced. But such relationship is through my loob (which literally means “the inside”) because I do not have any external contact with them prior to this very experience.[26] Hence, the similarity of the structures of my loob and the loob of my fellows allows me to encounter the same feelings that they go through in their actual experiences. This is what we can loosely call as empathy.
Empathy should be our antidote to inferiority complex. We understand and forgive the misgivings of others not because we feel inferior in correcting him/her but because we have penetrated the loob of the person and somehow see the apparently good reasons for doing the act. It does not simply confront us with the reality of our sinfulness and imperfections which may numb us against the excesses of others. On the contrary, our empathy allows us a deeper access into the why of the person’s acts, thereby enlarging our own horizon and appreciation of his action, neither condoning it nor becoming indifferent towards it.
Our empathy then avoids one particular illness in our social relationship: indifference. Indifference is among the reasons why our sakop is limited. It blocks our view to see the suffering of others who are outside our sakop. A Filipino is known to be truly helpful and sacrificing when a family member is in need of help, but he can also be totally indifferent to the needs of those who are outside his sakop. Corruption occurs largely due to this split standards of community living. A Filipino can be exceptionally conscientious to (he empathizes with) the needs of the members of his sakop that he may even bend the law for such end. But, he can also be extremely indifferent (manhid) to the well-being of those who are outside his sakop.
Hence, when we truly empathize with our kapwa, the boundaries of the sakop may be overcome. Our empathy for the kapwa allows us to appreciate the well-being of each person. It would inspire us to work for the growth of the kapwa and not to simply condone their weakness. We aim for that which is right and proper of the kapwa regardless whether the kapwa is a sakop member or not.
Pakikipagkapwa and Self-Disclosure
Pakikipagkapwa does not only mean that we penetrate the loob of our kapwa in empathy. It also requires that we allow our kapwa to permeate our loob. A sincere kapwaan or pakikipagkapwa (neighborly relations) allows both agents to enter each other’s loob (may pagtatalab ng kalooban). One has to consciously open his heart to others. We can never penetrate the loob of the kapwa unless we first allow him/her to penetrate our loob.
This means then that an authentic kapwaan allows no room for duplicity and pretensions. A duplicated and pretending relationship prevents sincere empathy (pagtatalaban ng kalooban) because the former will ultimately be serving his/her ego at the expense of the other. An egoistic person is a person who closes himself from others (isang taong sarado ang kalooban), and thereby fails to genuinely engage in pakikipagkapwa-tao.
It is important then that in social relationship, each one strives to disclose oneself to others. There is a need to arrive at a certain level of mutual trust and understanding. There is a need for one to find ease in expressing/disclosing oneself to the kapwa. Without this spontaneity in one’s dealing with the kapwa, his/her pakikipagkapwa-tao may not yet have fully matured. Maturity occurs when there is already a mutual accession of each one’s loob (pagtatalaban ng kalooban).
One particular illustration for pagtatalaban ng kalooban, which Fr. Enrico Gonzales calls as pakikipag-unawaang loob,[27] is the practice of forgiveness. A person forgives not out of inferiority complex (which claims that I should forgive the person because I am no better than s/he is) but because of the pagtatalaban ng kalooban (mutual accession of the loob) of the parties involved. Such mutual infiltration of each one’s loob (pagtatalaban ng kalooban) allows a deeper degree of understanding the core of each person. With one’s enlightened consciousness about the whyness of the other’s acts, which is made available by the mutual accession of the two loob, forgiveness becomes possible.
This is perhaps the reason why for people whose kapwaan or pakikipagkapwa-tao has already reached a certain level of maturity, there are things that no longer need to be said. Simple bodily or even facial gestures can already be used as powerful means of communications for people whose pakikipagkapwaan is established. Normally, in the forgiving act of a person whose pakikipagkapwaan is much advanced than ours, we may even miss to see the proper reasons for the forgiving act. This certainly occurs because he has seen reasons provided him/her by his/her level of pakikipagkapwa-tao that is still hidden from us who are yet outside that very experience of his kapwaan with the one forgiven.
Pakikipagkapwa and the Experience of Love
Lastly, it has to be mentioned that one’s pakikipagkapwa-tao does not end with mere mutuality of trust and understanding. A genuine pakikipagkapwa-tao has to flow to a total expression of love (kagandahang loob). This is then the reason why a real pakikipagkapwa-tao is liberating (mapagparaya).[28] When we empathize with others, we do not ignore the feelings and miserable situations of our kapwa. But rather, we become one with them in their experiences of pain, of misery, and of failures. We do not turn our gaze away from those who are in need, rather we bring our entire being into their situation and allow ourselves to also be hurt by their pains and misery and to mourn with them in their failures.
In a genuine pakikipagkapwa-tao we are always aware of the presence and dignity of others. Hence, we strive to liberate ourselves and our kapwa from present miserable situations. This is where our kapwaan reach its perfection: when we cease to be neglectful (pabaya) but rather begin to be self-sacrificing and liberating (mapagparaya[29] at mapagpalaya) for others.
Without our initiative to lift the conditions of other people, our kapwaan could never be complete. There is a need to bring our pakikipagkapwa into action (kailangang pangatawanan). Love can hardly be proven unless it is translated into action. A lover for example can hardly confirm his love for the beloved unless such love has been tested and validated by experience and time (nasubukan at napangatawanan).
Pakikipagkapwa and National Consciousness
It is then clear that our pakikipagkapwa-tao requires that our social relations will ultimately end up with our love for the kapwa. A person who is nakikipagkapwa-tao seeks for the liberation of the kapwa. But such liberation is not about a complacent neglect of the abuses of others. When one refuses to correct abuses, he does not truly work for pakikipagkapwa-tao. A person who manifests his love for his fellows is one who sees to it that things are aright. To become indifferent to abuses is not a sign of love to the sinner but a manifestation of one’s neglect (pagpapabaya) for the other’s sinfulness. We cease to be truly concerned with the sinner if we fail to correct his faults, and so ultimately we fail in our pakikipagkapwa-tao. Further, our gesture in correcting the faults of our kapwa is a sincere manifestation of love. We fully empathize with the person and yet we don’t grow slack and complacent about his misgivings. Rather, we correct him/her because we know that it is only in rectifying his/her acts that s/he can truly be liberated. This is what a real pakikipagkapwa-tao brings.
This is the reason why a narrow sakop mentality that is abusive and negligent of offenses of the members of the sakop falls short of a real pakikipagkapwa-tao. We should not stay idle when we see that corruption is done even if it has been perpetrated by one who is our sakop member.
A sincere person who is nakikipagkapwa-tao is a person who is saddened and even angered by the misery of other people. Such anger becomes his drive to stand up and participate in the struggle to eradicate the misery. A person who is in sincere kapwaan extends beyond the boundaries of his sakop in order to reach out to the needy kapwa because one’s failure to do so makes one an indifferent person (isang taong manhid), who also ceases to become a true kapwa to others.
The sakop mentality of the Filipino may not at all be bad, but it had to be enlarged. One way of enlarging the sakop is in answering the call of kapwaan that is, in not allowing the sakop system to be manipulated at the expense of the non-sakop members. As long as no one is hurt and disadvantaged, then we can hope for just social relations. But, more importantly, the perfection of the sakop mentality is approximated only when we consciously push its boundaries in order to widen its scope. The Filipino culture may readily allow the broadening of our sakop because we are already inherently related with others through our concept of the kapwa. It simply needs to be worked out and acted upon. We need to begin working on programs that would inspire people to become involved with others. We need to be reminded that we are not isolated human beings. We are always related with others, and we could never fully escape such relations. We need to practice our pakikipagkapwa-tao.
We may then ask ourselves on how far have we journeyed in our pakikipagkapwa-tao. Have we truly regarded our fellow Filipino as a kapwa? Have we been able to penetrate his/her loob to understand him/her better, and to empathize with what s/he is going through? Have we been truly open-hearted in allowing their situation to affect us making us act to stop the hardships that they suffer? If we look at the Philippines now, can we still say that there are yet many kapwa-tao who is nakikipagkapwa-tao by joining others’ hands in trying to provide solutions to the many problems of our nation? Can we still see a Filipino who is liberating and self-sacrificing (isang mapagpalaya at nagmamalasakit na kapwa), or are we now facing the sad truth that we are running out of Filipinos who are willing to accept the real challenge of pakikipagkapwa-tao?
We need to remind ourselves and our people to join the cause of building our nation. As Fr. Mercado says, our nation is in pain and is ill. We could even add that her disease gets worse and is now even fatal. What else have we to do? As the Filipinos used to say: “madaling maging tao pero mahirap magpakatao” (It is easy to become human but it is difficult to live up the dignity of a human being). We now add something to this challenge: “Kakayanin pa kaya nating magpakatao at makipagkapwa-tao?”
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Alejo, Albert. Tao po! Tuloy!: Isang Landas ng Pag-Unawa sa Loob ng Tao. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University, 1990.
2. Bajaladia, Basilio. “Developing Filipino Popular Religiosity,” Ad Veritatem, vol.2, no.1, (2002).
3. De Jesus, Armando. “Cultural Underpinnings of Poverty,” Ad Veritatem, vol.2, no.1, (2002).
4. De Mesa, Jose and Wostyn, Lode. Doing Christology. Quezon City: Claretian Publications, 1989.
5. De Mesa, Jose. In Solidarity with Culture. Quezon City: Maryhill School of Theology, 1991.
6. Gonzales, Enrico. “A Filipino Interpretation of Matthew’s Beatitude.” Colloquia Manilana, vol. 5 (1997).
7. Mercado, Leonardo. “Filipino Philosophy and Corruption in the Government,” Ad Veritatem, vol.2, no.2 (2003).
8. Miranda, Dionisio. Loob: The Filipino Within. Manila: Divine Word Publications, 1989.
9. Notes of the Theology Week 2007
10. Nugent, Nicholas. “High Cost of Corruption in the Philippines.” (December 06, 2000 ). http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1057716.stm
11. Bonabente, Cyril. “RP: Most Corrupt in Asia – PERC,” Inquirer: Agence France-Presse. March 14, 2007.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view_article.php?article_id=54661) . Retrieved last November 20, 2007
[1] Cyril Bonabente, “RP Most Corrupt in Asia – PERC”, Inquirer, Agence France-Presse. March 14, 2007. (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view_article.php?article_id=54661) . Retrieved last November 20, 2007.
[2] During the Theology Week Conferences (an annual activity of the Faculty of Theology of the University of Santo Tomas) of 2007, bishop Teodoro Bacani spoke about the “Catholic and Corrupt: the Irony of the Philippine Situation.” Here he claimed that among the many reasons why we have problems about corruption is the fact that the Filipinos lack national consciousness and so the Filipinos care less about things that are beyond that which is personally theirs.
[3] Cf. Fr. Leonardo Mercado’s notes for his lecture “Filipino Values and the Common Good” (Theology Week Conferences, 2007).
[4] However, care has to be exercised in exposing certain persons or offices through the TV News reporting because there is a grave danger that the said exposẻ may result to abuses against the dignity and good name of persons and institutions involved.
[5] Dr. Armando de Jesus also describes the Filipinos as, “like most of the orientals, [they] are said to be group bound.” He further continues that, “to belong to a group matters very much to us. Barkadahan is a very powerful principle in shaping our relationships.” (Armando de Jesus, “Cultural Underpinnings of Poverty,” Ad Veritatem, vol.2, no.1 (2002), 60.
[6] This should not be taken however as a general practice among Filipinos. There are several households also, especially the notably rich ones, who do not bestow this recognition to their housemaids and houseboys. In fact, there are those who ask the latter to wear uniforms to create a distinction between the real family members in the house, and the employees. But for ordinary Filipino households, who hire somebody to help them in the house, the address of Ate and Kuya are normally observed.
[7] Cf. Fr. Mercado, “Filipino Philosophy and Corruption in the Government,” Ad Veritatem, vol.2, no.2 (2003), 347.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Fr. Mercado uses the following terms to describe the abuses done to the country when the narrow sakop gains priority: “His plunder of wealth, his “income” from illegal gambling (jueteng), the abuse of power also for the sake of his cronies and his mistresses have been much discussed.” (Mercado 2003: 348)
[10] December 06, 2000 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1057716.stm).
[11] Ibid.
[12] Fr. Mercado 2003: 350.
[13] For the concrete courses of action in promoting the national consciousness, one may read Fr. Mercado’s recommendations in Mercado 2003: 354-356.
[14] In the mentioned talk of Bishop Bacani during the Theology Week Conferences of 2007, the bishop made a distinction between the three dimensions of the human being: (1) the intrapersonal dimension, (2) the interpersonal dimension, and (3) the meta-personal dimension. He further explained that the meta-personal dimension goes beyond the simply interpersonal contacts. It covers institutions and societies. This refers to my relationship to institutions and societies, social systems and the like. He says further that Filipinos are focused with their intrapersonal and interpersonal dimensions, but they oftentimes neglect their meta-personal dimension. He cites as an example the tendency of the Filipinos to neglect their obligations to the Church or to the State. The negligence of the Filipinos for example to pay their proper taxes is a sign of a lack of appreciation for man’s meta-personal dimension. When it comes to the meta-personal, to the public domain, to the societal concerns, we have the tendency to ignore them.
[15] Dr. Basilio Bajaladia cited that one of the prevailing descriptions of the popular religious practices of Filipinos is its “being too individualistic, self-serving, and manipulative.” Hence, he continues, “in terms of social concern and self-transcendence, [he is limited up to only the] circle of family or clan relations. Beyond the family and the clan, the Filipino couldn’t care less.” [Basilio Bajaladia, “Developing Filipino Popular Religiosity,” Ad Veritatem, vol.2, no.1 (2002), 72-72].
[16] De Jesus 2002: 60.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Fr. Mercado looks at our country as a sick patient that is in need of medication. (Mercado 2003: 345-357).
[19] In what would follow, I am indebted to the discussions of the Theology Research Group of the John Paul II Research Center of the Ecclesiastical Sciences (JPII-RCES) of the University of Santo Tomas.
[20] Jose de Mesa, In Solidarity with Culture. (Quezon City: Maryhill School of Theology, 1991), 45. See also, Jose de Mesa and Lode Wostyn, Doing Christology. (Quezon City: Claretian Publications, 1989), 122.
[21] Fr. Alejo claims that “Ang loob ng tao ay hindi lamang buod ng pagkatao sa kanyang sarili kundi siyang sarili ng tao bilang kapwa. Ang loob ang pinili ng ating wika bilang paglalarawan sa ating pakikitungo sa iba.” (The Filipino loob is not just the core of the person as he is in himself, but rather as he also stands as a fellow (kapwa) to others The term loob is chosen by the Filipino language to illustrate how a Filipino relates with others. [Fr. Alejo, Tao Po! Tuloy! Isang Landas ng Pag-unawa sa Loob ng Tao. (Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University, 1990), 30]. Also cf. De Mesa 1991: 45.
[22] Cf. De Mesa 1991: 45.
[23] Fr. Dionisio Miranda, Loob: The Filipino Within. (Manila: Divine Word Publications, 1989), 57.
[24] Miranda 1989: 50. It can be observed that with the rendition of the kapwa among Filipinos, a stark contrast with the Western culture has been hinted. The West puts greater emphasis on the alterity of the other as can be seen in their “mind your own business” culture. But the Filipino kapwa is different. My fellow human being is not just an other to me, but he is rather part of who I am. He is like me though not totally. Hence, this provides our basis to explore the possibility of saying that the kapwa can work in the expansion or widening of the narrow Filipino concept of the sakop.
[25] Cf. Fr. Enrico Gonzales, “A Filipino Interpretation of Matthew’s Beatitude,” Colloquia Manilana, vol. 5 (1997), 15.
[26] Alejo 1990: 82.
[27] Pakikipag-unawaang loob can literally be translated as “understanding each other’s inside.” Fr. Gonzales further says that “understanding is united to forgiveness. Understanding, after all, is mercy.” (Fr. Gonzales 1997: 21)
[28] This can also be rendered as pagbibigay-loob or self-oblation. (Fr. Gonzales 1997: 19).
[29].This comes from the rootword, “paraya” which means “pagpapaubaya sa kapwa,” (to let the kapwa be as s/he is). [Almario, Virgilio, ed. Diksyunaryong Filipino. Pasig City: ANVIL Publishing, Inc., 2001. 657] Allowing the kapwa to be himself or herself may even ask from me to prioritize that which s/he wants over that which “I” want.
Corruption has become so rampant in the country that Philippines has even been named as the most corrupt country in Asia in a survey conducted by the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) early this year.[1] Many people have found this to be ironic given the fact that the Philippines is known to be a Catholic country, and thereby expected to observe the just teachings of Christ.
There are varied explanations offered attempting to explain the puzzle enveloping the Philippine situation. Among the commonly invoked explanation is the Filipinos’ lack of the sense of nationalism[2] that results from the ambivalent nature of our Filipino values. It is reasonable to argue that some of our values that can either be helpful or dangerous in communal life. An example could be the value of utang-na-loob. This can be vaguely translated as debt of gratitude. The Filipinos believe that a good deed once offered, especially in times of great need, places the recipient in a situation of a lifetime debt from the one who gives. This value clearly emphasizes the Filipinos’ gratefulness to the help given them especially when such aid is urgently needed. However, this very same value lend itself to possible abuses. One’s utang na loob can be used as a tool to manipulate the one who is in debt (ang may utang). It has become a cultural practice that he who is in debt with utang-na-loob accommodates the requests of the benefactor regardless of the unlawfulness or impropriety of the nature of the latter’s requests. There are varied examples about this especially in politics. It is not uncommon in the Philippines that there are politicians who owe favors from certain rich men through the support given by the latter especially during elections. In return for such favors, when the politician gets elected, he feels compelled to grant some gifts to his/her benefactor as an expression of gratitude (bilang pagtanaw ng utang na loob). This becomes problematic when some of these favors would require bending some of the laws and policies of the State resulting to several abuses, which are at the root of corruption cases. Furthermore, the Filipinos believe that the utang-na-loob cannot be actually repaid (hindi nababayaran ang utang na loob) and it lasts even a lifetime (tatanawin mo ang iyong utang-na-loob habambuhay). Hence, if a politician acquires an utang na loob, such debt is insatiable. It cannot be satisfied even in granting to the benefactor the very same gift received by the beneficiary. The favors that he has to give in return far exceed the gift that he once received.
THE NEED TO PURIFY THE FILIPINO VALUE SYSTEMWith these abuses then, several writers are ready to argue that there is a need to purify the Filipino value system. Rev. Fr. Leonardo Mercado calls for a re-engineering of the Filipino value systems through discouraging its negative tendencies. One example that he usually cites as an effective tool for social re-engineering is the program Hoy Gising![3] which was aired several years back by one prominent TV Network in the country, and whose main agendum was to highlight social problems in many forms. The program works under the premise that when the ones responsible for the neglect or anomalies are exposed, they would be pressured to properly fulfill their work because they would not want to lose face from the people. Such reasoning was based on the understanding and utilization of one Filipino value, the hiya.[4]
Flowing from his concern on social re-engineering that is, a kind of working out the culture of the Filipino race in order to make it serve the good of a greater number of people, Fr. Mercado proposes a deeper look on the Filipino concept of the sakop.[5] The sakop, Fr. Mercado notes, is a trait common among many Asians foremost of those are the Filipinos and the Japanese. He has also noted that the sakop mentality is manifested by the strong bonds exhibited by Filipino families. Filipinos have extended families which can even be established through the use of several mechanisms. For example, it may be noted that for a Filipino, a family is not only constituted by the parents and the children, but also by the grandparents, the cousins, the uncles and aunts and even other distant relatives. It is also observable that a housemaid who serves a family for a long period of time oftentimes addresses her employers not as ‘Sir’ or ‘Madam’ but as Kuya and Ate (an elder brother and elder sister respectively). In the same way, the children of the household address the housemaid as an Ate, or the houseboys and family drivers as Kuyas.[6] This suggests that even the house helpers are treated as part of the Filipino household.
Furthermore, another mechanism of enlarging the Filipino sakop is through the sacramental celebrations especially weddings and baptisms. Thus, one has an inaanak sa kasal, inaanak sa kumpil, and inaanak sa binyag.[7] In effect, the godchild becomes the kinakapatid of the legitimate children of the godparents. “The compadrazco system makes the parties quasi-relatives.”[8] This then results to better communication and closer bonds between the parties. Thus, in important celebrations, the kumpare and kumare are normally invited together with the mga inaanak. The inaanak is expected to treat the godparents as the second parents, and in return, the godparents are expected to render guidance and gifts to the inaanak.
However, this relationship of the sakop in the compadrazco system can even also be manipulated in order to strengthen political influences of the person. It is quite normal in the Philippines that a mayor and other government officials are often invited to several wedding occasions and baptisms to serve as a ninong or a ninang. The sakop in this case is utilized to acquire power for the family or the individual. Hence, the Filipinos have the penchant to say: “malakas yan kasi kumpare yan ni mayor” (He is bestowed with power because he is close to the mayor). It is expected in the Filipino society that a family member, a close friend, and even a compadrazco are to be favored or given preference by powerful persons. Hence, the former normally brags of a certain power simply because he has ties with (a member of the sakop of) somebody who is in power.
For Fr. Mercado, the sakop mentality of the Filipinos can serve as a powerful tool to improve the political and economic situations of the country. However, it cannot also be denied that when the sakop is narrowed and abused, it can lead to several excesses and problems in the larger community. Let us examine closer the possible implications of the Filipino sakop system.
THE NARROW FILIPINO SAKOPWe can reasonably argue that the sakop system, when abused and narrowed down to merely include families, close friends and relatives, can lead to corruption. A president of the Philippines once said that his term in the presidency shall be characterized as: “walang kai-kaibigan, walang kapa-kapamilya, walang kama-kamag-anak” (no friends and no relatives). He intended to say that friendship, family and blood relations could never be taken as reasons for bending the law. The nobility of the statement rests supposedly on the ideal that the narrow sakop should never compromise the good of the nation. However, only a few years after his term began, he has been accused of plunder. Just recently, he was convicted guilty though pardoned of his penalty soon after. One cited reason for his commission of the crime was his fondness to provide luxury for his families (many families at that) and close relatives and friends.[9] Such tendency to favor the members of the sakop at the expense of the non-sakop members is quite observable among Filipinos, and this has been the cause of several abuses in the country. The report of the Philippine Center of Investigative Journalism, as cited by the BBC News,[10] reveals that of the total number of government employees in the year 2000, “about 2% of state employees - about 6000 individuals - were presidential appointees. They included posts in education and social security as well as senior armed forces officers and employees of two state banks. The report suggests that he used his power of appointment to advance his business interests.”[11] This report is a clear indication that the narrow sakop mentality in the Philippines has been used negatively that is, abused by those who have the privilege to gain power in the political seats of the country. This culture is so engraved in the Filipino psyche that one House Speaker in the 1950s was accused of nepotism and had innocently remarked: “what is wrong with helping my relatives.”[12] This reaction is a product of a particular reasoning that says: ‘I am justified to look into the welfare of my immediate and narrow sakop members even if it is at the expense of the country that I serve.’
Noting the limitations of the Filipino sakop, Fr. Mercado believes that there is a need to enlarge or broaden its scope in order to address the problems of the Philippine society. He noted that, “if one of the causes of corruption in the government is our weakness in our national consciousness, then there should be some efforts to strengthen the national sakop.”[13] This is the same recommendation that Bishop Bacani gives when he spoke about the need to grow in the meta-personal dimension[14] of the Filipino person. There is a need to educate the people to look into that sphere beyond oneself and of others that is, the sphere of the public. A national consciousness is hardly achieved if Filipinos would not learn to take care of the public domain. The Filipinos have to outgrow his kanya-kanya attitude.[15] One example is a famous slogan for environmental cleanliness which was promoted several years back: “tapat ko, linis ko” (I am responsible for cleaning my own front). While this encourages responsibility among the citizens, this remains to be an implicit admission that for Filipinos, the consciousness of my responsibility to that which is the public domain, or that which is beyond what is mine, still needs to be cultivated.
Dr. Armando de Jesus also observed that in his exposure with many poor Filipinos, strengthening the notion of the sakop was also found helpful. He said that, “when [the sakop is] harnessed for the promotion of the common good, it could be a very powerful instrument for the fight against poverty.”[16] He agrees that in the fight against poverty, the dictum ‘united, we stand, divided, we fall,’ is especially applicable. “What is lacking in the individual is supplemented by common and organized actions. Stories of success using bayanihan as a principle of poverty alleviation abound.”[17]
Hence, we see from these studies of the Filipino culture that there is a big potential seen in purifying the ambivalent values of the Filipinos, and in promoting the positive implications of the rich culture which can offer plausible solutions to address our problems. Rather than look at our situation with hopelessness and mourn in the negativity of the Filipino culture, which was attacked by many as the source of poverty and rampant corruption in the nation, we are invited to take our stand, look at ourselves and discover our giftedness. Looking courageously at who we are and what we can do, there are many reasons for our jubilation for being a Filipino and we can positively hope for the betterment of our lives.
Our next interest for this study then is to look into our culture of kapwaan and to see how the Filipino practice of pakikipagkapwa-tao can contribute to the call for broadening our sakop and developing in us a national consciousness that can hopefully restore the well-being of our sick nation.[18]
THE FILIPINO AND THE COMMUNITY[19]
The Filipino culture also admits that a person is by nature a social being. This is already evident in the earlier claim about the tendency to relate with the sakop. The sakop mentality is even reinforced by the concept of the loob which Dr. Jose de Mesa calls as the core of one’s personhood where the true worth of the person rests.[20] This loob is necessarily open to others.[21] In fact we define our loob in terms of our relationship with others. [22]
The loob of persons exhibits similarities. Fr. Miranda even says that the loob of another person is in a sense the same as my loob. “It is the same in essential nature (structurally, in having the same essential elements) and basic processes. This would mean that the processes within each element and level are basically the same in any loob.” [23]
Hence, in the Filipino culture, one treats the other not in the context of alterity but in terms of kapwa which can loosely be translated as the “fellow.” The kapwa, in the view of Fr. Miranda, connotes both attributes of sameness and difference. He claims that the “kapwa is a concept that embraces both myself as well as the other.”[24] The root, however, of this sameness between me and my kapwa is the similarity of our loob since our personhood is in our niloloob. This then allows us to see that in one’s authentic relationship with the other, the ultimate basis is the loob of the person or that which constitutes the entirety, the core, of the person. To do otherwise allows a degree of superficiality and duplicity (kababawan at kaplastikan o pagkukunwari).
However, even the similarity of loob may become ambivalent and hence may need purification. One danger of the admission of my sameness with my kapwa is the onslaught of inferiority complex.[25] Quite often, the talk about the similarity of each one’s loob would end with the resignation that both are weak, fragile and limited (kapwa sila mahina, marupok at may pagkukulang). This ultimately ends with a fatalistic resignation to our weakness as mere humans beings (sapagkat tayo’y tao lamang). This then results to toleration of shortcomings, failures, and even moral abuses like corruption. This causes additional blow to the already narrow sakop (social group) of the Filipino. The sinner is ignored not just because he is part of my sakop but also of his inherent limitations which is also present in my own person. Such promotes the thinking that ‘I would not have the right to judge over the moral deficiencies of a person because I too have my own shortcomings’ (Wala akong karapatang manghusga dahil maging ako man ay makasalanan din).
This will be a sad scenario in the Filipino community. A social relationship that is hinged on inferiority complex, or the wrong notion of pakikipagkapwa-tao, may become tolerant and permissive of the moral deficiencies of the person. However, we should not degrade our loob as a mere mahina na loob (a weak being). There has to be a better way of pakikipagkapwa-tao, the way which can aid in the promotion of the much needed national consciousness of our people. There is a need for a conversion of our hearts in the way we treat our relationship with our neighbors.
Filipino Empathy
One way of improving our pakikipagkapwa-tao is to practice empathy. Fr. Alejo invites us to reflect when he asks the question: why is it that while I am reading the news about the misery, hunger and poverty of others, I am shaken and disturbed? What could account for such experience inside me? He concludes that there has to be a sort of relationship between me and the people I read in the news. Otherwise, I would not feel the pain that they have experienced. But such relationship is through my loob (which literally means “the inside”) because I do not have any external contact with them prior to this very experience.[26] Hence, the similarity of the structures of my loob and the loob of my fellows allows me to encounter the same feelings that they go through in their actual experiences. This is what we can loosely call as empathy.
Empathy should be our antidote to inferiority complex. We understand and forgive the misgivings of others not because we feel inferior in correcting him/her but because we have penetrated the loob of the person and somehow see the apparently good reasons for doing the act. It does not simply confront us with the reality of our sinfulness and imperfections which may numb us against the excesses of others. On the contrary, our empathy allows us a deeper access into the why of the person’s acts, thereby enlarging our own horizon and appreciation of his action, neither condoning it nor becoming indifferent towards it.
Our empathy then avoids one particular illness in our social relationship: indifference. Indifference is among the reasons why our sakop is limited. It blocks our view to see the suffering of others who are outside our sakop. A Filipino is known to be truly helpful and sacrificing when a family member is in need of help, but he can also be totally indifferent to the needs of those who are outside his sakop. Corruption occurs largely due to this split standards of community living. A Filipino can be exceptionally conscientious to (he empathizes with) the needs of the members of his sakop that he may even bend the law for such end. But, he can also be extremely indifferent (manhid) to the well-being of those who are outside his sakop.
Hence, when we truly empathize with our kapwa, the boundaries of the sakop may be overcome. Our empathy for the kapwa allows us to appreciate the well-being of each person. It would inspire us to work for the growth of the kapwa and not to simply condone their weakness. We aim for that which is right and proper of the kapwa regardless whether the kapwa is a sakop member or not.
Pakikipagkapwa and Self-Disclosure
Pakikipagkapwa does not only mean that we penetrate the loob of our kapwa in empathy. It also requires that we allow our kapwa to permeate our loob. A sincere kapwaan or pakikipagkapwa (neighborly relations) allows both agents to enter each other’s loob (may pagtatalab ng kalooban). One has to consciously open his heart to others. We can never penetrate the loob of the kapwa unless we first allow him/her to penetrate our loob.
This means then that an authentic kapwaan allows no room for duplicity and pretensions. A duplicated and pretending relationship prevents sincere empathy (pagtatalaban ng kalooban) because the former will ultimately be serving his/her ego at the expense of the other. An egoistic person is a person who closes himself from others (isang taong sarado ang kalooban), and thereby fails to genuinely engage in pakikipagkapwa-tao.
It is important then that in social relationship, each one strives to disclose oneself to others. There is a need to arrive at a certain level of mutual trust and understanding. There is a need for one to find ease in expressing/disclosing oneself to the kapwa. Without this spontaneity in one’s dealing with the kapwa, his/her pakikipagkapwa-tao may not yet have fully matured. Maturity occurs when there is already a mutual accession of each one’s loob (pagtatalaban ng kalooban).
One particular illustration for pagtatalaban ng kalooban, which Fr. Enrico Gonzales calls as pakikipag-unawaang loob,[27] is the practice of forgiveness. A person forgives not out of inferiority complex (which claims that I should forgive the person because I am no better than s/he is) but because of the pagtatalaban ng kalooban (mutual accession of the loob) of the parties involved. Such mutual infiltration of each one’s loob (pagtatalaban ng kalooban) allows a deeper degree of understanding the core of each person. With one’s enlightened consciousness about the whyness of the other’s acts, which is made available by the mutual accession of the two loob, forgiveness becomes possible.
This is perhaps the reason why for people whose kapwaan or pakikipagkapwa-tao has already reached a certain level of maturity, there are things that no longer need to be said. Simple bodily or even facial gestures can already be used as powerful means of communications for people whose pakikipagkapwaan is established. Normally, in the forgiving act of a person whose pakikipagkapwaan is much advanced than ours, we may even miss to see the proper reasons for the forgiving act. This certainly occurs because he has seen reasons provided him/her by his/her level of pakikipagkapwa-tao that is still hidden from us who are yet outside that very experience of his kapwaan with the one forgiven.
Pakikipagkapwa and the Experience of Love
Lastly, it has to be mentioned that one’s pakikipagkapwa-tao does not end with mere mutuality of trust and understanding. A genuine pakikipagkapwa-tao has to flow to a total expression of love (kagandahang loob). This is then the reason why a real pakikipagkapwa-tao is liberating (mapagparaya).[28] When we empathize with others, we do not ignore the feelings and miserable situations of our kapwa. But rather, we become one with them in their experiences of pain, of misery, and of failures. We do not turn our gaze away from those who are in need, rather we bring our entire being into their situation and allow ourselves to also be hurt by their pains and misery and to mourn with them in their failures.
In a genuine pakikipagkapwa-tao we are always aware of the presence and dignity of others. Hence, we strive to liberate ourselves and our kapwa from present miserable situations. This is where our kapwaan reach its perfection: when we cease to be neglectful (pabaya) but rather begin to be self-sacrificing and liberating (mapagparaya[29] at mapagpalaya) for others.
Without our initiative to lift the conditions of other people, our kapwaan could never be complete. There is a need to bring our pakikipagkapwa into action (kailangang pangatawanan). Love can hardly be proven unless it is translated into action. A lover for example can hardly confirm his love for the beloved unless such love has been tested and validated by experience and time (nasubukan at napangatawanan).
Pakikipagkapwa and National Consciousness
It is then clear that our pakikipagkapwa-tao requires that our social relations will ultimately end up with our love for the kapwa. A person who is nakikipagkapwa-tao seeks for the liberation of the kapwa. But such liberation is not about a complacent neglect of the abuses of others. When one refuses to correct abuses, he does not truly work for pakikipagkapwa-tao. A person who manifests his love for his fellows is one who sees to it that things are aright. To become indifferent to abuses is not a sign of love to the sinner but a manifestation of one’s neglect (pagpapabaya) for the other’s sinfulness. We cease to be truly concerned with the sinner if we fail to correct his faults, and so ultimately we fail in our pakikipagkapwa-tao. Further, our gesture in correcting the faults of our kapwa is a sincere manifestation of love. We fully empathize with the person and yet we don’t grow slack and complacent about his misgivings. Rather, we correct him/her because we know that it is only in rectifying his/her acts that s/he can truly be liberated. This is what a real pakikipagkapwa-tao brings.
This is the reason why a narrow sakop mentality that is abusive and negligent of offenses of the members of the sakop falls short of a real pakikipagkapwa-tao. We should not stay idle when we see that corruption is done even if it has been perpetrated by one who is our sakop member.
A sincere person who is nakikipagkapwa-tao is a person who is saddened and even angered by the misery of other people. Such anger becomes his drive to stand up and participate in the struggle to eradicate the misery. A person who is in sincere kapwaan extends beyond the boundaries of his sakop in order to reach out to the needy kapwa because one’s failure to do so makes one an indifferent person (isang taong manhid), who also ceases to become a true kapwa to others.
The sakop mentality of the Filipino may not at all be bad, but it had to be enlarged. One way of enlarging the sakop is in answering the call of kapwaan that is, in not allowing the sakop system to be manipulated at the expense of the non-sakop members. As long as no one is hurt and disadvantaged, then we can hope for just social relations. But, more importantly, the perfection of the sakop mentality is approximated only when we consciously push its boundaries in order to widen its scope. The Filipino culture may readily allow the broadening of our sakop because we are already inherently related with others through our concept of the kapwa. It simply needs to be worked out and acted upon. We need to begin working on programs that would inspire people to become involved with others. We need to be reminded that we are not isolated human beings. We are always related with others, and we could never fully escape such relations. We need to practice our pakikipagkapwa-tao.
We may then ask ourselves on how far have we journeyed in our pakikipagkapwa-tao. Have we truly regarded our fellow Filipino as a kapwa? Have we been able to penetrate his/her loob to understand him/her better, and to empathize with what s/he is going through? Have we been truly open-hearted in allowing their situation to affect us making us act to stop the hardships that they suffer? If we look at the Philippines now, can we still say that there are yet many kapwa-tao who is nakikipagkapwa-tao by joining others’ hands in trying to provide solutions to the many problems of our nation? Can we still see a Filipino who is liberating and self-sacrificing (isang mapagpalaya at nagmamalasakit na kapwa), or are we now facing the sad truth that we are running out of Filipinos who are willing to accept the real challenge of pakikipagkapwa-tao?
We need to remind ourselves and our people to join the cause of building our nation. As Fr. Mercado says, our nation is in pain and is ill. We could even add that her disease gets worse and is now even fatal. What else have we to do? As the Filipinos used to say: “madaling maging tao pero mahirap magpakatao” (It is easy to become human but it is difficult to live up the dignity of a human being). We now add something to this challenge: “Kakayanin pa kaya nating magpakatao at makipagkapwa-tao?”
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Alejo, Albert. Tao po! Tuloy!: Isang Landas ng Pag-Unawa sa Loob ng Tao. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University, 1990.
2. Bajaladia, Basilio. “Developing Filipino Popular Religiosity,” Ad Veritatem, vol.2, no.1, (2002).
3. De Jesus, Armando. “Cultural Underpinnings of Poverty,” Ad Veritatem, vol.2, no.1, (2002).
4. De Mesa, Jose and Wostyn, Lode. Doing Christology. Quezon City: Claretian Publications, 1989.
5. De Mesa, Jose. In Solidarity with Culture. Quezon City: Maryhill School of Theology, 1991.
6. Gonzales, Enrico. “A Filipino Interpretation of Matthew’s Beatitude.” Colloquia Manilana, vol. 5 (1997).
7. Mercado, Leonardo. “Filipino Philosophy and Corruption in the Government,” Ad Veritatem, vol.2, no.2 (2003).
8. Miranda, Dionisio. Loob: The Filipino Within. Manila: Divine Word Publications, 1989.
9. Notes of the Theology Week 2007
10. Nugent, Nicholas. “High Cost of Corruption in the Philippines.” (December 06, 2000 ). http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1057716.stm
11. Bonabente, Cyril. “RP: Most Corrupt in Asia – PERC,” Inquirer: Agence France-Presse. March 14, 2007.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view_article.php?article_id=54661) . Retrieved last November 20, 2007
[1] Cyril Bonabente, “RP Most Corrupt in Asia – PERC”, Inquirer, Agence France-Presse. March 14, 2007. (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view_article.php?article_id=54661) . Retrieved last November 20, 2007.
[2] During the Theology Week Conferences (an annual activity of the Faculty of Theology of the University of Santo Tomas) of 2007, bishop Teodoro Bacani spoke about the “Catholic and Corrupt: the Irony of the Philippine Situation.” Here he claimed that among the many reasons why we have problems about corruption is the fact that the Filipinos lack national consciousness and so the Filipinos care less about things that are beyond that which is personally theirs.
[3] Cf. Fr. Leonardo Mercado’s notes for his lecture “Filipino Values and the Common Good” (Theology Week Conferences, 2007).
[4] However, care has to be exercised in exposing certain persons or offices through the TV News reporting because there is a grave danger that the said exposẻ may result to abuses against the dignity and good name of persons and institutions involved.
[5] Dr. Armando de Jesus also describes the Filipinos as, “like most of the orientals, [they] are said to be group bound.” He further continues that, “to belong to a group matters very much to us. Barkadahan is a very powerful principle in shaping our relationships.” (Armando de Jesus, “Cultural Underpinnings of Poverty,” Ad Veritatem, vol.2, no.1 (2002), 60.
[6] This should not be taken however as a general practice among Filipinos. There are several households also, especially the notably rich ones, who do not bestow this recognition to their housemaids and houseboys. In fact, there are those who ask the latter to wear uniforms to create a distinction between the real family members in the house, and the employees. But for ordinary Filipino households, who hire somebody to help them in the house, the address of Ate and Kuya are normally observed.
[7] Cf. Fr. Mercado, “Filipino Philosophy and Corruption in the Government,” Ad Veritatem, vol.2, no.2 (2003), 347.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Fr. Mercado uses the following terms to describe the abuses done to the country when the narrow sakop gains priority: “His plunder of wealth, his “income” from illegal gambling (jueteng), the abuse of power also for the sake of his cronies and his mistresses have been much discussed.” (Mercado 2003: 348)
[10] December 06, 2000 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1057716.stm).
[11] Ibid.
[12] Fr. Mercado 2003: 350.
[13] For the concrete courses of action in promoting the national consciousness, one may read Fr. Mercado’s recommendations in Mercado 2003: 354-356.
[14] In the mentioned talk of Bishop Bacani during the Theology Week Conferences of 2007, the bishop made a distinction between the three dimensions of the human being: (1) the intrapersonal dimension, (2) the interpersonal dimension, and (3) the meta-personal dimension. He further explained that the meta-personal dimension goes beyond the simply interpersonal contacts. It covers institutions and societies. This refers to my relationship to institutions and societies, social systems and the like. He says further that Filipinos are focused with their intrapersonal and interpersonal dimensions, but they oftentimes neglect their meta-personal dimension. He cites as an example the tendency of the Filipinos to neglect their obligations to the Church or to the State. The negligence of the Filipinos for example to pay their proper taxes is a sign of a lack of appreciation for man’s meta-personal dimension. When it comes to the meta-personal, to the public domain, to the societal concerns, we have the tendency to ignore them.
[15] Dr. Basilio Bajaladia cited that one of the prevailing descriptions of the popular religious practices of Filipinos is its “being too individualistic, self-serving, and manipulative.” Hence, he continues, “in terms of social concern and self-transcendence, [he is limited up to only the] circle of family or clan relations. Beyond the family and the clan, the Filipino couldn’t care less.” [Basilio Bajaladia, “Developing Filipino Popular Religiosity,” Ad Veritatem, vol.2, no.1 (2002), 72-72].
[16] De Jesus 2002: 60.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Fr. Mercado looks at our country as a sick patient that is in need of medication. (Mercado 2003: 345-357).
[19] In what would follow, I am indebted to the discussions of the Theology Research Group of the John Paul II Research Center of the Ecclesiastical Sciences (JPII-RCES) of the University of Santo Tomas.
[20] Jose de Mesa, In Solidarity with Culture. (Quezon City: Maryhill School of Theology, 1991), 45. See also, Jose de Mesa and Lode Wostyn, Doing Christology. (Quezon City: Claretian Publications, 1989), 122.
[21] Fr. Alejo claims that “Ang loob ng tao ay hindi lamang buod ng pagkatao sa kanyang sarili kundi siyang sarili ng tao bilang kapwa. Ang loob ang pinili ng ating wika bilang paglalarawan sa ating pakikitungo sa iba.” (The Filipino loob is not just the core of the person as he is in himself, but rather as he also stands as a fellow (kapwa) to others The term loob is chosen by the Filipino language to illustrate how a Filipino relates with others. [Fr. Alejo, Tao Po! Tuloy! Isang Landas ng Pag-unawa sa Loob ng Tao. (Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University, 1990), 30]. Also cf. De Mesa 1991: 45.
[22] Cf. De Mesa 1991: 45.
[23] Fr. Dionisio Miranda, Loob: The Filipino Within. (Manila: Divine Word Publications, 1989), 57.
[24] Miranda 1989: 50. It can be observed that with the rendition of the kapwa among Filipinos, a stark contrast with the Western culture has been hinted. The West puts greater emphasis on the alterity of the other as can be seen in their “mind your own business” culture. But the Filipino kapwa is different. My fellow human being is not just an other to me, but he is rather part of who I am. He is like me though not totally. Hence, this provides our basis to explore the possibility of saying that the kapwa can work in the expansion or widening of the narrow Filipino concept of the sakop.
[25] Cf. Fr. Enrico Gonzales, “A Filipino Interpretation of Matthew’s Beatitude,” Colloquia Manilana, vol. 5 (1997), 15.
[26] Alejo 1990: 82.
[27] Pakikipag-unawaang loob can literally be translated as “understanding each other’s inside.” Fr. Gonzales further says that “understanding is united to forgiveness. Understanding, after all, is mercy.” (Fr. Gonzales 1997: 21)
[28] This can also be rendered as pagbibigay-loob or self-oblation. (Fr. Gonzales 1997: 19).
[29].This comes from the rootword, “paraya” which means “pagpapaubaya sa kapwa,” (to let the kapwa be as s/he is). [Almario, Virgilio, ed. Diksyunaryong Filipino. Pasig City: ANVIL Publishing, Inc., 2001. 657] Allowing the kapwa to be himself or herself may even ask from me to prioritize that which s/he wants over that which “I” want.
Lover's Plea
Pain...
Is what I felt
when seeing in your eyes
There is no one of me but a friend.
It was you who caused
My heart and soul to grieve
That stone-heart of yours
that refused to acknowledge my love.
You failed to understand
that within me i longed
to be with you tonight
not as the friend whom you see
but as the man that I always long to be
I pray for a miracle
to heal our hurts
the grace to help us
so that both our hearts would mend
Is what I felt
when seeing in your eyes
There is no one of me but a friend.
It was you who caused
My heart and soul to grieve
That stone-heart of yours
that refused to acknowledge my love.
You failed to understand
that within me i longed
to be with you tonight
not as the friend whom you see
but as the man that I always long to be
I pray for a miracle
to heal our hurts
the grace to help us
so that both our hearts would mend
Torment!
The nights had passed
When both me and you were each other's part
Together we used to go to a dance
And to places where most lovers want...
Now I'm here alone in my room
Having none but a memory
Of your smile and voice
Things that remained dear to my heart...
There would be nothing to do
But to bear the torment and sorrow
Knowing that from now on and forever
I'll be only a friend to you...
When both me and you were each other's part
Together we used to go to a dance
And to places where most lovers want...
Now I'm here alone in my room
Having none but a memory
Of your smile and voice
Things that remained dear to my heart...
There would be nothing to do
But to bear the torment and sorrow
Knowing that from now on and forever
I'll be only a friend to you...
Voice in the Wilderness (A Day's Reflection)
Crying out loud lessons of life
Nothing though enters my being
Wilderness it is like, your voice has entered
No one listens and learns it seems
Whoever would believe these things I say
Savior, they say, is not what they seek
No one dared to be brave
All want the popular myth
Christ’s disciples can we be
When all wish not be like him
Christ has died and gone
None of us any longer like to be one.
Nothing though enters my being
Wilderness it is like, your voice has entered
No one listens and learns it seems
Whoever would believe these things I say
Savior, they say, is not what they seek
No one dared to be brave
All want the popular myth
Christ’s disciples can we be
When all wish not be like him
Christ has died and gone
None of us any longer like to be one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
