Is it possible to talk about “the Filipino essence?” Is it possible to classify a group of behaviors or characters as uniquely Filipino? Is there really such singularity in the culture of Filipinos?
These are among the questions that can be raised when we talk about postmodernism, which proposes the erasure of a unifying principle or essence that would classify several individuals into a single group. To define the Filipino becomes a difficult endeavor simply because we know the diversities of the Philippine population. How are we to determine the Filipino whom we are talking about? Is he a Mindanaoan, a Visayan or a Manileño? Is he a Christian, a Moslem, or an indigenous person? Is he the Filipino of the cities or the Filipino of the hills? Is he from the urban or the rural community? Is he from an exclusive village in Makati or from the squatters’ area in Payatas, Quezon City? The attempt to come up with a unified concept of the Filipino is challenged by the particularities that affect every individual.
Nevertheless, let me start my reflection with some popular impressions about who the Filipinos are. These characterizations may not really exhaustive but they are oftentimes used by literatures that talk about the Filipino people.
The Filipino Familial and Communal Ties
Filipinos are group-oriented people. This is the claim of authors like Armando de Jesus, who argues that Filipinos “like most of the orientals, are said to be group bound.”[1] Filipinos, especially those of the rural areas, have shown perceivable leaning towards their community. This even allows Leonardo Mercado to claim that the Filipinos in general are cognizant of the so-called sakop system[2], which means that the Filipino values are largely determined by the approval of the community.
These authors even cite as proof of the Filipino sakop-system the latter’s tendency to preserve a large scope of familial relations.[3] It is often claimed that Filipino families include those relatives who are even beyond the range of the immediate household like the aunts, the uncles, the cousins, and the grandparents. It is not uncommon that in some Filipino families, the aunts and uncles who are more financially blessed than their siblings do feel responsible in helping the latter even to the point of owning the responsibility of sending their nieces and nephews to school. There seems to be an implicit rule that morally obliges those who can financially afford to become responsible for securing the well-being of the families of those siblings who are financially hard up. This sense of responsibility can be said to have stemmed from a consciousness which says that the family does not have its boundaries in the immediate household. The proximate relatives are still part of that household, and so even the nieces and nephews are not just the responsibility of their respective parents but also of the latter’s brother or sister. This shows that Filipino families are large not just because of the big number of children, but also because of the consciousness that dictates them to treat the members of the extended family as constitutively part of their own.
Futhermore, there are practices, especially among traditional rural Filipino communities, that portray strong manifestations of the Filipino sakop system. The bayanihan[4] is an example of a much taken for granted fact about being a Filipino. It is often taken for granted that Filipinos are willing to sacrifice some of what they have in order to help others. The bayanihan is a description of this Filipino sense of responsibility of making oneself available to serve the other, especially a neighbor or any person to whom one is related.[5]
This bayanihan practice is extended to many practices in Filipino communities. Any form of help for another person has already become an instance of bayanihan. When a group of young people starts a project, for example, in order to help a destitute family, the group is said to have done one concrete act of a bayanihan.[6] Hence, the presence of the word bayanihan in the Filipino vocabulary can be taken to imply the strong ties among Filipino families and communities. We are connected to other people and that connection makes us feel responsible for their welfare.
Albert Alejo even claimed that our interpersonal ties happen in our innermost being which he calls as the loob ng tao.[7] Other authors even claimed that this loob is the innermost core of the person. The loob defines the person.[8] Hence, when a Filipino say: ito ang aking saloobin (this is what my loob wants), this can also mean that I bring my entire being into this thing.
The loob of persons allows them to connect with others in the community. When Alejo claims that the connection of a person with those whom he heard or read in the news is internal, he insinuated that the basis of our communal relationship has also to be internal, that is through our loob. There is an inner feeling of sympathy or commiseration, an inner connection that drags our being to somehow be one with the other, no matter how imperfect our attempt for communion would be.
Furthermore, the loob constitutes our similarities, our oneness as a people. We share the same loob and so we have the capacity to feel as one. Dionisio Miranda describes each person’s loob as: “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.”[9]
Such connection with others is a cherished value in most Filipino communities. In fact, to lose this inner connection may even cause a social stigma upon the person. A person who does not feel any connection with any other is, in the Filipino language, a manhid (indifferent or emotionless) na tao.[10] A manhid is one who can remain emotionally undisturbed even after learning about the difficulties and sufferings of others. He loses the capacity to help primarily because s/he has lost his/her connection with others. Furthermore, to be branded as a manhid na tao is a kind of a social stigma in Filipino communities. When one is called as a manhid na tao that also means that the person is treated more as a nuisance rather than a help in the community.
This bond in the community, this sense of connection especially with those people who are physically proximate to one another, allows the Filipinos to rely more on social approval as gauge in the moral quality of their actions. It is not uncommon among Filipinos that they prefer not to be straightforward about their bad impressions on others because of the fear that to bluntly express these thoughts would disturb their cherished communal relations. Some Filipinos find the act of bluntly offending another person socially unacceptable. Social approval plays a big part in Filipinos’ lifestyle, and hence any disturbance of social relations should be avoided as much as possible.
This results to the kind of morality that is largely based on social pressure. In my years of stay in the community of Agno, Tatalon, Quezon City, whose population is mostly composed of people from the Visayas and Mindanao, kapitbahayan or “neighborhood ties” is a prized commodity. They measure the moral quality of a person largely on the network of influence that the person exercises among his/her neighbors. A good person is one who is befriended and is respected by most number of neighbors, while a person becomes morally suspect if he/she gains no friends in the community. The gauge of respect is on the person’s ability to please the expectations of the neighbors. Hence, among the most hurting insults that one can get in that community is the reputation of somebody “na walang kapitbahay” (one who has no neighbor), which refers to a person who fails to gain the approval and affection of the people in the immediate community.
This then illustrates the strong ties within Filipino communities. Each member wishes to be connected to others, and so, everyone would also want their actions to be in consonance with others’ judgments. Sadly however, most of their dealings with others remain superficial because they are mostly external. The demand for social acceptance is so strong, and some of them would rather sacrifice sincerity and integrity just to appear good to others.
The Hierarchic Nature of Filipino Families and Communities
In addition to our awareness about our connectedness, of our sense of belonging to a family or a larger community, it is also observed that Filipinos are normally aware and respectful of hierarchies in their midst. We are aware of the fact that there are superiors and subordinates in our communities. We are accustomed, for example, to accept the hierarchies in our households. It is quite common among Filipino families, especially of the olden times, that the parents’ opinions are held respectable not because of any other reason than the fact that they come from the parents. Regardless of whether the parents actually know more about the case or not, the parents’ opinions in the Filipino households have greater weight because of our wide acceptance of the hierarchic nature of the family.
Even in the larger community, we are mindful of this hierarchy. In our political structure, we consider public officials as our patrons. They are there to help us in times of our need. This is even the reason why one of the most sought-after qualities of a public official, especially in the rural areas, is the latter’s capacity to feel for or sympathize with the people. The more approachable official normally wins the respect of the community. This is because the people think that the public officials are to be there especially to assist them in their needs, no matter how petty or personal these needs are.[11]
Hence, public officials are patrons. They are providers of the community, and as such they merit the people’s respect and loyalty. Traditional Filipino communities understood this mutuality among the people and the leaders.[12] This mutuality also somehow preserves the leaders in their office.
The hierarchic structure in the community defines the role of each of the members. This preserves the smooth mutuality of the citizens and the patrons in the community. The acknowledgment of the “proper places or positions” of each allows an ordered social life.
The challenge of postmodernism
The influx of recently developed thoughts such as postmodernism is now also affecting the consciousness of the people in the Philippines. The new ways of thinking clash against the traditional Filipino situations that value connectedness and hierarchies. The things valued by traditional Filipino ethical systems are the very same items that the postmodern thoughts are trying to do away with.
With the postmodern agenda of erasing the existing value systems, the Filipinos are faced with a particular crisis: to either preserve the traditional views but reject the emerging postmodern philosophies, or to do otherwise, that is, to embrace the emerging thoughts and discard the traditional views. It seems that the traditional views and the postmodern ideals can hardly go together. That is why, when the latter are gaining prominence especially among the youth, the traditional institutions are faced with the challenge of reanimating themselves. For what have been traditionally held as important are now becoming more and more insignificant. The Filipinos then are faced with the challenge of facilitating this dialogue between their traditions and that of the emerging postmodern alternatives.
Moreover, to dialogue with an emerging mentality, even if it’s a foreign mentality, is already a practice in Filipino communities. In fact, the question about the ideal Filipino thought is really an important issue because there is a real difficulty in establishing which of the many variations of mentalities in the Philippines is to constitute the real essence of a Filipino mind. In Asia, the Filipinos are among the most receptive people. Our thoughts are always affected by these new developments which we embrace throughout history. In one of our informal conversations among the members of the theology research team of the then John Paul II Research Center of UST, we were talking about the influences of postmodernism in the theological developments in the Philippines. It has been observed that many Filipino theologians are concerned about the postmodern consciousness that is fast building among circles of theologians in the country. Postmodernism seems to have become a great deal of force that need to be reckoned with. However, it was also observed that theologians of other Asian nations are not really as concerned as Filipinos are about postmodernism. One has even recalled his conversation with an Indian scholar who told him not to be too concerned about postmodernism because it does not really contribute anything significant to our Christian theologizing.
This conversation, I realized, is a strong indication of our susceptibility to every little progress that happens globally. Developments, especially in the West, create big impacts on us, and we are easily influenced or affected by them. Hence, when postmodernism emerged as an alternative mentality from the West, many Filipinos have also followed suit. The Indians and the Chinese may show considerable resistance against postmodernism, but Filipinos can effortlessly receive it as an alternative thought.
With postmodernism, the Filipino traditional ethical systems are blurred. What has been previously held as normal are now put into question, and the issue about preferences have become a difficult choice because there are no longer any dominant view about the proper things to be done.
Postmodernism however contributed to the realization that the Filipino community is not monolithic, and the traditional values of the majority are not necessarily the best options for all. The once ignored minority has now gained recognition in the postmodern world, and so, they can now easily compete with any other ethical or philosophical system. With postmodernism, the Philippine situation is made aware of its own pluralism. We are now confronted by the reality that the Filipinos are not just really one people. There are differences among us. We have varied ways of appreciating things. We have different beliefs and even different traditions.
There is a growing recognition of the mentality of the minorities such as the many indigenous people in the country, the Islamic tradition of the people of Mindanao and other areas of the country, and the growing traditions of the many indigenous faiths like the various communities in Mt. Banahaw. These are the many little voices that were once ignored in the traditional Philippine situation. They were previously regarded as outside the normal ways of doing things. They are oftentimes labeled as superstitious, backwards and other pejorative labels. But with postmodernism, they gain recognition and even acceptance. They now become alternatives that possess equal validity as that of the previously held “normal way.”
This is one area where the traditional Philippine situation really has to do serious negotiations. The Philippine situation could no longer claim of a monolithic or at least a majority ethical system. We are now confronted with our differences and variations, and these are new things that we need to recognize and contend with. With postmodernism, the Christian traditions of the urban people could not just simply oppress or annihilate other traditions because such would only result to more conflicts and even bloody oppositions. The only viable solution for now is to seek for mutual respect and decent co-existence. There is a need to realize and value mutual respect despite our differences.
We need to be at home and be creative with our differences. To think that we all need to behave identically is, I believe, among the greatest offenses that a person, a tradition, or an institution may commit in our time.
This then ultimately leads to the realization that even the valuation of our ties and hierarchies in the Philippines is also questioned. In politics, we see most of the manifestations of this attack against the higher offices. The superiors no longer hold a privileged position, but they have now become as vulnerable as any of their subordinates. In our current situation, a person could not even guarantee that he would forever remain at the top for it may even happen that those who were once his subordinate would also later on become his own superiors. The Filipino expression of “bilog ang mundo” (the world is round) attests to our consciousness of the possibility that social situations may change rapidly and one’s superior status does not really secure him/her of a lifetime privilege.
Furthermore, the non-privileged status of the leaders is seen in their hitherto accountability and answerability to the people. The postmodern development in the nation allows the people to question, watch over and even at times oust those who are in civil service. One’s titles no longer secure him/her of any real and lasting advantage over the other. What remains important however is the realization that a person is no longer guarded by his position, rank or office but rather by his sincerity and credibility in service. When the past hierarchies offer rooms for loyalties among the participating parties, in postmodernism loyalties are challenged by these very ideals of credibility and sincerity. This happens not just in politics, but also in many areas of our life as Filipinos. This happens even in the classrooms of Universities whereby professors or instructors would have to prove their worth through their day to day lessons and not through the titles that they attach to their names. This happens in the corporate offices whereby best managers are known not because of their names and degrees but through their implemented decisions. This even happens in the Church where priests and bishops are no longer treated as privileged members of the body of Christ, but rather as co-pilgrims in this universal journey towards the Father.
No one is in a privileged place anymore. All of us are equal, and despite being different from one another, we are all invited to sort our differences out and live harmoniously together, preserving our own identity without necessarily requiring others to behave like us.
Furthermore, the ties among members of the Filipino communities are also challenged through the postmodernist ideal of autonomy and freedom. The postmodern view on freedom is highly individualistic. Freedom rests on the availability of one’s choices. The more the choices are, the more free the postmodernist person is. This extreme individualism has the tendency to disregard the value of communal relations. Although it is true that postmodernism invites people toward dialogue and consensus, such is however primarily premised on differences and autonomy. They continue to challenge the thought of coming together to a community for mutuality of help.
Conclusion
There are indeed several changes that postmodernism brings to our Philippine situation. The traditional Philippines could not just simply ignore the influx of these thoughts. It could not just simply set them aside and claim that they are abnormalities that need to be annihilated or at least ignored. In our postmodern times, we are required to listen, to negotiate, to challenge not just the positions of others but also our own. There is a real value in negotiation and dialogue because only through these can we hope for a harmonious and healthy co-existence. It is in listening, dialoguing and even negotiating that we continue, not just to exist, but also even to grow.
If our value systems are challenged, then postmodernism poses a possibility for us to grow. It allows us to see the variations among us and to value our differences. For one, it allows us to see that the authenticity of our persons is not solely dependent on the approval of our immediate communities. Postmodernism allows us to realize that there is nothing sinful in being different. It allows us to appreciate the thought that our connection with others does not compel us to behave in the way that they do.
With the challenge of postmodernism, we are invited to think more about our being Filipinos. Who are we really as Filipinos? Postmodernism warns us that we are not really a singular people, and that we could learn and grow through the differences and variations that exist among us.
[1] Armando de Jesus, “Cultural Underpinnings of Poverty,” Ad Veritatem, vol.2, no.1 (2002), 60.
[2] Leonardo Mercado, “Filipino Philosophy and Corruption in the Government,” Ad Veritatem, vol.2, no.2 (2003), 354.
[3] cf. Mercado, “Filipino Philosophy and Corruption in the Government,” 347.
[4] Bayanihan means “mutual aid or cooperative endeavor; cooperation; community development.” [Leo English, Tagalog-English Dictionary, 22nd printing (Manila: National Bookstore, 2007) 183].
[5]The bayanihan originates from the custom among rural people whereby the males in the neighborhood assist a neighbor in transferring a house. The common houses in the rural Philippines of the olden times are mostly composed of light materials, and the foundations of the houses’ pillars are not buried in the ground. They are normally simply placed on top of a hard material like stone, and on them the entire house rests. This allows the possibility to carry the entire house whenever one household would like to transfer their residence to another place. So as to avoid the hassle of dismantling the entire structure, and rebuilding it again in another place, the rural communities came up with the practice of the bayanihan (with the word bayani which originally means hero). In the bayanihan, the entire house is carried on the shoulders of the male members of the community who have responded to their sense of responsibility towards their neighbor. In my ancestral community in Anibongan (Maco), Davao, which is largely composed of rice planters, the bayanihan is strongly manifested in the communal planting of rice among the members of the community. Both males and females take part in the planting of rice so as to maximize the work during rainy season.
[6] A Filipino synonym of the word bayanihan is damayan, a noun that means “mutual aid.” (Leo English, Tagalog-English Dictionary, 405.
[7] Alejo argues that the reason why we are involved in the situation of people who are reported to have been victimized by floods, typhoons and other misfortunes is the fact that we are connected to them. He claims that such connection is in our loob or the inner Being.[Albert Alejo, Tao Po! Tuloy! Isang Landas ng Pag-unawa sa Loob ng Tao (Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University, 1990), 82.
[8] 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.
[9] Dionisio Miranda, Loob: The Filipino Within (Manila: Divine Word Publications, 1989), 57.
[10] Manhid is an adjective which means “torpid or numb.” (Leo English, Filipino-English Dictionary, 891).
[11] I remember one particular experience when I was still a young man in my hometown in Davao. An old Boholano wins the election for the office of the governor mostly because of his alleged approachability. He was thought more as a patron because aside from being an old landlord, he rarely closes the gates of his big mansion. The open gates project his welcoming character to the ordinary people.
[12] cf. [12] Nicanor Tiongson, Kasaysayan at Estetika ng Sinakulo at Ibang Dulang Panrelihiyon sa Malolos (Quezon City: Ateneo University Press, 1975), 192
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment