NEGOTIATING TRADITIONAL FILIPINO PERSONAL, FAMILIAL AND SOCIAL

INSTITUTION
(Joel Sagut)

Is it possible to talk about “the Filipino essence?” Is it possible to classify a group

of behaviors or characters as uniquely Filipino? Is there really such singularity in the
culture of Filipinos?

These are among the questions that can be raised when we talk about
postmodernism, which proposes the erasure of a unifying principle or essence that
would classify several individuals into a single group. To define the Filipino becomes a
difficult endeavor simply because we know the diversities of the Philippine population.
How are we to determine the Filipino whom we are talking about? Is he a Mindanaoan,
a Visayan or a Manileño? Is he a Christian, a Moslem, or an indigenous person? Is he the
Filipino of the cities or the Filipino of the hills? Is he from the urban or the rural
community? Is he from an exclusive village in Makati or from the squatters’ area in
Payatas, Quezon City? The attempt to come up with a unified concept of the Filipino is
challenged by the particularities that affect every individual.

Nevertheless, let me start my reflection with some popular impressions about who
the Filipinos are. These characterizations may not really exhaustive but they are
oftentimes used by literatures that talk about the Filipino people.

The Filipino Familial and Communal Ties

Filipinos are group-oriented people. This is the claim of authors like Armando de
Jesus, who argues that Filipinos “like most of the orientals, are said to be group bound.” 1
Filipinos, especially those of the rural areas, have shown perceivable leaning towards
their community. This even allows Leonardo Mercado to claim that the Filipinos in
general are cognizant of the so-called sakop system2, which means that the Filipino values
are largely determined by the approval of the community.

These authors even cite as proof of the Filipino sakop-system the latter’s tendency
to preserve a large scope of familial relations.3 It is often claimed that Filipino families
include those relatives who are even beyond the range of the immediate household like
the aunts, the uncles, the cousins, and the grandparents. It is not uncommon that in
some Filipino families, the aunts and uncles who are more financially blessed than their
siblings do feel responsible in helping the latter even to the point of owning the
responsibility of sending their nieces and nephews to school. There seems to be an
implicit rule that morally obliges those who can financially afford to become responsible
for securing the well-being of the families of those siblings who are financially hard up.
This sense of responsibility can be said to have stemmed from a consciousness which
1
Armando de Jesus, “Cultural Underpinnings of Poverty,” Ad Veritatem, vol.2, no.1 (2002),
60.
Leonardo Mercado, “Filipino Philosophy and Corruption in the Government,” Ad Veritatem,
2

vol.2, no.2 (2003), 354.

3
cf. Mercado, “Filipino Philosophy and Corruption in the Government,” 347.

1
says that the family does not have its boundaries in the immediate household. The
proximate relatives are still part of that household, and so even the nieces and nephews
are not just the responsibility of their respective parents but also of the latter’s brother or
sister. This shows that Filipino families are large not just because of the big number of
children, but also because of the consciousness that dictates them to treat the members
of the extended family as constitutively part of their own.

Futhermore, there are practices, especially among traditional rural Filipino

communities, that portray strong manifestations of the Filipino sakop system. The
bayanihan4 is an example of a much taken for granted fact about being a Filipino. It is
often taken for granted that Filipinos are willing to sacrifice some of what they have in
order to help others. The bayanihan is a description of this Filipino sense of responsibility
of making oneself available to serve the other, especially a neighbor or any person to
whom one is related.5

This bayanihan practice is extended to many practices in Filipino communities.

Any form of help for another person has already become an instance of bayanihan. When
a group of young people starts a project, for example, in order to help a destitute family,
the group is said to have done one concrete act of a bayanihan.6 Hence, the presence of
the word bayanihan in the Filipino vocabulary can be taken to imply the strong ties
among Filipino families and communities. We are connected to other people and that
connection makes us feel responsible for their welfare.

Albert Alejo even claimed that our interpersonal ties happen in our innermost
being which he calls as the loob ng tao.7 Other authors even claimed that this loob is the
4
Bayanihan means “mutual aid or cooperative endeavor; cooperation; community
development.” [Leo English, Tagalog-English Dictionary, 22nd printing (Manila: National
Bookstore, 2007) 183].
5
The bayanihan originates from the custom among rural people whereby the males in the
neighborhood assist a neighbor in transferring a house. The common houses in the rural
Philippines of the olden times are mostly composed of light materials, and the foundations of the
houses’ pillars are not buried in the ground. They are normally simply placed on top of a hard
material like stone, and on them the entire house rests. This allows the possibility to carry the
entire house whenever one household would like to transfer their residence to another place. So
as to avoid the hassle of dismantling the entire structure, and rebuilding it again in another place,
the rural communities came up with the practice of the bayanihan (with the word bayani which
originally means hero). In the bayanihan, the entire house is carried on the shoulders of the male
members of the community who have responded to their sense of responsibility towards their
neighbor. In my ancestral community in Anibongan (Maco), Davao, which is largely composed of
rice planters, the bayanihan is strongly manifested in the communal planting of rice among the
members of the community. Both males and females take part in the planting of rice so as to
maximize the work during rainy season.
6
A Filipino synonym of the word bayanihan is damayan, a noun that means “mutual aid.” (Leo
English, Tagalog-English Dictionary, 405.
7
Alejo argues that the reason why we are involved in the situation of people who are
reported to have been victimized by floods, typhoons and other misfortunes is the fact that we are
connected to them. He claims that such connection is in our loob or the inner Being.[Albert Alejo, Tao
Po! Tuloy! Isang Landas ng Pag-unawa sa Loob ng Tao (Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University,
1990), 82.

2
innermost core of the person. The loob defines the person.8 Hence, when a Filipino say:
ito ang aking saloobin (this is what my loob wants), this can also mean that I bring my
entire being into this thing.

The loob of persons allows them to connect with others in the community. When
Alejo claims that the connection of a person with those whom he heard or read in the
news is internal, he insinuated that the basis of our communal relationship has also to be
internal, that is through our loob. There is an inner feeling of sympathy or
commiseration, an inner connection that drags our being to somehow be one with the
other, no matter how imperfect our attempt for communion would be.

Furthermore, the loob constitutes our similarities, our oneness as a people. We

share the same loob and so we have the capacity to feel as one. Dionisio Miranda
describes each person’s loob as: “It is the same in essential nature (structurally, in having
the same essential elements) and basic processes. This would mean that the processes
within each element and level are basically the same in any loob.”9

Such connection with others is a cherished value in most Filipino communities.

In fact, to lose this inner connection may even cause a social stigma upon the person. A
person who does not feel any connection with any other is, in the Filipino language, a
manhid (indifferent or emotionless) na tao.10 A manhid is one who can remain emotionally
undisturbed even after learning about the difficulties and sufferings of others. He loses
the capacity to help primarily because s/he has lost his/her connection with others.
Furthermore, to be branded as a manhid na tao is a kind of a social stigma in Filipino
communities. When one is called as a manhid na tao that also means that the person is
treated more as a nuisance rather than a help in the community.

This bond in the community, this sense of connection especially with those
people who are physically proximate to one another, allows the Filipinos to rely more on
social approval as gauge in the moral quality of their actions. It is not uncommon among
Filipinos that they prefer not to be straightforward about their bad impressions on
others because of the fear that to bluntly express these thoughts would disturb their
cherished communal relations. Some Filipinos find the act of bluntly offending another
person socially unacceptable. Social approval plays a big part in Filipinos’ lifestyle, and
hence any disturbance of social relations should be avoided as much as possible.

This results to the kind of morality that is largely based on social pressure. In my
years of stay in the community of Agno, Tatalon, Quezon City, whose population is
mostly composed of people from the Visayas and Mindanao, kapitbahayan or
“neighborhood ties” is a prized commodity. They measure the moral quality of a person
largely on the network of influence that the person exercises among his/her neighbors.

8
Jose de Mesa, In Solidarity with Culture (Quezon City: Maryhill School of Theology, 1991), 45.
See also, Jose de Mesa and Lode Wostyn, Doing Christology (Quezon City: Claretian Publications,
1989), 122.
9
Dionisio Miranda, Loob: The Filipino Within (Manila: Divine Word Publications, 1989), 57.
10
Manhid is an adjective which means “torpid or numb.” (Leo English, Filipino-English Dictionary,
891).

3
A good person is one who is befriended and is respected by most number of neighbors,
while a person becomes morally suspect if he/she gains no friends in the community.
The gauge of respect is on the person’s ability to please the expectations of the
neighbors. Hence, among the most hurting insults that one can get in that community is
the reputation of somebody “na walang kapitbahay” (one who has no neighbor), which
refers to a person who fails to gain the approval and affection of the people in the
immediate community.

This then illustrates the strong ties within Filipino communities. Each member
wishes to be connected to others, and so, everyone would also want their actions to be in
consonance with others’ judgments. Sadly however, most of their dealings with others
remain superficial because they are mostly external. The demand for social acceptance is
so strong, and some of them would rather sacrifice sincerity and integrity just to appear
good to others.

The Hierarchic Nature of Filipino Families and Communities

In addition to our awareness about our connectedness, of our sense of belonging

to a family or a larger community, it is also observed that Filipinos are normally aware
and respectful of hierarchies in their midst. We are aware of the fact that there are
superiors and subordinates in our communities. We are accustomed, for example, to
accept the hierarchies in our households. It is quite common among Filipino families,
especially of the olden times, that the parents’ opinions are held respectable not because
of any other reason than the fact that they come from the parents. Regardless of whether
the parents actually know more about the case or not, the parents’ opinions in the
Filipino households have greater weight because of our wide acceptance of the
hierarchic nature of the family.

Even in the larger community, we are mindful of this hierarchy. In our political
structure, we consider public officials as our patrons. They are there to help us in times
of our need. This is even the reason why one of the most sought-after qualities of a
public official, especially in the rural areas, is the latter’s capacity to feel for or sympathize
with the people. The more approachable official normally wins the respect of the
community. This is because the people think that the public officials are to be there
especially to assist them in their needs, no matter how petty or personal these needs
are.11

Hence, public officials are patrons. They are providers of the community, and as
such they merit the people’s respect and loyalty. Traditional Filipino communities
understood this mutuality among the people and the leaders.12 This mutuality also
somehow preserves the leaders in their office.

11
I remember one particular experience when I was still a young man in my hometown in Davao. An
old Boholano wins the election for the office of the governor mostly because of his alleged approachability.
He was thought more as a patron because aside from being an old landlord, he rarely closes the gates of his
big mansion. The open gates project his welcoming character to the ordinary people.
12
cf. Nicanor Tiongson, Kasaysayan at Estetika ng Sinakulo at Ibang Dulang Panrelihiyon sa
Malolos (Quezon City: Ateneo University Press, 1975), 192

4
 The hierarchic structure in the community defines the role of each of the
members. This preserves the smooth mutuality of the citizens and the patrons in the
community. The acknowledgment of the “proper places or positions” of each allows an
ordered social life.

The challenge of postmodernism

The influx of recently developed thoughts such as postmodernism is now also

affecting the consciousness of the people in the Philippines. The new ways of thinking
clash against the traditional Filipino situations that value connectedness and hierarchies.
The things valued by traditional Filipino ethical systems are the very same items that the
postmodern thoughts are trying to do away with.

With the postmodern agenda of erasing the existing value systems, the Filipinos
are faced with a particular crisis: to either preserve the traditional views but reject the
emerging postmodern philosophies, or to do otherwise, that is, to embrace the emerging
thoughts and discard the traditional views. It seems that the traditional views and the
postmodern ideals can hardly go together. That is why, when the latter are gaining
prominence especially among the youth, the traditional institutions are faced with the
challenge of reanimating themselves. For what have been traditionally held as important
are now becoming more and more insignificant. The Filipinos then are faced with the
challenge of facilitating this dialogue between their traditions and that of the emerging
postmodern alternatives.

Moreover, to dialogue with an emerging mentality, even if it’s a foreign

mentality, is already a practice in Filipino communities. In fact, the question about the
ideal Filipino thought is really an important issue because there is a real difficulty in
establishing which of the many variations of mentalities in the Philippines is to
constitute the real essence of a Filipino mind. In Asia, the Filipinos are among the most
receptive people. Our thoughts are always affected by these new developments which
we embrace throughout history. In one of our informal conversations among the
members of the theology research team of the then John Paul II Research Center of UST,
we were talking about the influences of postmodernism in the theological developments
in the Philippines. It has been observed that many Filipino theologians are concerned
about the postmodern consciousness that is fast building among circles of theologians in
the country. Postmodernism seems to have become a great deal of force that need to be
reckoned with. However, it was also observed that theologians of other Asian nations
are not really as concerned as Filipinos are about postmodernism. One has even recalled
his conversation with an Indian scholar who told him not to be too concerned about
postmodernism because it does not really contribute anything significant to our
Christian theologizing.

This conversation, I realized, is a strong indication of our susceptibility to every

little progress that happens globally. Developments, especially in the West, create big
impacts on us, and we are easily influenced or affected by them. Hence, when
postmodernism emerged as an alternative mentality from the West, many Filipinos have

5
also followed suit. The Indians and the Chinese may show considerable resistance
against postmodernism, but Filipinos can effortlessly receive it as an alternative thought.

With postmodernism, the Filipino traditional ethical systems are blurred. What
has been previously held as normal are now put into question, and the issue about
preferences have become a difficult choice because there are no longer any dominant
view about the proper things to be done.

Postmodernism however contributed to the realization that the Filipino

community is not monolithic, and the traditional values of the majority are not
necessarily the best options for all. The once ignored minority has now gained
recognition in the postmodern world, and so, they can now easily compete with any
other ethical or philosophical system. With postmodernism, the Philippine situation is
made aware of its own pluralism. We are now confronted by the reality that the
Filipinos are not just really one people. There are differences among us. We have varied
ways of appreciating things. We have different beliefs and even different traditions.

There is a growing recognition of the mentality of the minorities such as the

many indigenous people in the country, the Islamic tradition of the people of Mindanao
and other areas of the country, and the growing traditions of the many indigenous faiths
like the various communities in Mt. Banahaw. These are the many little voices that were
once ignored in the traditional Philippine situation. They were previously regarded as
outside the normal ways of doing things. They are oftentimes labeled as superstitious,
backwards and other pejorative labels. But with postmodernism, they gain recognition
and even acceptance. They now become alternatives that possess equal validity as that
of the previously held “normal way.”

This is one area where the traditional Philippine situation really has to do serious
negotiations. The Philippine situation could no longer claim of a monolithic or at least a
majority ethical system. We are now confronted with our differences and variations, and
these are new things that we need to recognize and contend with. With postmodernism,
the Christian traditions of the urban people could not just simply oppress or annihilate
other traditions because such would only result to more conflicts and even bloody
oppositions. The only viable solution for now is to seek for mutual respect and decent
co-existence. There is a need to realize and value mutual respect despite our differences.

We need to be at home and be creative with our differences. To think that we all
need to behave identically is, I believe, among the greatest offenses that a person, a
tradition, or an institution may commit in our time.

This then ultimately leads to the realization that even the valuation of our ties
and hierarchies in the Philippines is also questioned. In politics, we see most of the
manifestations of this attack against the higher offices. The superiors no longer hold a
privileged position, but they have now become as vulnerable as any of their
subordinates. In our current situation, a person could not even guarantee that he would
forever remain at the top for it may even happen that those who were once his
subordinate would also later on become his own superiors. The Filipino expression of

6
“bilog ang mundo” (the world is round) attests to our consciousness of the possibility that
social situations may change rapidly and one’s superior status does not really secure
him/her of a lifetime privilege.

Furthermore, the non-privileged status of the leaders is seen in their hitherto

accountability and answerability to the people. The postmodern development in the
nation allows the people to question, watch over and even at times oust those who are in
civil service. One’s titles no longer secure him/her of any real and lasting advantage
over the other. What remains important however is the realization that a person is no
longer guarded by his position, rank or office but rather by his sincerity and credibility
in service. When the past hierarchies offer rooms for loyalties among the participating
parties, in postmodernism loyalties are challenged by these very ideals of credibility and
sincerity. This happens not just in politics, but also in many areas of our life as Filipinos.
This happens even in the classrooms of Universities whereby professors or instructors
would have to prove their worth through their day to day lessons and not through the
titles that they attach to their names. This happens in the corporate offices whereby best
managers are known not because of their names and degrees but through their
implemented decisions. This even happens in the Church where priests and bishops are
no longer treated as privileged members of the body of Christ, but rather as co-pilgrims
in this universal journey towards the Father.

No one is in a privileged place anymore. All of us are equal, and despite being
different from one another, we are all invited to sort our differences out and live
harmoniously together, preserving our own identity without necessarily requiring
others to behave like us.

Furthermore, the ties among members of the Filipino communities are also
challenged through the postmodernist ideal of autonomy and freedom. The postmodern
view on freedom is highly individualistic. Freedom rests on the availability of one’s
choices. The more the choices are, the more free the postmodernist person is. This
extreme individualism has the tendency to disregard the value of communal relations.
Although it is true that postmodernism invites people toward dialogue and consensus,
such is however primarily premised on differences and autonomy. They continue to
challenge the thought of coming together to a community for mutuality of help.

Conclusion

There are indeed several changes that postmodernism brings to our Philippine
situation. The traditional Philippines could not just simply ignore the influx of these
thoughts. It could not just simply set them aside and claim that they are abnormalities
that need to be annihilated or at least ignored. In our postmodern times, we are required
to listen, to negotiate, to challenge not just the positions of others but also our own.
There is a real value in negotiation and dialogue because only through these can we
hope for a harmonious and healthy co-existence. It is in listening, dialoguing and even
negotiating that we continue, not just to exist, but also even to grow.

7
 If our value systems are challenged, then postmodernism poses a possibility for
us to grow. It allows us to see the variations among us and to value our differences. For
one, it allows us to see that the authenticity of our persons is not solely dependent on the
approval of our immediate communities. Postmodernism allows us to realize that there
is nothing sinful in being different. It allows us to appreciate the thought that our
connection with others does not compel us to behave in the way that they do.

With the challenge of postmodernism, we are invited to think more about our
being Filipinos. Who are we really as Filipinos? Postmodernism warns us that we are
not really a singular people, and that we could learn and grow through the differences
and variations that exist among us.

Joel C. Sagut
Institute of Religion
Ecclesiastical Faculties