Sikolohiyang Pilipino

Sikolohiyang Pilipino (SIKOPIL) 3 units Prerequisite : Introduction to Psychology Magiging mahalaga sa pag-aaral ng Sikolohiyang Pilipino ang mga katutubong konsepto sa Kapilipinuhan. Ang kulturang Pilipino ang siyang magiging daan sa pagtuklas ng mga kaalamang ito sa pamamagitan ng paggamit ng wikang Pilipino. papaksain sa pagaaral ng Sikolohiyang Pilipino ang mga metodong naangkop sa pagtuklas ng mga kaalaman at kaisipang Pilipino. Sikolohiyang Pilipino (Filipino Psychology) Syllabus Chapter I Introduction: What is an Indigenous Psychology? 1. Difference with Cross-Cultural, Cultural, Ethnopsychology, and Volkerpsychology. 2. Global Indigenous Psychology 3. Basic Tenets and Principles in IP? 4. Types and Levels of Indigenization 5. Current Trends and Directions

Chapter II Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Philippine Indigenous Psychology 1. What is Sikolohiyang Pilipino? 2. Basic Tenets and Principles in SP 3. Philippine Psychology and Psychology in the Philippines. 4. History of SIkolohiyang Pilipino 5. Fields in Sikolohiyang Pilipino (see Chapter VI: 5) 6. Sikolohiyang Pilipino and Philippine Social Sciences (Agham-tao; Pilipinolohiya at Pantayong Pananaw) [see clemen aquino]

Chapter III Pagkataong Pilipino: Indigenous Filipino Personality 1. Enriquez' Filipino Personality Theory

2. IPC Filipino Personality 3. Salazar's Kaluluwa at Budhi 4. Covar's Bayang Dalumat at Pagkataong Pilipino 5. Alejo's Loob 6. Filipino Personality and Values in Theology (Manggay, Talisayon), Philosophy (Quito; Gripaldo), Literature (Lumbera)and Arts (others: Licuanan, Fernandez) 7. Filipino Trait and Personality Psychology by Church and Katigbak 8. Sta Maria's Filipino self

Chapter IV Katutubong Panukat na Sikolohikal: Indigenous Personality Measurement 1. Panukat ng Pagkataong Pilipino by Carlota 2. Panukat ng Ugali at Pagkatao by Enriquez and Guanzon-Lapena 3. Locally-Developed Psychological Tests by Cipres-Ortega and Guanzon-Lapena 4. Discussions on new developed indigenous/local psychological tests

Chapter V Katutubong Pamamaraan ng Pananaliksik: Indigenous Research Methods 1. Basic Tenets and Principles in an Indigenous Research Methods 2. Pakikiramdam: Isang Mahalagang Sangkap sa Pananaliksik (Mataragnon) 3. Enriquez and Santiago's Iskala ng Mananaliksik 4. Pakikipagkuwentuhan (Orteza; Javier) 5. Pagtatanung-tanong (Pe-Pua) 6. Ginabayang Talakayan (Galvez; Aguiling-Dalisay) 7. Pakikipanuluyan, Nakikiugaling Pagmamasid, Pakapa-kapa, Pagmumuni

Chapter VI Fields in Filipino Psychology: Applied and Social Psychology 1. Filipino political psychology (montiel); social cognition (conaco); peace and conflict resolution (sta maria) 2. Filipino sexuality and gender; Filipino Feminism (claudio-estrada; tan; guerrero) 3. Filipino Psychotherapy (bautista; protacio-de castro; carandang; clemena) 4. Sikolohiyang Panlipunan-at-Kalinangan (salazar; sta maria)

5. Unang Dekada ng Sikolohiyang Pilipino (protacio-marcelino at pe-pua) 6. Filipino Social Psychology (gastardo-conaco) and pahiwatig (manggay) 7. new directions: volunteering (aguiling-dalisay, yacat, and navarro); developmental psychology (liwag)

Chapter VII Closing Indigenous Psychologies 1. Critique in Sikolohiyang Pilipino and Indigenous Psychologies 2. Paper Presentations of Research and Reaction Papers 3. Seminar/Workshop in Sikolohiyang Pilipino

References in SIkolohiyang Pilipino Joy B. Alvarez (1975) Hiya: kahulugan, manipestasyon at kadahilanan. In V.G. Enriquez (ed.) Pagkataong Pilipino: I. Layunin, Ugali, Katangian at Pakikipagkapwa. (pp. 115-126). Quezon City: Department of Psychology, University of the Philippines.

Isidro Panlasigui (1977) Ang Sikolohiya ng mga Pilipino. In V.G. Enriquez (ed.) Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Mga Piliping Papel (Serye ng mga Papel sa Pagkataong Pilipino), Paper No. 1 (August), 2-10. (Also as The Psychology of the Filipino People. Far Eastern Economic Review (1956), 21(25), 811-823.)

Nida R. Almonte & Abraham B. Velasco (1977) Ang Konseptong ng Disiplina ng mga Pilipino: Isang Panimulang Pag-aaral. In V.G. Enriquez (ed.) Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Mga Piliping Papel (Serye ng mga Papel sa Pagkataong Pilipino), Paper No. 3 (October), 23-47.

ndigenous personality measures: Philippine examples. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology | January 01, 1998 | Guanzon-Lapena, Ma. Angeles; Church, A. Timothy; Carlota, Annadaisy J.; Katigbak, Marcia S. | Copyright

After noting the need for indigenous scale construction efforts in the Philippines, the current article focuses on the development and current status of two multidimensional measures of Filipino personality constructs, plus two projects that are investigating indigenous Filipino personality

structure. In a final section, we note apparent convergences between the personality dimensions identified and assessed by these four projects and consider how these dimensions might relate to purported universal dimensions of personality (i.e., the "Big Five" dimensions). Reviews of the status of psychological measurement in the Philippines have highlighted two related problems: the questionable applicability of foreign-made tests and the dearth of locally developed tests (e.g., Bulatao & Guthrie, 1968; Carlota & Lazo, 1987; Church, 1987; Guanzon, 1985; Ramos, 1977). Strong misgivings have been expressed about the relevance to Filipino behavior of the theories underlying foreign-made tests, and researchers and scientist-practitioners have been urged to develop indigenous tests. The restiveness of the Philippine academic community over the need for more culturally sensitive theorizing was reflected in the Sikolohiyang Pilipino (Filipino Psychology) movement that began in the 1970s. Enriquez (1994) described Sikolohiyang Pilipino as rooted in its Malayo-Polynesian and Asian heritage, a psychology based on the experience, ideas, and orientation of the Filipino, with psychology defined on the basis of categories drawn from the Filipino language and culture. Local test development was thus welcomed as a cross-cultural indigenization effort in which culture is treated as source rather than target (Enriquez, 1979). Discussions of indigenous psychological concepts and research methods that have emerged as a result of the Sikolohiyang Pilipino movement can be found in a number of sources (e.g., Aganon & David, 1985; Enriquez, 1992; Pe-Pua, 1982). In a recent effort to document and organize existing work on psychological test development in the Philippines, both published and unpublished, Ortega and Guanzon-Lapena (1997) observed an upsurge in academic interest in the development of indigenous psychological measures. Whereas in the 1950s a mere handful of tests in educational psychology were locally developed, Ortega and Guanzon-Lapena's (1997) current listing includes more than 200 locally developed measures on a wide variety of Filipino characteristics, for example, katalinuhan (intelligence), pagkarelihiyoso (religiousness), kaasalang sekswal (sexual behavior), kakayahang magdala ng tensyon (ability to cope with stress), pagkamabahala (anxiety), kahustuhang emosyonal (emotional maturity), pakikipag-ugnayan (adjustment-maladjustment), Filipino management style, and gender sensitivity, to name a few. This article focuses on the development and current status of two multidimensional measures of Filipino personality constructs--the Panukat ng Pagkataong Pilipino (PPP; Carlota, 1985) and the Panukat ng Ugali at Pagkatao (PUP; Enriquez & Guanzon-Lapenia, 1997)--plus two projects that are investigating indigenous Filipino personality structure (Church, Reyes, Katigbak, & Grimm, 1997; Katigbak, Church, & Akamine, 1996). In a final section, we summarize hypothesized convergences between the personality dimensions identified and assessed by the different approaches and

consider how these dimensions might relate to purported universal dimensions of personality (i.e., the "Big Five"; McCrae & Costa, 1997). THE PANUKAT NG PAGKATAONG PILIPINO ORIGIN AND TEST DEVELOPMENT Development of the PPP, initiated in 1978, was motivated by several factors. First, there was the realization of a lack of agreement among Filipino researchers about the most salient dimensions of Filipino personality. Second, the choice of traits was generally dictated by those tests that were available to researchers, and most of these tests were foreign. Third, despite the uncertain applicability of foreign tests, they were used because of the scarcity of indigenous measures. An inductive and empirical approach, which supplemented the literature review that was undertaken, served as the primary basis for trait identification and item development. The final selection of items depended on the demonstrated internal consistency of the items in each subscale. The first step was the identification of the critical personality dimensions. Although the available literature helped in identifying some of the traits to include, it was decided that additional relevant information could be obtained by asking people to describe others. Thus, a questionnaire was developed that asked 267 13- to 68-year-old Filipino respondents to describe the personality of three persons: (a) a person he or she knew and liked, (b) a person he or she knew and disliked, and (c) himself or herself. The respondents were also asked to briefly define each positive and negative trait mentioned and to describe a behavior that typified that trait. The respondents represented a variety of occupations, including unskilled, semiskilled and professional jobs. The traits described by the respondents were ranked by frequency of mention. These ranks were used to select the personality dimensions to include in the PPP. Using this ranking procedure (e.g., the top-ranked trait was Pagkaresponsable [responsibility]), 16 dimensions were identified. Three other traits (Pagkamalikhain [creativity], Pagkamasikap [achievement orientation], and Pagkamapagsapalaran [risk taking]) were included because of the researcher's interest in them. It is worth noting that a number of the empirically determined traits were also identified as critical dimensions in the literature. The complete listing of the 19 personality traits is shown in the first column of Table 1. TABLE 1 Hypothesized Convergence of Constructs From Four Indigenous Measures Panukat ng Pakataong Pilipino (PPP) Surgency/extraversion domain Pagkapalakaibigan (sociability)

Panukat ng Ugali at Pagkatao (PUP) --

Pagkamadaldal (social curiousity) ----Agreeableness domain Pagkamaalalahanin (thoughtfulness) Pagkamagalang (a) (respectfulness) Pagkamatulungin (b) (helpfulness) Pagkamapagkumbaba(a) (humility) Pagkamaunawain (capacity for understanding) Pagkamatapat(honesty) ----Conscientiousness domain Pagkaresponsable (a) (responsibleness) Pagkamatiyaga (a) (patience) Pagkamapagsapalaran (a) (risk taking) Pagkamasunurin (a) (obedience) Pagkamasikap (achievement orientation) Pagkamaayos (orderly) --Emotional stability domain Pagkamahinahon (a) (emotional stability) Pagkamaramdamin (a) (sensitiveness) -Pagkamasayahin (cheerfulness) Intellect/openness domain Pagkamatalino (intelligence) --Pagkamalikhain (b)

-Lakas ng Loob (guts/daring) Pagkamahiyain (shyness/ timidity) Ambisyon (ambition) Pagkasunud-sunuran (excessive conformity) -Pagkamagalang (a) (respectfulness) Pagkamatulungin (b) (helpfulness) Pagkamapagkumbaba(a) (humility) --Pagkamapagbigay (generosity) Pagkapalaaway (aggression) Hirap kausapin (coyness/unapproachability) Pagkamapunahin (criticalness) Pagkaresponsable (a) (responsibleness) Pagkamatiyaga (a) (patience) Pagkasigurista (a) (non-risk taking) Tigas ng ulo (a) (stubbornness) --Katipiran (thriftiness) Pagkasalawahan (ficklemindedness) Pagkamapagtimpi (a) (self-control/restraint) Pagkamaramdamin (a) (sensitiveness) Pagkapikon (low tolerance for teasing) Sumpong (mood) -Pagkamausisa (inquisitiveness) Pagkamaalalahanin/Pagkapalaisip (reflective, thoughtful) Pagkamalikhain (b) (creativity)

(creativity) Panukat ng Pakataong Pilipino (PPP) Surgency/extraversion domain Pagkapalakaibigan (sociability) Pagkamadaldal (social curiousity) ----Agreeableness domain Pagkamaalalahanin (thoughtfulness) Pagkamagalang (a) (respectfulness) Pagkamatulungin (b) (helpfulness) Pagkamapagkumbaba(a) (humility) Pagkamaunawain (capacity for understanding) Pagkamatapat(honesty) ----Conscientiousness domain Pagkaresponsable (a) (responsibleness) Pagkamatiyaga (a) (patience) Pagkamapagsapalaran (a) (risk taking) Pagkamasunurin (a) (obedience) Pagkamasikap (achievement orientation) Pagkamaayos (orderly) --Emotional stability domain Pagkamahinahon (a) (emotional stability) Pagkamaramdamin (a) (sensitiveness) --

Philippine Trait Rating Form (PTRF) Pagiging-kalog (gregarious) -Tiwala sa Sarili (self-assured) ---Makakapwa verus Makasarili (concerned for others vs. egotistical) ---------Disiplinado (conscientious) -------Sumpungin (temperamental) ---

Pagkamasayahin (cheerfulness) Intellect/openness domain Pagkamatalino (intelligence) --Pagkamalikhain (b) (creativity) Panukat ng Pakataong Pilipino (PPP) Surgency/extraversion domain Pagkapalakaibigan (sociability) Pagkamadaldal (social curiousity) ---Agreeableness domain Pagkamaalalahanin (thoughtfulness) Pagkamagalang (a) (respectfulness) Pagkamatulungin (b) (helpfulness) Pagkamapagkumbaba(a) (humility) Pagkamaunawain (capacity for understanding) Pagkamatapat(honesty) ----Conscientiousness domain Pagkaresponsable (a) (responsibleness) Pagkamatiyaga (a) (patience) Pagkamapagsapalaran (a) (risk taking) Pagkamasunurin (a) (obedience) Pagkamasikap (achievement orientation) Pagkamaayos (orderly) --Emotional stability domain Pagkamahinahon (a) (emotional stability) Pagkamaramdamin (a)

-Matalino (intellect) ---Student Research Form (SRF) --Social potency --Concern for others ---------Responsibility -------Emotional control --

(sensitiveness) -Pagkamasayahin (cheerfulness) Intellect/openness domain Pagkamatalino (intelligence) --Pagkamalikhain (b) (creativity)

-Affective well-being -Broadmindedness ---

NOTE: Indigenous scales have been organized under the Big Five domains based on conceptual and empirical considerations (see text). (a.) Matched pairs of scales that have been found to be significantly correlated. (b.) Matched pairs of scales that have failed to be significantly correlated. Using the definitions of these traits found in the literature and the definitions and behavioral descriptions given by the respondents, 425 items tapping these dimensions, and written in the Filipino (Tagalog) language, were constructed. For each item, test-takers indicated their degree of agreement (i.e., that the item applied to them) using a 5-point scale that ranged from Lubos na Sumasang-ayon (strongly agree) to Lubos na Di-Sumasang-ayon (strongly disagree). For each dimension, half of the items were positively stated and half were negatively stated (i.e., reverse keyed). The item pool was pretested with a sample of 245 respondents ranging in age from 13 to 81 years. Item analysis was done by computing item-total correlations for the items written for each subscale or dimension. The cutoff criterion of r = .15 was adopted for four subscales, and r = .20 for the remaining subscales. The final number of items retained per subscale depended on which of three subgroups of items, namely (a) the top-ranking 10 items, (b) the top-ranking 12 items, or (c) the topranking 14 items, yielded the highest internal consistency reliability. CURRENT FORMS Subscales and norms. The first edition of the PPP is a 220-item inventory consisting of 19 homogenous subscales, with 10, 12, or 14 items per subscale for all subscales except Pagkamasikap (achievement orientation), which contains 6 items. A 150-item abbreviated version, consisting of 18 eight-item subscales and 1 six-item subscale, has also been developed (see studies by Marwan and by Baduria, Caliaga, Domingo, Gonzales, & Punongbayan, cited in Carlota, 1985). In 1994, a revision of the PPP was undertaken, primarily to respond to frequent comments about the length of the test. The major change involved clustering the subscales into three groups, which correspond to three forms: (a) traits that are salient for interpersonal relations (Porma K/Form K;

e.g., Pagkamaalalahanin [thoughtfulness], Pagkamadaldal [social curiosity]); (b) personal traits (Porma S/Form S; e.g., Pagkamaayos [orderliness], Pagkamahinahon [emotional stability]); and (c) an intelligence-creativity cluster (Porma KS/Form KS; e.g., Pagkamalikhain [creativity], Pagkamapagsapalaran [risk taking], Pagkamatalino [intelligence]). All three forms can be administered to assess all 19 traits, or users can administer the form that includes the dimensions of interest. In addition, the number of items was reduced to 210. The PPP is intended for people age 13 and older. The Filipino version has been translated into English and three other Philippine languages (Cebuano, Ilokano, and Ilonggo). (Although approximately 80 languages are spoken in the Philippines, about 10 can be considered major languages in terms of the number of speakers; Gonzalez & Bautista, 1986.) For the English version, all but 2 of the 19 subscales have been demonstrated to be equivalent using the bilingual test-retest method (Alikpala & de los Reyes, cited in Carlota, 1985). A qualitative analysis of the translation of these two subscales is in progress to improve their equivalence. A preliminary set of norms has been developed based on data provided by the sample who participated during the construction of the inventory. At present, the PPP is used for research (mostly in educational and industrial settings), in assessment for guidance purposes, and for preemployment screening and placement. Reliability and validity. Internal consistency reliabilities for the subscales in the first edition of the PPP ranged from .44 to .94 (M = .72). For the abbreviated edition of the test, reliabilities decreased, as expected, averaging .54. The reliability coefficients for the present version of the PPP range from .56 to .84 (M = .69) for Porma K/Form K, .70 to .89 (M = .81) for Porma S/Form S, and .51 to .94 (M = .72) for Porma KS/Form KS. The subscale intercorrelations are small to moderate in magnitude, averaging from -.09 to +.33 (Carlota, 1985), suggesting that the personality dimensions in the test are relatively distinct. To date, the validity of the PPP has been studied by correlating selected PPP subscales with subscales from the PUP (Enriquez & Guanzon-Lapena, 1997; see next section of this article), subscales from other tests, and selected behavioral criteria. For example, Bondoc et al. (1987), in a sample of high school students, found a modest positive relationship (r = .22, p < .05) between the Pagkamalikhain (creativity) subscale and a creativity test tapping three areas: unusual uses, product improvement, and consequences. Espiritu (1992), in a sample of college students, found selected PPP subscales to correlate in the hypothesized direction with subscales from the Gordon Personal Inventory, including Pagkamapagsapalaran (risk taking) with cautiousness (r = -.67, p <.01), Pagkamatiyaga (patience) with personal relations (r = .52, p < .01), and Pagkaresponsable (responsibility) with vigor (r =. 37, p < .05). De Guzman, dela Paz, Ronquillo, Sta. Agueda, and Vega (1984), also in a sample of college students, found scores on the Pagkapalaibigan (sociability) subscale to be positively correlated (r = .33, p < .05) with respondents' behavioral manifestations of

friendliness while waiting for their turn in an experiment. Musni, Pinto, and Tienzo (1984) and Feliciano and Mercado (cited in Carlota, 1985) found positive, though nonsignificant, correlations between scores on the Pagkamapagsapalaran (risk taking) subscale and behavioral measures of risk-taking in experimental settings. Current work on the PPP includes the following: (a) studies of subscale structure using factor analysis; (b) the development of validity cheeks for socially desirable responding; (c) further translation and translation equivalence studies; (d) test-retest reliability studies and validity studies using other subscales; (e) norming of the test for specific populations, such as high school students and fisher folk; and (f) the development of profiles for special groups, such as drug dependents and highly creative students. THE PANUKAT NG UGALI AT PAGKATAO RATIONALE AND PRELIMINARY VERSIONS With the aim of developing a measure of indigenous Filipino personality concepts, the PUP (Enriquez & Guanzon, 1985; Enriquez & Guanzon-Lapena, 1997), a Filipino-oriented behaviorattitude-trait inventory, was constructed. In developing the PUP, trait definitions, values, and behavioral and attitudinal dimensions were first culled from Filipino proverbs, social science studies, dictionaries, word associations, and interviews with informants, including University of the Philippines students from various regions of the Philippines. Items were then constructed to tap the concepts judged by the test authors to be most salient. Both positively and negatively worded (i.e., reverse-keyed) items were written and a 5-point response scale was used. The first version of the PUP assessed 13 Filipino values, behavioral dimensions, and trait concepts, and included two internal-validity subscales. The first version was pretested with 38 adults from a rural barrio (village) in Baliwag, Bulacan and 696 college students in Manila. In a second version, 12 additional values and trait concepts were added. This second version was administered on a national scale to 3,669 adults belonging to 12 ethnic groups. One early and unique focus in the development of the PUP was an investigation of the feasibility of administering the PUP to rural respondents, many of whom are not literate. This focus is consistent with the view of some proponents of Sikolohiyang Pilipino (Filipino Psychology), who argue that the true psychology of the Filipino will be found among such rural (e.g., non-westernized) respondents. Because the majority of these rural respondents could not read, oral administration of the inventory was done in groups of 7 to 8 respondents, on average (Enriquez & Almonte, 1975; Santiago, 1975). Group administration of the PUP took longer (1 to 1 1/2 hours), not only because oral administration takes more time, but because additional verbal and nonverbal interaction took place among the respondents and researchers. The researchers concluded that this interaction was essential for a full understanding of the items. In addition, oral administration in a group context was recommended

because it takes less time than the standard procedure with respondents who are unfamiliar with test taking, even if they can read and write. Whereas testing guidelines typically recommend, to achieve better standardization, an impersonal (objective) atmosphere in the testing situation, in the rural Philippine setting, establishing pakikipagpalagayang-loob (a level of interaction where there is mutual trust) between the test administrator and the test takers was felt to be essential in getting the information sought by the inventory. In PUP group administration, most respondents record their responses themselves on their respective answer sheets, and the interviewer's assistants are on hand to assist in the recording of the oral responses of those individuals who are unable to record their own responses. With more educated individuals who have experience reading and filling out questionnaires, more standard self-administration procedures have been used with the PUP and considered effective in obtaining genuine and meaningful responses. These early tryouts of the PUP resulted in some item modifications and changes to the verbal anchors of the rating scale. For example, walang masabi (nothing to say) was adopted as a label for the neutral point because a study by Enriquez and Almonte (1975) indicated that it resulted in fewer noncommittal responses among females than did the label alinlangan (uncertain). THE CURRENT FORM Scales and norms. A final version of the PUP (Form A) was constructed based on the results of tryouts with the preliminary versions. PUP Form A is a 160-item inventory consisting of 24 traitvalue-behavior subscales (two scales from the first two versions were eliminated), 2 internal validity subscales, and 19 identifier items. The second column in Table 1 includes a list of the 24 trait subscales, which are composed of an average of 6 items each. The two internal validity scales, which each contain 7 items, are labeled Pagkakaila (denial) and Kaugalian (cultural norms). The Pagkakaila (denial) validity scale, which is analogous to the MMPIs lie scale, consists of items that the respondents are expected to disagree with if they are honest and careful in answering; some respondents may also deny the truth, although not necessarily or consciously to protect their ego. The Kaugalian (cultural norms) validity scale consists of items that tap some standing truths in the Philippine culture as gleaned from previous studies and observations (e.g., "A man should offer his bus seat to a pregnant woman"). If the respondent is providing valid responses, they should score relatively high on this scale, and the scale may also assess the degree of influence that normative Filipino culture has had on the respondent's personality. The 19 identifier items tap societally relevant characteristics (e.g., prayerfulness, accident-proneness, smoking, gambling, attitudes about premarital sex) that can be used as criterion variables in research studies or to generate separate personality profiles for individuals differing on these variables (e.g., a personality profile for prayerful persons can be constructed). For the wait and validity subscales, and for the identifier items, respondents rate their level of agreement with each item on a 5-point bipolar scale (hinding-hindi

[definitely no], hindi [no], walang masabi [nothing to say], totoo [true], totoong-totoo [definitely true]). Some items were reverse-keyed. The PUP Form A has been translated from Tagalog into seven other language versions--English, Bahasa-Indonesia, Bicolano, Cebuano, Ilocano, Ilonggo, and Maranao--with translation equivalence empirically established to date for the Cebuano, Ilocano, and English versions using the bilingual test-retest method (see studies by Alcazar and Torotoro, Jimenez, and Canlas and Guerrero, cited in Enriquez & Guanzon-Lapena, 1997). National norms and separate norms for 12 Philippine ethnic groups are available: Bagobo (n = 205), Bicolano (n = 413), Cebuano (n = 495), Chabacano (n = 152), Ilocano (n = 643), Ilonggo (n = 170), Kalinga (n = 109), Kapampangan (n = 194), Maranao (n = 282), Tagalog (n = 513), Waray (n = 380), and Zambal (n = 29) (Enriquez & Guanzon-Lapena, 1997). In addition to its extensive research use, the PUP Form A is available as a standard test package for use in industrial, clinical, and educational institutions. Reliability, factor structure, and validity. Alfonso et al. (1989) reported test-retest reliabilities for the PUP subscales, over a 2-week interval, that ranged from .25 to .60. Bernardo, Lazo, and Llamas (1987) reported test-retest reliabilities of .42, .69, and .60, for Pagkamalikhaln (creativity), Pagkamaramdamin (sensitiveness), and Pagkamatiyaga (perseverance) scales, respectively. The factor structure of the PUP scales has been examined in a sample of 619 Filipino respondents ages 13 to 65 years old. Factor solutions of 3 to 7 factors were examined (the first seven eigenvalues were 3.69, 2.23, 1.82, 1.59, 1.27, 1.17, and 1.12). The pattern of eigenvalues (i.e., scree test) suggested the need for 4 or 5 factors and the 6- and 7-factor solutions appeared to be overfactored (e.g., they each contained uninterpretable factors defined by only two scales). The 4factor solution was interpretable, but the Pagkamalikhain (creativity) scale did not load well on any factor, so the 5-factor solution was selected. In the 5-factor solution, the scales with the highest (1.401 or greater) positive loadings on the first factor included Pagkamagalang (respectfulness), Kaugalian (cultural norms), Pagkamapagtimpi (restraint), Pagkamatiyaga (perseverance), Pagkaresponsable (responsibility), and Pagkamapagkumbaba (humility). Scales with high negative loadings included Pagkapalaaway (aggression), Sumpong (mood), and Lakas ng Loob (guts/daring). This dimension appears to identify individuals who are well-socialized to Filipino cultural norms and values. Thus, Kaugalian (cultural norms) was selected as a label. For the second factor--with high positive loadings for Pagkamaramdamin (sensitiveness), Pagkamaalalahanin (reflective, thoughtful), Pagkamahiyain (shyness/timidity), Hirap Kausapin (coyness/unapproachability), and Pagkapikon (low tolerance for teasing)--Damdamin (emotionality/sensitivity) was selected as a label. The third factor--with positive loadings for Tigas ang Ulo (stubbornness), Mausisa (inquisitiveness), and Matulungin (helpfulness), and negative loadings for Mahiyain (shyness/timidity) and Katipiran (thriftiness)--is more difficult to interpret, but the scales with the highest loadings suggested a

Pagsasarili (autonomy/self-will) label. For the fourth factor--with high positive loadings for Pagkakaila (denial), Pagkasigurista (non-risk taking), and Pagkasunud-sunurin (excessive conformity), and negative loadings for Pagkasalawahan (ficklemindedness) and Pagkamapagbigay (generosity)-Pagpipigil (constraint/constriction) is a plausible label. For the fifth factor--with positive loadings for Lakas ng Loob (guts/daring), Ambisyon (ambition), and Pagkamalikhian (creativity), and negative loadings for Pagkamapagbigay (generosity) and Pagkasanud-sunurin (excessive conformity)-Extrabersyon (surgency/extraversion) is a possible label. These factor analytic results suggest higher order dimensions that can be compared with those from other personality models. For example, the Big Five personality dimensions (Extraversion/Surgency, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability vs. Neuroticism, and Intellect/Openness to Experience) were derived originally in western cultures, but are increasingly viewed as cultural universals (e.g., McCrae & Costa, 1997). In terms of the Big Five model, the first PUP factor resembles a blend of Agreeableness and Conscientiousness, the second factor resembles Neuroticism, the fourth factor shows some resemblance to Openness to Experience (inversely), and the fifth factor resembles Surgency or Extraversion. Interpretation of the third factor in terms of the Big Five is less clear. Validity evidence for the scales has been reported at length in the PUP Test Manual (Enriquez & Guanzon-Lapena, 1997) and other studies are currently being conducted by social scientists associated with the Philippine Psychology Research and Training House (PPRTH), which provides various psychological services with a Sikolohiynng Pilipino (Filipino Psychology) perspective, including the dissemination and monitoring of research and applications with the PUP. One of the more popular approaches used in validating the PUP scales has been to correlate the PUP scales with theoretically related scales from the PPP (Carlota, 1985). In Table 1, which shows hypothesized relationships among the scales and dimensions discussed in this article, superscripts indicate corresponding PUP and PPP scales for which empirical evidence of significant relationships exist (Enriquez & Guanzon-Lapena, 1997; superscripts signified by the letter "a" indicate conceptually similar pairs of scales that have been found to be significantly correlated; superscripts signified by the letter "b" indicate corresponding pairs of scales that have failed to be significantly correlated; for these latter pairs of scales, further analysis of the scales' content and scale relabelling may be needed). The vast majority of the theoretically related PUP and PPP scales are, in fact, correlated, with the statistically' significant correlations ranging, in absolute value, from .21 to .52. When this has not been the ease, the lack of convergent correlations has generally been explained adequately in terms of differences in scale content or emphasis. For example, the Pagkamalikhain (creativity) scales of the two instruments appear to tap different aspects of Filipino creativity (Cojuangco, Deltette, & Perez, 1992). A TRAIT TAXONOMIC APPROACH

In the above test development projects, the test authors drew on existing literature, cultural informants, and their own judgments to identify the salient Filipino personality concepts to assess. A logical extension of these approaches is to develop a comprehensive taxonomy of all Filipino trait concepts or terms. Structural analyses of self-ratings on these terms can then be used to derive a set of indigenous dimensions that will presumably be quite comprehensive. This lexical or taxonomic approach, which has been used by researchers in a growing number of languages, particularly in Europe, is based on the lexical hypothesis, which assumes that those individual differences in personality that are salient in a culture will be encoded in the natural language (see De Rand; Perugini, Hrebickova & Szarota, 1998 [this issue]). In the taxonomic studies initiated in 1991 by Church, Katigbak, and Reyes (1996), pairs of judges first culled all person-descriptive terms, with good reliability, from a comprehensive Filipino dictionary. The result was 6,900 person-descriptive adjectives (plus nouns, which have not yet been analyzed). Nine Filipino judges then sorted the 6,900 adjectives into various person-descriptive categories based on Angleitner, Ostendorf, and John's (1990) taxonomy (e.g., personality traits, mental abilities, experiential states, roles and statuses, appearance, etc.). In addition, 1,042 Filipino college students (64 to 70 for each term) judged Which of 2,991 potential trait and state terms referred to personality traits. Drawing on terms classified with good consensus by the nine judges as personality traits and mental abilities, plus the judgments of the college students, a master list of 1,297 Filipino trait adjectives was constructed (see Church et al., 1996, for details). Self-ratings have now been obtained in three large samples of Filipino high school and college students using large and representative subsets of trait adjectives. The sample sizes in these studies have ranged from 629 to 1,531, and the number of trait terms has ranged from 280 to 861. Using factor analyses, there have been seven dimensions (factors) that have replicated fairly well across all three samples (for factor matrices, see Church, Reyes, et al., 1997; Church, Katigbak, Reyes, & Grimm, 1997). Thus, these authors have focused on these seven dimensions as providing a rather complete description of Filipino personality, as derived using the lexical approach. The highloading terms on each factor suggested the following English and Filipino (Tagalog) factor labels and abbreviated descriptions (not all Filipino and English labels are direct translations of each other): (a) Concern for Others versus Egotism (Makakapwa vs. Makasarili): other-oriented, compassionate, and thoughtful versus egotistical, condescending, and critical; (b) Conscientious (Disiplinado): disciplined, industrious, systematic, and religious versus lazy, wasteful, and disorganized; (c) SelfAssured (Tiwala sa Sarili): strong-willed, daring, and brave versus weak, cowardly, and nervous; (d) Temperamental (Sumpungin): sulky, ill-tempered, moody, and irritable versus calm and forgiving; (e) Intellect (Matalino): intelligent, brainy, able, competent, and talented; (f) Gregarious (PagigingKalog): gregarious, talkative, cheerful, good-humored, and mischievous versus quiet, serious, and

refined; and (g) Negative Valence/Infrequency (Mga Katangiang Di-danais-nais): extremely negative characteristics that are infrequently endorsed (e.g., useless, drunkard, stupid, cruel). Thus far, the primary focus of these studies has been on developing a comprehensive taxonomy of Filipino trait concepts and on investigating the structure of Filipino personality, rather than on constructing a personality inventory. However, in each of the studies, the authors have constructed trait rating forms (referred to here as the Philippine Trait Rating Form [PTRF]) using the best traitadjective markers of each dimension. These rating forms could be used for assessment purposes. For example, Church, Katigbak, et al. (1997) constructed a 281-item version of the trait rating form by selecting trait adjectives with factor loadings greater than or equal to 1.301 on each of the seven dimensions. College and high school respondents (N = 740) rated how accurately each item described their personality on an 8-point bipolar scale (extremely inaccurate, quite inaccurate, somewhat inaccurate, a little inaccurate, a little accurate, somewhat accurate, quite accurate, and extremely accurate). The number of items and coefficient alpha reliabilities for each scale were as follows: Concerned for Others (90 items, [alpha] = .95), Conscientious (41 items, [alpha] = .89), Gregarious (32 items, [alpha] = .92), Temperamental (18 items, [alpha] = .85), Intellect (20 items, [alpha] = .88), Self-Assured (35 items, [alpha] = .86), Negative Valence/Infrequency (45 items, [alpha] = .91). Most of the validity evidence for these trait-rating forms has been collected in the context of research on the cross-cultural universality versus specificity of personality dimensions. Guthrie and Bennett (1971), in an early Philippine study of the generalizability of the five-factor model (FFM) of personality, had found partial replication of the FFM, but had used only a small number of English markers of these dimensions. Church, Katigbak, et al. (1997) and Church, Reyes, et al. (1997) correlated scores on their Filipino trait-rating forms with measures of the Big Five dimensions. Their studies have consistently demonstrated good one-to-one correspondence between the Philippine Gregariousness, Concerned for Others, Conscientiousness, and Intellect dimensions and Big Five Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Intellect, respectively (most of the convergent corelations were in the .40 to .65 range). The Philippine Temperamentalness and Self-Assurance dimensions, although moderately correlated with Big Five Neuroticism, are multidimensional in terms of the Big Five. The Philippine Negative Valence/ Infrequency dimension has been found to be relatively independent of the Big Five. ASSESSING DIMENSIONS OF HEALTHY PERSONALITY IN FILIPINO COLLEGE STUDENTS Church, Katigbak, and colleagues conducted a series of studies designed to identify and assess Filipino college students' conceptions of good psychological health or healthy personality. In the first study, Church, Katigbak, and Castaneda (1984-1985) used in-depth interviews (n = 24) and openended questionnaires (n = 466) with Filipino college students, and obtained 2,900 personality-

descriptive terms and phrases descriptive of healthy or unhealthy personality. The authors did a content analysis and grouped these phrases into 54 conceptual categories (e,g., respectful behavior, cheerful disposition, effective social relations, broadmindedness, etc.). Church, Katigbak, and Castaneda (1988) found substantial comparability, but also some differences in emphasis, in Filipino college students' healthy personality concepts as elicited by questionnaires written in Tagalog (a native dialect) versus English (a language of instruction). Church and Katigbak (1989, Study 1) also found considerable comparability in Filipino students' conceptual organization of Tagalog and English healthy personality concepts. To derive indigenous items to assess these healthy personality concepts, Filipino college students (N = 466) were each asked to provide four actions, thoughts, or feelings and a relevant situational context that reflected healthy or unhealthy personality, and to label the personality characteristics exemplified by these situational behaviors. These situational-behavior "incidents" were converted to two alternative items (mostly true-false) in the English language and organized under the 54 previously derived content categories to assist in selecting a full range of item content (see Church & Katigbak, 1989, for details). Church and Katigbak (1989) and Katigbak et al. (1996) administered and revised these item sets in two large Filipino samples (N = 692 and 536, respectively). Although the factor-analytic dimensions obtained thus far (and the scales to measure them) are probably best viewed as still evolving, six dimensions seemed fairly replicable across the two samples. The labels assigned to these dimensions and summary descriptions based on the high-loading items are as follows: (a) Responsibility: responsible behavior in school, work, and with others, especially one's elders (e.g., having good study habits, being respectful to parents); (b) Social Potency: expressing confidence and comfort in social situations (e.g., able to express one's views); (c) Emotional Control: ability to control such emotional reactions as anger and irritation; (d) Concern for Others: sharing, helping, and caring for family and friends, (1) including new people one encounters in daily life; (e) Broadmindedness: expressing openness and acceptance of different ideas, individuals, and constructive criticism of oneself; and (f) Affective Well-Being: a general disposition toward feelings of happiness and satisfaction as opposed to loneliness, worry, and confusion. Thus, although this project and the lexical/taxonomic project described above used different approaches, they appear to have resulted in similar indigenous dimensions. Possible correspondences, based on conceptual considerations, include the two Concerned for Others dimensions, Conscientiousness with Responsibility, Temperamentalness with (inverse) Emotional Control, Self-Assurance with Social Potency, Intellect with Broadmindedness, and the cheerful aspect of Gregariousness with Affective Well-Being (see Table 1).

Katigbak et al. (1996) constructed an instrument, referred to as the Student Research Form (SRF), to measure the six dimensions, drawing on the most discriminant markers of each dimension in factor analyses. The number of items and the internal consistency reliabilities of these scales in a sample of 536 Filipino college students were as follows: Responsibility (40 items, [alpha] = .86), Social Potency (35 items, [alpha] = .86), Emotional Control (28 items, [alpha] = .79), Concern for Others (28 items, [alpha] = .78), Broadmindedness (16 items, [alpha] = .77), Affective Well-Being (15 items, [alpha] = .76). When administered in a U.S. sample with some item modifications (N = 647), the reliabilities were generally a bit lower, ranging from .60 (Broadmindedness) to .85 (Social Potency). Again, reflecting the authors' interest in the cross-cultural generalizability of personality dimensions, the primary validity data for the SRF scales are in the form of relationships with the NEO Personality Inventory (McCrae & Costa, 1997), a measure of the Big Five dimensions. Katigbak et al. (1996) used regression and joint factor analyses to demonstrate moderate to strong associations between the Philippine dimensions and the Big Five dimensions in samples of both Filipino (n = 387) and U.S. (n = 610) college students. Specifically, Filipino Affective Well-Being was quite similar (inversely) to Big Five Neuroticism; Emotional Control overlapped with Big Five Neuroticism and secondarily with Agreeableness; Social Potency was moderately related to Big Five Extraversion and (inversely) to Neuroticism; Broadmindedness was modestly, but less discriminantly, related to Big Five Openness to Experience; and Responsibility was strongly related to Big Five Conscientiousness. Concern for Others showed less consistent relationships across cultures; although the item content seems, conceptually, most similar to Big Five Agreeableness, the scale was most consistently correlated with Big Five Extraversion. SUMMARY AND INTEGRATION In all four of these projects, the researchers have sought to address the need for indigenous approaches in the identification and assessment of personality dimensions. The four approaches differ to some extent in their substantive and methodological emphases. For example, the PPP and PUP projects have emphasized the construction, translation, validation, and norming of indigenous measures for both research and applied assessment purposes, whereas the taxonomic and healthy personality projects have emphasized the investigation of indigenous and cross-cultural personality structure. The PPP and healthy personality (SRF) projects emphasized the use of cultural informants, the selection of concepts for the PUP was based somewhat more on the Filipino psychological literature, and the taxonomic project was based on a comprehensive, dictionary-based lexical approach. Given these differences, and the eventual goal of deriving a consensual and comprehensive structure of Filipino personality, it is worth examining the extent to which the dimensions identified by these four approaches converge. Also, cross-cultural psychologists will

ultimately want to know whether these dimensions are relatively culture-specific or Filipino representations of purported culturally universal dimensions, such as the Big Five (McCrae & Costa, 1997). In Table 1, we have organized the dimensions from each approach in two ways. First, we have matched those dimensions from each approach that seem to be similar, largely on the basis of conceptual considerations (to date, only selected PPP and PUP scales have been related to each other empirically; see superscripts in Table 1). Second, to get some sense of how these dimensions might relate to the Big Five domains (i.e., Surgency/Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability vs. Neuroticism, and Intellect/Openness to Experience), we have tentatively organized the indigenous dimensions under these domains, again based largely on conceptual considerations (as summarized earlier, only the lexical [PTRF] and healthy personality [SRF] dimensions have actually been related to the Big Five dimensions empirically). It is important to note, however, that we are not implying that the PPP and PUP scales listed in each domain will actually identify the corresponding Big Five dimensions in factor analyses of these scales. Indeed, in the factor analysis of the PUP, summarized earlier, the five-factor solution showed only partial resemblance to the Big Five dimensions. Rather, our intent is to obtain an initial sense of how these indigenous constructs might resemble each other and aspects of the Big Five dimensions. McCrae, Costa, del Pilar, Rolland, & Parker (1998 [this issue]) have already demonstrated that the Big Five dimensions can be identified in the Philippine context, at least with an imported instrument, using a Filipino version of the NEO-PI-R. The only indigenous dimensions we did not include in Table 1 were the lexical Negative Valence/Infrequency dimension, which has proven to be fairly independent of the Big Five in Philippine data (Church, Reyes, et al., 1997), and the two validity scales from the PUP (although the results of the PUP factor analysis suggest that these two validity dimensions might also have substantive interpretations). Although the placement of some dimensions in Table 1 can be debated, (1) our allocation of dimensions to the Big Five domains suggests two things: (a) Each of the Big Five domains is represented by one or more dimensions from each of the indigenous instruments; and (b) None of the indigenous dimensions is so culturally unique that it is unrecognizable to non-Filipinos, or that it cannot be subsumed, at least conceptually, under the Big Five dimensions. In other words, it appears that the general nature and range of personality concepts identified and assessed by these indigenous approaches can be encompassed by the western version of the Big Five model of personality. This is not to say, however, that there are no cultural differences reflected in the flavor or focus of the dimensions considered most salient to assess in the Philippine context. For example, we suspect that dimensions such as Pagkamadadal (social curiousity), Pagkasunud-sunuran (excessive

conformity), Pagkamagalang (respectfulness), Pagkapikon (low tolerance for teasing), Katipiran (thriftiness), and probably others, are more relevant to emphasize in the Philippine context than in some other cultural contexts because of the nature of interpersonal and authority relations and the economic situation in the Philippines. Furthermore, cultural differences can be expected in the situational behaviors (items) that define comparable personality concepts across cultures (Huang, Church, & Katigbak, 1997). The conceptual matching of dimensions in Table 1 also allows some tentative conclusions about the extent of convergence of the four indigenous approaches. The most obvious difference--the smaller number of lexical (PTRF) and SRF dimensions than PPP or PUP dimensions--is probably the result of methodological differences. Both the lexical and SRF dimensions were based on item-level factor analyses, which produced smaller numbers of independent dimensions. In contrast, the PPP and PUP scales were constructed by selecting those items with better item-total correlations with a priori concepts. It is possible that item-level factor analyses of the PPP and PUP would produce a smaller number of independent dimensions. In any case, the lexical and SRF dimensions appear to be broader in scope, whereas the PPP and PUP make more refined distinctions. For example, most of the Filipino trait names used as labels for the PPP and PUP scales appear in adjective form as markers of the corresponding lexical dimension. For example, the lexical Concerned for Others dimension includes the concepts Pagkamaalalahanin (thoughtfulness), Pagkamagalang (respectfulness), Pagkamatulungin (helpfulness), Pagkamaunawain (capacity for understanding), Pagkamapagkumbaba (humility), Pagkamatapat (honesty), Pagkamapagbigay (generosity), Pagkapalaaway (aggression), and Hirap Kausapin (coyness/unapproachability). The four indigenous instruments also show some differences in their coverage or emphases within the Big Five domains. For example, in the Surgency/Extraversion domain, the PPP scales emphasize the sociability component, whereas the SRF and PUP emphasize the surgency or social potency component (the lexical dimensions [PTRF] assess both components). Within the Agreeableness and Conscientiousness domains, about half of the specific traits assessed by the PPP and PUP overlap. Within the Intellect/Openness domain, differences in coverage recall Peabody and Goldberg's (1989) distinction between controlled versus expressive aspects of intelligence. The lexical (PTRF) dimension emphasizes the controlled aspect, the SRF and PUP dimensions emphasize the expressive aspect (e.g., broadmindedness, inquisitiveness, and creativity), and the PPP emphasizes both the controlled (Pagkamatalino [intelligence]) and expressive (Pagkamalikhain [creativity]) aspects. In summary, the four sets of dimensions appear to cover much the same territory but with some differences in emphasis and in breadth versus refinement. Of course, these apparent similarities and differences will need to be verified empirically (e.g., in joint factor analyses of two or more of the

instruments). Such data could lead to a comprehensive structure of Filipino personality and help to identify possible gaps in the coverage provided by each indigenous instrument. More data relating these indigenous dimensions to hypothesized universal dimensions (e.g., the Big Five) would also be valuable. For example, the new Filipino translation of the NEO-PI-R (McCrae et al., 1998), a measure of the Big Five, could be used for this purpose. One advantage of starting with more indigenous approaches is that personality structures can emerge independent of existing models that are imposed from other cultures. Such indigenous structures can provide especially strong evidence of cross-cultural comparability if they resemble those obtained independently in other cultures. Indigenous approaches also leave open the possibility of identifying culturally unique dimensions (e.g., see Cheung & Leung [this issue]) and may better capture the unique and salient emphases within each culture.

DR. PROSPERO R. COVAR “ANG AMA NG PILIPINOLOHIYA” Kinikilala bilang Ama ng Pilipinolohiya, pangunahin siyang tagapagtaguyod ngPilipinolohiya bilang “sistematikong pag-aaral ng kaisipan, kultura at lipunang Pilipino.” Nagtapos siya ng A.B. Sociology at M.A. Sociology sa University of the Philippines (UP); at Ph.D. Anthropology sa University of Arizona sa Tucson, Arizona, Estados Unidos ng Amerika. Nakapagturo siya sa iba’t-ibang institusyon, kolehiyo, at unibersidad gaya ng UP; Development Academy of the Philippines; Philippine Council for Agricultural Research; Foreign Service Institute; Maryhill School of Theology; Claret Formation Center; at Center for University Ministries. Nakatanggap siya ng iba’t-ibang grant at iskolarsyip sa mga institusyon, kolehiyo at unibersidad sa ibayong dagat tulad ng University of Arizona; Han Nam University, South Korea; at Japan Center for Asian Studies, Osaka at Tokyo, Japan. Naging Kasamang Tagapagtatag siya ng Ugnayang Aghamtao (UGAT); Kasaping Panghabambuhay ng Pambansang Samahan sa Sikolohiyang Pilipino (PSSP); Associate Dean ng Division of Social Sciences, UP College of Arts and Sciences; Corrdinator ng Graduate Program at Associate Dean, UP College of Social Sciences and Philosophy; at Chairperson ng UP Departamento ng Aghamtao (Antropolohiya). Naging may-akda o patnugot siya ng iba’t-ibang aklat at monograf tulad ng The Masagana/Margate System of Planting Rice; Twenty-Eight Barrios; Mechanics of Administration and Supervision of a Development Program; Rural Change in a Philippine Setting; Folk Christianity: A Historic-Anthropological Study of Indigenous Religious Movement in the Philippines; The Iglesia Watawat ng Lahi: An Anthropological Study of a Social Movement in the Philippines; Tatlong Sanaysay; Kaalamang Bayang Dalumat ng Pagkataong Pilipino; Unburdening Philippine Society of Colonialism; Larangan: Seminal Essays on

Philippine Culture; Les Philippins, leur culture, et leur societe; Mga Babasahin sa Agham Panlipunan I; at Religious Acculturation: The Philippine Experience. Bilang pagkilala sa kanyang ambag at kontribusyon sa akademya at lipunang Pilipino, tumanggap siya ng iba’t-ibang parangal tulad ng Mayor’s Award (Honorary Citizen’s Award) mula sa City of Tucson, Arizona; Gawad ng Pagkilala mula sa PSSP; Gawad sa Kagalingan mula sa UP College of Arts and Sciences Alumni Association (UP CASAA); Gawad Lope K. Santos mula sa UP Sentro ng Wikang Filipino; Award of Recognition mula sa Philippine Centennial Commission (PCC); Gawad Pambansang Alagad ni Balagtasmula sa Unyon ng mga Manunulat sa Pilipinas (UMPIL); Gawad Sikolohiyang Pilipino mula sa PSSP; Katibayan ng Pagpapahalaga mula sa National Historical Institute (NHI); at kauna-unahang Outstanding International Alumni Award mula sa University of Arizona.

 Inilathala sa A.M. Navarro at F. Lagbao-Bolante (mga patnugot), Mga Babasahin sa Agham Panlipunang Pilipino: Sikolohiyang Pilipino, Pilipinolohiya at Pantayong Pananaw, Quezon City: C & E Publishing Inc., 2007, 299-300. Tags: dr. covar

PILIPINOLOHIYA* Prospero R. Covar Mula ang katagang Pilipinolohiya sa dalawang salita: Pilipino at lohiya. Batay rito, nangangahulugan ang Pilipinolohiya bilang sistematikong pag-aaral ng F/Pilipinong kaisipan, kultura, at lipunan. Binibigyang-diin sa artikulong ito ang pagka-F/Pilipino bilang bunga ng karanasang F/Pilipino sa pamamagitan ng ilang halimbawa kaugnay ng mga larangan ng kaisipan, kultura, at lipunan. Pinapaksa rin sa pag-aaral na ito ang pagiging kasangkapan ng mga teorya, metodo, at laman ng mga akademikong disiplina sa pagpapalaya ng F/Pilipinong kaisipan, kultura, at lipunan sa Kanluraning edukasyon. Sa huli, tinatalakay sa artikulong ito ang tambalan ng etniko at F/Pilipino, katayuan ng pambansang kabihasnan, kilusan sa pagbuo ng pambansang kabihasnan, at Pilipinolohiya sa Unibersidad ng Pilipinas. Panimula Ito ang kauna-unahang pagkakataon, kaya’t makasaysayan, na tatalakayin ko ang tungkol sa Pilipinolohiya. Ang bagong katagang Pilipinolohiya ay binubuo ng dalawang salita: Pilipino at lohiya. Ang lohiya ay isina-F/Pilipino na salitang Latin,logos, na ang katuturan ay sistematikong pag-aaral. Gaya ng alam ninyo, angPilipino ay maaaring mamamayan ng bansang F/Pilipinas at/o kabilang ng lahing F/Pilipino; o dili kaya’y yaong katawagan sa ating wikang pambansa bago pinalitan ito ng Filipino, ayon sa ating saligang batas o konstitusyon ng 1986/1987. Samakatuwid, ang Pilipinolohiya ay sistematikong pag-aaral ng (1) Pilipinong kaisipan (psyche), (2) Pilipinong kultura, at (3) Pilipinong lipunan. Ang wika at iba’t ibang larangan ng sining: musika, pagguhit, eskultura, sayaw, arkitektura, drama, panitikan, pelikula, pilosopiya, pati na ang relihiyon ay aking ibinibilang sa kultura. Sa kabuuan, ang lahat ng ito: kaisipan, kultura, at lipunan ang pinag-aaralan upang palitawin

ang pagka-F/Pilipino ng bawat larangan. Ang lahat ng larangang nabanggit ay hinahabi at nilililok ng mga F/Pilipino. Kaisipan, Kultura, at Lipunang F/Pilipino Ang bawat F/Pilipinong kaisipan, F/Pilipinong kultura, at F/Pilipinong lipunan ay bunga ng karanasang F/Pilipino. Ang salitang F/Pilipino ay tampok napang-uri sa mga larangang kaisipan, kultura, at lipunan. Mahalaga ang salitang F/Pilipino bilang pang-uri sa ating pagsasabansa at pagiging isang lahi. Ang tao, bilang Homo sapiens, ay may kaisipan, kultura, at lipunan. Ang kaisipan, kultura, at lipunan ay siyang ugat na basihan ng homonisasyon o pagkatao. Subalit iba’t iba ang uri ng pagkatao. Isa na rito ang pagka-F/Pilipino. Ayon sa ating katutubong salawikain o talinghaga, “Madali ang maging tao; mahirap magpakatao.” Sa konteksto ng Pilipinolohiya, ang katutubong salawikain ay maaaring tahasang sabihin na, “Madali ang maging tao; mahirap ang magpaka-F/Pilipino.” Gaya ng aking nabanggit, ang pagka-F/Pilipino ay bunga ng F/Pilipinong karanasan. Ito ay nangangahulugan na ang ating kaisipan, kultura, at lipunan ay binubuo natin ng mga sangkap na katutubo sa atin bilang F/Pilipino. Ang mga sangkap na ito ay maaaring likas din sa ibang kaisipan, kultura, at lipunan ng tao (ugat na basihan ng homonisasyon) subalit ang F/Pilipino bilang pang-uri ng iba’t ibang sangkap ay may sariling hekusyon (porma), estetika, at kaayusan. Ang kaayusang F/Pilipino ng ating kaisipan, kultura, at lipunan ay pananda ng ating pagkabansa at lahi. Ilang Halimbawa Upang maliwanagan natin itong aking pinangangalandakan, babanggit ako ng isang halimbawa ukol sa bawat larangan.

Larangang Kaisipan Ang F/Pilipino ay naghahambing na ang tao ay isang banga. Ito ay may labas, loob, at lalim. Ang F/Pilipino ay naniniwala na ang tao ay binubuo ng katawang lupa at kaluluwa. Ang paniniwalang ito ay likas na, bago pa man dumating ang Kristiyanismo sa F/Pilipinas. Kapag namatay ang tao, ang katawang lupa ay nagiging alabok; ang kaluluwa naman ay yumayao o pumapanaw. Ang pananda sa puntod ay may daglat na S.L.N. na ang ibig sabihin ay “Sumalangit Nawa.” Ang Nawa sa Malayo-Polynesia ay anito o espiritu. Ang kaluluwa ay batis ng buhay. Sa F/Pilipino, ang pagkamatay ay paghihiwalay ng kaluluwa sa katawan; sa Amerikano, ang “brain dead” ay tanda ng pagkamatay. Sa Tagalog, ang ginhawa ay “comfort;” sa Cebuano, ito ay hininga. Ang taong may hininga ay taong may buhay at ginhawa. Sa F/Pilipino, habang ang tao ay may hininga, tibok ng puso, at pulso, maski na ito ay sinintensiyahan ng doktor na “brain dead,” ang tao ay may buhay pa. Dahilan sa paniniwalang ito, ang “cadaver donation” ay hindi kaagad-agad na tinatanggap ng maraming F/Pilipino. Larangan ng Kultura (Halimbawa: Wika) Gaya ng alam ninyo, ang wika ay binubuo ng mga tunog. Ang “voice box”ay maaaring makapagpatunog ng may 600 klase ng tunog subalit ang isang lahi ay pumipili lamang ng 15 hanggang 45 na patinig, katinig at supresegmental upang buuin ang isang wika. Ang imbentaryo ng mga tunog sa isang wika ay ayon sa tambalan ng mga tunog. Halimbawa, kung mayroong /p/ sa wika, malamang na mayroon ding /b/ dito; kung mayroong /t/, malamang mayroon ding /d/ at kung mayroong /k/, malamang mayroon ding /g/. May iba’t iba ring kalidad ang bawat tunog ng mga ito sa iba’t ibang wika. Dahilan dito, ang pagbigkas ni Senador Pimentel sa F/Pilipino ay iba sa kalidad ng aking pagbigkas. Ito’y nagpapatunay na hindi pa matatag ang F/Pilipino bilang wika. Larangan ng Lipunan (Halimbawa: Sambahayan) Ang

karaniwang

konsepto

sa

istruktura

ng

F/Pilipinong

family” (tingnan sa Dayagram 5.1, pahina 70). 7-8 7 8 13-14 13 14 7-6 7-5 8-9 8-10 7-10

mag-asawa tao; tatay ng 13 at 14 maybahay; nanay ng 13 at 14 magkapatid anak na lalake anak na babae magkapatid magbayaw magkapatid maghipag magbilas

7-1/2 anak ng magulang (lalake) 8-3/4 anak ng magulang (babae) 1/2-3/4 magbalae 7-3/4 manugang/biyenan 8-1/2 manugang/biyenan 11/12-13/14-15/16 magpinsan 1/2; 3/4-11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 lolo/lola-apo 7/8-11/12; 15/16 tiyo/tiya-pamangkin

sambahayan

ay“extended

Dayagram 5.1 Balangkas ng Tatlong Salinlahing Kamag-anakang Pilipino Sa “American kinship system,” ang biyenan, manugang, bayaw, hipag, at bilas –– lahat ng ito’y “in-laws.” Sa ating kinship system, partikular ang katawagan sa iba’t ibang kategorya ng relasyon ng pagkakamag-anakan. Walang lipunang makapag-aangkin ng “unibersalismo” ng kinship system. May F/Pilipinong katangian ang istruktura ng ating sambahayan. Ang tatlong piling halimbawa ay nagpapakilala lamang na may sariling katangian ang F/Pilipinong kaisipan, kultura, at lipunan. Ang F/Pilipinong katangian ay mauuri natin sa iba’t ibang larangan ng sining at galaw ng ating pagkabansa at pagkalahi.

Ang Pilipinolohiya at Akademikong Disiplina Ang mga akademikong disiplina ay nagsimula sa ating bansa nang dumating ang mga Kastila sa pamamagitan ng pagtatayo ng mga paaralang Kastila. Ang paaaralang Kanluranin ay yumabong sa panahon ng mga Amerikano. Masasabi natin na hanggang sa kasalukuyan, ang ating sistemang pangedukasyon ay hindi lamang Kanluranin kundi kolonyal. Pinaaasa tayo ng Kanluraning edukasyon na ito’y magpapalaya sa ating kaisipan at pangkabuhayang pamumuhay subalit ang kabaligtaran ang nangyari –– naging alipin tayo ng Kanluraning pag-iisip at ekonomiya. Ang ating kaisipan, kultura, at lipunan ay mistulang Kanluranin samantalang tayo’y taga-Silangan. Ang ating kategoryang ginagamit sa pag-unawa ng ating kapaligiran ay mga hiram at alay ng mga akademikong disiplina. Nasilaw at nabighani tayo ng pananaw ng “unibersalismo.” Hinamak at inalipusta ang ating katutubong pananaw bilang“ethnic,” “parochial,” at “provincial.” Sinong hindi matitigatig sa ganitong insulto? Noong una, lubos ang aking paniniwala na ang akademikong disiplina ay nagdudulot ng linaw sa ating kultura. Subalit sa aking pagmumuni-muni, natanto ko na inaakit tayo ng akademikong disiplinang ating kinabibilangan na mag-ambag ng teorya, metodo, at laman ng mga disiplina at hindi upang ilantad ang F/Pilipinong kaisipan, kultura, at lipunan. Ang kaisipan, kultura, at lipunan sa konteksto ng mga disiplina ay panggatong lamang sa kapakanan at pagpapayabong ng disiplina ngunit hindi ang pagpapayabong ng F/Pilipinong kaisipan, kultura, at lipunan. Sa Pilipinolohiya, ang mga akademikong disiplina ay siyang kasangkapan upang mapalaya ang F/Pilipinong kaisipan, kultura, at lipunan at hindi ang kabaligtaran nito. Teorya at Pilipinolohiya Ang teorya sa Pilipinolohiya ay sistematikong balangkas upang magbigay-liwanag sa pag-unawa ng F/Pilipinong kaisipan, kultura, at lipunan. Tahasang angpsychoanalysis ni Freud ay hindi tumpak upang magbigay-liwanag sa F/Pilipinong kaisipan at pag-uugali. Ang “Indo-European-based theory in linguistics” ay hindi dapat gamitin sa pag-aanalisa ng mga wikang Malayo-Polynesian, at kabilang na rito ang F/Pilipino. Kaya nga’t ang katawagan sa ey (a), bi (b), si (c) sa ating alfabeto ay hindi bagay para sa ating wika na may tunog na a, ba, ka, da, at iba pa. Ang uri ng ating lipunan ay hindi akma bilang kapitalismo, demokratiko, at republiko. Ang lahat ng ito’y nagpapatingkad lamang sa pangangailangan natin na bumalangkas ng sariling teorya na lapat sa ating kaisipan, kultura, at lipunan ayon sa ating karanasan at pananaw. Metodo sa Pilipinolohiya May paalaala sa sayantipikong lapit na ang metodo ay dapat angkop at akma sa datos. Samakatuwid, ang datos ay siyang nagdidikta ng metodo, hindi ang metodo ang naghahanap ng datos; hindi ang datos ang kasangkapan ng metodo. Dapat tayo’y maging malikhain sa pag-imbento ng metodo sa Pilipinolohiya gaya ng Iskala ng Pananaliksik nina Enriquez at Santiago at yaong aking binubuong Tambalang Lapit. Laman ng Pilipinolohiya Tatlong malalaking antas ng karunungan ang nilalaman ng Pilipinolohiya,i.e., kaisipan, kultura, at lipunan (tingnan ang Dayagram 5.2, pahina 73). May isang bagay na pang-uri sa tatlong ito –– ang lahat ng ito ay bunga ng F/Pilipinong pag-iisip at karanasan. Ang F/Pilipinong pag-iisip at karanasan ay may katangiang kaayusan na dapat lumitaw sa F/Pilipinong pag-aaral.

Tambalan ng Etniko at F/Pilipinong Pag-iisip at Karanasan Noong Nobyembre 1989, muli kaming nagkita ni Propesor Niels Mulder ng Pamantasan ng Bielefeld, Germany sa University of the Philippines (UP) FacultyCenter. Nag-usap kami tungkol sa katayuan ng kaisipan, kultura, at lipunan. Si Prop. Mulder ay nababahala sa kawalan ng “national discourse” at “national consciousness” ng mga F/Pilipino. Sa madaling sabi, aniya, ang F/Pilipino ay

walang “great traditions,” subalit ito’y may “shared culture.” Dayagram 5.2 Balangkas ng Pambansang Kaisipan, Kultura, at Lipunang Pilipino

Ipinaliwanag ko sa kanya na ang modelo ng “Great Traditions” at “Little Traditions” ay hango sa mga lipunang may “Great Civilization.” Ito’y may“culture center” na pinagmumulan ng mataas na kultura at “culture area” kung saan ang mataas na kultura ay kumakalat. Sa ganitong pangyayari, ang kalidad ng kultura sa sentro ay mas mataas kaysa baybayin (periphery). Sa F/Pilipinas ay walang masasabing sentro ng kultura sapagkat ang sentrong kultura ay nagbubuhat sa pamayanang kultural na siyang batis ng pambansang kultura. Ang pambansang kultura ay binubuo sa kasalukuyan ng iba’t ibang daloy at batis mula sa iba’t ibang pamayanan, kasama na rin dito ang mga elementong kultural na buhat sa banyagang pamayanan. Kaya nga’t hindi angkop na gamitin ang modelong “Great and Little Traditions” sa pag-unawa ng F/Pilipinong kultura sapagkat ito’y wala sa karanasang F/Pilipino. Ang ating karanasan ay pagbubuo ng F/Pilipinong kultura buhat sa iba’t ibang daloy at batis na mayroong katangiang kaayusan. Ang kabuuan nito ay tatawagin nating “pambansang kultura ng F/Pilipino” –– hindi suma o total ng lahat ng daloy at batis, kundi yaong hawig at anyo ng pinagyamang kaisipan, kultura, at lipunan –– samakatuwid, sibilisasyon o kabihasnan. Katayuan ng Pambansang Kabihasnan Noong nakaraang taon, nagbigay si Dr. Zeus Salazar ng professorial chair lecture tungkol sa tinatawag niyang “pantayong pananaw sa kasaysayan.” Binigyan niya ako ng pagkakataong magkomentaryo sa kanyang papel. Binanggit ko na hindi ayon sa kategorya ng panghalip-panao ang diwa ng pantayong pananaw dahilan sa mga sumusunod (tingnan ang Figura 5.3): Kung ako ay Pilipino at ikaw ay Hapon, ako at ikaw ay tayo. Kung ikaw ay Hapon at siya ay Instik, ikaw at siya ay kayo. Ako at siya, hindi kasama ang ikaw, ay kami. Subalit ako, ikaw, at siya –– ang lahat ay tayo.

Dayagram 5.3 Relasyon ng mga Panghalip Panao Ang pantayong pananaw ay nagsisimula sa ako, hindi sa ikaw at siya. Sa isahan at maramihan, ang kaayusan ay hindi nagbabago.

Lumalabas na ang pantayong pananaw ay lokal na unibersalismong pananaw. Sa kontekstong ito, ang pantayong pananaw ay pananaw F/Pilipino, i.e., uniberso ng pambansang F/Pilipino. Ang buod ng kay Dr. Salazar na “pantayong pananaw” ay ito –– ang sibilisasyong F/Pilipino ay bunga ng karanasang F/Pilipino –– sa damdamin, pag-iisip, kilos, at gawa, na walang pakialam sa kung ano ang sasabihin ng dayuhan at banyaga; hindi “self-conscious,” kasi matibay ang posisyon at paninindigan. Ang dating Philippine Studies ay walang pantayong pananaw. Ito’y nakatuon sa pananaw ng mga banyaga o sa pananaw ng mga naturingang F/Pilipino na nanaliksik ayon din sa pananaw ng mga banyaga upang sila’y mapag-usapan at may pagkaabalahan. Ito ay punto de bista ng Philippine Studies Association –– isang asosasyon ng mga so-called Philippine specialists mula sa Estados Unidos,Japan, Australia, at iba pang bansa, gayundin sa F/Pilipinas. Ang Pilipinolohiya na may katutubong kamulatan at kamalayan ay nakaugat sa pananaw ng mga F/Pilipino upang makabuo ng pambansang kabihasnan at hindi lamang upang pag-aralan ang mga nangyayari sa F/Pilipino at sa bansa. Ang dalubhasa sa Pilipinolohiya, i.e., Pilipinohista (Philippinist) ay may pananagutan sa bansang F/Pilipino na hindi masasakyan ng mga banyaga. Nag-aatubili ako sa pagtanggap na may banyagang mas F/Pilipino pa sa katutubong F/Pilipino. Ang maka-F/Pilipino o makabayan ay nagtatangkang maging F/Pilipino o umiibig sa bayan. Ang tunay na F/Pilipino, ito’y bahagi na ng kanyang paninindigan, ibig sabihin ay nasa dugo at laman. Kilusan sa Pagbuo ng Pambansang Kabihasnan May namumuong kilusan (kahiman watak-watak) sa pagbuo ng pambansang kabihasnang F/Pilipino kahit na nga “low priority” ang pagpapaunlad ng kultura sa bansa. Una sa mga ito ay ang paggamit ng F/Pilipino bilang panturong wika at wikang pangkomunikasyon. Ang Sikolohiyang Pilipino ay nangunguna sa agham panlipunan sa pagtahak ng landasing F/Pilipino. Sa pagguhit (painting), ang Shell Art Competition ay muling inilunsad. Ang mga pintor ay naghahanap ng F/Pilipinong medium, theme, at craftsmanship. Sa panitikan at drama, ang paggamit ng F/Pilipino ay sumisigla, hindi lamang sa adaptation, translation, pati na orihinal. Sa relihiyon, Pilipinisasyon ng Teolohiya ang nagiging uso sa mgareligious. Ang “spirit possession” ngayon ay langkap, sanib, at sapi na. Pati ang medalyang anting-anting ay kanasihan din ng F/Pilipinong semiotika. Sa pagkain, pananamit, mga laro, at pelikula, ang wikang F/Pilipino ay umiigting na rin. Ang Dyaryo Pilipino ay nagkakaroon na rin ng “national stature.” Ang lahat ng ito ay nagsasaad na narito na ang Pilipinolohiya. Pilipinolohiya sa Unibersidad ng Pilipinas Sa Unibersidad ng Pilipinas (UP), ang Pilipinolohiya ay may tatlong antas: BA, MA, at Ph.D. Sa Ph.D., tatlong yunit sa UP ang may programa sa Pilipinolohiya –– Dalubhasaan sa Agham Panlipunan at Pilosopiya, Kolehiyo ng Arte at Literatura, at Sentrong Asyano. Mula nang itatag ang Programa bandang 1974 hanggang 1990, mahigit sa 50 na ang nakapagtapos ng Ph.D. Ito marahil ang programa sa buong UP na may pinakamaraming Ph.D. graduate sa loob ng 15 taon.

Noong 1989, pinasimulan ang paggamit ng salitang Pilipinolohiya sa halip na “Philippine Studies.” Hangga’t maaari, Pilipino ang ginagamit na wika sa mga kurso sa Pilipinolohiya, pati na rin sa pagsulat ng disertasyon. Konklusyon Sa aking palagay, ang pananaw na nakasanib sa Pilipinolohiya ang siyang magbibigay ng kaganapan sa F/Pilipinong kabihasnan. Ito ang magpapalaya sa ating mga F/Pilipino. Harinawa na ang Unibersidad ng Pilipinas ang maging pambansang pamantasan sa Pilipinolohiya.

* Inilathala sa V.V. Bautista at R. Pe-Pua (mga patnugot), Pilipinolohiya: Kasaysayan, Pilosopiya at Pananaliksik, Manila: Kalikasan Press, 1991, 37-45.

KAALAMANG BAYANG DALUMAT NG PAGKATAONG PILIPINO Panimula Hangarin ng disiplinang antropolohiya na pag-aralan ang likas na tao, kasama na rito ang pagdalumat ng pagkataong Pilipino. Di gaya ng siyensya na may pretensyong panukat na unibersal, ang gagamitin kong parametro ay kaalamang bayang dalumat. Kaya’t ang pagkataong Pilipino ay tatangkain kong isalarawan ayon sa konteksto ng kulturang Pilipino. Sa ganitong ehersisyo, ang mapapala ay pag-uugnay-ugnay ng mga pangyayaring nagtatalaban sa isang larangan. Ang pagkataong Pilipino at ang mga salik nito. Pagkatao at Katauhan May kasabihan ang mga Pilipino na: “Madali ang maging tao; mahirap magpakatao.” Ang pagiging tao ay isang prosesong bayolohikal. Ang pagpapakatao ay naaayon naman sa prosesong kultural. Sa papel na ito, ang proseong kultural ang bibigyang diin. Ang salitang “tao” ay pangngalan. Ito ay tumatanggap ng iba’t-ibang panlapi upang makapagsaad ng iba’t-ibang kahulugan. Halimbawa:maka-tao,t-um-ao, tau-han. Ayon kay Ramos, “Ang ka-han kapag inilapi sa isang salitang-ugat ay nagpapahayag ng kaisipang basal (abstract).” Kung gayon, ang ka-tau-han ay nangangahulugan ng “kabasalan ng diwang taglay ng salitang-ugat,” i.e., tao. Sa Ingles, ang salin ko ng katauhan ay “humanity.” Ayon kay Miranda, “humanhood.” Dahilan dito, ang salitang “pagkatao” ay angkop na konsepto bilang “personhood” o pagiging taong Pilipino. Ayon kay Santiago at Tiangco, ang pagka- “ay tumutukoy sa kalikasan ng tao, hayop o bagay.” Ganito ang gamit ng pagka- sa pariralang “pagkataong Pilipino,” i.e., Pilipinong tao. Metapora ng Katawan at Banga

Sa Bibliyang paniniwala, ang tao ay nagmula sa isang kipil na putik, hiningahan ng Maykapal at naging si Adan. Ito ay palasak na pananampalatayang Kristiyano. Sa panitikan, ang tao ay parang luwad na maaaring gawing iba;t-ibang hugis at anyo. May kaugalian naman tungkol sa paglilibing na ang nagsisidalo ay kumukuha ng isang dakot na lupa at inihahagis sa ibabaw ng kabaong ng taong namatay bilang pagkilala sa pananaw na “sa alabok ka nagmula at sa alabok ka rin babalik.” Ang pag-aalay ng bulaklak sa kabaong habang ito’y ibinababa sa puntod ay naging kaugalian na rin. Ang bulaklak ay nagiging lupa na rin. Sa makatotohanang pangungusap, sa putik nagbuhat ang banga, sa matalinhagang pangungusap naman, ang tao ay sa putik rin naman nagmula. Ang katawan ng tao ay parang isang banga. Ang banga ay may labas, loob at ilalim. Gayundin naman ang kaluluwa ng tao. Sisidlan na banga. Ang laman nito ay kaluluwa. Sa ilalim tumatahan ang kaluluwa, kaniig

ng budhi. Eskima Blg. 1.0

Istruktura ng Pagkataong Pilipino Ang Eskima Blg. 1.0 ay isa lamang paraan ng pagsasalarawan. Ang pag-uugnay ng iba’tibang konsepto ay isang pagtatangka na makabuo ng isang sistema o teorya tungkol sa pagkataong Pilipino. Labas, Loob at Lalim Tambalang lapit ang pamamaraan sa pagdalumat ng pagkataong Pilipino: kung may labas, may loob; kung may kaluluwa, may budhi. Kaipala, nahahayag sa mahahalagang bahagi n gating katawan ang labas, loob at lalim, gaya ng mga sumusunod na tambalan na matatagpuan sa eskima 2.0. Labas mukha dibdib tiyan sikmura

Loob isipan puso bituka atay Lalim

kaluluwa

budhi Eskima Blg. 2.0

Tambalang Labas, Loob at Lalim

Ang tambalang lapit ang nagbuyo sa akin na saliksikin ang konsepto ng pagkataong panlabas. Sumulat ako ng isang patulang sanaysay na may pamagat na “Mukha.” Ito ay isa sa tatlong sanaysay na kusang kinomisyon ng CulturalCenter of the Philippines para sa kanilang exhibit na ang pamagat ay “Pansariling Likha (Art in Private Spaces).” Sa madaling sabi, sa mukha nasasalamin ang samu’t-saring karanasan. Salamin ang mukha ng damdami’t kalooban ng pagkataong nililok ng kulturang karanasan. Ang loob ang pinag-ukulan ng di iilang pag-aaral. Una rito si Kaut na pinag-ukulan ng pansin ang konsepto ng utang-na-loob sa isang bayan ng Bulakan. Sinundan ito ng pag-aaral nina Lynch at Hollnsteiner na ginawang isa sa tatlong pangunahing pagpapahalaga ang pagtanaw ng utang-na-loob para sa mga Pilipino. Si Ileto sa kanyang aklat na Pasyon and Revolution ay tiningnan ang lakas ng loob sa konteksto ng kasaysayan. Si De Mesa nama’y pinag-aralan ang teolohiya-ang loob ng Diyos sa tao at ng tao sa Diyos. Sinaliksik ni Salazar ang konsepto ng loob at labas, at si Enriquez naman, ang yaman ng kalooban. Si Alejo ay nagsabi na ang loob ay may laman, lalim at lawak. Malalim at malawak ang pinag-uugatan ng konseptong loob. Mula sa salitang-ugat na “loob,” nakagagawa tayo ng mga salitang: kalooban ng Diyos, saloobin, kaloob, looban, magandang loob, atbp. Sa tesis ni Alejo ay mayroon siyang inilakip na listahan mula sa Diccionario ni Sofronio Calderon na apat na pahina tungkol sa gamit ng loob na siya mismo ay may malayang pagtitipon na ang dami ay isang daan at tatlumpu’t walo. Si Mercado naman ay klinasipay ang mga konseptong may kaugnayan sa loob sa limang kategorya: intelektwal, emosyonal, bolisyunal, etikal at sari-sari. Sa ganang akin, ang konsepto ng loob ay nagiging malinaw kung ito’y ilalarawan sa konteksto ng sisidlan. Ang sisidlan ay may loob at labas. Ang loob ay nilalagyan ng laman. Isang libo’t isang laksa ang maaaring ilaman sa loob. Gayundin ang sa ating loob at kalooban. Pagtatakda ng mga Bahagi ng Katawan Apat na pares ng mga bahagi ng katawan ang nagtatakda ng pagkataong Pilipino. Ang tambalan ay nabuo ayon sa konseptong tambalan ng labas at loob. Pansinin na may kanyakanyang katangiang gamit ang bawat bahagi ng katawan. Nangangailangan pa ito ng higit na malalim na pagdudukal. Babanggit lamang ako ng ilang halimbawa. Mukha at Isipan

Bawat bahagi ng mukha ay may sari-sariling kakanyahan: noo, kilay, pilik-mata, mata, ilong, bibig, labi, dila, ngipin, nguso, baba at pisngi. Tingan natin ang ilang matalinhagang kakanyahan ng bawat isa: Malapad ang noo Salubong ang kilay

matalino matapang, galit, mainitin ang ulo

Tingin ng mata ay iba’t-ibang pakahulugan gaya ng: Malagkit ang tingin Nakatutunaw na tingin Matangos ang ilong Maduming bibig Ngiping nagngangalit

may pag-ibig na ipinararating tinging may tangka Magara, magilas, ilong Kastila masamang magsalita nanggigigil

Ang nguso ay labing gamit na panturo. Hin di taos sa puso ang paggawa ng bagay ng isang taong panguso-nguso. Sa pisngi idinadampi ang halik; sa pisngi ipinaaabot ang mag-asawang sampal. Sa kabuuan, may sariling kakanyahan ang mukha gaya halimbawa ng hayag na mukha na walang itinatago o dili kaya ay walang mukhang ipakita - kahiya-hiya. Masasabi natin na ang mukhang nangungusap ng sariling pagkatao ayon sa kapahayagan ng iba’t-ibang bahagi ng mukha. Ang isipan na katambal ng mukha ang siya ko naming pag-uukulan ng pansin. Nagkaugnay sa utak ang isipan. Ang isip ang pinagmumulan diwa, kamalayan, ulirat, talino at bait. Sa pag-iisip din nakasalalay ang pag-unawa. Mayroon tayong mga parirala gaya ng mga sumusunod: mataas mag-isip, walang malay, walang bait, walang ulirat, matalino, bukas ang kamalayan, atbp. Ang pag-iisip ng tao ay hindi lamang nahahayag sa kanyang intension kundi lalong higit sa kanyang pagkilos o gawa. Ang kilos ng isang tao ay masasabi nating pino, magaspang, garapal, magaslaw, makatao, ka-Diyos at makabayan. Ang mga ito ay kapahayagan din ng pagkatao. Dibdib at Puso Ang pag-aasawa sa mga Pilipino ay tinutukoy na pag-iisang dibdib at hindi pag-iisang puso. Marahil ang pag-aasawa ay dapat dibdiban at hindi isang biro. Maliban sa dibdiban, mayroon din tayong gingamit na maluwag ang dibdib, masikip ang dibdib at mababang dibdib. Ang mababang dibdib ay walang kinalaman sa malaki ang hinaharap. Ang dibdib ay kaugnay ng mga salitang “damdam” at “dama.” Ang dibdib ang pandama ng damdamin. Tiyan at Bituka Kakaunti ang may talinhaga na may kaugnayan sa tiyan at bituka. Ang pariralang “malaki ang tiyan” ay maaaring mangahulugang: busog, matakaw, may bulate sa tiyan o

mapagkamkam. Ang katambal nito na “maliit o walang tiyan” ay maaaring: gutom, mahirap o kulang sa kain. Ang “bitukang sala-salabid” naman ay nangangahulugang buhay na punung-puno ng balakid. Ito’y naglalarawan ng kalagayan ng pagkatao. Sikmura at Atay Ang mga pariralang kaugnay sa sikmura ay mga ito: masama, malakas, maghapdi o maasim. Ang sikmurang masama ay nangangahulugang di-mabuting pakiramdam. Ang mahapding sikmura o nangangasim ay ngangahulugang hindi matanggap ang isang bagay. Malakas ang sikmura ng isang tao kung natatanggap niya ang lahat, lalo na yaong karima-rimarim na bagay o pangyayari. Ang “hindi ko ma-take” ay isang ekspresyon ng mga kabataan na ang ibig sabihin ay hindi matanggap subalit ang kahulugan nito’y mababaw kaysa hindi ko masikmura. Sa kabuuan, ang sikmura ay may kinalaman sa pagduwal o pagsuka o di-matanggap ng sikmura ang pagkaing nilulon. Ang sikmura ay bahagi ng katawan na ginagamit na pagtantiya ng damdamin, pag-iisip, kilos at gawa ng ibang tao. Sa katutubong pamayanan, ang atay ay ginagamit na panawas ng mambubunong upang matamo ang magiging kapalran ng isang desisyon gaya halimbawa kung itutuloy ang pagdaraos ng pishit o pangangaso. Ito ay may kinalaman sa kulay ng atay. Ang madilaw na atay ay nangangahulugan na magiging matagumpay ang isasagawang balak; ang maitim na atay ay sakuna ang susuungin. Gayundin, ang taong maitim ang atay ay walang pakundangan sa kanyang ginagawa. Sa aking palagay, ang paglalarawan ng pagkataong Pilipino bilang banga na may labas at loob ay nagsimula sa Niyolitikong Panahon. Tampok dito ang paglilok ng lalagyang banga. Segun sa namamayaning kultura ang katawan ng tao ay inihahambing bilang isang lalagyan. Ang katawan bilang lalagyan ay nilamanan ng kaluluwa at budhi. Ito ang aking isinasaalang-alang sa mga sumusunod na pagtalakay. Kaluluwa at Budhi Ayon sa Tesauro ni Panganiban, ang salitang “kaluluwa,” “ikaruruwa” o “kararua” ay palasak sa iba’t-ibang wikang katutubo sa Pilipinas-Tag.kaluluwa;Bk.Hlg.Sl.kalag;Kpm.kaladua; Ibg.ikarwa;karurua;Ilk.kararua; Mar.aroak; Png.kamarerwa; Ng.kaelwa; Al. Png.kadua. Sa pag-aaral ni Manuel, ang mga salitang “kaluluwa,” “ikaruruwa” o “inikaduwa” ay buhat sa salitang “duwa.” “Two”, dahilan sa dalawa ang kalagayan nito; una ay ang tambalan ng kaluluwa at katawan, at ang pangalawa ay ang pansariling kalagayan ng kaluluwa. Sa pag-aaral naman ni Salazar, ang kaluluwa ay batis ng buhay at ginhawa. Ang Cebuanong salitang “ginhawa” ay “hininga” ang salin sa tagalong. Ang mga Pilipino ay naniniwala na ang pagkamatay ng isang tao ay dahilan ng pagkalagot ng kanyang hininga.

Kung namamatay ang tao, ang kanyang kaluluwa ay yumayao o pumapanaw. Ang kaluluwa ay kumakalag (Bk. Hlg. Sl. kalag) sa katawan ng tao. Sa sementeryo ay madalas nating Makita na ang bansag ay “Sumalangit Nawa.” Ang “nawa” sa Malayo-Polynesia ay “nawa” sa lumang tagalong na tumutukoy sa espiritu o kaluluwa. Kung gayon, ang tahasang kahulugan ng SLN ay “ang nawa, kalag, kaluluwa, anito, esppiritu, atbp., sana ay sumalangit.” Ang salitang “yawa” sa Cebuano ay masamang uri ng kaluluwa. Ang kaluluwa ng tao, kapag pumanaw, ay nagiging anito. Dalawang uri ng anito; (1) ang anito n gating ninuno at (2) ang anitong nagbabantay sa ating kalikasan. Sa Benguet at mayroong silang tinatawag na “puun ti balay” (ancestral house). Ito ang pinalalagakan ng mga kagamitan ng yumao. Dito rin naninirahan ang anito ng ating mga ninuno. Ang puun ti balay ay mayroon ding iniingatang “chilos.” Ito’y uri ng ritwal na dapat gampanan pana-panahon ng mga kamag-anakan ng yumao. Upang maipatupad ito, may lupang ipinamana na ang kita ay ginugugol sa paghahanda taun-taon. Ang pag-alis ng kaluluwa sa katawan ng tao ay maaaring pansamantala lamang, ito’y siyang nagdudulot ng pagkaksakit o pagkawala ng malay o bait. Puwede ring maglagalag ang kaluluwa kung natutulog ang tao sa pamamagitan ng panaginip o kung ito’y “In a state of trance” sa pag-awit ng epiko. Sa pansamantalang pagkawala ng kaluluwa sa katawan ng tao, maaaring ang isang katawan ay mapasukan ng ibang kaluluwa. Ang ganitong phenomenon ay tinaguriang langkap, lapi, sanib. Ang kaluluwa na sumasanib o lumalangkap ay siyang nagpapagalaw ng tao. Ang katawang ng tao ay nagiging kasangkapan ng kaluluwang lumalangkap o sumasapi. Tingnan ang mga sumusunod na babasahin: Abrera, Lieban, Tan at Terada. Noong unang panahom at magpahanggang ngayon, ang babaylan, baglan, katalonan, mambunong at talaytayan ang nakapagaalis ng langkap o sapi sa papamagitan ng karapatang ritwal gaya ng tawas, pagbuhos ng kumukulong tubig sa katawan ng sinasapian na hindi ito nalalapnusan o pag-ipit ng pakpak ng manok sa Pagitan ng daliri nng sinasapian, nagagalwa o linalangkapan. Ibinabalik nila ang dating kaluluwa ng may katawan. Ang pagkataong Pilipino sa konteksto sa kaluluwa ay may ilang tambalang kategorya: (1) maganda/pangit na kaluluwa, (2) matuwid/haling na kaluluwa at (3) dalisay/maitim na kaluluwa. Ang budhi ay katambal ng kaluluwa. Kung ang kaluluwa ay siyang nagpapagalaw ng buhay, ang budhi naman ay siyang humuhusga sa buhay na naganap na. Ang budhi ay nag-uusig a siya ring umuukit. Ang pagsisisi at paghingi ng kapatawaran, pati na rin ang pagbabayad ng anumang masamang nagawa, ang maaaring magpatigil sa budhi sa pagpapatuloy ng panguusig at pang-uukilkil nito. Marahil, ito ang kalagayan ng mga kaluluwang ligaw, ligalig at lagalag kaya hindi matahimik hanggang hindi makapagparamdam at ipinagdarasal.

Sa aking hinuha, ang budi ay hindi kaparis ng konsensiya, may sapantaha akong ito’y bagong salita sa ating wika at kamalayan. Sa aking palagay, ang lokasyon ng konsensiya ay malapit sa kaisipan. Ito ang nagtutulak sa paggwa ng mabuti o masama at nag-uusig kung masama ang nagawa. Ang lokasyon ng budhi, katulad ng kaluluwa, ay laganap sa buong katauhan ng pagkatao, sa ilalim o kaibuturan. Tuladd ng loob, hindi natin maapuhap o maipuwesto ang mga ito sap arte n gating katawan. Tatlong Persona Ang katalusan ng aking pag-aaral tungkol sa pagkataong Pilipino, i.e., talaban ng loob at labas at ng budhi at kaluluwa, ay pinatotohanan ng aking pag-aaral sa Retablo ng paniniwala. Sa doktrina ng Simbahang Kristiana, ang Tres Persona ay binubuo ng Dios Ama, Anakk at Espiritu Santo. Kaipala ito ay hindi nauunawan ng maraming tao. Di- iilan ang nagtakda na ito ay intindihin. Isa rito ang pagtanggap ng ng Santicima Trinidad bilang konsistoryo ng tatlong persona. Ang tatlong persona ay naging Dios Ama, Dios Ina at Dios Anak. Naging bayolohikal ang pinag-uugatan ng Santicima Trinidad. Dahilan sa sila ay persona, ang bawat persona sa kanila ay mayroong katawan at kaluluwa. Katutubong Teolohiya Ang Santicima Trinidad, ayon sa paniniwala o mito, ay isang konsistoryo. Ang konsistoryo ay nagdedesisyon sa mga mahahalagang gawain gaya ng paglalang ng mundo o paglalang ng tao sa mundo. Konsistoryo rin ang nagdesisiyon sa kung bakit ang Dios Ama, Dios Anak at Dios Ina ang naghahari sa sanlibutan ayon sa kani-kanilang kapanahunan. Ang unang panahon ay kinikilalang paghahari sa mundo ng Dios Ama sa pamamagitan ng Banal na Tinig. Sumusunod ang Dios Anak na nagligatas sa sangkatauhan sa pamamagitan ng pagkakatawang tao at pagkabayubay sa krus. Dahil sa ngayon naman ay panahon ng women’s libearation kaya dapat lamang na ang maghari ang Dios Ina. Ang panahon ng Dios Ina ay ang pinakahuling pagkakataon upang magbalik-loob ang sangkatauhan ula kay Abraham. Subalit sa Pilipinas, pa rin dumadting ang tatlong kadiosan ng Santicima Trinidad sa pamamagitan ng kanikanilang banal na espiritu. Ang pamamaraang ginagamit nila sa ngayon ay ang “spirit possesion.” Kaya maraming pinagpalang lalaki at babae ang linalankapan ng Dios Ama, Ina at Anak.

Sikolohiya ng Pagkataong Pilipino Aking natalos na nagbabago ang pagkatao ng isang Pilipino, kung siya ay linalangkapan, sinasapian o sinasaniban. Ang paliwanag ni Bulatao sa pagbabago ng pagkatao ay “altered state of consciousness.” Ngunit ito ay nanatiling isang hinuha lamang sapagkat hindi pa naton talos kung anong prosesong pisikal ang nagbabago. Kung baga, nanatili tayong nakagapos sa mga palatandaan lamang. Ang palatandaan ay pinahihiwatig sa pagbabago ng damdamin, isipan, kilos, gawa, pati na ang wika. Ang mga pagbabagong ito kaipala ay itinatakda ng iba’t-ibang bahagi ng katawan at ng kaluluwa. Sa madaling salita, may dalawang klase ng pagkataong klase ng pagkataong Pilipino na pinatotohanan ng pag-aaral ng tao: (1) likas na pagkatao at (2)

pagkataong may sapi. Marahil marami pang kategorya ng pagkatao ang ating matatalos sa pamamagitan ng malawak at malalim na pag-aaral. Paglalagom Sina Salazarat Enriquez ay sumulat na ng ilang batayan para sa isang Sikolohiyang Pilipino. Ang mithiin ng aking lekturang propesoryal na ito ay upang makaambag sa paghahawan ng madawag ng larangan ng pagkataong Pilipino. Itinatakda ng lekturang ito ang katawan ng tao bilang isang banga: may labas, loob at ilalim; at pinagagalaw ng tambalan ng budhi at kaluluwa. Kaalamang bayang dalumat ang pinaiiral sa pagkilala ng mga salik ng Pagkataong Pilipino.

 Inilathala sa Prospero R. Covar, Larangan: Seminal Essays on Philippine Culture, Maynila: Sampaguita Press, 916. Prev: Pilipinolohiya ni Dr. Prospero Covar Next: Mananalangin sa Bundok Banahaw reply

Filipino psychology From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (November 2011)

Filipino psychology, or Sikolohiyang Pilipino, in Filipino, is defined as the psychology rooted on the experience, ideas, and cultural orientation of the Filipinos. It is regulated by the Pambansang Samahan sa Sikolohiyang Pilipino, (National Organization of Filipino Psychology), in English, which was established in 1975 by Virgilio Enriquez, regarded by many as the Father of Filipino Psychology.

Contents [hide]



1 Basic orientation and context



2 Four traditions



3 Basic tenets

o

3.1 Core value or Kapwa

o

3.2 Pivotal interpersonal value

o

3.3 Linking socio-personal value

o

3.4 Accommodative surface values

o

3.5 Confrontative surface values

o

3.6 Societal values



4 Approaches and methods



5 Psychopathology



6 Psycho-medicine



7 Organizations



8 See also



9 References



10 External links

[edit]Basic

orientation and context

Filipino psychology is usually thought of as a branch of Asian psychology, the placement, determined primarily on culture. However, there is an ongoing debate on the make-up of Philippine culture, because this will generally determine whether Philippine Psychology is to be placed under the realms of either Asian psychology or Western psychology. The vast majority of Philippine psychologists seem to prefer to classify this field as Asian, but there is a steadily growing body that attempts to place the field as Eurasian.

[edit]Four

traditions

Zeus Salazar (1985), a historian, identified four traditions upon which Philippine psychology is rooted:



Academic Scientific Psychology or Akademiko-siyentipikal na Sikolohiya: Western Tradition: This follows the tradition of Wilhelm Wundt in 1876 and is essentially the American-oriented Western psychology being studied in the Philippines.



Academic Philosophic Psychology or Akademiko-pilosopiya na Sikolohiya: Western Tradition: This was started by priest-professors at the University of Santo Tomas. This tradition is mainly focused on what is called 'Rational psychology'.



Ethnic Psychology or Taal na Sikolohiya: This is the tradition on which Philippine psychology is primarily based. This refers to the indigenous concepts that are studied using indigenous psychological orientation and methodologies.



Psycho-medical Religious Psychology or Sikolohiyang Siko-medikal: The tradition that fuses native healing techniques and explains it in an indigenous religious context.

[edit]Basic [edit]Core

tenets

value or Kapwa

Kapwa, meaning 'togetherness', is the core construct of Filipino Psychology. Kapwa refers to community; not doing things alone. Kapwahas two categories, Ibang Tao (other people) and Hindi Ibang Tao (not other people).





Ibang Tao ("outsider") There are five domains in this construct:



Pakikitungo: civility



Pakikisalamuha: act of mixing



Pakikilahok: act of joining



Pakikibagay: conformity



Pakikisama: being united with the group.

Hindi Ibang Tao ("one-of-us") There are three domains in this construct:



Pakikipagpalagayang-loob: act of mutual trust



Pakikisangkot: act of joining others



Pakikipagkaisa: being one with others

[edit]Pivotal 

interpersonal value

Pakiramdam: Shared inner perceptions. Filipinos use damdam, or the inner perception of others' emotions, as a basic tool to guide his dealings with other people.

[edit]Linking 

socio-personal value

Kagandahang-Loob: Shared humanity. This refers to being able to help other people in dire need due to a perception of being together as a part of one Filipino humanity.

[edit]Accommodative 

surface values

Hiya: Loosely translated as 'shame' by most Western psychologists, Hiya is actually 'sense of propriety'.



Utang na Loob: Norm of reciprocity. Filipinos are expected by their neighbors to return favors—whether these were asked for or not—when it is needed or wanted.



Pakikisama and Pakikipagkapwa: Smooth Interpersonal Relationship, or SIR, as coined by Lynch (1961 and 1973). This attitude is primarily guided by conformity with the majority.

[edit]Confrontative 

surface values

Bahala Na: This attitude, loosely translated into English as 'fatalistic passiveness', actually describes the Filipino way of life, in which, he is determined to do his best, hence the term bahala na, which actually came from the phrase bathalan na, meaning 'I will do all my best, let God take care of the rest'.



Lakas ng Loob: This attitude is characterized by being courageous in the midst of problems and uncertainties.



Pakikibaka: Literally in English, it means concurrent clashes. It refers to the ability of the Filipino to undertake revolutions and uprisings against a common enemy.

[edit]Societal 

values

Karangalan: Loosely translated to dignity, this actually refers to what other people see in a person and how they use that information to make a stand or judge about his/her worth.



Puri: the external aspect of dignity. May refer to how other people judge a person of his/her worth.



Dangal: the internal aspect of dignity. May refer to how a person judges his own worth.



Katarungan: Loosely translated to justice, this actually refers to equity in giving rewards to a person.



Kalayaan: Freedom and mobility. Ironically, this may clash with the less important value of pakikisama or pakikibagay (conformity).

[edit]Approaches

and methods

Approaches, or lapit, and methods, or pamamaraan, in Filipino Psychology are different from that of Western Psychology. In Filipino Psychology, the subjects, or participants, called kalahok, are considered as equal in status to the researcher. The participants are included in the research as a group, and not as individuals hence, an umpukan, or natural cluster, is required to serve as the participants, per se. The researcher is introduced to a natural cluster by a tulay (bridge), who is a part of the umpukan and is a well-respected man in the community. Some of the many approaches and methods used in Filipino Psychology are:



Pakikipagkuwentuhan: In this method, the researcher engages in a story-telling with an umpukan. The researcher merely serves as the facilitator, while the kalahok or participants are the one who are to talk. The term kwento, from the Spanish word cuento, literally means 'to tell a story'.



Panunuluyan: In this method, the researcher stays in the home of his kalahok or participant while he conducts the research with consent by the host family, whose head serves as the tulay to an umpukan. The term tuloy, which is the root word of the termpanunuluyan, literally means 'to go in'.



Pagdadalaw-dalaw: In this method, the researcher occasionally visits the house of his host or tulay, as opposed to staying in the house. The term dalaw literally means 'visit'.



Pagtatanung-tanong: In this method, the researcher undergoes a kind of questioning session with his kalahok or participants. In this method, however, 'lead questions' (those questions which directly refer to the topic being studied) are not supposed to be asked, instead the questions to be asked are supposed to have been derived from the kalahok's answers themselves. The word tanongliterally means 'question'.



Pakikiramdam: In this approach, the researcher uses entirely his/her own feelings or emotions to justify if his participants orkalahok are ready to be part of his research or not. The term damdam literally means 'inner perception of emotions'.



Pakapa-kapa: In this approach, the researcher uses 'groping', or a mixture of feelings as well as circumstances, to justify his intrusion into the life of his/her participants or kalahok. The term kapa literally means 'to grope in the dark'.

[edit]Psychopathology Filipino psychopathology, or sikopatolohiya in Filipino, from Spanish psicopatologia, is the study of abnormal psychology in the Filipino context. Several 'mental' disorders have been identified that can be found only in the Philippines or in other nations with which Filipinos share racial connections. Examples of such are:



Amok: Malayan mood disorder, more aptly called 'Austronesian Mood Disorder', in which a person suddenly loses control of himself and goes into a killing frenzy, after which he/she hallucinates and falls into a trance. After he/she wakes up, he has absolutely no memory of the event.



Bangungot: A relatively common occurrence in which a person suddenly loses control of his respiration and digestion, and falls into a coma and ultimately to death. The person is believed to dream of falling into a deep abyss at the onset of his death. This syndrome has been repeatedly linked to Thailand's Brugada syndrome and to the ingestion of rice. However, no such medical ties have been proven.

Filipino psychopathology also refers to the different manifestations of mental disorders in Filipino people. One example of such is the manifestation of depression and schizophrenia in Filipinos, which are for the most part, less violent.

[edit]Psycho-medicine See also: Philippine mythology

Filipino psychomedicine, or sikomedikal na sikolohiya in Filipino, is the application of basic psychology to native healing practices loosely considered as 'medicine'. These practices are closely tied to the faith healers, as well as to the native pagan priestesses like the babaylan or katalonan, who were suppressed by the Spaniards during their colonization of the Philippines. Examples of such practices include:



Hilot: The use of massage to aid a pregnant mother in the delivery of her child.



Kulam: Hex or bewitchment.



Lihi: An intense craving for something or someone during pregnancy. Faith healers or manghihilot testify that if the craving is not satisfied, abnormality of the child may result.



Pasma: A concept that explains how init (heat) and lamig (cold) together can result in illness, especially rheumatism.



Susto: Soul-flight. Derived from Latin American traditions.



Pagtatawas: A method of diagnosing illness wherein alum (called tawas) is ritualistically used by the albularyo or medicine man for diagnosis of a variety of health conditions. The tawas is used to 'cross' (sign of the cross) the forehead and other suspicious or ailing parts of the body as prayers are being whispered (bulong or oracion). It is then placed on glowing embers, removed when it starts to crack, then transferred to a small receptacle of water. As it cools, its softened form spreads on the water surface and assumes a shape that may suggest the cause of the illness, often one of several indigenous forces: dwarfs, devils or other evil spirits (na-nuno,na-kulam, na-demonyo). The water in the vehicle is then used to anoint the ailing part or parts of the body to counteract the evil forces or illness. The tawas is then discarded and thrown westward, preferably into the setting sun.



Usog: A concept that explains how a baby who has been greeted by a stranger acquires a mysterious illness. Apparently derived from the Spanish tradition of Mal de Ojo.



Gabâ or gabaa: The Cebuano concept of negative Karma.