FILIPINO PSYCHOLOGY

LESSON Five: THE FILIPINIZATION OF PERSONALITY THEORY

Sikolohiyang Pilipino's strong commitment to the development of national identity and consciousness inspired a renewed critical interest in the scientific study of the Filipino personality. In fact, one important meaning of sikolohiyang Pilipino is sikolohiya ng mga Pilipino or Filipino psychology and character. However, studies on national character have been suspect because of methodological problems and the risk of stereotyping a people.

The concepts of national character in general and Filipino personality in particular are wrought with difficulties. Bartolome maintained that the very "idea of a Filipino personality ... can work against or even be used against the Filipino themselves." He was critical of the way the Marcos regime was apparently endorsing legitimate pride in Filipino national heritage and culture "by resurrecting barangays and other ancient concepts on the pretext that they are great or worthy examples of a great past" but actually exploiting nationalist sentiments with the aim of "obscuring the more compelling social realities" of the nation.

The Philippines after Marcos remained unmindful of Bartolome's warning. In fact, "understanding the Filipino personality and character" took a sinister turn once more, this time in the familiar form of blaming the victim for his sorry state by starting with the assumption that the worst enemy of the Filipino is himself.

A distinction should be made between the concepts of "personality" and pagkatao. Concern with the Filipino character as if the Filipino were an object of analysis from the outside by an outsider, or alternatively by an objective insider, jibes very well with the concept of personality which is rooted in the concept of "persona" ---- a mask which can be observed from the outside. However, pagkatao is perhaps best rendered as "personhood." Pagkataong Pilipino, therefore, asserts the shared humanity and the kapwa psychology of the Filipino.

Billed by media as an attempt to know "what's wrong and what's right with the Filipino," the Philippine Senate, on September eighteenth, nineteen eighty-seven, approved Resolution Number ten, sponsored by Senators Leticia Ramos-Shahani, Alberto Romulo, and Ernesto Maceda. The resolution directed "the committee on education, arts, and culture and the committee on social justice, welfare, and development to conduct a joint inquiry into the strengths and weaknesses of the character of the Filipino with a view to solving the social ills and strengthening the nation's moral fiber." The result was a sixty-eight-page report in English by a task group headed by Patricia B. Licuanan of the Ateneo de Manila University, submitted to Senator Shahani on April twenty-seventh, nineteen eighty-eight. In spite of all the good intentions and the stated aim of coming up with a balanced picture, the colonial resulting image reflected more of the colonial instead of the indigenous identity of the Filipino. This is understandable because they relied on a review of the English language literature on the Filipino character as well as a token focused-group discussion in "a depressed, urban poor resettlement area in Dasmariñas, Bagong Bayan, Cavite."

FILIPINO PSYCHOLOGY

The distorted view of Filipino values becomes even worse when the English-oriented researcher, in affixing a label to a supposed value, simply scans the list of indigenous terms which presumably refer to the same and plucks out the one which seems to describe that value best. Without prior study and respect for the language involved, the researcher may be dealing with a list that is both inappropriate and inadequate. The resulting labeling, therefore, may be incorrect, as is often the case.

Language has its own logic; hence, we cannot afford to ignore such a rich resource. The use of the language of the masses in the writing and dissemination of scientific reports makes socio-political sense. However, it is more important to recognize that in the language lie many pieces of the Filipino culture puzzle. The continued denial of the proper role of the indigenous language in social science research and its diminution as a mere source of convenient labels and as a façade for Filipinization and respectability only results, at best, in an unstructured collection of indigenous terms affixed to supposedly Filipino values. Thus, a listing of Filipino values is now conveniently available for scholars and tourists alike who somehow feel that they have a better understanding of the Filipino personality on the basis of their readings of such exotica as amor propio, bahala na, and pakikisama:

The token use of Filipino concepts and the local language has led to the identification of some supposedly Filipino national values. Among the frequently mentioned values are hiya (shame), pakikisama (yielding to the leader or the majority), utang na loob (gratitude), amor propio (sensitivity to personal affront), and bayanihan (togetherness in common effort). Some regional values which have been recognized include maratabat (a complex combination of pride, honor, and shame). balatu (sharing of one's fortune), ilus (sharing surplus food), kakugi (meticulousness and attention to details). patugsiling (compassion), kalulu (empathy), hatag gusto (generosity), paghiliupod (faithfulness in need or plenty), and pagsinabtanay (fidelity with one's promises).

Apparently, then, the emphasis in this kind of research is the search for the English equivalent of the indigenous term. The label is fitted, squeezed, and pushed into the mindset concomitant to the foreign equivalent. The term's real significance in the Philippine context is diminished, if not entirely lost. More sinister still, by lifting the indigenous term from its milieu and slapping it on a supposed value, the researcher can attach whatever significance he may assign to the latter. In the hands of a Western-oriented researcher whose motivation in doing the research may concededly be academic, such privilege may, unwittingly, still be supportive of oppressive ends. The inappropriateness of this dangerous approach to the study of Filipino values can best be seen in the concepts most often treated and highlighted in researches of this ilk: hiya, utang na loob, and pakikisama. Many social scientists have studied them as separate values and in isolation from all others. Moreover, popular writers, taking their cue from these studies, often situate these values at the very seat of the Filipinos personality, the absence of which they deem fatal to the former's ethnicity.

The functionalist value studies popularized by the Institute of Philippine Culture and referred to by Robert Lawless as the "Ateneo approach" was controversial, to say the least. Dissatisfied with "personalized accounts of behavior with only anecdotal supporting materials." Lawless warned against the "replication of uniformity" and the selection of "whatever data fit expectations," making it difficult to correct "early misimpressions."

Even in granting "authenticity" to "common Asian and feudal-agricultural values," Andrew B. Gonzales saw what "seemed to be labeling activities" in the earlier attempts by Lynch and Holinsteiner Bennagen was forthright in his criticism of what he called "verbal Filipinization, that is, the search for Filipino words while using an essentially structural-functionalist perspective." In a call for the full use of Filipino in the social sciences, verbal Filipinization was characterized as mala-pustisong gamit ng wika or "token use of the Filipino language." The token use of indigenous vocabulary should not be confused with the forming of appropriate theory.

The functionalist approach is not without defenders. Convinced that the surface values of hiya, pakikisama, and utang na loob "certainly play strong functional roles in Filipino daily life, notwithstanding the fact that kapwa plays a 'superior' conceptual role," Tenant insisted that "as halting and faltering as the process may be, people still communicate face to face, not core to core." However, he did not deny that communication and social interaction should be interpreted on the basis of core meanings.