PHILIPPINE VALUES IN PERSPECTIVE - CiteSeerX

• PSR 31 (1983): 55~4

PHILIPPINE VALUES IN PERSPECTIVE:AN ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK

ROBERT P. HENNIGConcordia College

The analytical framework presented in this paper offers a preliminary way of recasting formeranalyses of Filipino values. It emphasizes sociological variables, attention to group memberships,and the situation of the action framework. It alsorecognizespsychologicaldispositions;however, itsuggests that these ron be tempered by external factors. Finally, it accepts the fact that Filipinoculture is emerging from a synthesis between historic (and prehistoric) Asian valuesand the impactof Western values, especially those imparted during the American occupation. It is hoped that, byexpanding the potential variables to include specific contexts and situations, a fuller understandingof Filipino values will be realized;

•

•

Filipino value structure was one of thechoicest topics for many social scientistsduring the sixties. In 1961, Kaut examinedutang no loob or the "Filipino debt ofgratitude. In 1963, Hunt and others discussedFilipino values in their book, Sociology in thePhilippine Setting. In 1964 other Filipinovalues were suggested: hiya, pakikisama;smooth interpersonal relations (SIR), amorpropio (Bulatao 1964, Lynch 1964,Hollnsteiner 1961). Soon the inevitablehappened. Authors were compared andcontrasted (see Lawless 1966), or thesubstance of their claims questioned (e.g.Jocano 1966). Though sporadic mention isstill made of "Filipino values" (see Coward1978, Hunt 1980), the tendency is to avoidspecific mention of unique Filipino values.One notable exception to this trend is arecent publication by Robert Morais (1981)on social relations in Tanay, a rural Philippinetown.

The study of Filipino values withered, Iwould argue, because the analytical frameworkwas either too loose or was non-existent,making any conclusions open to rebuttal.When one author pointed to an observation,

"another author was ready to counter with acontradictory observation. Without a theore­tical paradigm, the study of Filipino values.was reduced to a case by case comparison and

55

contrast. The arguments on either side havenot been resolved, merely avoided.

The purpose of this paper is threefold.First, I wish to examine the conflictingliterature available on Filipino values and drawsome personal conclusions. Second, I willexamine where and under what conditions onecould expect these values to arise. Finally, Iwill suggest an analytical framework fur afuller appreciation of Philippine values.

Filipino Values

Almost exactly ten years ago, I travelled tothe Philippines with the modest directive fromPeace Corps to find a feasible alternative toslash and burn agriculture. My enthusiasm andconfidence was only slightly tempered by adiscussion I had had with Fred Eggan overwhat to expect in the Philippines. Ianticipated spending a couple months gettinga feel for the culture before eradicating slashand burn from the Philippines. From theliterature, I found that the Filipino was bravewhen he wasn't running from a confrontation,he was industrious when he wasn't idle,respectful when not being openly disrespect.ful, friendly when not being callous, in­dividualistic when not following the groupdecision, generous when not being covetous,innovative when not imitating, a peace maker

S6

when not orgaruzing to fight injustice. FrankLynch (1973: 10·14) suggested that a Filipinoacted in a way to retain SIR (smoothin t er personal rela t ions) using threemechanisms: pakikisama (concession), the useof euphemisms in speech, and the use of ago-between when there might be anembarrassing request or complaint. Jocano(1966) rebutted, saying that Filipinos werenot significantly different from other ethnicgroups, being quite hostile at times. Lynchcame back with a count of friendly meetingsin a Philippine barrio and compared this withthe number of hostile encounters, suggestingthat the ratio still favored his emphasis on.·smooth interpersonal relations. Hollnsteinerthen carefully examined the value ofreciprocity in the lowland Philippines, andsuggested the importance of retaining smoothinterpersonal relations through the mechanismof reciprocity. A breakdown in reciprocityresults in hiya (shame). However, after alecture she gave at Cornell University in 1979on the organization of Tondo residents, Iasked how the values she discussed in herarticle applied to the confrontation groupsbeing formed in Tondo. She passed thequestion off with perhaps the somewhatfacetious comment that the article was sopopular that additional editions were.released,Obviously, there is a certain tentativenessrelative to Filipino values even among themost prominent authors on the topic.

Where and When SIR Arises

The absence of consensus in the literatureon whether or not these are Filipino valuesand if so, under what situations they areevident, suggests. a lack of a commoriorientation. In my opinion, three crucial issueshave not been examined sufficiently. The firstissue relates to whether or not these values areactually ultimate values, rather than justoutward manifestations or mechanisms ofmore fundamental values. The second issueaddresses the focus of these values: should thefocus be on egocentric personality variables, asthe literature implies, or on situational

PHILIPPINE SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

variables? Stated another way, is it sufficientto examine the individual as the unit ofanalysis or is the social setting (situation)important? The final issue examines whetherthese values as defined are the exclusiveproperty of the Filipino people or apan-human phenomenon.

The ultimate Filipino values. Lynch listedthree "... principal constituents of the GoodLife here on earth (1973:8)." The one towhich he dedicated his article is "socialacceptance," which he defined as being "...accepted by one's fellows for what one is,thinks oneself to be, or would like to be, andbe given the treatment due to one's station'.... (1973:8)." The other two aspects ofthe "Good Life" he listed are economicsecurity and social mobility.

If these are the basic Filipino values, why isso much effort given to the elucidation ofSIR, which Lynch admitted is an intermediategoal' (1973: 15)? If it is our aim to study thefoundations of .Filipino life and interaction,would not our time be better spent examiningthese three ultimate values? In this light, SIRbecomes nothing more than an outwardmanifestation of the basic values or amechanism by which these three ultimatevalues are attained. Further extrapolationwould suggest that the tenets of SIR could beabandoned if one of the "principal.constituents" or "ultimate values" wasthreatened. For example, it should not besurprising if a Filipino draws a bolo withIntent to use it upon another person (and inso doing violates the tenets of SIR), if hisUltimate purpose is to defend his social group(cf. Lim 1966:44). The charitable gift to aditch-tender in an irrigation system becomesnot so much an act of friendship aimed atmaintaining SIR as it is a form of bribery toguarantee economic security (cf. Hollnsteiner1973:79).

Are Filipino values ego-eentric orgroup-eentered? There is no argument againstthe fact that values are held individually; it

•

•

•

f

PHILIPPINE VALUES IN PERSPECTIVE

would be difficult, if not impossible, to havevalues held by groups (though values cancertainly be shared by groups). The questionraised here regards the placement of thedominant focus of these values.

Research in the perception of humanbehavior suggests that there are three basictypes of explanation one can use tounderstand the behavior of another: (1) thebehavior can be attributed to the personalityof the actor, (2) the behavior can be seen ascaused by the situation in which the actorfinds himself, or (3) the behavior can be seenas unintentional. Unintentional behavior is onewhich is out of character and tends not to berepeated with any consistency (e.g, tripping,slipping, forgetting, and the like). Because it isout of character by definition, undueattention to such observations merely tends toconfuse. Personality explanations of behaviorsupply simple and direct explanations ofbehavior: we say, "he did that because he islike that." Most explanations of behavior inthe literature on Filipino values have been ofthis nature. In other words, most authors onFilipino values ask, "what is it about theFilipino which causes him to act as he does?"It is my contention that, to get a fullerunderstanding of underlying reasons forbehavior, one must analyze the situationalvariables - the context of the action. Morespecifically, I maintain that the action of theindividual will be unintelligible withoutknowledge of the situation, especially thegroup membership and the resultant linkage toothers in the picture.

From birth, the Filipino finds himself orherself inextricably linked to various groups.Of primary importance is one's linkage to theextended family. Later in life, the Filipinomight be a member of a certain educationalgroup, political group, social group (baTkada)or work group (including horizontal exchangelabor arrangements or vertical patron-clientrelations). Although all groups except thekinship group! may change, the Filipino isalways reminded of one's responsibility to the

57

members of his present groups. If one memberof the group advances economically, one ischided to remember from where he or shecame and support the others (Kailangan siyangtumingin sa pinanggalingan).

It is only within one of numerousdefineable groups that one can expect to seethe mechanisms of SIR in operation. ThePilipino language itself has a mechanism foreither including or excluding the one to whomone is speaking. Tayo-tayo /amang translatesas "your and my group" (inclusive we),whereas kami-kami /amang refers to a groupthat includes the speaker but does not includethe listener (exclusive we). Within thesegroups, individual wishes are subsumed undercommon goals. A common statement amongsuch members is basta ikaw, makikisama aka(As long as it's you, I'll go along). This isquite different from sasamahan kita (I will goalong with you). The first statement acceptsthe group's wishes as dominant; the secondemphasizes the wishes of the speaker. Thefirst can be spoken only among groupmembers, while the second can be used eitherwithin or without the group. The hypothesishere is that values are individually held butfocused on group solidarity, group economicsecurity and group social mobility. If this isthe case, one would expect to fmd themechanisms for assuring these basic valuesevident in group interactions. One shouldexpect to find a minimum of outward conflictamong group members, though noassumptions could be made aboutrelationships outside the group.

Filipino OT universal values. Other authorsraise the argument that the values examined inthe Filipino experience are not reallycountry-specific values, but rather requisitesfor the human population as a whole (cf. Rice1973:257.260). Jocano (1966) argues thatSIR is not a criterion for differentiating theFilipino from other nation states; he suggeststhat SIR in some form exists in all societies,From another perspective, Lynch refers to histhree ultimate values as "... the principal

58

constituents of the Good Life here on earth(1973:8)." He then slides into a discussion ofFilipino values without bothering to addressthe difficult question of where the basicrequisites of the "Good Life" for all end andthe uniquely Filipino values begin. Where thenis the basis of singling out Filipinos vis-a-vishumanity as a whole?

I contend that the main difference betweenFilipino and Western values2 lies not so muchin content as in orientation. It is in this regardthat I previously argued that Filipinos aremore group-eentered in their approach thanWesterners. One of the most lethal criticismsthat could be leveled against a Filipino is theclaim that he or she is being an opportunist ~that one is putting individual welfare ahead ofthe group. What in the United States wouldbe considered rags-to-riches industriousnesswould be decried in the Philippines asdisregard for former life exigencies. In theUnited States, an individual's responsibilities

, are to himself and his nuclear family; in thePhilippines, a successful family member isexpected to share good fortune with theextended family, various community members,ritual or fictive relations (compadre, ninong,abalayan, etc.),' and with any and all whowere instrumental in gaining success. Socialsanctions in the Philippines will keep a younggraduate economically hamstrung by requiringthat he or she finance the younger siblings'education.

It should be reiterated that the mechanismsemployed for group solidarity end with thegroup; there are no strong restrictions or

, sanctions against extra-group interactions. For'example, Hollnsteiner (1973: 70) relates asituation in a community where, when there isa death, members contribute an amount ofmoney for the bereaved family. Later, therecipient of the amount of money will beexpected to reciprocate under the obligationof utang na loob. This is intra-groupinteraction. On the other hand (and this is apersonal observation), during the ninth day ofmourning for the dead, it is-customary for the

PHILIPPINE SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

family of the deceased to feed all who cometo the house, purportedly to pay their lastrespects: Often extra-group .members seizeupon this as an opportunity for a free mealbecause they will feel no obligation to repay.Needless to say, the family of the bereaveddoes not appreciate this type of behavior butthere is little that can be done.

To reiterate, I see little consensus amongauthors on Filipino values to date. I suggestthat a way to understand apparentcontradictions in the data on Philippine valuesis to incorporate situational variables ratherthan to rely primarily on personality variables.I suggest that an especially fruitful situationalvariable to note is that of the groupmembership of those involved in the observedbehavior.

Analytical Framework for Filipino Values:Theoret ical Organization

As ,discussed earlier, any analyticalframework for understanding Filipino valuesmust incorporate situational variables - thephysical and social setting - as well as thepsychologically-based personality variables.These form two orientations which have adirect bearing on resultant actions. A thirdorientation must be added to make theparadigm complete: cosmological or

'philosophical orientation. This orientationseeks to understand Filipino values based onthe Filipinos' understanding of the worldorder. 'These three orientationsphilosophical (cosmological), sociological(situational), and psychological/social-psycho­logical (personality) - represent the three,perspectives from which action can be analyzedand understood.

The paradigm, however, is still incomplete;it does not consider the unsystematicevolution of the Philippine social systemarising from international contacts, especiallythose of a colonial nature. Ignoring theFilipino heritage with the Chinese, Arabs, andIndians, and the colonial encounters with the

';

,

:,, 1<i'

'1,I

'~

1"

.

~.1!'·'.,·"~ ..

'. '....,,.'.

:~I"·,'0.,'

'f;:t~!

• PffiLIPPINEVALUESIN PERSPECfIVE

Spanish, Americans and Japanese produces avague, sterile and spurious picture of Filipinolife. Though some authors suggest that "... aunique, basically homogeneous Filipinoculture has emerged..." from the colonialcontacts (Fox 1958:51), most would stillargue that the Filipino is in a cultural limbobetween the Orient and Occident (cf.Guerrero-Nakpil quoted in Hunt 1963:48-50and Bulatao 1966:2-5). For this reason, anyanalytical framework for understandingFilipino values must have, at a minimum,attention to an indigenous Asian ethic and atransmitted Western ethic, for it is probablysomewhere between these two ideal typeswhere one will find the Filipino: "Hisorientalism, his Spanish Catholicism, and an

59

eclectic blend of Americanisms make the trueFilipino characters that pain-baptized race thatwill fulfill its destiny as an offspring of and asbridge between East and West (quoted inHunt 1963:55)."

The resultant framework (see Figure 1)thus examines three different orientations ofaction (philosophical, sociological andpsychological/social psychological) modifiedby essential features of two cultural ethics(Asian, Western). It is a short step to identifymanifestations of these orientations and ethicsin cultural values. The Filipino values arelocated on a "bridge" or continuum betweenthe ideal types of Asian and Western culturalmanifestations.

Figure 1. Analytical Framework for Understanding Philippine Values

Asian Western Ethic WesternOrientation Asian Ethic Manifestation or Input Manifesmtion

• Pessimism Affectivity Optimism Affective(Bahala na) Neutrality

Philosophical Ascription Rigid class Achievement Upward!downward

orientation structure mobility

Superstition Religiosity Scientific Secularism

Leisure Suwerte Hard work Just reward

Utangna loob Utangna loobtransportation

Geographi¢Loyalty Blow-out Cash employment mobility

Sociological (Balato]orientation

Obedience Diffuse rela- Increasedurbani- Specialrelation-tionships zation ships

(Pakikisama) Individuali$n

Humility Amor propio Western Worth of

Psychological! education individual

Social-psychological Harmony Hospitality Use of English Westernprejudice

orientation Westernexample Self-determinism

Modesty Hiya Media Non-conformity

60

Philosophical orientation. The Filipinotends to be fatalistic about life; if somethingis slated to happen, it will happen, and noamount of deterrance or intervention willaffect the outcome. This fatalism is fed by theAsian ethic, Powerlessness to affect one's lifebreeds a general pessimism and the desire tolive for today because nothing is certain abouttomorrow (Bahala na)•.One is ascribed a givenstatus in a rigid social structure with nochance of escape. Though one cannot affectfate, one can read it through various signs andmight just prevent some divine retributionthrough religious rituals. Finally, because heor she has no direct control over the future,one banks on luck (suwerte) to make life lessphysically difficult.

This Asian ethic clashes dramatically withthe Western ethic which has beensuperimposed to a greater or lesser degree onthe Filipino. The Filipino who leans towardthe Western ethic is optimistic about life andis willing to defer immediate gratification(affective neutrality) to plan for a better lifein the future. One feels in control of one's life,that if a person achieves in his job, he or shewill .be able to. gain in social status. Thisperson tends to view his world in cold scientificterms and is therefore more secular inreligious matters. Finally, he or she sees anyadvancement in life as a just reward for hardwork.

Sociological orientation. Sociologically, theFilipino sees himself as an integral part of aweb .of community life, suffused with afeeling of working for the good of the whole.This is what Ferdinand Tdnnies originallyreferred to as gemeinschaft and what theFilipino refers to as bayanihan; The Filipino isalso closely tied in with primary groups:family, gang (bar/aula), fictive. kinship ties(compadrazgo). The Asian ethic commandsthat one be loyal to the community. When aperson has good fortune, one enforces tieswith the community by sharing the bounty(e.g., balato or blow-out); when one has badfortune and must fall on the support of the

PHILIPPINE SOCIOLOGICAL REviEW

community, he or she feels their timelyassistance deeply (utang na loob), realizing,that some debts go much deeper than just a .superficial show of support. One is loyal and

-obedient to primary group cohorts, willing tofollow their lead in preference to one's ownipakikisama], recognizing them as importantin a broad and diffuse way to personalwelfare.

Western inputs, especially during theAmerican colonial period (l898-~9'41),

brought a different sociological dimension.Roads and expanded transportation facilitiesbroadened the horizons of manycommunity-locked Filipinos, and cash-earningjob opportunities gave them previouslyunknown geographical mobility.' Many ofthese cash-earning job opportunities could befound in burgeoning urban areas whichemphasized specific goal-oriented relationshipsand the opportunity for assertingindividualism.

Psychological/social-psychological orienta­tion. As an Asian, the Filipino was subjected

. to a constrained code of ethics: humility safe­.guards self-esteem (amor propio), hospitalityassured. harmony, modesty was employed toavoid shame (hiya).

Onto this self-conscious state of reservestormed the Western ethic, borne through thealtered educational system,' the language, themedia, and the personal example of theWesterners in residence. In refutation of theoverriding conformity of the Asian code ofethics (humility, harmony, modesty), Westerneducation stressed the worth of the individual.The use of English in the schools left aprecipitate of prejudice for Western values andideals (cf. Constantino 1966:39-65). TheWestern example of those adventurous enoughto live in an Asian setting was that ofself-determinism. Finally, the media under­scored the desirability of self-assertiveness andnon-conformity.

Practical Application of the Framework

The strength of any paradigm rests in its

. 't'

1

..

•

•

•

•

PHll..IPPINE VALVES IN PERSPECTIVE

ability to offer a greater understanding of thatwhich it seeks to elucidate. It is important to"road test" this paradigm with examples fromthe literature and personal experience,

Though the paradigm includes aphilosophical orientation, the body of thispaper seeks to defme and clarify sociologicaland p sychological/ social-psycholo gicalorientations. Let us now turn our attention toexamples of these.

Sociological orientation. Pacana (1958:29)recorded a scene which is well-known to thosewho have followed Filipino values:

During this year's fiesta in a town ofCamarines Sur the ribbon race was inprogress. A cyclist passed under the wireand made a stab for the little ring attachedto the dangling ribbon. He missed. Losingcontrol of the bicycle, he swerved to theside of the road. When he dropped into thedeep drainage ditch and was thrown to theground, the crowd roared with laughter.The rider grinned abashed as he limpedaway unaided. No one had made a move tohelp him.

Pacana listed two possible considerationswhich might make sense out of such anoccurrence: first, the bystander fears he or shemay insult the embarrassed person by offeringhelp; second, the bystander is unwilling toplace the afflicted person under obligation forhelp received.

It is easy to visualize the setting: a smalltown fiesta, a competitive event, a sportingcompetitor, a circle of keenly interestedtownmates (mga kababayan). The event ispotentially embarrasing: the cyclist falls in aditch. The crowd response, though, offers thecompetitor an avenue of escape, as Pacanaexplains: "By greeting the accident withlaughter the bystander shows the victim heconsiders the whole affair a big joke, just oneof those things which could happen toanyone, and certainly no fault of the victim's(1958:30)." The laughter of the crowddefuses a potentially embarrassing situation. It

61

is impossible for the crowd to act as thoughthey did not witness the fall (civilinattention). It is also important for thecrowd that the competitor not be embarrassedbecause he is part of their community. Theirreaction allows him to rejoin the groupwithout any permanent feelings of discomfort.

Another example of the sociologicalorientation in action comes from my personalexperience. While a Peace Corps volunteer, Iwas able to attend a Christmas celebration ina small barrio. At one part in the celebration,one of the more· prosperous members beganthrowing handfuls of candy to the gatheredchildren. One child who had been standingbehind me ran toward the milling children,scooped up a few pieces of candy, and thenran back to his post with some childrenbehind me. I overheard him breathlessly tellhis friends, "Nakasingit ako" (I was able tosqueeze in).

There are two interesting points to begleaned from this rather insignificant, but I'llwager oft-repeated, scenario in barrio life.First, one of the community members who isprosperous is sharing some of his wealth; ne isthrowing candy to the children of thecommunity. Second, a young boy takes partin the generosity of the prosperouscommunity member, but realizes that he Wasactually not to be included - he realized that,for one reason or another, he was not definedas a group member and therefore had noclaim to the benefits of group membership.His gain through stealth and/or bravado paiddividends. He might feel gratitude toward hisunsuspecting benefactor, but I rather doubtthat he feels any debt.

Psychological/social-psychological orienta­tion: Pacana provides another example ofnon-intervention in his 1958 article:

In Manila SOme years ago a young Filipinopriest caught his foot as he stepped off abus, fell headlong into the muddy gutter.Passers-by stopped to watch; some smiledwith amusement, but none offered to help.

62

The priest picked himself up, brushed mudfrom his sotana, retrieved. his valise, andwe~t his way. /

Anyone who has caught a bus in Maniladuring rush hour can symphathize with thissituation. In the urban bustling and shovingfor limited seats in buses; someone - a priest- slips and falls. Pacana (1958:30) suggeststhat "passers-by" do not become involvedbecause, ". . . [they] will not force anyone tocontract utang na loob, to be obliged in honorto a misguided benefactor giving unwantedservice."

According to the paradigm, this cannotbe an explanation of the observed non"intervention. Note that the setting is urbanManila and that those in the / immediatearea are identified as "passers-by." There is no"group" of individual present, just an"aggregate" with a specific purpose in mind ­transportation. They have come togetherbecause of this single common denominatorand will disperse once they ,reach theirdestination, with little chance of meetingagain. A priest has been caught in acompromising situation; however, he will notfeel a sense of personal shame (hiya).if it goesunnoticed.4 The most effective device indefusing the tension or discomfort of such asituation is civil inattention; suggest to thevictim through studied non-observance that hehas not been observed and therefore need notfeel a sense of shame. Suppress surreptitious"smiles of amusement" but don't make anoutward offer of assistance; this wouldofficially "recognize" the incident and bringshame. Allow the victim to pick himself up,dust himself off, and go on his way.

To the uninitiate, Quiapo (a busy Manilatransportation interchange) can be frightening.If you insist on "waiting your turn" you hadbetter have plenty of free time and a goodset .of lungs to put up with the pollution. ,Adilemma arises: How can I fight my way into.a jeepney and yet remain courteous (maintainSIR)? It's simple' but it takes practice; Youmust stand surrounded by hundreds of others

PHiLIPPINE SOCIOLOGICAL-REVIEW

without "seeing" them. U you don't "see"them, then you can't be held responsible forthem. To catch a jeepney in Quiapo, youwatch the jeepneys, nothing else. If you slipand catch the eye of any other personstanding around you, you are required' torecognize that person's right to a seat on the

/

jeepney. And so the scene is repeatedthousands of times each day: jeepneys slowup along the side road, prospective passengerswith fixed stares at the jeepney close in onthe limited number of seats, there is a gooddeal of elbowing and squeezing, and thewinners - those who gain seats - still do notrecognize others while competition goes onfor 'the last few seats. When full, the jeepneypicks up speed and leaves the "losers" behind.Now animated conversation can begin among/those \ in the jeepney as fellow passengers.arerecognized for the. first time. 'The tightquarters makes continued inattention to theneeds of others virtually impossible. Nowoffers of support are common: "let me helpyou with that load," "sit next to me," "letme push your heavy sack of rice under my,bench." Offers of assistance which would havebeen, rare earlier are now almost obligatory.

The Continuum

The examples so' far have suggested astereotypical picture of the Filipino value.structure, heavily influenced by essentialfeatures of what I have called an "Asianethic." This is certainly not the case;experience in different Filipino communitysettings suggests wide variation..!/ One findsstrong allegiance to generally accepted"Filipino values" in a setting such as the onein Tanay researched by Robert Morais (19~1).

One is impressed here by uniformity: allrespondents feel that it is important to repaydebts of gratitude, all feel a moral obligationto reciprocate in exchange relations (the sukiin the marketplace, the patron-clientrelationship in the community). To thinkotherwise 'would be the mark of a "falsefriend" (Morais 1981:40-79). This suggests

"

.'

•

-

PffiLIPPINE VALUE IN PERSPECTIVE

that there is a single standard of behavioragainst which observed behavior can becompared. Though this might be the case inmany rural Philippine communities, it iscertainly not true in the urban areas. .

When developing a paradigm of Filipinovalues, it is important to recognize thehistorical forces that have made an impact onFilipino culture, especially from the West.Lorenzo M. Tanada recognizes this when hewrites, ". . . any study of present Philippinesociety must take into account the impact ofAmerican ideas and policies on our countryand people (quoted in Constantino1966:viii)." What we see in the individualFilipino is often a unique blend of an "Asianethic" and a "Western ethic." This means thatthe Filipino who elects to experience hardshipand save his earnings to put his child throughcollege (delayed gratification or the Parsonianaffective neutrality) is no less Filipino thanthe. Filipino who lavishes expensive gifts onhis family (or the Parsonian affectivity). Thedifference is their placement on thephilosophical orientation continuum betweenan Asian pessimism about the future whichresults in immediate gratification and aWestern optimism about the future which

Notes

An earlier version of this paper was read at theannual conference of the Association for AsianStudies in San Francisco (March 1983). The authorwould like to thank Milton Barnett, Belinda Aquinoand Chester Hunt for their , help in preparing thisrevision and expansion of "the original paper.

lit would, perhaps, be more correct to speak ofkinship "networks." When kinship is reckoned in anon-unilineal fashion, ego's kinship "group" isdifferent from the kinship group of other relations.This reflects kinship networks formed through affinalties (marriage) and fictive ties (e.g.,traditionalrelations such as the compadrazgo network). Ego'skinship relations, therefore, can expand but, for themost part, they are not elective on his part.

63

places faith in the future and is Willing towithhold immediate gratification for the hopeof increased future benefits. The Filipino whobreaks with his barkada to pursue betteroccupational opportunities in the city isplacing the Western ideal of individualityahead of an Asian emphasis on the groupsolidarity. Hollnsteiner (1973 :91) ends herhallmark article on reciprocity in the .lowlandPhilippines with the following clairvoyantobservation:

In some instances, the Filipino working ina factory finds himself in a new subculturecharacterized by values derived from theWestern industrial world. Managementrewards efficiency and places less value onpersonal ties. The workman who wants tosucceed tries to adapt himself to the newimpersonal ways, repelling the advances ofrelatives who seek to exploit his favorableposition in the company . . . Withincreasing industrialization it should be­come more and more common.

According to the proposed paradigm, thiswould not be understood as a refutation of"Filipino values" but rather a shift on thecontinuum which links the predominantly"Asian ethic" to a ''Western ethic."

2No doubt some will abject to a discussion of"Filipino values" on the grounds that it implies astereotypical image of nearly fifty mWon Filipinos.The same concern could be voiced even moreforcefully relative to the suggestion that there issome identifiable commonality in "Western values,"This is not a new objection. There are two rnrijorresponses to objections of such stereotypicalconstructs: (1) avoid "grand theorizing" on the basisthat it is impoSSIble to define dominant commondenominators, or, (2) use the Weberian technique ofthe ideal type, identifying a research constructcomposed of certain essential features. I choose thelatter option.

3Confer with Barnett (1966:276-282) for a flmerdiscussion on the concept of shame (hiya), ~specililly

in contrast to the concept of guilt.

64

References

Barnett, Milton L.1966 .Hiya, shame and guilt: Preliminary

consideration of the concepts as analyticaltools for Philippine social sciences.Philippine Sociological Review 14(4):276-282.

Bulatao, Jairne1964 Hiya. Philippine Studies 12(3): 424-438.

1966 Split-Level Christianity. Quezon' City:Ateneo de Manila Press.'

Constantino, Renato1966 The Filipino in the Philippines and Other

Essays. Quezon City: Malaya Bookstore.

Coward, Walter E. Jr.1978 Values, behavior, and irrigation: Smooth

interpersonal relations in the Philippines.Philippine Sociological Review 26:4147.

Fox, Robert B.1958 Prehistoric foundations of contemporary

Filipino culture and society. Comment,51.

Hollnsteiner, Mary Racelis1973 "Reciprocity in the lowland Philippines,"

In Frank Lynch and Alfonso de Guzman II(eds.) Four Readings on Philippine Values(lPC Papers No.2). Quezon City: Ateneode Manila Press, pp. 67-91.

Hunt, Chester L.1980 Philippine values and martial law•

. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 11 (1):11(}'121.

PHILIPPINE SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW.

Hunt, Chester L., and others1963 Sociology in the Philippine Setting.

Quezon City: Phoenix Publishing House.

Jocano, F. Landa1966 Rethinking 'smooth interpersonal

relations;' Philippine Sociological Review14(4): 282·291.

Kaut, Charles R.1961' Utang na loob: A system of contractual

obligation among Tagalogs." SouthwesternJournal ofAnthropology 18(3): 256-272.

Lawless, Robert1966 A comparative analysis of two studies on

utang na loob. Philippine SociologicalReview 14: 168-172.

Lim, Estefania Aldaba1966 Dynamics of Filipino personality. In F.

Landa Jocano (ed.), Filipino CulturalHeritage, (Lecture Series No.3). Manila:Philippine Women's University, pp. 31-37.

Lynch, Frank1973 Social acceptance, reconsidered. In

Frank Lynch and Alfonso de Guzman II(eds.), Four Readings on Philippine Values(IPC Papers No.2). Quezon City: Ateneode ManilaPress, pp, 1-63.

Morais, Robert J. ,1981 Social Relations in a Philippine Town.

Special Report No. 10. DeKalb, lllinois:Northern Illinois University.

Pacana, Honesto Ch.1958 Notes on a Filipino RUle of Conduct:

Non-interference.' Philippine SociologicalReview 1(16): 29-30.

Aft.'

f

•