Filipino Psychology (Sikolohiyang Pilipino) PDF

1 Filipino Psychology yang malaya (liberated psychology), it is against the importation and imposition of a psychology (Sikolohiyang Pilipino) that has been developed in, a...

1 Filipino Psychology yang malaya (liberated psychology), it is against the importation and imposition of a psychology (Sikolohiyang Pilipino) that has been developed in, and is more appropriate to, industrialized countries. Last, as Jay Yacat University of the Philippines, Philippes a sikolohiyang mapagpalaya (liberating psy- chology), the movement is against a psychology Filipino psychology (sikolohiyang Pilipino in used for the exploitation of the masses. Filipino) is the scientific study of psychology As part of the indigenous psychology tradi- derived from the experience, ideas, and tion, sikolohiyang Pilipino is built on psycho- cultural orientation of the Filipinos. Virgilio G. logical knowledge that: (a) arose from within Enriquez, considered the father of sikolohiyang the culture; (b) reflects local behaviors; (c) can Pilipino, identified the following as the subject be interpreted within a local frame of reference; matter of this formal indigenous psychology and (d) yields results that are locally relevant (Enriquez, 1974): kamalayan or consciousness, (Sinha, 1997). However, Enriquez (1978) was which includes both emotive and cognitive quick to point out that sikolohiyang Pilipino experience; ulirat or awareness of one’s does not advocate that foreign theories should immediate surroundings; isip, which refers to be totally abandoned. Uncritical rejection of knowledge and understanding; diwa, which anything foreign is as dangerous as uncritical includes habits and behavior; kalooban or acceptance of Western theories. emotions or feelings; and kaluluwa or psyche, Thus, Enriquez (1978) proposed that which translates to soul of a people. sikolohiyang Pilipino knowledge can be borne With the aim to address the colonial out of two processes: indigenization from without background of psychology in the Philippines, and indigenization from within. Indigenization sikolohiyang Pilipino started as a movement from without is the more common approach within psychology and other related disci- used in knowledge and technology transfer. plines in the 1970s that focuses on the This approach is based on the search of local following themes: (a) identity and national equivalents for assumed universal psychological consciousness; (b) social awareness and concepts or the contextualization of imported involvement; (c) national and ethnic cultures methods and techniques, and tools and instru- and languages, including the study of tradi- ments. A similar concept is cultural validation, tional psychology; and (d) bases and applica- the practice of validating research through tion of indigenous psychology in health systematic replication in multiple cultures. On practices, agriculture, art, mass media, and the other hand, indigenization from within religion but also including the psychology of formalizes Filipinos’ implicit psychological behavior and human abilities as originated in theories, knowledge, methods, and practices Western psychology but applicable to the local developed with the local culture as basis (local setting (Enriquez, 1992). culture as source). Enriquez also used the term This movement has three primary areas of cultural revalidation to refer to this process. protest. First, as a sikolohiya ng pagbabagong-isip In order to frame the efforts in sikolohiyang (psychology of re-awakening), the movement is Pilipino to formalize indigenous psychology in against a psychology that perpetuates colonial the Philippines, it is important to look into the mentality and promotes the decolonization of attempts to: 1) develop indigenous concepts and the Filipino mind as a stage in the development frameworks; and 2) adapt, develop, and use of national consciousness. Second, as sikolohi- culturally appropriate instruments and methods. The Encyclopedia of Cross-Cultural Psychology, First Edition. Edited by Kenneth D. Keith. © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2013 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2 Indigenous Concepts and Theorizing recognition of sharedness with another is a core value among Filipinos. To emphasize Considerable progress has been noted in the the core-ness of kapwa, Enriquez (1992) identification and elaboration of indigenous constructed a fairly elaborate system of values, concepts, particularly in the area of personality all deriving from kapwa. This three-tiered and values (Church & Katigbak, 1999). For value structure (core, surface, and societal) is example, Enriquez (1978) presented what is Enriquez’s attempt to demonstrate the relative considered to be a core concept in Filipino importance of the values (see Table 1). psychology: kapwa. He defined kapwa as a rec- However, Enriquez also placed much weight ognition of shared identity, an inner self shared on pakikiramdam (shared inner perception) with others. He also clarified that the recogni- as the pivotal interpersonal value which is tion starts with the self and not from others: “necessarily tied to the operation of all the A person starts having kapwa not so much surface values” (Enriquez, 1992, p. 76). This because of a recognition of status given to him suggests that pakikiramdam may have a by others but more because of his awareness of higher-order importance than the surface shared identity. The ako (ego) and the iba-sa- values. The surface values are expected to be akin (others) are one and the same in kapwa the least important in comparison to both psychology: Hindi ako iba sa aking kapwa (I am kapwa and pakikiramdam. no different from others). Once ako starts Pakikiramdam involves tentative, exploratory thinking of himself as separate from kapwa, the and improvisatory behavior intended to avoid Filipino “self ” gets to be individuated in the offending or hurting other people (Mataragnon, Western sense and, in effect denies the status of kapwa to the other. By the same token, the 1987). Thus, “a person high in pakikiramdam status of kapwa is also denied to the self.” is often described as thoughtful and caring (Enriquez, 1978, p. 106) while a person low in pakikiramdam could be accused of being thoughtless and uncaring” Enriquez disavowed the English translation (Mataragnon, 1987, p. 471). In a sense, pakiki- “others” as it connotes a separation of the self ramdam requires that a person actively senses from the other, whereas kapwa denotes the or feels out the situation and the other person in exact opposite: a sharing of self and other. a social interaction, and carefully comes up with Thus, a sense of kapwa is not just simple an appropriate behavior. In effect, people who other-orientedness. He also proposed that this have low pakikiramdam will exhibit behaviors Table 1 Filipino Value Structure: Surface, Core and Societal Accommodative Hiya Utang na Loob Pakikisama Surface Value (Propriety) (Gratitude/solidarity) (Companionship/esteem) Confrontative Surface Bahala na Sama/lakas ng loob Pakikibaka Value (Determination) (Resentment/guts) (Resistance) Pivotal Interpersonal Pakikiramdam Value (Shared inner perception) CORE VALUE Kapwa (Shared identity) Linking Sociopersonal Kagandahang-Loob Value (Shared humanity) Associated Societal Karangalan Katarungan Kalayaan Values (Dignity) (Justice) (Freedom) Source: Enriquez, 1990; reprinted by permission of Philippine Psychology Research and Training House.  3 that are inappropriate to the situation and would the total sense of identification in pakikiisa” not sense, intentionally or otherwise, if they had (Santiago & Enriquez, 1976, p. 104). Also, they offended or hurt the other person. are not just conceptually delineated but are Meanwhile, Enriquez coined the term marked by different sets of behaviors as well. “surface values” to refer to a set of values that Ethnoscientific participant observation of food are easily obvious, especially to the notice of sharing during a town fiesta (feast) revealed a outsiders (non-Filipinos), but not necessarily progression of relationships that is evident in the most important ones. The accessibility of the quality of interactions expressed in the the accommodative surface values (pakikisama, meals, with pakikitungo as the shallowest and hiya, and utang na loob) would lead foreigners pakikiisa as the deepest (Santiago, 1976). The to assume that Filipinos are other-oriented. visitor moves from being a guest toward However, non-Filipinos may also fail to note becoming a host and then, finally, to being a that confrontative surface values (bahala na, servant at table when the deepest level of rela- pakikibaka, and lakas ng loob) are equally tionship has been achieved. All these suggest important to Filipinos when situations call for that behavioral interactions vary as a function asserting one’s individual rights. The over- of the relationships with the other (whether emphasis on accommodative values, and the ibang tao or hindi ibang tao). However, corresponding neglect of their counterpart, the Enriquez was quick to aver that interactions confrontative ones, painted a distorted and with the ibang tao and hindi ibang tao can still incomplete view of the Filipino, which be subsumed under an umbrella term: Enriquez (1990) termed as the pasukong pakikipagkapwa: Pilipino (the submissive Filipino). This image, All these [interaction] levels – whether belonging when perpetuated, was suspiciously more to the ibang tao or hindi ibang tao categories – beneficial to the colonial masters than to may be grouped under the heading of pakikip- Filipinos themselves. agkapwa. Thus anyone looking for a core Kagandahang-loob, the linking sociopersonal concept that would explain Filipino interper- value, predisposes a person to be attuned to sonal behavior cannot help by being struck by the needs and purposes of the larger collective: the superordinate concept of kapwa. It is the the society. Thus, a person who values kagan- only concept which embraces both categories dahang-loob is also likely to value karangalan of “outsider” (ibang tao) and “one of us” (hindi (dignity), katarungan (justice), and kalayaan ibang tao).” (Enriquez, 1992; p. 52) (freedom) in society. Utilizing Indigenous Research Methods Aside from the structure of Filipino values, levels and modes of social interaction have also Many sikolohiyang Pilipino advocates have pushed been identified (Santiago & Enriquez, 1976): for the development and use of indigenous Ibang Tao (“outsider”) category: 1) Pakikitungo: research approaches and methods derived from civility ; 2) Pakikisalamuha: act of mixing; Filipinos’ cultural ways of gathering information. 3) Pakikilahok: act of joining; 4) Pakikibagay: A number of these methods have been explicated conformity; 5) Pakikisama: being united with (e.g., pakapa-kapa, suppositionless approach; the group. Hindi Ibang Tao (“one-of-us”) Torres, 1982) but three methods are worth category: 1) Pakikipagpalagayang-loob: act of elucidating because of their more frequent use: mutual trust; 2) Pakikisangkot: act of joining pagtatanung-tanong (asking around); pakikipag- others; 3) Pakikipagkaisa: being one with kuwentuhan (exchanging stories); and ginabayang others. talakayan (indigenous facilitated discussion). These levels are not only interrelated modes In pagtatanung-tanong, the researcher but are arranged in babaw (surface) -lalim engages the participant in a more unstructured (depth) levels of engagement: “from the and interactive questioning session (Gonzales, relatively uninvolved civility in pakikitungo to 1982; Pe-Pua, 1989). Also, “lead questions” 4 (those questions which directly refer to the A number of principles guiding sikolohiyang topic being studied) are discouraged; instead, Pilipino research have been identified (Pe-Pua & questions to be asked should be based on Protacio-Marcelino, 2000): 1) research partici- participants’ prior responses themselves. pants have to be treated as equal, if not superior, Meanwhile, pakikipagkuwentuhan requires the to the researchers; 2) welfare of the participants researcher to motivate participants to narrate takes precedence over any information taken their experiences about an episode or event from them; 3) appropriateness (and not its (Orteza, 1997). The interactions could be sophistication) to the intended population should between the researcher and a participant or be the primary basis for selecting methods; and between a researcher and a group of people. 4) the language of the participants should be the Finally, ginabayang talakayan is a combination language of the research. of a community dialog, focused group discussion, and group attestation (Enriquez, SEE ALSO: Cultural Psychology; Enriquez, 1994). One particular feature of this set of Virgilio; Indigenization; Indigenous Psychology; methods is its dependence on face-to-face Indigenous Social Influence interactions (both verbal and non-verbal) between researcher and participants. References Torres (1997) enumerated the features of field studies in the sikolohiyang Pilipino Church, A. T., & Katigbak, M. (1999). Indigenization of psychology in the Philippines. tradition: contextualized; draws from a broad, International Journal of Psychology, 37, 127–148. diverse sample base; uses multiple methods; Enriquez, V. G. (1974). Mga batayan ng and is open to interdisciplinary frameworks sikolohiyang Pilipino sa kultura at kasaysayan and perspectives. Santiago and Enriquez (The bases of Sikolohiyang Pilipino in culture (1982) proposed that sikolohiyang Pilipino and history). Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Batayan sa research should strive to be maka-Pilipino Kasaysayan, Perspektibo, mga Konsepto at (for the interests of the Filipino). To ensure Bibliograpiya (Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Bases in this, researchers should be guided by the use History, Perspectives, Concepts and of two “scales”: Iskala ng Mananaliksik Bibliography). (pp. 1–29). Diliman, Quezon City, (researcher–method scale) and Iskala ng Philippines: University of the Philippines. Pagtutunguhan ng Mananaliksik at Kalahok Enriquez, V. G. (1978). Kapwa: A core concept in Filipino social psychology. Philippine Social (researcher–participant relationship scale). Sciences and Humanities Review, 42, 100–108. The researcher–method scale represents a Enriquez, V. G. (1990). Indigenous personality range of methods that vary in their obtrusive- theory. In V. G. Enriquez (Ed.), Indigenous ness: the less obtrusive (pagmamasid or psychology: A book of readings (pp. 285–310). observation) to more obtrusive (pakikilahok Quezon City, Philippines: Akademya ng Kultura or participation). On the other hand, the at Sikolohiyang Pilipino. researcher–participant relationship scale Enriquez, V. G. (1992). From colonial to liberation would determine the depth or quality of rela- psychology: The Philippine experience. Quezon tionship necessary for the research goals to be City, Philippines: University of the Philippines met. An assumption of this model is that a Press. particular method presupposes a certain level Enriquez, V. G. (1994). Pagbabangong-dangal: Indigenous psychology and cultural empowerment. of relationship with the participant that needs Quezon City, Philippines: Akademya ng Kultura to be achieved. Or that a certain level of at Sikolohiyang Pilipino. relationship prior to data gathering would Gonzales, L. F. (1982). Ang pagtatanung-tanong: restrict the range of methodological options Dahilan at katangian (Pagtatanung-tanong: open to a researcher. The appropriate use of Rationale and characteristics). In R. Pe-Pua the two scales is assumed to lead to a higher (Ed.), Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Teorya, metodo at level quality of data. gamit (Filipino Psychology: Theory, method and  5 application) (pp. 175–186). Quezon City, Santiago, C. E., & Enriquez, V. G. (1982). Tungo sa Philippines: Philippine Psychology Research and makapilipinong pananaliksik. In R. Pe-Pua Training House. (Ed.), Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Teorya, metodo at Mataragnon, R. (1987). Pakikiramdam in Filipino gamit (Filipino psychology: Theory, method social interaction. Foundations of Behavioral and application) (pp. 155–160). Quezon City, Sciences: A Book of Readings (pp. 470–482). Philippines: Philippine Psychology Research Quezon City, Philippines: University of the and Training House. (Reprinted from Philippines. Sikolohiyang Pilipino:Mga ulat at balita, 1976, 1, Orteza, G. O. (1997). Pakikipagkuwentuhan 3–10.) (Indigenous Research Methods). PPRTH Sinha, D. (1997). Indigenizing psychology. In J. W. Occasional Papers Series no. 1. Quezon City, Berry, Y. Poortinga, & J. Pandey (Eds.), Philippines: Philippine Psychology Research and Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Theory Training House. and method (Vol. 1, pp. 129–169). Boston, MA: Pe-Pua, R. (1989). Pagtatanong-tanong: A Allyn & Bacon. cross-cultural research method. International Torres, A. T. (1982). “Pakapa-kapa” as an approach Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13, 147–163. in Philippine psychology. In R. Pe-Pua (Ed.), Pe-Pua, R., & Protacio-Marcelino, E. (2000). Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Teorya, metodo at gamit Sikolohiyang Pilipino (Filipino psychology): (Filipino psychology: Theory, method and A legacy of Virgilio G. Enriquez. Asian Journal application) (pp. 171–174). Quezon City, of Social Psychology, 3, 49–71. Philippines: Philippine Psychology Research and Santiago, C. (1976). The language of food. In Training House. G. Cordero (Ed.), Culinary culture of the Torres, A. T. (1997). Methods, mind or meaning: Philippines (pp. 133–139). Philippines: Shifting paradigms in Philippine psychology. Bancom Audiovision Corporation. Philippine Journal of Psychology, 30, 17–37. Santiago, C., & Enriquez, V. G. (1976). Tungo sa maka-Pilipinong pananaliksik. Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Mga Ulat at Balita, 1(4), 3–10.