UNIT 1: INTRODUCTION: WHAT IS AN INDIGENOUS PSYCHOLOGY?

Towards Universal Psychology Through Indigenization

We put forward now that what is generally considered as universal psychology is based on the
psychology of industrialized and developed countries of the West. This psychology aims to be a
science comparable to that of the natural sciences, thus approximating the laws of universality.

Two Types of Indigenization

∙ Indigenization from Without – transporting psychological theories, concepts, and methods, and
modifying them to fit to local cultural context.

∙ Indigenization from Within – culture as source of knowledge to come up with cross-cultural

knowledge.

History of Filipino Psychology

The beginnings of Sikolohiyang Pilipino (Filipino psychology)

From the beginning of the periods when the Philippines was colonized by Spain, and then the USA,
academic psychology, or the psychology taught in schools, was predominantly Western in theory and in
methodology. Many Filipino intellectuals, notably the two Philippine heroes Jose Rizal and
Apolinario Mabini, expressed dissatisfaction at the pejorative interpretations of Filipino behavior by
Western observers. This disenchantment continued as Filipinos struggled to assert their national and
cultural identity.
In the 1960s, many Filipino intellectuals and scholars were already sensitive both to the inadequacy as
well as the unfairness of the Western-oriented approaches to psychology. For instance, in the area of
personality, the Western approach in research of not being enmeshed and bound by the culture being
studied has resulted in a characterization of the Filipino from the judgmental and impressionistic point of
view of the colonizers (Enriquez, 1992, p. 57). For example, the predisposition to indirectness of Filipino
communication was regarded as being dishonest and socially ingratiating and reflecting a deceptive
verbal description of reality (Lawless, 1969, cited in Enriquez, 1992) rather than a concern for the
feelings of others.

It was in the early 1970s that this was initiated when Virgilio Gaspar Enriquez returned to the Philippines
from Northwestern University, USA with a Ph.D. in Social Psychology and lost no time in introducing the
concept of Sikolohiyang Pilipino (Filipino Psychology). Together with then- chairman of the Department of
Psychology at the University of the Philippines (U.P.), Dr. Alfredo V. Lagmay, Enriquez embarked on a
research into the historical and cultural roots of Philippine Psychology.

From these researches, a two-volume bibliography on Filipino psychology and a locally developed
personality test, Panukat ng Ugali at Pagkatao (Measure of Character and Personality), were produced.
In 1975, Enriquez chaired the Unang Pambansang Kumperensya sa Sikolohiyang Pilipino (First National
Conference on Filipino Psychology) which was held at the Abelardo Auditorium at U.P. In this
conference, the ideas, concepts, and formulations of Sikolohiyang Pilipino were formally articulated.
What is Sikolohiyang Pilipino

Sikolohiyang Pilipino is anchored on Filipino thought and experience as understood from a Filipino
perspective (Enriquez, 1975). The most important aspect of this definition is the Filipino orientation. For
centuries, Filipino behavior has been analyzed and interpreted in the light of Western theories. Since
these theories are inevitably culture-bound, the picture of the Filipino has been inaccurate, if not
distorted.
Enriquez (1985) later defined Sikolohiyang Pilipino as ‗‗the study of diwa (‗psyche‘), which in Filipino
directly refers to the wealth of ideas referred to by the philosophical concept of ‗essence‘ and an entire
range of psychological concepts from awareness to motives to behavior‘‘.
It must be stressed at the outset though that developing a particularistic psychology such as Filipino
psychology is not anti-universal inasmuch as the ultimate aim of Sikolohiyang Pilipino is to contribute to
universal psychology, which can be realized only if each group of people is adequately understood by
themselves and from their own perspective. Sikolohiyang Pilipino is a step towards contributing to
universal
psychology.

Sikolohiya ng mga Pilipino (psychology of the Filipinos – theorizing about the psychological nature
oftheFilipinos,whetherfromalocalora foreign perspective).

Enriquez searched the Filipino culture and history for the bases of Sikolohiyang Pilipino instead of tracing
these back to Western theories. He came up with a definition of psychology that takes into account the
study of emotions and experienced knowledge (kalooban and kamalayan), awareness of one ‘ s
surroundings (ulirat), information and understanding (isip), habits and behavior (another meaning of
diwa),and thesoul(kaluluwa)whichis the way to learning about people‘s conscience. (Enriquez, 1976)
Sikolohiyang Pilipino is anchored on Filipino thought and experience as understood from a Filipino
perspective (Enriquez, 1975). Sikolohiyang Pilipino is the scientific study of psychology derived from the
experience, ideas, and cultural orientation of Filipinos.

Sikolohiyang Pilipino (Filipino psychology) refers to the psychology born out of the experience,
thought and orientation of the Filipinos, based on the full use of Filipino culture and language. The
approach is one of ‗‗indigenization from within‘‘ whereby the theoretical framework and methodology
emerge from the experiences of the people from the indigenous culture. It is based on assessing
historical and socio-cultural realities, understanding the local language, unraveling Filipino
characteristics, and explaining them through the eyes of the native Filipino. Among the outcomes are: a
body of knowledge including indigenous concepts, development of indigenous research methods and
indigenous personality testing, new directions in teaching psychology, and an active participation in
organizations among Filipino psychologists and social scientists, both in the Philippines and overseas.

Why Sikolohiyang Pilipino?

― Application of concepts and measurements which are not appropriate in a particular culture (or
context) may result to an incorrect interpretation of one‘s behavior and thinking.

Limits of Western Concepts and Methods

Issue
- Applicability of the Western theories and principles taught as well as the research concepts and
methods used in the Philippine setting.
- The limits of Western social research methods in rural Philippines: The need for innovation
- The limits of applicability of Western social research methods in rural Philippines to the
concrete realities in Asian societies.

Major Characteristics of Sikolohiyang Pilipino

∙ Identity and national consciousness

∙ It is against a psychology that perpetuates colonial status of the Filipino ∙ Psychological practice
in a Philippine context
∙ It is concerned with both science and humanistic approaches
∙ It also maintains mentalism-behaviorism approach
∙ It is not inconsistent with a universal psychology
Primary Areas of Protest of Sikolohiyang Pilipino

It is against
- A Psychology that perpetuates the colonial status of a Filipino mind
- A Psychology used for the exploitation of the masses
- The imposition of Psychology in foreign countries

Positions of Sikolohiyang Pilipino

1. On Psychological practice
- Conceptualization of Psychological practice in a Philippine context.
(Industriya vs. kabuhayan; klinika vs. kalusugan)
- Concerned with folk practices, indigenous techniques of healing, popular religio-political
movements
2. On Science- Humanism Issue
- Utilizes scientific methodology in the study of psychological phenomena
3. On Mentalism- Behaviorism Issue
- Attaches greater importance to kamalayan, subsidiary importance to ulirat. 4.
On Analysis- Wholeness Issue
- Methodologically leans on the side of analysis but interprets the results of analysis with a bias
to wholeness

Sikolohiyang Pilipino is a “taong-bahay”

- Metaphor: difference between tao sa bahay (person in the house) and ―taong-bahay‖ (house
person)

Four filiations of Sikolohiyang Pilipino

Zeus Salazar (1985a), a historian, later examined the history of Sikolohiyang Pilipino and came up with a
description of the four filiations of Philippine psychology:
- (a) The Academic-scientific psychology: the Western tradition – This coincided with the birth of
scientific psychology (German tradition) in 1876, and the entry of Western psychology
(mainly American tradition) at Philippine universities.

- (b) Academic-philosophical psychology: the Western (mainly clerical) tradition – This was
pursued by the University of Santo Tomas and later other schools of higher learning, under
the leadership of individual monks and preachers and the Jesuits. The study of psychology
as an aspect of philosophy continued in the tradition of Thomistic philosophy and
psychology.

- (c) Ethnic psychology – Major basis of Sikolohiyang Pilipino for integrating academic scientific
and academic-philosophical tradition into a national tradition of Psychology and Philosophy
as universal disciplines. This stream includes indigenous psychology (common to the
Filipinos, culled from language, culture, literature, etc., psychological systems worked out by
Filipinos with indigenous elements as basis) psychology of Filipinos (as observed by
foreigners or as felt and expressed by Filipinos), the practice of psychology by Filipinos
(normal techniques of enculturation/socialization, and protoclinical practice).

- (d) Psycho-medical system with religion as cohesive element and explanation.

A liberating, liberated and interdisciplinary psychology

Adhering to a philosophy of Sikolohiyang Pilipino being liberated and liberating, he eliminated its
bondage to the Western perspective, not only in theory and method but in practice. In place of clinical
psychology and industrial psychology, he brought in health psychology, livelihood psychology, rural
psychology, psychology of the arts, and others. Sikolohiyang Pilipino also became more ‗‗responsible‘‘
and responsive to the needs of Filipinos due to the philosophy that we need to make psychology benefit
and be of service to the people. Sikolohiyang Pilipino also became interdisciplinary – enriched by the
different disciplines to become more solid and closer to Philippine reality. Enriquez would be heard
saying, ‗‗Psychology is too important to be left to the psychologists alone.‘‘
Rethinking Filipino values
Enriquez was critical of this approach to the study of Filipino values. He encouraged Filipino scholars to
take a second look at these values using a Filipino orientation. Social scientists such as Lagmay,
Salazar, and Bonifacio took up the challenge in their own research. Let us examine three of these
‗‗Filipino values‘‘ from the exogenous and indigenous perspectives.
BASIC TENETS OF FILIPINO PSYCHOLOGY

Bahala Na. The Filipino cultural value of bahala na has no exact English translation. Bostrom (1968) was
the first psychologist to analyze this value by comparing it with American fatalism. This is obviously a
pervasive interpretation that when Thomas Andres published the Dictionary of Filipino Culture and
Values, he still defines bahala na as ‗‗the Filipino attitude that makes him accept sufferings and
problems, leaving everything to God. ‗Bahala na ang Diyos (God will take care of us)‘ . . . This attitude is
a fatalistic resignation or withdrawal from an engagement or crisis or a shirking from personal
responsibility‘‘ (Andres, 1994, p. 12).
The Sikolohiyang Pilipino perspective interprets bahala na differently. Lagmay (1977) explained that
bahala na is not ‗‗fatalism‘‘ but ‗‗determination and risk-taking‘‘. When Filipinos utter the expression
‗‗Bahala na!‘‘ they are not leaving their fate to God and remaining passive. Rather, they are telling
themselves that they are ready to face the difficult situation before them, and will do their best to achieve
their objectives. The expression is a way of pumping courage into their system so that they do not buckle
down.

Hiya. Sibley (1965), an American scholar, translated hiya as ‗‗shame‘‘. Another American, Lynch (1961)
saw hiya as ‗‗the uncomfortable feeling that accompanies awareness of being in a socially
unacceptable position, or performing a socially unacceptable action.‘‘ For example, when an employee is
scolded in front of other people. To add to the negativity of this interpretation of hiya, Andres (1994)
described hiya as ‗‗an ingredient in why Filipinos overspend during fiestas in order to please their
visitors, even to the extent of going into debt‘‘ (p. 64).
This conventional interpretation of hiya is inadequate because it does not take into account the
importance of understanding how affixations in Philippine languages can give a new meaning to a word.
Bonifacio (1976) alerted us to the different meanings of the word hiya depending on its form – nakakahiya
(embarrassing), napahiya (placed in an awkward position), ikinahiya (be embarrassed with someone),
etc. With some affixes, it becomes negative, e.g., napahiya; with others, positive, e.g., mahiyain (shy);
and in still other forms, it can either be positive or negative depending on the context, e.g., kahihiyan
(sense of propriety, or embarrassment).
Salazar (1981, 1985b) expounded on affixation and hiya and showed the internal and external aspects of
hiya. Evidently, it is the external aspect which foreign scholars have captured. After all is said and done,
the more appropriate translation of hiya in English is not ‗‗shame‘‘ but ‗‗sense of propriety‘‘.
Utang na loob. Utang na loob was translated by Kaut (1961) as ‗‗debt of gratitude‘‘. Andres (1994, pp.
190–191) defined it, following Kaut‘s logic, as ‗‗the principle of reciprocity incurred when an individual
helps another. The person helped then feels an obligation to repay the debt in the future when the helper
himself (sic) is in need of aid, or he (sic) may repay his debt by sending gifts. It is often not clear when a
debt has been fully paid, so that the relationship becomes an ongoing one.‘‘ Hollnsteiner (1961) took this
interpretation further by claiming that the recipient of the favor is forced ‗‗to show his (sic) gratitude
properly by returning the favor with interest.‘‘

Pakikisama vs. pakikipagkapwa. Pakikisama was identified by Lynch (1961, 1973) as a Filipino value,
giving it the English translation of maintaining ‗‗smooth interpersonal relations‘‘ by going along with the
group or the majority decision, i.e., conformity.
Enriquez (1978, 1994) started unfolding the concept of kapwa (shared identity), which is at the core of
Filipino social psychology, and which is at the heart of the structure of Filipino values. He discovered that
it is not maintaining smooth interpersonal relationships that Filipinos are most concerned with, but
pakikipagkapwa which means treating the other person as kapwa or fellow human being. There are two
categories of kapwa: the Ibang-Tao (outsider) and the Hindi-Ibang-Tao (‗‗one-of-us‘‘). In Filipino social
interaction, one is immediately ‗‗placed‘‘ into one of these two categories; and how one is placed
determines the level of interaction one is shown. For example, if one is regarded as ibang-tao, the
interaction can range from pakikitungo (transaction/civility with), to pakikisalamuha (interaction with), to
pakikilahok (joining/participating), to pakikibagay (in-conformity with/inaccord with), and to pakikisama
(being along with). If one is categorized as hindi-ibang-tao, then you can expect pakikipagpalagayang-
loob (being in-rapport/understanding/ acceptance with), or pakikisangkot (getting involved), or the highest
level of pakikiisa (being one with).

Using the Sikolohiyang Pilipino perspective, Enriquez (1992) re-conceptualized the Filipino behaviour
patterns and value structure where he designated hiya(‘‘propriety/ dignity’’), utang na loob
(‘‘gratitude/solidarity’’) and pakikisama (‘‘companionship/ esteem’’) as colonial/accommodative
surface values; and bahala na (‘‘determination’’), sama/lakas ng loob (‘‘resentment/guts’’) and
pakikibaka (‘‘resistance’’) as confrontative surface values. He emphasized kapwa (‘‘shared identity’’)
as core value; pakikiramdam (‘‘shared inner perception’’) as pivotal interpersonal value; and
kagandahang-loob (‘‘shared humanity’’) as linking socio-personal value. Associated with the above
are societal values such as karangalan (‘‘dignity’’), katarungan (‘‘justice’’), and kalayaan
(‘‘freedom’’). Thus, the area of Filipino personality developed as a strong area using the Sikolohiyang
Pilipino perspective. The Filipino is a blend of East and West. The Western influence can be seen more
in external ways – dressing, liking for hamburger and other food, Western music and dance, etc.
However, the internal aspect, which is at the core of his pagkatao (personality), is Asian – deference for
authority, modesty/humility, concern for others, etc.

Filipino Psychological Knowledge

Filipino Language
Use as a tool for identifying/rediscovering indigenous concepts
e.g. study of diwa (psyche), refers to the wealth of ideas implied by the philosophical concept of
―essence‖

Filipino Language
―Enriquez does his theorizing in Filipino and does his writing in Pilipino; merely as a heuristic device, a
discover procedure… returning to the ‗deep structure‘ of the language… Enriquez worked in an area
where Filipinos are most adept, where the language has a rich vocabulary of feeling and sentiment.‖
Andrew B. Gonzales (1982) in indigenous Psychology: A book of readings. V.G. Enriquez (Ed.)
Akademya ng Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Quezon City.

Language, a Heuristic Tool

∙ Methods: Ethography, Language Analysis, Semantics, Introspection

Language provided the instrument to refine the tools of research so as to discover categories and
subcategories which would be lost to a Western English-speaking researcher… Filipino, the Philippine
lingua franca
The issue of the National language has long been resolved by the Filipino masses through their use and
propagation of a language based on the Manila lingua franca, Manila being seat of government, the
business hub, melting pot, center of history.
Virgilio V. Enriquez & Elizabeth P. Marcelino (1984). Neo-colonial politics and language struggle in the
Philippine. Akademya ng Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Quezon City.
Language and Knowledge
- System of communication summing-up our lived experiences
- Social interaction expressing our thoughts and feelings
- Spoken language from bodily gestures to linguistic acts specialized speech apparatus primary
medium of communication

Thinking & Language

- Interdependence of knowledge & language, i.e. the thinking process cannot work independently
of language
- Language is not neutral system of signs nor is it value-free, i.e. it is partisan to the values,
perspectives, and rules of cognition of a particular class or society.

Language, history, and socio-economic-cultural life

- Specific historical features and socio-economic-cultural conditions shape the thinking and
language of a people, giving distinctive meanings and value judgments to their words.
- Indigenous language, genuine vehicle of the innermost thoughts and intimate feelings of a
people bound by a common historical heritage and a specific socio-economic-cultural
environment

Psychological concepts and human behavior

- The formation of psychological concepts is the more important stage in the entire process of
understanding human behavior
- These concepts lay the foundation for the formation of indigenous psychological theories and
models of analysis that correspond more fully to the realities of the life and culture of a
society.

Pantayong Pananaw/Bagong Kasaysayan

A Communication-Based Framework for Historiography Undoubtedly by far the most theoretically

advanced and productive in terms of research output within the indigenization tradition is the discourse of
what is called Pantayong Pananaw.

Pantayong Pananaw is a communication-based theoretical innovation coming out of the field of

Philippine historiography. This new paradigm refers to the normative speaking context within which
scholars in the movement seek to help forge a ―national‖ discourse on civilization. Conceptualized by
Salazar (1991) together with history professor Jaime B. Veneracion and other younger members of the
History Department of U.P. Diliman, the goal of Pantayong Pananaw is to contribute to the flourishing of
a ―talastasang bayan,‖ that is, a national discourse. A descriptive etymological explication of the Filipino
term for ―discourse‖ or talastasan is provided by Atoy M. Navarro, Mary Jane B. Rodriguez, and Vicente
C. Villan (1997) and by Navarro (2000) using Salazar‘s conceptualization. Talastasan is alternatively
understood in the two referenced works as coming from the root word talas, pertaining to ―sharpness‖
or ―refinement,‖ and talastas referring to ―knowing,‖ ―being persuaded,‖ or ―realizing,‖
(unfortunately, there are no exact equivalents of the terms in English). It is also understood as having the
notion of tastas, meaning ―to unravel,‖ as in the unraveling of a stitch. In other words, by discourse is
meant ―a collective endeavor to know, to fathom, to realize, to be sharpened in one‘s understanding of
an idea or thought with the hope of further refining it and making it better‖ (Navarro et al., 1997, as
translated from the Filipino original). It also means the critical examination of ideological formulations for
the purpose of unraveling their constructed naturalness and exposing their sutured seams and hidden
contradictions. In this sense,
the English word ―discourse‖ is regarded as paling by comparison in that the latter merely signifies a
back-andforth exchange of ideas without the corresponding notion in talastasan of a deliberate intent of
refining and sharpening the subject of discussion. Together with the notion of history as salaysay which
carries with it the notion of the nation‘s pag-uulat sa sarili or the Theoretical Advances in the Discourse of
Indigenization 285 nation reporting to itself, Pantayong Pananaw hopes to create an ethos or climate
whereby the nation can share in one encompassing discourse, one that would lend a sense of kabuuan
or ―totality,‖ not in the reified sense of totalizing uniformity,31 but rather a shared understanding of the
nation‘s history that can give force and direction to a collective vision of the future. More will be said later
on the normative methodology for attaining this goal.

The term pantayo comes from the root word tayo, one of the pronouns marking the first person plural,
―we,‖ and the prefix pan-, roughly the equivalent for the prefix ―for.‖ With Pananaw translating to
―perspective,‖ Pantayong Pananaw can be roughly (awkwardly) phrased in English as ―A For-Us
Perspective.‖ However, an important revision to this literal translation into English is Ramon Guillermo‘s
(2003) formulation, namely, ―a from-us-for-us perspective.‖ In this reformulated translation, Guillermo
underscores that the cultural nation is not only the subject and goal of the discourse, but it is also the
source of it. Taking the various pronoun referents and their equivalent terms which are remarkably
present in their fine distinctions in all the Filipino languages and dialects, namely, kayo (you-plural), kami
(we-speaking to others), sila (they), and tayo (wespeaking among ourselves), Salazar chooses the last
pronoun referent tayo as his basis for building a theoretical foundation for his perspective. He explains
his choice by referring to the taken-forgranted speaking contexts of the various pronoun categories. The
two contending possibilities among the four pronoun referents are kami (we-speaking to others) and tayo
(we-speaking among ourselves). Salazar chooses the latter because kami, he reasons, implies a context
where one is discoursing with an ―other.‖32 Within this discursive context, one must constantly take the
other‘s context and perspective into consideration in any communicative transaction. Such is the case in
(de- )colonization in that the self is constantly aware of an outsider‘s presence. This is an outsider who,
far from friendly and sympathetic, happens to be the self‘s very own demon-tormentor.33 This outside
entity is seen at once as the cause of one‘s identity distortion and crisis, and yet, one still powerful
enough (whether in actuality or through habitual psychic conditioning) to harm if not somehow catered to.
As long as this outsider is included in the conversation, he or she remains an influential determinant of
the tone, direction, content, and rules to be set in conducting the discourse. Likewise, the constraint
placed on the speakers by a context where the ―other‖ or ―others‖ are constantly included even just as
overhearers, in Salazar‘s view, ensures that the discourse on nationhood by Filipinos will remain
unproductive 286 Mga Babasahin sa Agham Panlipunang Pilipino and trapped in a reactive mode,
unable to move forward or to create new initiatives.

A Closed Circuit of Interaction

What Pantayong Pananaw proposes then, if only figuratively speaking, is a ―closed circuit‖ of
interaction. This is a context where a discourse is to be carried on only by, and among, Filipinos without
the inclusion (constant intrusion or meddling) of outside participants or dominant perspectives inimical to
Filipino interests. That way, he argues, Filipinos can discourse and communicate freely –– in their own
terms, in their own language, using their own thought patterns and manner of relating and, most
importantly, with their own interests (as Filipinos) kept in mind first and foremost. While this call for a
closed circuit of interaction appears retrogressive in comparison to the outward-looking thrust of, say, the
newly-democratizing countries of Eastern Europe, proponents of Pantayong Pananaw see the move as a
much-needed first-time marking of boundaries, if only ideologically, by a people whose former all-
inclusiveness (borne not so much of generosity as of a distorted prioritizing of others‘ interest above
one‘s own in a kind of reverse ethnocentrism) serve to work only to its own detriment.
Traditionally, for instance, what succeeded in getting established as ―the‖ Filipino ―nation‖ is one
constructed by a national elite under the banner of ―official nationalism.‖ This brand of elite nationalism
is seen as harking back to a mode of acculturation which prevailed throughout history among Filipinos
whose exposure to Euro-American culture and civilization is deemed to have led to their total absorption
into a different mode of thinking even while wishing to work for an independent Filipinas. Thus, their
sentiments, loyalties, mode of consciousness, and interests are found to have greater affinity with the
liberal ideologies of Europe than with the thinking and revolutionary philosophy of the Filipino people.34
Under these elites‘ leadership, the country is deemed to have succeeded only in being steered along the
same beaten path to neocolonlialism and dependency, unable to chart its own course. Stuck in a purely
reactionary mode, the nation is indicted as being locked in global discourses without an agenda of its own
to place on the table. Only by instituting such a closed-circuit interaction do proponents of Pantayong
Pananaw envision the possibility of a ―truly‖ Filipino consensus Theoretical Advances in the Discourse
of Indigenization 287 emerging, participated in widely by formerly excluded voices from the diverse
Philippine cultural communities.
UNIT 2: SIKOLOHIYANG PILIPINO
FILIPINO PSYCHOLOGY
Sikolohiyang Pilipino (Filipino Psychology) refers to the psychology born out of the experience, thought
and orientation of the Filipinos, based on the full use of Filipino culture and language. The approach is
one of the ―indigenization from within‖ whereby the theoretical framework and methodology emerge
from the experiences of the people from the indigenous culture. It is based on assessing historical and
socio-cultural realities, understanding the local language, unraveling Filipino characteristics, and
explaining them through the eyes of the native Filipino. Among the outcomes are: (1) a body of
knowledge including indigenous concepts, (2) development of indigenous research methods and
indigenous personality testing, (3) new directions in teaching psychology, and (4) an active participation
in organization among Filipino psychologists and social scientists, both in the Philippines and overseas.

The Beginnings of Sikolohiyang Pilipino (Filipino Psychology)

From the beginning of the periods when the Philippines was colonized by Spain, and then the USA,
academic psychology, or the psychology taught in schools, was predominantly Western in theory and in
methodology. Many Filipino intellectuals, notably the two Philippine heroes Jose Rizal and Apolinario
Mabini, expressed dissatisfaction at the pejorative interpretations of Filipino behavior by Western
observers. This disenchantment continued as Filipinos struggled to assert their national and cultural
identity.

In the 1960s, many Filipino intellectuals and scholars were already sensitive both to the inadequacy as
well as unfairness of the Western-oriented approaches to psychology. For instance, in the area of
personality, the Western approach in research of not being enmeshed and bound by the culture being
studied has resulted in a characterization of the Filipino from the ―judgmental and impressionistic point
of view of the colonizers‖ (Enriquez, 1992, p.57). For example, the predisposition to indirectness of
Filipino communication was regarded as being dishonest and
socially ingratiating and reflecting a deceptive verbal description of reality (Lawless, 1969, cited in
Enriquez, 1992) rather than a concern for the feelings of others.

It was in the early 1970s that this was initiated when Virgilio Gaspar Enriquez returned to the Philippines
from Northwestern University, USA with a Ph.D. in Social Psychology and lost no time in introducing the
concept of Sikolohiyang Pilipino (Filipino Psychology). Together with then-chairman of the Department of
Psychology at the University of the Philippines, Dr. Alfredo V. Lagmay. Enriquez embarked on a research
into the historical and cultural roots of Philippine psychology.

From these two researches, a two-volume bibliography on Filipino psychology and a locally developed
personality test, Panukat ng Ugali at Pagkatao (PUP) (Measure of Character and Personality), were
produced. In 1975, Enriquez chaired the Unang Pambansang Kumperensya sa SIkolohiyang Pilipino
(First National Conference on Filipino Psychology) which was held at the
Abelardo Auditorium at the University of the Philippines. In this conference, the ideas, concepts, and
formulations of Sikolohiyang Pilipino were formally articulated.

Recap: What is Sikolohiyang Pilipino?

Sikolohiyang Pilipino is anchored on Filipino thought and experience as understood from a Filipino
perspective (Enriquez, 1975). The most important aspect of this definition is the Filipino orientation. For
centuries, Filipino behavior has been analyzed and interpreted in the light of Western theories. Since
these theories are inevitably culture-bound, the picture of the Filipino has been inaccurate, if not
distorted.

Enriquez (1985) later defined Sikolohiyang Pilipino as ―the study of diwa (psyche)‖, which in Filipino
directly refers to the wealth of ideas referred to by the philosophical concept of “essence” and an
entire range of psychological concepts fro awareness to motives to behavior.

It must be stressed at the outset though that developing a particularistic psychology such as Filipino
psychology is not anti-universal in as much as the ultimate aim of Sikolohiyang Pilipino is to contribute
to universal psychology, which can be realized only if each group of people is adequately
understood by themselves and from their own perspective. Sikolohiyang Pilipino is a step towards
contributing to universal psychology.

Initial work on Sikolohiyang Pilipino concentrated on a type of indigenization which is based largely on
simple translation of concepts, methods, theories and measures into Filipino. For example, psychological
tests were translated into the local language, modified in content, so that a Philippine type version of the
originally borrowed test was produced. On the other hand, another type of indigenization was given more
emphasis after the translation attempts failed to capture or express a truly Filipino Psychology. This is
called indigenization from within (as against indigenization from without), which means looking for the
indigenous psychology from within the culture itself and not just clothing a foreign body with a
local address.

The principal emphasis of Sikolohiyang Pilipino is to foster national identity and consciousness,
social involvement, and psychology of language and culture. It is thus concerned with proper
applications to health, agriculture, art, mass media, religion, and other spheres of people‘s daily life.

In his 1975 article on the bases of Sikolohiyang Pilipino on culture and history (Enriquez, 1975) and a
1976 article on perspectives and directions of Sikolohiyang Pilipino (Enriquez, 1976), he distinguished
Sikolohiyang Pilipino (Filipino psychology) from Sikolohiya sa Pilipinas (psychology in the
Philippines—the general form of psychology in the Philippine context) and Sikolohiya ng mga
Pilipino (psychology of the Filipinos—theorizing about the psychological nature of the Filipinos,
whether from a local or a foreign perspective).

Enriquez searched the Filipino culture and history for the bases of Sikolohiyang Pilipino instead of tracing
these back to Western theories. He came up with a definition of psychology that takes into account the
study of emotions and experienced knowledge (kalooban and kamalayan), awareness of one’s
surroundings (ulirat), information and understanding (isip), habits and behavior (another meaning
of diwa), and the soul (kaluluwa) which is the way to learning about people’s conscience (Enriquez,
1976).

WHY SIKOLOHIYANG PILIPINO?

―Application of concepts and measurement which are not appropriate in a particular culture (or context)
may result to an incorrect interpretation of one‘s behavior and thinking.‖
Development of Indigenous Concepts and Theories
There is a good deal of literature on the Filipino personality that has become available. The Filipino
personality is a popular area of study of many foreign scholars who came to the Philippines.

Rethinking Filipino Values

Enriquez was critical of this approach to the study of Filipino values. He encouraged Filipino scholars to
take a second look at these values using a Filipino orientation.

THE CORE VALUES

1. Core Value/Kapwa (Shared Identity)

2. Pivotal Interpersonal Value/Pakiramdam (Shared inner perception)
3. Linking Socio-Personal Value/Kagandahang Loob (Shared humanity)
4. Accommodative Surface Values
a. Hiya/Shame
b. Utang na loob/Norm of Reciprocity
c. Pakikisama and Pakikipagkapwa/Smooth Internal Relationship (SIR)
5. Confrontative Surface Values
a. Bahala Na/Fatalistic Passiveness
6. Societal Values
a. Karangalan/Dignity
b. Katarungan/Justice
c. Kalayaan/Freedom

KAPWA (SHARED IDENTITY)

(Shared Inner Self, ―The other person is also yourself‖)
∙ The core of Filipino psychology, it is humaneness at the highest level.
 ∙ Implies unique moral obligation to treat one another as equal fellow human beings.

Two categories:
1. Ibang Tao/Outsider
2. Hindi Ibang Tao/One-of-us

Ibang Tao/Outsider:
1. MakiTUNGO (courtesy/civility)
2. MakiSALAMUHA (mixing)
3. MakiLAHOK (joining)
4. MakiBAGAY (adapting)
5. MakiSAMA (getting along with/united)

Hindi Ibang Tao/One-of-us

1. MakiPAGPALAGAYANG-LOOB (rapport/mutual trust)
2. MakiSANGKOT (involvement/joining others)
3. MakiISA (oneness, unity with)

PAKIRAMDAM (Knowing Through Feeling or Tacit Knowing; Participatory Sensitivity) ∙ A

unique social skill inherent into personhood.
∙ A request to feel or to be sensitive.
∙ There is ―hesitation to react, attention to subtle cues and non-verbal behavior in mental role
playing.

KAGANDANG LOOB (Shared Humanity/Pagkamakatao)

∙ Genuine acts of generosity, kindness and caring

ACCOMMODATIVE SURFACE VALUE: HIYA

∙ Sibley (1965), an American scholar, translated hiya as ―shame".
∙ Lynch (1961) saw hiya as ―the uncomfortable feeling that accompanies awareness of being
in a socially unacceptable position, or performing a socially unacceptable action.”
∙ Andres (1994) described hiya as “an ingredient in why Filipinos overspend during fiestas in
order to please their visitors, even to the extent of going into debt. ∙ Bonifacio (1976) alerted us to the
different meanings of the word hiya depending on its form—nakakahiya (embarrassing),
napahiya (placed in an awkward position), ikinahiya (be embarrassed with someone), etc.
∙ With some affixes, it becomes negative, e.g. napahiya; with others, positive, e.g., mahiyain (shy);
and in still other forms, it can either be positive or negative depending on the context, e.g.,
kahihiyan (sense of propriety, or embarrassment).

UTANG NA LOOB
∙ Utang na loob was translated by Kaut (1961) as “debt of gratitude.”
∙ Andres (1994, pp. 190-191) defined it, following Kaut‘s logic, as “the principle of reciprocity
incurred when an individual helps another.”
∙ Hollnsteiner (1961) took this interpretation further by claiming that the recipient of the favor is
forced to show his (sic) gratitude properly by returning the favor with interest. ∙ Looking at
utang na loob more closely in the context of Filipino culture, it actually means “gratitude/solidarity.”
∙ It is not necessarily a burden as the word ―debt‖ connotes, because of Filipino pattern of
interpersonal relations.
∙ It is a beautiful element of Filipino interpersonal relationships that binds a person to his or her home
community or home country.

PAKIKISAMA
∙ Pakikisama was identified by Lynch (1961, 1973) as a Filipino value, giving it the English translation
of maintaining ―smooth interpersonal relations‖ by going along with the group or the majority
decision, i.e., conformity.

BAHALA NA (CONFRONTATIVE SURFACE VALUE)

∙ Has no exact English translation.
∙ Bostrom (1968) was the first psychologist to analyze this value by comparing it with American
fatalism.
 ∙ Thomas Andres defines bahala na as “the Filipino attitude that makes him accept sufferings
and problems, leaving everything to God.” “Bahala na ang Diyos” (God will take care of us)
∙ Lagmay (1977) explained that bahala na is not fatalism but ―determination and risk-taking.‖ ∙
Rather, they are telling themselves that they are ready to face the difficult situation before them, and
will do their best to achieve their objectives
INTERNALITY AND EXTERNALITY COMPONENTS OF FILIPINO PERSONALITY

Puri or Dangal
∙ Puri refers to honor which is physical, such as that bestowed through compliments or applauses for
a good performance, thus external
∙ Dangal is honor from within—knowledge of one‘s true worth, character, achievement and success,
thus internal.

Other examples of internality-externality includes saya and ligaya for the English word ―happiness‖,
pigil and timpi for ―control‖, and dama and damdam for ―feel‖.

QUESTION: Can you tell us which among these examples are internal and external?

THE SIKOLOHIYANG PILIPINO PERSPECTIVE ON THE FILIPINO BEHAVIOR PATTERNS AND

VALUE STRUCTURE

∙ As colonial/accommodative surface values

o Hiya (propriety/dignity)
o Utang na loob (gratitude/solidarity)
o Pakikisama (companionship/esteem)

∙ As confrontative surface values, he emphasized

o Bahala na (determination)
o Sama/lakas ng loob (resentment/guts)
o Pakikibaka (resistance)

∙ As core value
o Kapwa (shared identity)

∙ As pivotal interpersonal value

o Pakikiramdam (shared inner perception)

∙ As linking socio-personal value

o Kagandahang loob (shared humanity)

∙ As societal values
o Karangalan (dignity)
o Katarungan (justice)
o Kalayaan (freedom)

DEVELOPMENT OF INDIGENOUS PERSONALITY MEASURES

In the area of Filipino personality, Enriquez, together with PPRH, developed the Panukat ng Ugali at
Pagkatao (PUP) (Measure of Character and Personality) in 1975 which utilized dimensions of
personality that are relevant to Filipinos.

While psychological testing is Western origin, the substance of the PUP originated from an
understanding of the Filipinos. The test administration procedures were also adapted to Filipino ways
(Enriquez & Guanzon, 1985).
Cipres-Ortega and Guanzon-Lapena (1997) documented and organized the information on both
published and unpublished work in the area of psychological measurement, and saw a recent upsurge in
the development of indigenous psychological measures. Interest has grown by leaps and bounds from
the handful of tests in educational psychology that were locally developed in the 1950s, to the interest in
personality testing of the projective type in the 1960s.

They further noted ―the 1970s saw tests developed in creativity, self-perception, personality and
vocational testing, with a number of researchers doing studies on the Filipino child and the Filipino
adolescent. And in the 1990s, tests were developed to measure a wide variety of Filipino characteristics
—katalinuhan (intelligence), pagkarelihiyoso (religiosity) kaasalang sekswal (sexual behavior),
kakayahang magdala ng tension (ability to handle stress), pagkamabahala (anxiety), kahustuhang
emosyonal (emotional stability), kakayahang berbal sa Filipino (verbal ability in Filipino), Filipino
management style, dementia, screening, empathy, and trustworthiness, to name a few‖ (Cipres-Ortega &
Guanzon-Lapena, 1997).

Development of Indigenous Research Methods

The impact of Sikolohiyang Pilipino was greatly felt in the area of social research methods. In 1975,
Carmen Santiago, a postgraduate student of Psychology at UP, did a study on Pagkalalaki (no
equivalent in English, but approximately, it means ―masculinity‖, ―maleness‖, ―manhood‖ or all of
these) for a class under Enriquez.

This study was to be the turning point in Philippine social research for it was in her articles (Santiago,
1975, 1977) that the pakapa-kapa (―groping‖) approach was first introduced.

In searching for appropriate research methods that are indigenous to Filipino experience, Filipino
scholars have learned to assume the pakapa-kapa perspective, “a suppositionless approach to
social scientific investigations. As implied by the term itself, pakapa-kapa is an approach
characterized by groping, searching, and probing into an unsystematized mass of social and
cultural data to obtain order, meaning and directions for research (Torres, 1982, p.171).

There are at least 5 (five) basic guiding principles relevant to the use of indigenous perspective in
general, and indigenous research methods in particular.

1. The level of interaction or relationship that exists between the researcher and the researched
significantly determines the quality of data obtained in the research process. a. The levels of
interaction are the same ones as kapwa classifications—Ibang-Tao (―Outsider‖) and Hindi-
Ibang-Tao (―One-of-us‖).
b. It is recommended that the first level under Hindi-Ibang-Tao, which is
Pakikipagpalagayang-loob (level of mutual trust, understanding, rapport) should be
reached, at the minimum, in order to be assured of good quality data.
2. Research participants should always be treated by researchers as equal, if not superior—a fellow
human being and not like a ―guinea pig‖.
3. The welfare of the research participants take precedence over the data obtained from them. 4.
The method to be used in research should be chosen on the basis of appropriateness to the
population (and not sophistication of the method) and it should be made to adapt to existing cultural
norms.
5. The language of the people should be the language of research at all times.

Areas of Application of Sikolohiyang Pilipino

1. Early work was focused on the use of local language in teaching, research, and in the conduct of
various conferences and symposia in psychology.
2. The work of Bulatao in appropriate techniques in therapy suited to the Filipino personality. 3.
Providing psychological help to children in especially difficult circumstance. 4. Feminist psychology
social and clinical psychologists have helped battered women
understand their problems in the light of the different socio-cultural conditions affecting women in
Philippine society.
5. In industry particularly in the marketing of specific products and understanding consumer behavior.

TOWARDS UNIVERSAL PSYCHOLOGY THROUGH INDIGENIZATION

We put forward now that what is generally considered as ―universal‖ psychology is based on the
psychology of industrialized and developed countries of the West. This psychology aims to be a science
comparable to that of the natural sciences, thus approximating the laws of universality.

Recap: Two Types of Indigenization

1. Indigenization from Without- transporting psychological theories, concepts, and methods, and
modifying them to fit local cultural context.
2. Indigenization from Within- culture as source of knowledge to come up with cross-cultural
knowledge.
KATUTUBONG PAMAMARAAN NG PANANALIKSIK (KPP)

Bunga ng karanasan sa loob ng SP, ang katutubong pamamaraan ng pananaliksik (KPP) ay mga
pamamaraan sa pananaliksik na may pagkiling sa pangangailangang sensitibo sa mga Pilipino.
Ito ay naglalayong pangalagaan ang tunguhan ng mananaliksik at kalahok na hindi isinasaalang aang
ang kapakanan ng kalahok at ang datos sa ngalan ng agham.

2 Modelo ng Pananaliksik

1. Iskala ng Mananaliksik- metodong ginagamit ng isang mananaliksik sa sikolohiya sa pagtatarok

ng diwa ng kalahok.

2. Iskala ng Patutunguhan ng Mananaliksik at Kalahok- mga metodong ginagamit ng isang

mananaliksik sa kanyang pag-aaral ng diwang Pilipino sa pamamagitan ng mga kalahok.
INDIGENOUS RESEARCH METHODS

1. PAKAPA-KAPA- means groping (field method)- searching, probing into an unsystematized

mass of social and cultural data to be able to obtain order, meaning, and direction for research.
2. PAKIKIPAG-KUWENTUHAN- an occasion for exchange of information, ideas, insights, and
opinions; also it is sharing of beliefs, thoughts, and experiences. An informal, free, as well as
social process of exchanging information, thoughts, and knowledge that is part of human daily
activities.
3. PAKIKIPAGPALAGAYANG-LOOB- this displays the mutual trust between the researchers and
the participants, hesitation and timidity are set aside in terms of acts and words.
4. PAGDALAW-DALAW- refers to the frequent visits of the researchers to the participants
place to establish rapport.
5. PAKIKITUNGO- civility with
6. PAKIKISALAMUHA- interaction with
7. PAKIKILAHOK- participation with
8. PAKIKIBAGAY- in accord with/level of conforming
9. PAKIKISAMA- being along with/level of adjusting
10. PAKIKIPANULUYAN- residing in the research setting. Researcher lives, sleeps, and eats
with the host

NATIONAL IDENTITY
∙ One of the most complex, even most highly contested, concepts in this modern era ∙ Has
been the rallying cry of the colonized
∙ But at the same time, it also served as fuel for the oppression and discrimination of
individuals and groups considered as ―not one of us.‖

THREE DIMENSIONS OF BEING A FILIPINO

1. Pinagmulan (socio-political dimension
2. Kinalakhan (cultural dimension)
3. Kamalayan (psychological dimension)

PINAGMULAN
∙ Socio-political origins, which corresponds to socio-political dimension.
∙ This dimension corresponds to the raw definition of citizenship as stated in the 1987
Constitution.

KINALAKHAN
∙ Cultural roots, revolves around participation and being immersed in a cultural milieu
acknowledged as Filipino.

KAMALAYAN
∙ Consciousness
∙ The responses in this dimension are associated with awareness of the self as Filipino,
acceptance of membership in the category ―Filipino‖, and also pride in this membership.

Babaw at Lalim (Surface and Depth): Filipino-ness as an Ethical Standard

 ∙ Pilipino sa Pangalan
o An image of a passive citizen
o Individual may accept or recognize that he or she is a Filipino but may not be
involved in activities that highlight identity.
∙ Pilipino sa Puso
o Someone who considers Filipino-ness a conviction
o Filipino-ness has become internalized or integrated with the loob.

Loob at Labas (From within and without): Filipino as a Social Category ∙ Loob refers to those
ideas that are deemed important and relevant in relationship to the self
∙ Labas is considered as irrelevant and unimportant

3 Elements of Filipino Personhood

∙ Loob, labas, and lalim
∙ Lalim is used to signify the gradation of integration into the loob.
∙ Thus, Pilipino sa pangalan would imply superficial (mababaw) integration and Pilipino sa puso
would suggest a deeper (malalim) integration into the loob.
∙ The difference in Pilipino sa pangalan at Pilipino sa puso lie in the activity (galaw) of the loob or the
lack of it.
∙ Thus, the loob‘s galaw is recognized only when it is manifested in the labas since: ―Loob can
manifest itself only through some form of externalization.‖