UNDERSTANDING FILIPINO VALUES, A WINDOW FOR MISSION
Lowel J. Domocmat MDiv Student Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies Philippines
Abstract This paper sets to describe the four prevailing Filipino values, namely: amor propio (self-esteem), hiya (shame, shy, timid), utang na loob (emotional debt or obligation), and pakikisama (getting along together) and their relevance to the mission of sharing the Gospel of salvation in the Philippines. Understanding these values are effective aids in doing mission to the “unreached” populace of the country. This will help missionaries1 both in their interpersonal relationships and in the formulation of “programs to reach” suited to Filipino psyche.
1
Missionaries (or missionary) refer to persons, either foreigners or Filipinos who are involved in sharing the Gospel of salvation to others.
Introduction It is said that “THE BEST WAY to appreciate a country is to live in it and to learn about its history and culture.”2 The Philippines is an archipelago composing of 7,100 islands.3 It has a total population of 88,574,614 as of 2007. The populace is composed of 81.04% Roman Catholics ; 5.06% Islam; 2.82% Born-again Christians (Pentecostals); and the remaining 11.08% are Iglesia ni Cristo (Church of Christ - 2.3%), Philippine Independent Church (2%), Mormon (.5%), and other religions, such as Buddhism and Hinduism (3%).4 Though it is claimed that the Philippines serves as “the citadel of Christianity between the largest Christian West and largely non-Christian East” there remains a vast mission field for the Three Angels’ messages.5 The Philippines is a country in which its population and national language are both called Filipino. There are 110 estimated languages6 in the Philippines of which Filipino is the national language. This language is composed of elements from the different languages spoken in the Philippines.7 As to the people, a Filipino anthropologist 2
Sonia M. Zaide, The Philippines: A Unique Nation (Manila, Philippines: All Nations Pub. Co., Inc., 1994), 1. 3
Ibid, 6. Others counted as 7,107 islands. Tomas D. Andres and Pilar B. IladaAndres, Understanding the Filipino (Quezon City, Philippines, New Day Publishers, 1987), 10. 4
“Demographics of the Philippines,” available from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Demographics_of_ the_Philippines; Internet; accessed 13 April 2008. 5
Zaide, 6. 6
“Language scholars consider two varieties of the same language as dialects if they are mutually intelligible; when two languages are not mutually intelligible, however, they are considered separate languages.” Andrew Gonzales, “A Nation of Many Tongues,” chap. in A Timeline of Philippine History, vol.10 of Kasaysayan: The Story of the Filipino People, ed. Henry S. Totanes (Philippines: Asia Pub. Company Limited, 1998), 264. Thus, the estimated 110 languages spoken in the Philippines which are not mutually intelligible are considered as different languages. Further, this count of languages was done in 1993. 7
In spite of the 110 languages in the Philippines Tagalog was chosen by the National Language Institute in 1937 as the national language for the reason that it was the language of the capital city, Manila. Tagalog was then called as the Wikang Pambansa after 1939. Tagalog was renamed Pilipino in 1959. It was later on called Filipino in the 1971-1973 Constitutional Convention due to the inclusion of some elements found from the other languages in the country. The 1986 Constitutional Convention recognized the existence of the Filipino language and thus ratified it as the national language. Today, Filipino is the lingua franca spoken in the Philippines especially in urban areas. Ibid.,
expressed his difficulty in defining the word “Filipino.”8 However, in his later work, he defined Filipino as “a natural-born citizen of the Philippines who shows the passions, attitudes, and emotions of a people whose culture is a unique integration of the indigenous and oriental and occidental cultures.”9
Four Prevalent Filipino Values The Gospel mission work in the Philippines requires that one understands the behavior of the people. Knowing the psycho-social framework of Filipinos is an asset that will aid both in understanding their minds and in communicating the Gospel message to them. For this reason, let us study four positive Filipino values prevalent throughout the country, specifically in the lowland areas. They are amor propio (self-esteem), hiya (shame, shy, timid), utang na loob (debt of gratitude or obligation), and pakikisama (getting along together).10 These four values are under the category of social acceptance.11 The social acceptance is defined in the following: 265. 8
Tomas D. Andres, Understanding Filipino Values, A Management Approach (Quezon City, Philippines: New Day Publishers, 1981), 3. 9
Tomas D. Andres, Positive Filipino Values (Quezon City, Philippines: New Day Publishers, 1999), 4. In clarifying the rich historical descent of the term “Filipino” Andres declared: “Historically the term ‘Filipino’ began in 1543 when the Spanish explorer, Ruy Lopez de Villalobos, decided to name these islands of ours in honor of the prince who was soon to become King Philip II. Later, the name was applied to the whole archipelago—Las Islas Filipinas. The term ‘Filipino’, however, was not applied to the natives and indigenous people of the islands who were then called Indios. During the Spanish regime, those who had come or just arrived from Spain were called Españoles or Spaniards. Spaniards who were born in the peninsula of Spain and who had lived long in the Philippines were called Filipinos Peninsulares. Those who were second-generation Spaniards or born in the Philippines of Spanish descent were given the name Filipinos Insulares…. Towards the close of the 19th century, the nationalist movement headed by Jose P. Rizal and Marcelo H. Del Pilar started using the term ‘Filipino’ to include themselves and their countrymen…. It was on October 31, 1896 that the term ‘Filipino’ was officially used to refer to all the inhabitants of the Philippines….” Ibid, 3. 10
There are other positive Filipino values, such as pakikiramay, bayanihan, paggalang, and others, but are not included in this paper due to constraints in time and space. 11
There are three that primarily motivate and control Filipino values, namely: social acceptance, economic security, and social mobility. Of these three, the social
A basic postulate with regard to social life in the Philippines is that interpersonal relations should go on without too much friction…. Therefore, the attempt to make relations run smoothly is a primary social value in the Philippines…. Also there is a tendency for the Filipino to “agree” with someone to avoid dispute, and in some cases not to do anything about the agreement.12
Pakikisama The first Filipino value to reflect on is pakikisama (getting along together). It is a very significant Filipino trait.13 Pakikisama is the desire for “smooth interpersonal relations.”14 At its finest pakikisama “aims for unity, peace and cooperation.”15 acceptance plays the prominent role. Rank X. Lynch, “Social Acceptance Reconsidered,” chap. in Philippine Society and the Individual: Selected Essays of Frank Lynch, rev. ed. edited by Aram A. Yengoyan and Perla Q. Makil (Quezon City, Philippines: Institute of Philippine Culture, Ateneo de Manila University, 2004), 34. 12
Fred Eggan, “Philippine Social Structure,” chap. in Six Perspectives on the Philippines, ed. George M. Guthrie (Manila, Philippines: Bookmark, Inc., 1968), 9, 10. 13
Tomas D. Andres and Pilar B. Ilada-Andres, Understanding the Filipino (Quezon City, Philippines, New Day Publishers, 1987), 75. However, Frank Lynch made Smooth Interpersonal Relations (SIR) a category of which is acquired and preserved by means of pakikisama, “euphemism” and the “use of a go-between.” He defines SIR as “getting along with others in such a way as to avoid outward signs of conflict…. It means being agreeable, even under difficult circumstances, and of keeping quiet or out of sight when discretion passes the word. It means a sensitivity to what other people feel at any given moment, and a willingness and ability to change track (if not direction) to catch the lightest favoring breeze.” Lynch, 36. However, the pakikisama spirit is also the one causing problems to Filipino youths. To get along with their peers the youths would just do what the majority are doing (i.e. cigarette smoking, drinking beers and liquors, using drugs, and doing crimes). 14
Guthrie argues that there are four significant concepts in understanding Filipino behavior pattern, namely: amor propio (self-esteem), hiya (embarrassment), utang na loob (obligation), and pakikisama (getting along together). George M. Guthrie, “The Philippine Temperament,” chap. in Six Perspectives on the Philippines, ed. George M. Guthrie (Manila, Philippines: Bookmark, Inc., 1968), 60, 63. Among the four, Tomas Andres observes that the two dominant values of Filipinos are utang na loob and amor propio. To some extent a Filipino can even give his life in exchange with these values. Andres, Understanding Filipino Values, 103. 15
Evelyn Miranda-Feliciano, Filipino Values and our Christian Faith (Manila, Philippines: OMF Literature Inc., 1990), 22.
Nevertheless, it is also the yielding of one’s ideas, desires, and even standards to the majority though it might contradict his own.16 With the desire not to be different and in contrast to the will of the majority the tendency is to go with the crowd or sumabay sa agos (go with the current). It is further observed that a Filipino can sacrifice other values for the sake of another person’s good feelings. This leads him to agree with others in spite of some reservations.17 To some extent, what others say becomes more important than what the person thinks is right. Thus, he remains passive for fear of being misunderstood.18 The next Filipino value is one that is created because of the pakikisama spirit of another person.
Utang na Loob The social interaction of Filipinos centers on the “obligation system” which means that if someone helps you voluntarily, you are morally bound to repay that person. It is called utang na loob (debt of gratitude).19 Utang na loob is “a feeling of indebtedness which is incurred when one receives a favor, service or good, and a deep sense of obligation to reciprocate.”20 Further, it is an inner law of being dictating the recipient of a good act or deed to behave generously to one’s benefactor.21 The utang na loob identifies the integrity of a Filipino in the context of his social relationship.22 Moreover, one who fails to give significance of the utang na loob has without dangal (honor) or karangalan (dignity). Dangal is a “sterling character-firm in conviction, fair in judgment, careful in words.” Filipinos who are marangal (dignified or
16
Andres, Positive Filipino Values, 150; Feliciano, 22.
17
Guthrie, 63. The effect of this is the outlook that frankness and outspokenness are manifestations of uncultured behavior. He states that “Pakikisama takes many forms which may involve extravagant praise of another, the use of metaphorical language rather than frank terms, not showing one’s own negative feelings or depressed spirits, smiling when things go wrong, and above all, never expressing anger or losing one’s temper. Avoiding stressful situations can be made easier by keeping things vague and by letting ambiguities stand…. The common element in many activities is the desire to maintain good feelings and non-stressful relationships.” Ibid, 63-64. 18
Andres, 4.
19
Eggan, 9, 11.
20
Andres, 24-25.
21
Feliciano, 70.
22
Ibid.
honorable) do not break the utang na loob principle. Rather they are concerned to the wellbeing of their kapwa (fellows).23 However, there are cases when a person does not like to incur utang na loob. To remove himself from the obligation system he would reject any voluntary help offered to him or if he had accepted already, he will repay it immediately by means of a good deed or a sum of money. Nevertheless, to the older generation Filipinos, giving a sum of money or some goods to reciprocate the help received is not an act of emancipation from the utang na loob but a way of expressing thanks and that the utang na loob is still there. There are also instances on which the utang na loob transcends any immediate repayment such as the help received in times of a great need or crisis situations (i.e. birth, christening, wedding, sickness, accident, funeral, and the like). It takes even the next generation to repay the debt.24
Hiya Unlike in the West, the social status of Filipinos is significant. This is enunciated in a Tagalog maxim which says, “Hindi baleng huwag mo akong mahalin; huwag mo lang akong hiyain,” that is, “It doesn’t matter if you don’t love me; just don’t shame me”25 expresses the high place of hiya26 (shame) among Filipinos. The social esteem is worn away at the time a person does a wrong act known to other people. The person becomes kahiya-hiya (shameful) to the society he lives in. To a Filipino his image as a person to the society is very important. This leads him to avoid anything that may cause him hiya (shame). Thus, he will do his best to abide by the norms of the society. 23
R. Rafael L. Dolor, “Confucianism and Its Relevance to the Filipino Family,” Diwatao 1/1 (2001), available from www.geocities. com/philodept/ diwatao/confucianism.htm; Internet; accessed 24 July 2008. 24
“Generally, the lifetime indebtedness aspect of utang na loob draws from the fact that it is difficult to measure one’s debt of gratitude. It is an indebtedness that is harder to pay than money owed. Nothing is said about it. Nothing is counted or quantified. Everything is played by ear as the poor recipient is never sure whether what he has done suffices to repay his debt. Thus, he is bet to be at the back and call of his benefactor. Unless the benefactor outrightly tells him to stop, or releases him from the burden of a self-imposed obligation.” Feliciano, 72. 25 26
Lynch, 34.
There are various terms of hiya in the Philippines. Let us look at some of the major languages: bain in Ilocano, baeng in Pangasinense, dine in Kapangpangan, huya in Ilongo, and ulaw in Cebuano. Andres, 137.
It is argued further that: Hiya is a strong cultural force to achieve social acceptance that engenders behaviors towards smooth interpersonal relationships. Hiya has made the Filipino learn the “art of how not to offend somebody.” Hiya is a positive factor for the Filipino to gain acceptance and respect necessary to overcome shortcomings. Hiya is a painful feeling or emotion excited by a consciousness of guilt, shortcomings, impropriety for have done something unworthy. Hiya makes the Filipino try hard to see that he does things right so he won’t be put to shame (emphasis mine ).27 Besides its English common equivalent as shame, it is also being “shy, timid, sensitive.”28 This explains the lack of voluntariness29 and the passive behavior of Filipinos. To sum up there are two nuances of hiya, first is the “uncomfortable feeling that accompanies awareness of being in a socially unacceptable position”, and secondly is the feeling of “performing a socially unacceptable action.”30 In other words, hiya is the “fear of losing face” or the “fear of rejection.”31
Amor Propio Closely related to hiya is the amor propio.32 It is the sensitivity to personal affront or simply the self-esteem. Its main point is the necessity of an individual to be treated as a person and not as a thing or a property. However, the sense of amor propio (personal worth) of a person is vulnerable to the way he is viewed by others, specifically in the area of negative comments. Thus, the person is vigilant on his standing in his group. For this reason, a person will have difficulty accepting mistakes. Consequently, a correction is given in acute deference and an oblique conveyance of criticism. 27
Ibid, 138, 139.
28
Ibid.
29
Lynch, 43.
30
Ibid, 42.
31
Andres further defines hiya as an “emotion arising from a relationship with a person of authority or with society, inhibiting self-assertion in a situation which is perceived as dangerous to one’s ego. It can be fear of losing self-respect. Hiya sums up the Filipinos’ long-standing complex brought about by years of submission to foreign rule, mainly Spanish and American. ” Andres. 32
J. Bulatao, “Hiya,” Philippine Studies 12 (1964): 424-438.
Although the prevailing element of amor propio is a “sense of individual dignity” in some instances it is connected with “insecurity,” “indolence,” “arrogance,” or “irritability.”33 As observed by Frank Lynch34, however, amor propio is “not aroused by every insult, slighting remark, or offensive gesture. The stimuli that set it off are only those that strike at the individual’s most highly valued attributes.”35 For instance, a fisherman will not be offended by a negative comment on how he fishes and takes care of his boat, but he would be highly offended and caused you trouble if the comment is about him being an irresponsible father and provider of his household. The rule of thumb is, “when there is emotional involvement, there is amor propio, and to prick amor propio is to ask for trouble.”36 To sum up, Filipinos have a high regard for social acceptance. They desire smooth interpersonal relations, pakikisama, which are revealed in their passive agreement with others to avoid conflict. Besides, Filipinos make an effort to do things right (in the judgment of the majority) to evade hiya. Moreover, to maintain their amor propio they give more weight to what others say about them than to what they think of themselves. They want to be treated by others as a person and live in their society with honor. Lastly, if Filipinos are helped especially in a time of great need they are morally obliged to reciprocate the utang na loob.
Relevance of these Values to Missionaries These four prevailing values are effective aids in doing Gospel mission in the Philippines. The knowledge of these values will help missionaries to understand how Filipinos behave and thus will conduct themselves in such a manner as not to offend but to foster friendship in the mission field. Secondly, these values provide some light in contextualizing the explanation of some Christian doctrines. Lastly, they (the values) 33
Guthrie, 61.
34
Frank Lynch was an American anthropologist and a sociologist in the Philippines. After finishing his doctorate in anthropology in the US, he came back to the Philippines in 1959 to join the faculty of Ateneo de Manila. He was instrumental in establishing the Department of Sociology and Anthropology (DSA) and the Institute of Philippine Culture (IPC) of the university. Perla Q. Makil, “‘Alaala’ of Frank Lynch, S.J.,” chap. in Philippine Society and the Individual: Selected Essays of Frank Lynch, rev. ed. edited by Aram A. Yengoyan and Perla Q. Makil (Quezon City, Philippines: Institute of Philippine Culture, Ateneo de Manila University, 2004), 4-5. 35
Lynch, 43.
36
Ibid, 44.
assist in the formulation of “programs to reach” the Filipino minds. The pakikisama of a Filipino should be reciprocated by the pakikisama of the missionary. The result is that friendship and confidence are built between the two in the Filipino mission field. In fact, a Filipino hard heart can be melted by a genuine pakikisama37. Moreover, pakikisama causes utang na loob38. Utang na loob is made by a freely given and unconditional help to a felt need especially at the time of a person’s crisis. In doing this the missionary creates a “golden” link to the Filipino people. But it should be noted that the help is given in genuine motive—love. Though Solomon is speaking in the context of loving enemies, doing good is heaping “burning coals” on the head of the people (Proverbs 25:22). The reward the Lord gives, I believe, is turning an enemy into a friend. In Filipino mentality, doing good is having the pakikisama spirit and becoming kind to the giver is performing the moral of utang na loob. In stating the method of Christ in reaching the people, Ellen G. White says: Christ's method alone will give true success in reaching the people. The Saviour mingled with men as one who desired their good. He showed His sympathy for them, ministered to their needs, and won their confidence. Then He bade them, “Follow Me.”39 There is an intimation of pakikisama and utang na loob from the statement of Ellen G. White on the method of Christ. The pakikisama is depicted in the Savior’s mingling with people. Whereas the utang na loob is created by showing sympathy and ministering to the needs of the people. These two values are potential tools in reaching Filipinos. However, some if not most Filipino missionaries miss the significance of using the
37
This is illustrated by the following story. The merchant came to deliver the blanket order of the wife. Because the husband was not consulted of the order, he refused to accept the blanket. Whatever persuasion by the merchant the man was hard of his word. The man was then rushing to put his tobacco produce under the shade for the rain was about to fall. The merchant without uttering a word rushed to help the man. After everything was carried under the shade, the man told his wife to pay the blanket. What made the man to change his mind? It was because of the pakikisama spirit manifested by the merchant. The merchant was marunong makisama (knows how to get along with). 38
A gentleman and a lady were paired to visit some of their interests in their Voice of Youth Crusade. Arriving at the house of one of their interests, they noticed that the daughter who was an active participant in the children’s story hour was sick. Instead of giving a Bible study, the lady partner who was a nursing student gave a sponge bath. 39
Ellen G. White, The Ministry of Healing (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1942), 143.
psychology of pakikisama and utang na loob. One probable reason is because they live inside this culture that they overlooked their significance to mission. The other two, amor propio and hiya inform missionaries as to how Filipinos behave and what they value. Knowing these will aid them in having smooth interpersonal relations with their mission field. Though Filipinos differ on what they value, yet generally, they give high worth to their families. Thus, speaking a negative comment on the family of a person is an insult to his amor propio. In order to avoid this dilemma the missionary should be tactful in his dealings. Generally, Filipinos are not frank but mahiyain (shy and timid). Because of this trait Filipinos are oftentimes passive yet their passivity is not a message of dislike. They usually do not ask questions and argue their points. However, it does not mean that Filipinos just accept ideas. They are also thinkers. On the theological side, the concept of hiya (shame) is the better way to explain sin as compared to guilt to Filipino minds. It is observed by Jerald Whitehouse that the dynamic of shame is predominant to Eastern cultures (as compared to guilt, which is Western). He further suggests the “shame-honor” and not the “guilt-innocence” to explain atonement and sin.40 Both shame (hiya) and honor (dangal) are values of Filipinos. Doing mission to Filipinos is challenging. It is challenging in a sense that one needs to learn Filipino values in order to create a smooth interpersonal relationship and at the same time to contextualize the Western explanation of faith to suit the understanding of the Filipino people. This principle is plain in the letter of Paul to the Corinthians. The Apostle Paul says: 20
To the Jews I became like a Jew to win over Jews; to those under the law I became like one under the law—though I myself am not under the law—to win over those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became like one outside the law—though I am not outside God's law but within the law of Christ—to win over those outside the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win over the weak. I have become all things to all, to save at least some. 23 All this I do for the sake of the gospel, so that I too may have a share in it. (1 Corinthians. 9:20-23, NIV) Mabuhay.
40
Jerald Whitehouse, “Communicating Adventist Beliefs in the Muslim Context,” Journal of Adventist Mission Studies (2006) 2:78-80.
