Clemen C. Aquino
Short Description
filpsych...
Description
Mula sa Kinaroroonan: Kapwa, Kapatiran and Bayan in Philippine Social Science 1 Clemen C. Aquino Department Departm ent of Sociology Sociol ogy University of the Philippines From the pioneering works of Enriquez, Covar and Salazar, which paved the way for the production of social science knowledge that is particularly meaningful and sensitive to Philippine culture and society, this paper explores the social signications of kapwa, kapatiran and bayan. In the context of the dominant inuence of Western perspectives in Philippine social science, the understanding, appreciation and evaluation of their contributions continue to be an important undertaking. As a preliminary attempt to contribute to o V ered as an approach or an outline for this discourse, a panlipunang pagbabanghay is V the analysis of Philippine social organization.
It was in the 1970s that the academic paths of Professor Virgilio G. Enriquez of the Department of Psychology, Professor Prospero R. Covar of the Department of Anthropology, Anthropology, and Professor Zeus A. Salazar S alazar of the DepartDe partment ment of History History — social social science science scholar scholarss at the Universit University y of the Philippines Philippines — converged. Through training in their respective elds, these three professors collectively cultivated scholarship on Philippine culture, diwa (spirit) and society. In the context of the pervasive inuence of Western education in the country, and on social science in particular, they set out to formulate perspectives that are rooted in and signicant to their own society. During that particular period, a crucial factor was the imposition of martial law in the country, especially in the task of confronting questions and problems problems that may be unique to Philippine Philippine political political and social life. The professors fessors provided provided one another academic academic support, support, and the 1970s saw saw the instiinstitution of the course Sikolohiyang Pilipino (Filipino Psychology) in the Department of Psychology and the establishment of the Pambansang Samahan sa Sikolohiyang Pilipino (National Confederation on Filipino Psychology), as well as the strengthening strengthening of o f the Pantayong Pananaw ( Pantayo Pantayo perspective) in the Department of History. Moreover, in the latter part of the 1980s, Pilipinolohiya (Filipinology) was established in the graduate programme of the College of Social Sciences Sciences and Philosophy. Now that almost three decades have passed since they crossed academic paths, it may be said that, in various ways, their intellectual endeavours have been developed and advanced. Even though there is no formal institution or academic organization that nurtures their common cause, there continues the assiduous cultivation of perspectives, concepts, and
A.J.S.S. 32:1 (105–139) (105 –139) © 2004 Koninklijke Koninklijke Brill Brill NV, Leiden
also available online see www.bril www.brill.nl l.nl
106
·
Clemen C. Aquino
methods of research that are relevant and meaningful to Philippine society. Many students and junior faculty members have contributed substantially to their eld and through ongoing ongo ing clarication clarication and debate, d ebate, they have added vibrancy and meaning to their cause. Over the years, these studies collectively serve to further explore, understand and articulate the multidimensional character of Philippine culture and society. It is equally signicant to note that from conventional reactions to Western ideas, the co-sojourners have been able to transcend the habitual responses to and struggles with what are perceived to be colonial perspectives and foreign inuences. The aim of o f this paper is to provide an exploratory analysis analysis of selected selected concepts cultivated by Enriquez, Covar, and Salazar that have particular relevance to the study of Philippine social organization. Written from the perspective perspective of sociology that looks at the individual in society and the indi vidual’s linkages with the broader broa der social structure, structure , this paper focuses on three concepts: kapwa , one of the concepts rst examined by Enriquez in his time; kapatiran , which sums up the broad eld of studies cultivated by Covar; and bayan, a concept that Salazar considers integral to the understanding of Philippine history and cultural life.
Kapwa in Sikolohiyang Pilipino Integral to the work of Enriquez is the concept of kapwa . In 1978, in the article article “Kapwa: “Kapwa: A Core Concept Concept in Filipin Filipino o Social Psyc Psychology hology”” — one of the rst seminal presentations of the concept concept — Enriquez recognized the centrality of kapwa to the study of social interaction among Filipinos. 2 Corollary attention was also given to Filipino society’s deep regard for pakikipagkapwa or pakikipagkapwa-tao , or having good and sincere relations with one’s brethren. It is important to note that Enriquez’s study of the concept of kapwa is inextricably linked with the Sikolohiyang Pilipino’s cultivation of methods of data collection that are meaningful in the Philippine context. In fact, one of the initial research activities of Sikolohiyang Pilipino that was prioritized and instituted by Enriquez in the early 1970s focused on the study of makaPilipinong pamamaraan ng pananaliksik (Filipino methods of research) which involves pakapa-k pakapa-kapa apa (groping), pagtatan pagtatanon ong-ta g-tanong nong (querying), and pakikipa pakikipaggkuwentuhan (sharing stories) (Santiago and Enriquez, 1982; Santiago, 1982). These methods of collecting data were considered integral to the understanding and articulation of social science knowledge that is sensitive to the nuances and dynamics of Philippine society. Enriquez’s examination of the concept of kapwa is based on Santiago’s earlier study about various kinds and levels of interaction in a Tagalog village. Santiago had looked at the social interaction related to the o V ering of food to ibang-tao (outsider) and hindi-ibang-tao (one of us) in a Bulacan municipality (1976:135). It is this study that, in turn, became b ecame the basis for Santiago
106
·
Clemen C. Aquino
methods of research that are relevant and meaningful to Philippine society. Many students and junior faculty members have contributed substantially to their eld and through ongoing ongo ing clarication clarication and debate, d ebate, they have added vibrancy and meaning to their cause. Over the years, these studies collectively serve to further explore, understand and articulate the multidimensional character of Philippine culture and society. It is equally signicant to note that from conventional reactions to Western ideas, the co-sojourners have been able to transcend the habitual responses to and struggles with what are perceived to be colonial perspectives and foreign inuences. The aim of o f this paper is to provide an exploratory analysis analysis of selected selected concepts cultivated by Enriquez, Covar, and Salazar that have particular relevance to the study of Philippine social organization. Written from the perspective perspective of sociology that looks at the individual in society and the indi vidual’s linkages with the broader broa der social structure, structure , this paper focuses on three concepts: kapwa , one of the concepts rst examined by Enriquez in his time; kapatiran , which sums up the broad eld of studies cultivated by Covar; and bayan, a concept that Salazar considers integral to the understanding of Philippine history and cultural life.
Kapwa in Sikolohiyang Pilipino Integral to the work of Enriquez is the concept of kapwa . In 1978, in the article article “Kapwa: “Kapwa: A Core Concept Concept in Filipin Filipino o Social Psyc Psychology hology”” — one of the rst seminal presentations of the concept concept — Enriquez recognized the centrality of kapwa to the study of social interaction among Filipinos. 2 Corollary attention was also given to Filipino society’s deep regard for pakikipagkapwa or pakikipagkapwa-tao , or having good and sincere relations with one’s brethren. It is important to note that Enriquez’s study of the concept of kapwa is inextricably linked with the Sikolohiyang Pilipino’s cultivation of methods of data collection that are meaningful in the Philippine context. In fact, one of the initial research activities of Sikolohiyang Pilipino that was prioritized and instituted by Enriquez in the early 1970s focused on the study of makaPilipinong pamamaraan ng pananaliksik (Filipino methods of research) which involves pakapa-k pakapa-kapa apa (groping), pagtatan pagtatanon ong-ta g-tanong nong (querying), and pakikipa pakikipaggkuwentuhan (sharing stories) (Santiago and Enriquez, 1982; Santiago, 1982). These methods of collecting data were considered integral to the understanding and articulation of social science knowledge that is sensitive to the nuances and dynamics of Philippine society. Enriquez’s examination of the concept of kapwa is based on Santiago’s earlier study about various kinds and levels of interaction in a Tagalog village. Santiago had looked at the social interaction related to the o V ering of food to ibang-tao (outsider) and hindi-ibang-tao (one of us) in a Bulacan municipality (1976:135). It is this study that, in turn, became b ecame the basis for Santiago
Mula sa Kinaroroonan
·
107
and Enriquez (1982) in their formulation of a scale of pagtutunguhan (interaction) between the researcher and the participant in the study. Santiago and Enriquez (1982) developed eight categories of pagtutunguhan (interaction) between the researcher and the participant, and Enriquez used these same categories in his exploration of the concept of kapwa . It is important to emphasize that the authors also considered these categories of interaction as methods of data gathering that the researcher may very well use to discover and understand participants’ kalooban (inner self/inner feelings). The following are the categories, structured according to “the closeness of kalooban of the researcher and the participant”:
pakik akikit ituungo ngo (transaction/civility with) 3 paki pakiki kisa sala lamu muha ha (interaction with) joining/parti participat cipating ing with) with) pakik akikil ilah ahook ( joining/ pakik akikib ibaagay gay (in conformity with/in accord with) pakiki ikisam sama (being along with) rapport/understanding/ pakikipa pakikipagpa gpalag lagayan ayan/pakik /pakikipag ipagpala palagay gayang ang-loo -loobb (being in rapport/understanding/ accepta acceptance nce of ) paki pakiki kisa sang ngkot kot (getting involved with) pakiki ikiisa isa (being one with)
Santiago and Enriquez assume that the level of pagtutunguhan (interaction) between the researcher and the participant is also an indication of the level or depth of the information that may be gathered. ga thered. That is why the authors suggest that the pagtutunguhan be brought to the level of pakikipagpalagayang pakikipagpalagaya ngrapport/understanding/acceptance eptance with) with) because b ecause it is only o nly at loob (being in rapport/understanding/acc this level that the true kalooban of the participant may be understood. 4 At this level, each one is at ease with one’s kapwa . “There is no more shyness and the trust is almost absolute and unconditional” (Enriquez and Santiago, 1982:158, 159). For Enriquez, the conceptual richness of the pagtutunguhan between the researcher and the participant, which has di V erent erent kinds and levels of categories of pag-uugnayan pag-uugnayan that may be applied, only mirrors the richness and value of pakikipag-ugnay or social interaction in Philippine society. That is why although Santiago in her earlier study considered pakikipagkapwa an ideal in the eld of pagtutunguhan Enriquez viewed pakikipagkapwa pagtutunguhan (1976:133), Enriquez not as an ideal as such, but as a fundamental core concept that is actually the basis of any kind or level of pakikipag-ugnay in the Filipino context (1978:103). In Enriquez’s conception, the eight categories or kinds of pagtutunguhan pagtutunguhan mentioned above are subsumed within the sense of kapwa and/or pakikipagkapwa . For example, pakikitungo is considered “obedience to the precepts of mabuting asal (good behaviour) according to the kaugalian (custom) of pakikipagkapwa ” while pakikiisa is seen as “the acts, will, and speech of a person that intimate a complete and absolute love, understanding, and
108
·
Clemen C. Aquino
acceptance of what is aspired for as one’s own aspiration” (p. 159). 5 As implied here and as will be further explained below, viewing the self and others as one is the fundamental essence integral to kapwa . The categories of interaction associated with the “one of us” or “not others” ( hindi iba ) or “not other people” ( hindi-ibang-tao ) (that is, pakikipag palagayang-loob [being in rapport/understanding/acceptance with] and pakikiisa [being one with]) and the categories associated with the “outsiders” or “others” ( ibang-tao ) (that is, pakikitungo, pakikibagay , and pakikisama ) are components of the general concept of kapwa .6 Hence, every level of pagtutun guhan (interaction) between the researcher and the participant is either an indication of or subsumed within the spirit of pakikipagkapwa (Enriquez, 1978:103). Similarly, every method of data gathering used in the research is an indication of the pakikipagkapwa of the researcher with the participant. This implies that the conduct of genuine Filipino research needs to be sensitive to the sense of pakikipagkapwa . From this perspective, pakikipagkapwa is the guiding spirit of truly Filipino research. The implication of such a view is important to social research in the country — especially in the eld of ethics – for relations between the researcher and the participant, and even to the overall objectives and orientation of the research undertaking.
Kapwa and Pakikipagkapwa as Social SigniWcation The common translations of kapwa into English are “both” (Panganiban, 1972:253), “fellow being” (Panganiban, 1972:253; Vicassan, 1978:316), or “others” (Enriquez, 1978:103). However, as has been articulated earlier, for Enriquez, the social signication or meaning of kapwa is actually the unity of the “self ” and “others.” The English term “others” is commonly used in opposition to “self,” which implies their separate identities, while kapwa means the unied identity of the “self ” and “others.” If an individual supposes the “self ” to be “other than” the kapwa , it will mean the loss of the treatment of “others” as kapwa . It is, therefore, recognized that at the root of the concept of kapwa is the unied single identity of the “self,” of the “not other” ( hindi-ibang-tao ) and even of the “other” ( ibang-tao ) (Enriquez, 1978:104; 1997:46).7 As has been mentioned, for Enriquez, pakikipagkapwa is the embodying spirit that encompasses various kinds or categories of pagtutunguhan in society. In this view, pakikisama (being along with) is seen not as a social value per se but as one of the levels or kinds of pagtutunguhan that normally takes place between an individual and an “other”. Thus, pakikisama (being along with) and even pakikibaka (to struggle with) are inherent parts of the embodying spirit of pakikipagkapwa (1978:106). As noted earlier, for Santiago, pakikipagkapwa or pakikipagkapwa-tao means
Mula sa Kinaroroonan
·
109
“humaneness at its highest level” (1976:133). In relation to the scale of social interaction in Philippine society, and as noted earlier, she considers pakikipagkapwa or pakikipagkapwa-tao as a primary value, that is, the loftiest aspiration of pagtutunguhan in society. Enriquez’s view of pakikipagkapwa as an overarching primary value may be seen in the supposition that it is still possible for Filipinos to understand a person who is “without pakikisama ,” or one who is “walanghiya” (shameless) or “walang utang na loob” (no sense of gratitude), while the same may be diYcult to say of an individual who has “no kapwa tao” (1978:106). As a paninindigan or a conviction, the concept of pakikipagkapwa consists of the recognition of the humanity and dignity of the kapwa as an equal. Even in one of Enriquez’s last works before he passed on in 1994, Pagbabagong Dangal: Indigenous Psychology and Cultural Empowerment , there is still the appreciation for the kind of pakikitungo (interaction) of the Filipino toward his or her kapwa , whatever the gender or social status may be (1994:75). The collective orientation of Philippine culture in which there is a high valuation of pakikipag-ugnay (interacting with), pakikitungo (relating with), and pakikipagkapwa (relating with kapwa ) may be implied from the preceding discussion. It seems that there is a close link, or perhaps a unity, between the social signication of pakikipagkapwa (relating with kapwa ) on the one hand, and pagpapakatao (aspiring for humaneness) on the other.
Kapatiran in Pilipinolohiya Known as the foremost advocate of Pilipinolohiya (Filipinology), Covar has developed anthropological studies that are based on concerns integral to his roots in Laguna. Among these studies are the cultures of rice planting, the organization of messianic communities or kapatiran, in particular, the Iglesia Watawat ng Lahi as well as groups worshipping Mount Banahaw. From these rst studies, it may be seen in his book Larangan (1998a) — a collection of seminal essays on Philippine culture — that Covar has woven together four signicant interrelated concepts: pagkatao (personhood/humaneness), kapatiran (sodality), paniniwala (belief ), and wika (language), the last being a primary basis for examining the rst three (cf. Covar, 1998b). In this paper, the focus will be on the concept of kapatiran in the context of Covar’s studies on paniniwala (belief ) and of the perspective of Pilipinolohiya he developed. Covar presented the scope of his eld of study in ‘Balangkas ng Pambansang Kaisipan, Kultura at Lipunang Pilipino,’ (An outline of national thought, culture and society) in the article “Pilipinolohiya”8 (1991:42) (Figure 1). The concept of pagkatao was what he developed in relation to the national kaisipan (thought) where Covar used the metaphor of the banga (earthen jar) to illustrate the externality, interiority, and depth of Filipino personhood.
110
·
Clemen C. Aquino Figure 1: Outline of National Thought, Culture and Society Tao
Person
Pagkatao Personhood/Being Humane
Externality
Body Face Chest Stomach Gut
Personhood
Labas
Loob Interiority
Katawan Mukha Dibdib Tiyan Sikmura
Kaluluwa/Budhi Isip Puso Bituka Atay
Pagkatao
Soul/Conscience Mind Heart Intestines Liver
Pagkatao Personhood
Pakikipagkapwa
Pag-anib sa lipunan
Pagtuturo at paniniwala
Social Participation
Education and Beliefs
Relating with kapwa
Pangkabuhayan
Pampulitika
Livelihood
Politics
Istrukturang Panlipunan Social Structure
Kamag-anakan/Angkan/Sambahayan Kingship/Lineage/Household
(Kinship) Samahan/Kapisanan/Simulain Association/Organization/Cause
(Interest) Pamayanan Community
(Territoriality) Sambayanan People/Nation
(Citizenship) “Pilipinolohiya”, P.R. Covar Pilipinolohiya: Kasaysayan, Pilosopiya at Pananaliksik Bautista and Pe-Pua (editors), 1991, p. 42
Mula sa Kinaroroonan
·
111
In his view, corollary to the concept of pagkatao (personhood) is the concept of pakikipagkapwa (relating with kapwa ) where, as had been shared by Enriquez, the treatment of others as kapwa is considered integral to pagpa pakatao (aspiring for humaneness). For the Filipinos, all of humanity is kapwa , and pakikitungo (interaction) with anyone is guided by the consciousness of pakikipagkapwa (1998:24). Furthermore, Covar also emphasized the elements of soul and conscience that are at the heart of Filipino personhood and are the fundamental bases of an individual’s view of his/her own life and of his/her pakikitungo with kapwa (1998a:23). Regarding the concept of social structure as the third and last dimension of Pilipinolohiya , in accordance with “Balangkas” (1991), Covar views it at four institutional levels or categories found in Philippine society: kamaganakan (kinship)/angkan (lineage)/sambahayan (household); samahan (association)/kapisanan (organization)/ simulain (cause); pamayanan (community); and sambayanan (people/nation; see Figure 1). Guided by the structural-functionalist perspective in sociology, Covar believes that the role of these institutions is geared towards the recruitment of members, enculturation, distribution of goods and services, and the allocation of power and authority (1998a:23). Yet in the Filipino context, Covar — in analyzing social structure — emphasized not only the structure and its attendant activities but also, and more importantly, the prevalent and intense pag-uugnayan (interrelationships) of the people. “In the area of social organization, we classify our relationships with other people” (1998a:68). For Covar and other specialists in Philippine society, the family is the foundation of that society (1998a:22). Viewing the family as a group living in a house or a household, he presupposes that the stability of the entire sambayanan (people/nation/citizenship) is based on the stability of families in Philippine society. It may be worth noting that in the use of the sambahayan (household) as family, Covar implies that all who live in one house, that is, the sambahayan (household), are ordinarily considered also as members of a family, although not all who live there are bound by kinship ties. In accordance with the aforementioned, in the Philippine context, there is signicant appreciation for the nature of relations between and among the members of what is considered a family. In the Tagalog family, for instance, these relations are presented according to the various levels of a “mag-anak ”: spouse, siblings, parents, and children 9 (cf. Salazar, 1999:78). Moreover, another concept that is included in the structure of the Filipino family is the extended family, which broadens and makes richer said relations at the level of the family (1991:39). In this context, Covar emphasized the important position of multiple in-law relations: magbalae or abalayan (in-laws, at the level of parents), manugang (son/daughter-in-law), biyenan (father/mother-in-law), bayaw (brother-in-law), hipag (sister-in-law),
112
·
Clemen C. Aquino
and bilas (wife/husband of sister/brother-in-law). In comparison with the American family system, these are all subsumed under “in-laws.” In the Tagalog context, there is a particular term for every category or level of familial relations that indicates the various categories and levels of relating. As will be discussed towards the end of this paper, even though not all of these relations are commonly linked to the category of the mag-anak (nuclear family), these are usually considered part of the category of the pamilya (extended family) and, therefore, “not others.” It is still an indication of the rich and broad relations of relatives that there are, moreover, diV erences in references according to generation: pinsang buo (rst cousin), ikalawa (second cousin), ikatlo (third cousin), and at iba pa (and others). Also prevalent are categories according to relations by blood, baptism, marriage, and other rituals. Therefore, even those who are not members of the same blood-family or nuclear family are granted titles that make them part of the family (1991:39). For example, it may be said that those who are magkumpare (co-godparents) through baptism or marriage may also consider their kumpare ’s (co-godparent’s) siblings their own kumare (co-godparent) or kumpare (co-godparent). Even the siblings of the kumare or kumpare are also considered hindi iba (not others/one-of-us). The same may be said of relations with close friends; “We are already like siblings.” As for the elders, “They are already like my own parents.” These do not only prove the Filipino culture’s rich appreciation for social relationships but also imply the unique and high regard for familial relations, especially of parents and siblings as the primary kind of relationship. In studying communities as one of the vital aspects of Filipino social structure, Covar used the ethnographic approach in his study of farmers in Coralan, a rural village in the province of Laguna (1998:79) and in the city, “Panulukan ng Quezon Avenue AR West 4th” (Corner of Quezon Avenue and West 4th) (1998a:39). It may be said that in studying communities in the countryside and in the city, Covar is looking for the overarching culture that links the various groups in the archipelago. Moreover, in considering the physical relation of the household to the community, Covar recognized not only the ethnic communities in the country but also the ancient communities that existed before the arrival of the foreign colonizers. These inquiries on Philippine communities may be considered contributions to the ongoing discovery and understanding of the breadth of Filipinohood: Our experience is the formulation of a Filipino culture from the various ows and streams that possess a characteristic order. We shall call this ‘national culture of the Pilipino’ — not the sum total of all the ows and streams but the likeness and form of an enriched philosophy, culture, and society — thus, civilization (Covar, 1998a:32).
Mula sa Kinaroroonan
·
113
At this point, focus will be directed to Covar’s views on kapatiran, a concept he developed and which has signicant bearing on Filipino social organization. Ostensibly, corollary to the study of kapatiran is Covar’s analysis of belief systems, so it is proper to use as an introduction to Covar’s writings on kapatiran his views on the Filipino’s mode of knowing, which he presented in the article “Indigenization of an Ideational System” (1998a). According to Covar, this mode of knowing consists of three dimensions: divine knowing, human knowing, and articial knowing. For him, the various traditions of belief and faith in the Philippines are based on the Filipinos’ recognition of the absolute supremacy of divine knowing (1998a:119). Divine knowing remains a mystery, although it is sometimes expressed through healers, mediums, baglan and others. Human knowing is considered a natural knowing that may be acquired by studying nature and one’s physical environment. Finally, what is called articial knowing is “the human creation of various forms of knowledge, especially technological ones” that can alter the ow of nature. Covar cited the production of “miracle rice” or of nuclear arms as examples of this kind of knowing (1998a:119). According to Covar, the rst two traditions of searching for wisdom in the Philippines are widespread, that is, the search for the mysterious divine knowing that is freely bestowed and the search for the natural knowing that may be gleaned from nature. From this viewpoint, it may be said that the activities and goals of the many kapatiran and of the worshippers in Mount Banahaw form part of the tradition of searching for divine wisdom. Corollary to these beliefs is the understanding of human wisdom about nature.
The Iglesia Watawat ng Lahi Written at the outset of the 1960s, Covar’s master’s thesis on the Iglesia Watawat ng Lahi was guided by the standards current at the time in the eld of sociology in the Philippines. He examined the Iglesia Watawat ng Lahi of Calamba, Laguna as a social organization and as a social movement, focusing on the concept of “messianic social movement” considered as “collective enterprises designed to establish a new social order” (1961:152). He discussed the organization’s history, structure, and leadership, as well as events such as the Japanese Occupation, which furthered the cause of the organization’s sodality. In the collective quest for meaning in everyday life and in the continuous e V orts to understand divine wisdom, the thesis found the role of the bayani (heroes) of the country important, in particular, Dr. Jose P. Rizal. Revered by members of the organization as the “new Christ,” Dr. Rizal had views and aspirations that contributed much to the formation of the character and goal of the organization.
114
·
Clemen C. Aquino
For his doctoral dissertation in the allied eld of anthropology, Covar re-examined the Iglesia Watawat ng Lahi . This time, the study focused on the structural development of the organization, that is, its evolution — from being a cause at the outset in the mid-1930s, through becoming a sodality when the Samahang Watawat ng Lahi was established circa 1939–40, to its change in title from Samahan to Iglesia (Church) Watawat ng Lahi in 1944. The latter was brought about by the need to protect the organization in the face of danger at the hands of the Japanese forces (1975:109). In relation to the process of the organization’s development, the study also showed three important forces attendant to the various changes herein: traditional beliefs, Christianity, and Protestantism. It is assumed that there is a signicant link between the traditional faith in Bathala and in nature spirits, and the Iglesia Watawat ng Lahi ’s unique relationship to the spirit of Dr. Rizal, which they consider their mentor and guide. The dissertation showed how the sodality accepted and advocated the causes of their bayani not only as a specialist in the study of society, but more importantly, as the “new Christ.” On the other hand, the inuence of Protestantism may be seen in the structure of the leadership and general organization of the sodality; for instance, in the use of phrases and positions like “presiding elder” and “second presiding elder”, and in the conduct of the ceremonies and rituals of the mass, baptisms, and weddings that were similar to the conventions of what Covar referred to as Orthodox Christianity (1975:110). From these primary inuences arose the “three golden causes” of the sodality: the aspiration to become maka-Dios (godly), maka-tao (humane), and makabayan (patriotic) (1975:95). In accordance with this, the three causes served as the regulatory ethics in the daily life of the members and as the basis of one’s own salvation. It seems that the concept of simulain (cause), from the point of the view of the members themselves, is a key to the understanding of the Iglesia Watawat ng Lahi . As Covar had said, Epistemologically, the Iglesia Watawat ng Lahi imputes two usages to the term simulain (cause). On the one hand, it refers to a set of objectives, aims, or purposes. On the other hand, it refers to a voluntary organization (sodality) with a special mission or cause (1975:48).10
It is important to note that although Covar had noted the reference to kapatid (brother/sister/brethren) in his master’s thesis in sociology (1961:156), it was in his later study of the groups worshipping in Mount Banahaw that he became deeply interested in exploring the spirit of kapatiran. It may be said that it was the perspective set by Pilipinolohiya that intensied this particular view of his subject matter.
Mula sa Kinaroroonan
·
115
The Devotee Kapatiran in Mount Banahaw Through the ethnographic approach, Covar closely examined the groups worshipping in Mount Banahaw since the 1970s. In particular, this may be seen in such works as “Liham ng Isang Antropologista sa Kanyang Kaibigang Kristyano” (An anthropologist’s letter to a Christian friend) (1998a:83) and “Prayer in Mt. Banahaw Context” (1998a:89). In his view, even though there are divergences in the beliefs of the various worshipping groups, they all accept the mystical transfer of the holy sites from Ancient Palestine to Mount Banahaw. In the article “Kapahayagan ng Iba’t Ibang Paniniwalang Pilipino” (Manifestations of di V erent Philippine beliefs), Covar supposed that this belief was actually based on what he referred to as isang alamat (a legend) (1998a:97). Now home to many worshippers, Mount Banahaw is believed to have been rst inhabited by Hermano Pule and his companions as early as 1849. Given that the worship is centred on sacred sites, it is believed that there are about 100 such sites in Mount Banahaw, 20 of which are considered traditional sites (1998a:89). To Covar, the beliefs in Mount Banahaw are eclectic, where three intertwined dimensions of belief may be observed. Highly signicant are the role of animism, the Christian element, and the acceptance of the role of their bayani , especially of Dr. Rizal. Covar shares the view of Isabelo de los Reyes that the primordial belief of the Filipinos is animism, the term originating from the word “anima.” Covar calls them “nature spirits” that are to be found in natural sites such as rivers, rocks, anthill and caves (1998a:95). In Mount Banahaw, one may observe, through candles and icons, the regard and relationship of the worshipper to such forms of nature as rocks, waterfalls, rivers, caves, and peaks. According to Covar, The animist tradition is based on the belief that the world is full of spirits. These spirits possess power, knowledge, or amulets about various things. These are bestowed on select people. Mountains, caves, swamps, rivers, waterfalls, plants, animals, even humans have their very own powers. The power may be obtained through the cultivation of a clean heart, conscience, and spirit and through the meticulous adherence to ritual, such as fervent praying (1980:77).
Apparently, sites in nature are also named according to Christian tradition: Tubig ng Jordan (Water of Jordan), Kuweba ni San Pedro (Cave of St. Peter), San Pablo (St. Paul), Santisima Trinidad (Holy Trinity), Kuweba ng Diyos Ama (Cave of God the Father), and others (1998:97). On the other hand, while Christianity eschews belief in anting-anting (amulets) and potensiya at bisa (mystical powers) as superstition, the worshippers of Mount Banahaw as well as of many other places throughout the archipelago openly accept such beliefs. Covar added:
116
·
Clemen C. Aquino Many sacrices, vows, missions, spirit-worship, and prayers are performed in nurturing and testing the amulet. Every Lent, there are people who carry the cross. This is solidarity with Christ in his su V ering. They do not perform the sacrice for the forgiveness of their sin. Their aim is to nurture their amulet in life. In like manner, agellation is not an exorcism of evil spirits. It is done to cleanse the body so that it becomes a temple worthy of the amulet. The Filipino’s attendance at mass seems like the enactment of ritual in the cave to nurture one’s native powers (1980:78).
What may also be seen is the connection of Christianity with the traditional belief in the acceptance of the Holy Trinity in Mount Banahaw. However, the Holy Trinity — the mystery of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit — is a fundamental aspect of Roman Catholic belief that is accepted and appropriated in Mount Banahaw as the Holy Family that consists of God the Father, God the Mother, and God the Son. Apparently, God the Mother descended to earth, became incarnate, and assumed the form of such blessed women as Maria Bernarda Balitaan, Victoria Piedad, and Josena Lopez, who played signicant roles in the various kapatiran in Mount Banahaw (1998a:101). For Covar, Although the doctrine of the Holy Trinity remains, the retablo’s text is linked to the concept of the holy family so as to quell the anxiety about why there are God the Son and God the Father without a God the Mother. The role of the Holy Spirit has just become a part of the three as soul. Moreover, the mat of the retablo is adorned with ornamental stories from Sacred Scripture and other streams of belief and Filipino imagination, thus creating a new order as a fruit of traditional experience (1998a:101).
Apparent here is the high regard for women and for the family. In Pesigan’s study (1992) of the Ciudad Mistica de Dios presided over by Suprema Isabel Suarez, it is evident that such a tradition remains up to the present in Mount Banahaw. The importance placed on relationships within a model family is markedly reected in the general reference to sodalities worshipping Mount Banahaw as kapatiran (Pesigan, 1992:171; Alaras, 1988). A vital support to what Covar had already expressed, the spirit of pakikipagkapatiran (promoting sodality) is what guides worship activities and everyday life in Mount Banahaw. As has been said, in Covar’s study of the Iglesia Watawat ng Lahi and the millenarian groups in Mount Banahaw, it is evident that Dr. Jose Rizal is revered. According to these groups’ beliefs, there is a poignant parallelism or analogy between the lives of Jesus Christ and Dr. Rizal: from their birth, name, ministry, and death; to their foundation of a new kingdom. For the Rizalists, it follows from this that, indeed, Dr. Rizal is the “new Christ”. The regard that these kapatiran have for their bayani and the role that these are performing or will perform in Philippine society is an indi-
Mula sa Kinaroroonan
·
117
cation that their faith or spiritual world includes a broad and marked political dimension (Covar, 1989). In relation to this, Covar’s clarication about kasarinlan (independence/self-reliance) and kalayaan (freedom) as the primary aspiration of every kapatiran and every social movement is important. Looking back into history, Covar examined the Katipunan and the dovetailing of its goals according to independence and freedom. Covar considered the aspiration to freedom as a part of the political sphere (which could benet only a few people), while the aspiration to independence/self-reliance is part of the cultural sphere, which has more meaning and relevance to the people (1992:9). Many millenarian kapatiran , like the Iglesia Watawat ng Lahi , actually aspired for absolute independence/self-reliance. For Covar, the quest for independence/self-reliance remains current among the worshipping kapatiran in Mount Banahaw. At a gathering at the University of the Philippines during the early 1990s, Suprema Isabel Suarez of Ciudad Mistica de Dios reiterated: “we abide by the teachings of our ancestors” (1992:10). As has been mentioned, the belief of all the kapatiran is not only oriented to the advancement of spirituality on the level of the self and of the kapatiran . It is also geared towards the well-being of society in general, as in the aspiration for independence. In connection with this, in his “Ang Pananaw sa Kasaysayan ng Pilipinas ng mga Kapatiran at Kilusang Milinaryan” (The Kapatiran and millenarian movement’s views on Philippine history), Covar emphasized on viewing these organizations as organisms, that is, as movements that have life as well as a broad cause. Covar supposed that such groups are the ones that truly make history (1989:2). In said article, Covar presented the interrelated concepts that he used in his study of the worship groups, from the Iglesia Watawat ng Lahi to Mount Banahaw: cause, sodality, kapatiran , and movement. Covar assumes that each of these has its respective structure, that is, leadership, membership, ideology, code of ethics, and rituals. He added: “the development and prospering of a cause to the status of a movement depends on the meshing together of the said structure” (1989:2). At the personal level in Filipino society, cleansing of the kalooban (inner self ) in the context of belief is inextricably linked to pagpapakatao (aspiring for humaneness). For Covar, Filipino spirituality is a result of the melding of one’s beliefs and personhood. The rituals performed by the kapatiran, however, are not only a sign of personal faith but also a way of achieving the fullness of one’s potential. For Covar, this is geared toward being not only a noble person but also a true Filipino (1998a:100). As in the causes of the Iglesia Watawat ng Lahi , it is not enough to become God-fearing and humane; it is just as important to be patriotic. In Covar’s presentation, it is clear that the tradition of the search for divine wisdom, which is assumed to be the foundation of the quest for knowledge in Philippine society, is inextricably linked with the spirit of the kapatiran and with aspirations for the greater good of Philippine society.
118
·
Clemen C. Aquino
Bayan from the Pantayo Perspective Salazar’s analysis of the dalumat (social signication) of bayan and its importance to Filipino society has broad and deep roots. It needs to be contextualized within Salazar’s view (1993a) of the history of the Philippines since many thousands of years ago in the Austronesian world, and its forms not only in the Philippines but also in Southeast Asia. For Salazar (1997a; 1998b), the Austronesians who rst arrived in the archipelago, circa 7000/5000 BC, possessed the three important community ( pamayanan ) concepts: banua, ili , and bayan .11 These are considered to be the most important elements in the traditional social structure of the archipelago from the initial arrival of the Austronesians to circa 300 AD. In the context of Austronesian civilization, Salazar examines the history of the archipelago according to three broad dimensions: the sociopolitical organization, concerned with concepts pertaining to leadership and state; the integration of society as a whole, with focus on community-related concepts; and culture, which encompasses belief systems, burial practices, ethno-linguistic concerns, and others (Figure 2). From a broad perspective, for example, from a sociological one, it may be said that the three dimensions are closely interrelated and may be viewed within an overarching framework of social organization. In any case, in relation to the outline and purpose of this study, this section of the paper will be devoted to the conception of society according to Salazar’s views. In his study of history, Salazar examined the two di V ering traditions of looking at the past: the tradition of historia , which expresses the Spaniards’ perspective on the events during their stay in the country; and the tradition of kasaysayan as a narrative that has sense, meaning, signicance, and relevance to the people who are the very subject of the narrative (Navarro et al., 1997:70–71). That is why it is the pantayo perspective that is used in studying the history of the Filipino people, that is, from our own point of view.12 As noted earlier, integral to the pantayo perspective is the analysis of the dalumat of bayan in Philippine history and society (cf. Salazar in Veneracion (1986:xvi); Alaras, 1988:xii). For Navarro et al., local constructs related to the pamayanan (community), bayan, and bansa (nation) “are what gave substance to the alternative outline of history that is laid out by the pantayo perspective” (1997:129). Table 1 (Salazar, 1998b) gives a summary of the forms assumed by the bayan from the Austronesian period and various other eras in history: from the primordial banua /ili/bayan, the bayan; the ethnic state to which the kingdom, rajahood and sultanate (circa 300 AD–1588) belonged; the revolutionary bayan (1588–1892); and the building up of a single, unied bayan on the level of the entire archipelago (1892–1913). It is important to note that one of the aims of examining bayan is to establish the links between the nacíon of the elite and the bayan of the people
Mula sa Kinaroroonan
A 8 9 9 1 I V
o g a l e p i h c r A e h t f o y r o t s i H e h t n i e r u t l u C d n a y t e i c o S , e t a t S : 2 e r u g i F
3 1 9 1 V
2 9 8 1
V I
) n a O r B u l c U i ) a ) o n l ) . T k p b n ” K i s a a U b t g t u k g s E p ) T a i A a i n r O d , T e r e S m a a A o l i n n a d l K a h i A A R s a A m r i i R s / n h e y a T A b n D O i g m t S d i a S e g M n g e n “ n A a i n M D i n u B g n p a n M s R L p a r g a g u A P U M , g g i l A p a n n A S g L a a n k w a r n N i y a / e i u l a G n G W a a y r a k i h s i O y u s s l a n t N i d I h a l O a e u N r s s l i s A y ( k a H T T P A o o a B ( l K S K K A g ( u a t U s a m N L p y ( I a t K a b (
- E I T H A C T R S A N A N A Y A S B D C R I A G W A O L E T P
. S E T V A E T S T A L T A S - I N N O A Y L O A B C
8 8 5 1 I I I
K B 0 0 0 0 5 1 3 1 k h I
K B 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 5 k h
) a i r t a P G ( N N A A a n Y i G ) p A i n l i B U L a y F A a G a ? B c ? G i l ? N I A g b n u R T p e A A a n I R H K ( ) n i d i c N , a k A i n s ( Y g o A a d B a m r i t s h G i ) u l - N h i N g o a A n O i P t a , K I U k L B i s S
) d u o a l k n u a B b t a a k g n a a p o / n k y a i l i a B F g w N , i / n a A l l i P a Y l g i a g A a B s b ( p n
N O ) s ” Y e n l o S g i t n a i A . N s “ N ( a s v
o k i r e y s o ) m a t s g i n r a a s i t l u l i i m K (
}
a l i g ) n a t s l a b i i a a K b / i s r a t a n : a b P s a N a u A l / l n u ó a p Y s i c a A a a B l N K u g m n ( o u B
> I L I
N A Y A B G N A N I
K A N A Y W W A A B L A L G G K A P A S N G N
) i l i r a S / b o o l a s a l u m (
U N A B
a t n i a d l n y a a p b
O ) T A n a N h A a y T d a L y U r a a S d ( K n a N p A A H A R A K
i n a g a b
N O I T A y a Z u I i r d t N a a n a A h d p G R O n a L i l A a C b I T I L O ì P d ) O n ù I ( t C a d a h O * * S T N E I i C n N n a a y A i l a
b *
i n e l e l a a b b
> > N N A A I U R T A A H D A A K K
) s a n i p i N l i A P Y g A n B a n t i G (
>
) s a n i p i l i P g n a g a l I i L H I (
<
? y a l a b *
? ) i
d ) ) n u n ( t a y h a a h
i l i (
i l I *
) s a n i p i l i P A U g o N m i A T B (
h a m u y *
N A Y A H A V
3 1 9 1
A a a i , K T n l i
A O D L I A T R S A T S K n U a a A L u g S l I u O g m a u p N g n I n a a D n n b K t A , a a s L a l ) g i i n N , G a A n a n a s g N i Y y n l a A a A a b R K B b ( U T L a s U N K A
g g U n n Y o a k A g i t O n L s a i N n w I a E i l P a u I s M g g K n L I A l P I a i N g o n U t M e D
)
< >
< < >
a ( d * d * n a p *
. p b t a , o a p t e g l n a o d b , d o s g n u l
8 9 9 1
L A S N E g s O L a n ) Y a a G N S g s N A n g a A n Y n a a N I A n b i l o a ( G B n G i k a N p u N A G i l n i a A K N a F g R I A / b m t P U W G a a T N o s t n A L A a a S N g y U o g l u a K I L a a b g k
Y a D A G g A B N a m M t O g G m a U L D N > A A , O L G g G T T N n S A A A o N Y u A E N N A U m N g u I n O T U L L g L B m a A o O U A o K N K l S K
> A
}
E T A T S - n a i u a r t h a t N l a u a r h d A s Y A ? ? B ?
a b *
K
B a n s a ?
G N L A A S I ) U K Y T O A I L D A U A K P T - S A O E ( N Y S O U g G L S B a A A A m M G T i A H I P ( H
i ? ? ? n a a d y a u b m a h a r
K M 0 k h 0 3 I I
B
O b i g a - N s n A u O Y Y g n N i S I a b i s P l i I E l N g n L I a a y O P P ( a p D a N I T
N O I T A Z I L I V I C
I N T E G R A T I O N R G A N I Z A T I O N O I I I I S P L T C A L S C O C A L O O O
O N A Y S E N O R T S U A A L I N A N G A N K C U L T U R E
8 8 5 1
N A I S E N K O M R k 0 0 T h 3 S U A
<
à ) v ( n ù u k a u B l * *
2 9 8 1
K B 0 0 0 0 5 1 3 1 k h
K B 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 5 k h
) i r a g n a t a p a r a K ( 8 9 9 1 , r a z a l a S
·
119
s e i d u t S t n e m p o l e v e D d n a e v i t a r g e t y t n I i r C o n a s f o z r e a e t k i r n u e Q a W z , a C n g l n a s e a S i A n m l : . p i i n p A D . i a l i y Z h P a s ” U y o P a e , n h s i a i p t w a l K i f n o i l P a s g y a t K i a r n s r y u e t n l l a i v a u g n a B K n a U , t n , 8 a i l a e r 9 9 n k 1 t a g u c , n n 8 u a e p P L 2 i L g l a r e i , n b n o a n n m d e a e a t t t s m n a e p e E “ P C S
120
·
Clemen C. Aquino
towards the formation of one bansa (nation) for all Filipinos (Salazar, 1998b).
Bayan in a Historical Context In Rodriguez’s ongoing study for her master’s thesis in History, she demonstrated the widespread usage of ili, bayan, banua , and other allied concepts throughout the archipelago (Salazar, 1997a:4).13 It is claimed that in places where bayan and its allied concepts are used, the dominant feature of a community as bayan is “in the prevalence of permanent housing structures — that is, communities in a specic territory” (Salazar, 1997a:6). However, the basic denitions of bayan in Tagalog are not only “inhabited place or territory” but also “the people living there.” It is analogous to the balei in Panggasinense and balen in Pampanggo (Salazar, 1997a:6–7). 14 According to Salazar’s study, the banua is the most important concept in Bicol, the Visayas, and Mindanao (1997a:6). The banua is part of the original Austronesian vocabulary; banu[v]a means earth/land, house/residence. That is why in Indo-Malaysia, there is the term benua (Malay), which means lupalop; and in Oceania may be found the Pacic state of Vanuatu. In the context of its origins, the banua is assumed to be the oldest concept of community in the Philippines. It could also be said that it was the most prevalent community in the archipelago before the appearance of the bayan that was characterized by more permanent housing and communities. (Salazar 1997a:6–7). As a pamayanan (community), the ili in turn may be found in places where hostilities are prevalent. Since survival must be ensured, the ili is often transferred. In these places, agriculture is based only on the slashand-burn technique, so there is no real need to stay in a place permanently. Although the ili is widespread in northern Luzon, it may also be found in the regions of the bayan and the banua , which is why the ili is considered the most prevalent form of the pamayanan concepts (Salazar 1997a:7, 8). Salazar recognizes the signicant links of the ili to the concepts of “kuta ” and “real,” especially during the Himagsikan (people’s uprising) (1997a). As had been mentioned and as the Filipinos know, the concept of bayan refers not only to the physical or geographical aspect or territory of the community. Bayan also refers to the inhabitants in that territory. As Salazar had said, “in all regions, the meaning of bayan is not only place (that is, land of one’s birth) but also people (that is, citizens or taumbayan [people of the bayan ])” (Navarro et al., 1997:117). Based on Salazar’s analysis, in summary, the breadth of territory that Filipinos refer to in relation to bayan are the following:
Mula sa Kinaroroonan
·
121
from a (1) gathering of people, with a center (i.e. poblacion or the bayan itself, such as “we are going to the bayan”) and with surrounding areas (i.e., village) to (2) the broader whole that has wide-ranging political power (as in “Bayang Pilipino” or Florante’s “within and without my unfortunate bayan” — which means a state, in Western conception), after (3) the ethno-linguistic whole itself (i.e., communities such as Tagalog, Ibanag, Maranaw: for example, if you are Sugbuhanon or Bisaya or also another Filipino, especially if you are in another country) (in Navarro et al., 1997:117).
From being seen as a residence or as a congregation of houses inhabited by families, the bayan is also a gathering of kindred relations, of a lineage ( lipi ) along with all other related persons (Navarro et al., 1997:129). In connection with the foregoing discussion, in Panganiban’s DiksyunaryoTesauro (1972) and in the Diksyunaryong Vicassan (1978), similar to what Salazar had expressed, bayan also refers to both place and people. For Panganiban, bayan means: (1) municipality, country, hometown and (2) public, audience, and all (1972:147). For Vicassan, still in accordance with the two denitions, the reference to bayan is divided into four categories. These are: bayan as (1) municipality, (2) country, nation, (3) motherland, homeland, and (4) public, taong- bayan, audience, citizens. In this dictionary, the rst three levels of meaning of bayan as place were distinguished from one another, that is; specic and small places such as the municipality, the broader category as country or nation, and the people’s reference for their own bayan as their inang-bayan (motherland) (1978:150). Summing up the foregoing denitions of bayan as place, we have: (1) centre or poblacion ; (2) municipality and smaller surrounding units like the village; (3) residence or community of an ethnolinguistic group, such as the Katagalugan ; (4) a greater whole with political power, such as Bayang Pilipinas ; and (5) common reference of people for their wider bayan as homeland or motherland. As people, the bayan may refer to: (1) a particular ethnolinguistic group itself, such as the Tagalog and (2) all Filipino citizens, as the point of reference for the larger whole, such as the kababayan when outside the country. As noted earlier, Salazar recognizes the formation of the ancient communities, such as the bayan, as a legacy of the Austronesian civilization. For example, he showed the social integration that was shaped in an environment consolidated by seas and rivers. In the Austronesians’ journeys from circa 7000 to circa 800 BC, one may see the ancestors’ knowledge about the movement of the seas, meteorology and — related to these — their expertise in the building of sea-faring vessels (1993:15; 17). The establishment of the rst communities or permanent residences at the mouth of great rivers is a reection of the Austronesians’ knowledge of the bays, coasts, and deltas where they rst settled. This fact is reected in the names of many bayan throughout the archipelago: Pampanga ( pampang ng ilog , or
122
·
Clemen C. Aquino
river-bank), Tagalog ( taga-ilog or from the river), Pangasinan ( asin-ilog or salt-river), Iloko ( loko or deep part), and others (1993:17). This also implies the interactions within the whole archipelago that are based on relations with rivers, seas, or places overseas (1993:37). From the Austronesians, there also came such edible tubers like gabi (taro), ube (yam), and plants such as sago (tapioca), tubo (sugarcane), and niyog (coconut) (p. 17). Knowledge about the passage of time, the clearing of the forests, agriculture, the use of organic fertilizers that yielded more crops, and eventually, the use of iron that expanded the plantations were some of the interrelated reasons for people to settle in communities at that time (1993:17–18). . . . it is likely that these balayan, or vahayan are truly widespread only in relatively peaceful areas, especially in valleys or at the mouth of great rivers, as a result of progressive agriculture (irrigation in lieu of slash-and-burn which forced people to be always on the move) and of stable trade, the bases of population growth and therefore of the building up of stronger socio-political communities (ethnic state or bayan state) (Salazar, 1997a:7).
The foregoing discussion shows the broader social organization in the archipelago based on the formation of the rst communities. There was unity, therefore, among the Filipinos throughout the archipelago; they formed one community of civilization that could become the foundation of political unity in its modern sense (Salazar, 1993a:5).
For Salazar, an important characteristic of the ancient communities is the Austronesian religious belief in the anito, which he presumes is the basis of faith in Philippine society. Rooted in the origins of the pamayanan (community) itself, the anito is considered a native religion. “It is a faith emanating from a particular bayan or closely-related bayan whose language and culture are interconnected.” (Salazar, 1993b:1). Unlike Christianity and other religions that have a basis in sacred writing, this belief system has implicit knowledge or wisdom about godhood that is natural to its advocates (1993b). This faith focuses primarily on the anito , which is considered pure soul ( ), pure spirit ( purong ispiritu ), or god ( diyos ); on the purong kaluluwa person ( tao ), whose identity is based on the good relationship between the soul ( kaluluwa ) and well-being ( ); and on the aswang , which is neither ginhawa person ( tao ) nor anito and without a soul ( kaluluwa ), although it keeps seeking well-being ( ) (1993b:4). ginhawa Salazar supposes that the anito religion continues to this day in the form of messianic confraternities, faith healing, and in what is referred to as folk Catholicism. The Filipinos’ reverence for All Souls’ Day may be related
Mula sa Kinaroroonan
·
123
to the customary cleaning of the bones of the departed in caves by the ancient believers (1993b:6). Native faith is an important element for the understanding of the social integration of early Philippine communities.
The Inangbayan of the People and the Nación of the Elite The advent of the 16th century played an important role in the transformation of the pamayanan (community) from bayan to ethnic state or bayan state. According to the study of Navarro et al., the latter were already a coalition of bayan as a result of trade relations and conicts with other bayan. The ethnic states are actually socio-political entities referred to as kingdom, rajahdom, or sultanate ruled by a king, rajah, or sultan, respectively (1997:130). With the coming of the Spaniards, however, a crisis developed between the bayan states and the colonial states, presaging the beginnings of what Salazar called the dambuhalang pagkakahating pangkalinangan (great cultural divide). From the bayan, the Spanish colonial enterprise concentrated on the formation of the interrelated pueblo, villa or ciudad , becoming organized bayan or colonial states that are diV erent from one another only at the level of governance or administration (1993a:42). Through reducción or the gathering of citizens from various places, the Spaniards established the pueblo s, which had a centre featuring what is called the “plaza”. The former bayan’s centre changed and it acquired a plaza, church, and municipal hall. The former authorities, known as hari , rajah , or lakan were supplanted by the gobernadorcillo or kapitan. The former datu became cabeza de barangay , and the pueblo’s kura paroko (parish priest) assumed a vital role (1993a:48). The aspirations of the bayan and of the pueblo-based governance remained distinct and separate. On the one hand, the struggle of the bayan state was rooted in the tradition of the bayan , for the taumbayan. Founded on the dalumat of the inangbayan (motherland), the aspirations of the bayan state are guided by such values as “ kapatiran, damayan (co-operation), pantay na kara patan (equal rights), and ganap na kasarinlan (absolute independence)” (Navarro et al., 1997:132). The image of the mother was used because it is in her womb that wholeness is formed — a fraternity of the children of bayan. By the power of the “motherland,” Andres Bonifacio enshrined and developed the metaphor of the family as a symbol of the overall unity of all the bayan in the archipelago (1997:132; cf. Abrera, 1995; 1992).15
124
·
Clemen C. Aquino
On the other hand, the second project is rooted in nación, emanating from the European culture and worldview, and “symbolic of the socio-political aspirations of the acculturated Filipino elite” (Navarro, et al., 1997:32) If the inangbayan (motherland) is rooted in bayan, the social organization that served as the foundation of the nación project was the pueblo, a colonial state. The aspirations and foundations of the inangbayan and the nación are distinct and separate from each other, which, as has been mentioned, signal other diV erences and divisions within Philippine society (cf. Salazar, 1998a). Implicit in the bayan concept, up to the level of the inangbayan , are “hope, trust in the self, and the strength of native culture”; whereas the elite who support the nación “have been assimilated into other cultures as a result of acculturation in the West” (Salazar, 1998a:64). This conict is illustrated by the diV erence between “local culture” and “acculturation” (Salazar, 1998a:65). For Salazar et al., the revolution in 1896 was signicant in exposing, on the one hand, the genuine children of the inangbayan who supported the cause of the bayan for the promotion of well-being and independence for all and, on the other hand, the children of the inangbayan who turned their back on said aspirations (Navarro et al., 1997:133).16 In “Wika ng Himagsikan, Lengguwahe ng Rebolusyon: Mga Suliranin ng Pagpapakahulugan sa Pagbubuo ng Bansa” ( Wika ng Himagsikan , language of the revolution: Problems in dening nationhood), Salazar (1998a) explored the basic diV erences between the “Tagalog” aspiration and the “Filipino” project. The “Tagalog” aspiration is rooted in the dalumat of the inangbayan , responding through rebellion and oriented towards the broader formation of “Katagalugan”, which refers to the people of the entire archipelago. The “Filipino” project, on the other hand, is rooted in the concept of nación , responding through revolution and oriented towards the goals of liberalism of the 19th century. What Salazar refers to as the “dambuhalang pagkakahating pangkalinangan” (great cultural divide) which separates the kalinangang bayan (people’s culture) from national culture is markedly evident up to now. These analyses are important to the continuous understanding of Philippine society and to addressing problems attendant to the building of a Filipino bansa (nation). The central idea of the cultural crisis is the ongoing division between the culture of the bayan (people) and the nación (elite). These two cultures are markedly divergent. The bayan uses and propagates the Filipino language, watches Pinoy action movies, and reads komiks . The nación still uses English and even Spanish, watches foreign-language lms, and reads foreign-language books (1993a:88).
Mula sa Kinaroroonan
·
125
A Preliminary Synthesis: The Salience of Ugnayan In the preceding discussion, the concepts of kapwa, kapatiran, and bayan — local constructs that are viewed to have particular signicance to the study of Philippine social organization — were culled from the works of Enriquez, Covar, and Salazar. In this section, there will be an underscoring and clarication of some aspects of these concepts as well as an attempt towards a preliminary synthesis or integration of their views. Notably, in each of the concepts examined by the three scholars, the theme of ugnayan (relations) in Philippine society was evident. Which kinds or forms of ugnayan (relating) were emphasized in their respective studies? How did they illustrate these? Would it be possible to integrate their views towards exploring a panlipunang pagbabanghay , an outline for the analysis of Philippine social organization? From Santiago’s view of pakikipagkapwa as the ideal category of interaction, Enriquez developed Santiago’s early studies to show kapwa and pakikipagkapwa as the broad basis of social interaction among Filipinos. The kapwa does not discriminate, which is why pakikipagkapwa is possible with “not others” ( hindi ibang tao ) and even with “others” ( ibang tao ). In kapwa , self-identity is part of one’s perception of others, so there is a unity or integral relation of the sarili (“self ”) to ibang tao (“others”). As has been mentioned, for Enriquez, the sense of pakikipagkapwa is important to the conduct of meaningful Filipino research, in particular, in terms of the relationship between the researcher and the participant. Moreover, it is important to note what Ferriols, a scholar of Filipino philosophy, had said about the kapuwa and the prex “ka” which is frequently used by Filipinos: We are both ( kapuwa ) waiting for the dentist. We are both ( kapuwa ) waiting for the traYc light to turn green. From the rain we are both ( kapuwa ) seeking shelter. The prex “ka” that is the sign of fellowship ( pakikipagkapuwa ) with sibling ( kapatid ), townsmate ( kabayan ), friend ( kaibigan ), lover ( kasintahan ), peer ( katoto ), companion ( kasama ), chilhood friend ( kababata ), colleague ( katrabaho ), drinking buddy ( kainuman ), enemy ( kaaway ) . . . (1991:240).
In Covar’s analysis of personhood, he stressed pakikipagkapwa not only as the basis of relations but as the corollary basis of pagpapakatao in Philippine society as well. In the eld of social organization, Covar showed that categories herein are primarily in accordance with relations among people. Therefore, in his view of the perspectives and culture of the Filipinos, whether it is on the level of the person (individual), pakikipagkapwa (culture), or the broader social structure (social organization), pakikipag-ugnayan or social interaction is highly signicant. 17
126
·
Clemen C. Aquino Figure 3: Imaging the Bayan through Time (towards the bayan as the entire archipelago) IMAGING THE BAYAN
Note: At this time, some of those residing in the archipelago were new arrivals to the colonial state (cf., Maguinadanao and Sulu; other groups such as the ones in the Cordilleras) or were not yet assimilated (cf., Mangyan, Manobo of the Maguindanao interior, etc.) Himagsikan/Revolucíon 2. The Nasyon of del Pilar/Jaena/Rizal/Aguinaldo (Filipinas; republic). Building by borrowing. 1. The New Bayan of Bonifacio (Inang Bayan; Haring Bayang Katagalugan). Building that is pure and rooted in indigenous culture.
D. Building on the level of the entire archipelago as a unique, unied BAYAN (1892–1913) TOWARDS A NEW AND BROADER INTEGRATED BAYAN Digma/Himagsik/Paghihimagsik 3. Building the New/Broadening (Malang, Silang, Hermano Pule, Balagtas) 2. Returning to the Old but in a slightly diV erent form (Ladia, Sumuroy, Malong, Dagohoy) 1. Muslim state: ghting (Kudarat, other sultans and datus) with the Spaniards, state versus states; struggle of free indigenous peoples.
C. Preservation and Rebuilding/Re-establishment of the Old or Building the New (1588–1892) CONTINUING CRISIS OF FILIPINO COMMUNITY King/Rajah/Sultan 3. Sultanate (from 1450) 2. Rajahood (before 900 AD) 1. Kingdom (before circa 300 AD)
B. Ethnic State (circa 300 AD or even before that — 1588) ANCIENT FILIPINO KABIHASNAN ( from circa 800 BC) Datu/King BAYAN (permanent community and residential territory) ILI/ILIHAN (mobile community) BANUA (as territory, “land”, “space”)
A. Ancient BANUA/ILI/BAYAN (circa 7000 BC–circa 300 AD) AUSTRONESIAN PERIOD (until circa 800 BC)
Salazar, 1997 copyright “Estado, Lipunan at Kultura sa Kasaysayan: Ang Wika sa Pamanang Pangkalinangan ng Pilipino” Dr. Zeus A. Salazar, Centennial Lecture, UP Center for Integrative and Development Studies September 29, 1998, 3–6 pm, Balay Kalinaw, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City.
Mula sa Kinaroroonan
·
127
The concepts of the family and household as well as of the kapatiran that Covar examined may be explored further. Even though Covar initially studied the concept of messianic groups, these associations were actually seen in the light of the kapatiran , an indication of the signicance of common familial origin. The Roman Catholic belief in the Holy Trinity was assimilated by the worshippers of Mount Banahaw into the belief in the Holy Family, composed of God the Father, God the Mother, and God the Child. In these associations’ references to themselves as a kapatiran and in their appropriation of the Holy Family, it is evident that the family plays a prominent role in their belief system. In relation to this, the kapatiran’s adoption of the category of God the Mother reects the status of women in their belief system and in their cultural life. It may also be said that the women leaders of the kapatiran carry on the important tradition of the katalonan (healers/spiritual guide) in Philippine society. The sense of family is pronounced even in the Katipunan. The Katipunan is considered a kapatiran, comprised by anak ng bayan (children of bayan ) as siblings (Abrera, 1995; 1992). In this context, the primary aspiration of the anak ng bayan is for the inangbayan (motherland), which again reveals the importance of the family and of the role of women in society during that time. As a manifestation of the spirit of kapatiran, in acceptance of those who are not one’s blood-kin as members of the kapatiran, and in the context of aspirations towards a bagong bayan (a new bayan ), the ritual performed is known as the sandugo (blood compact). The blood compact ( sandugo ) is an ancient practice. The most profound pakikipagkapwa of the Filipinos of old, the sandugo is a sacred and strong bond for the greater good of those who have become united by blood. In the old culture, two individuals may have a blood compact in order to become siblings — i.e., cut from the same umbilical cord. It may also be a union among many, to carry out one objective as siblings. The most prevalent kind is the blood compact that seeks to receive a “stranger” or an “outsider” into one’s own group (Abrera, 1995:np; 1992).
The sandugo is poignant proof of the importance of belonging to a family. This indicates the high regard the people have for kindred relations, especially relations within a family. Even in contemporary times, close friends are said to have relations like “siblings.” A friend’s mother here in Metro Manila is now commonly called “mommy” or “ tita ” (auntie). “ Ate ” (a common reference to older sister) or “kuya ” (a common reference to older brother) is what household helpers usually call their employers. “ Ate ” is also used by younger vendors in addressing female customers and by street children begging alms from passing women. Among labourers in the countryside, those who are in charge of hired workers claim that they are at
128
·
Clemen C. Aquino
ease with the work groups because they actually “come from just one pisa (family)” (Aquino, 1990). Like the sandugo , the rituals of baptism, conrmation and marriage, where the participants are not usually related by blood, may be referred to as ways towards membership in a family or kinship network. It appears that in the Philippine context, familial relations are looked upon with much greater regard than friendships and other social relationships. In fact, in his analysis of Philippine psychology and traditional culture, Salazar emphasized the centrality of “the anak (child) as the primary reason for and purpose of the mag-anak (nuclear family)” (1999:78). One of Salazar’s contributions to Philippine social science is the grounding of Filipino culture in the Austronesian civilization that serves as an essential basis of the country’s history. He laid down the physical, geographical and cultural foundation of the ancient pamayanan , such as the bayan — the rst permanent domiciles or housing by the river — and their initial interrelations based on communication and trade across rivers and seas. As noted earlier, up to the present, bayan has deep signicance in Philippine society. That the bayan refers not only to diV erent levels of place but also to the people and their relations with one another is evidence of the profound meaning of bayan to Filipinos. Their regard for a kababayan comes from their recognition of their common origin in a small bayan or, if in another country, the recognition of their common origin in the wider bayan that is the Philippines (cf. Salazar, 1999). Salazar also emphasized the spiritual world that guided the relations among the ancient Filipinos — an aspect of the Philippine culture that both he and Covar cultivated. From the traditional religion that is based on the anito, albeit in divergent ways, central to the conceptualizations of Covar and Salazar is the kaluluwa (soul), ginhawa (well-being), and budhi (conscience), and their roles in relation to pagpapakatao (aspirations for humaneness). This belief may be viewed as integral to the various social organizations in which the quest for the spiritual world may be seen — in the families, the kapatiran on Mount Banahaw, the Katipunan and other social movements, and even in the various aspirations of the bayan, at both its micro and macro levels. Many have remarked on the dramatic expression of spirituality among the Filipinos at EDSA in 1986. Even the Filipinos’ veneration of the departed during All Souls’ Day is an indication of their deep relations with their forebearers. From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the views of Enriquez, Covar, and Salazar revolve around the multiple meanings and the various forms of ugnayan (relations). This seems to suggest that integral to the analysis of Philippine social organization ( panlipunang pagbabanghay ) is the concept of ugnayan : to the kapwa , to the sarili (self ), to the hindi ibang tao (not others), to ibang tao (others) to samahan (associations) and the kapatiran, to the various levels and meanings of bayan, to the ninuno (forebearers), to Bathala , or sa Dios (to God).
Mula sa Kinaroroonan
·
129
At this point, it is important to relate what Ferriols has said: It seems that the ancients who had fashioned our various languages could discern that the horizon of truth is replete with relations ( ugnayan ). Relation of event to event, of clan to clan, of self to self. They understood that each person’s being is open to have, receive, and create this relation. They regarded relations as sacred . . . (1991:238)
To re-emphasize, among groups that are the common type of organization in conventional sociology, it is assumed that great regard for the family is central in the Philippine context. In the preceding discussion, this has been demonstrated in the Mount Banahaw worshippers’ appropriation of the Holy Family, in the view of the Katipunan and other social movements or their associations as kapatiran, and the importance of the sandugo (blood compact) in making the iba (others) part of one’s own. It is also in the context of the family that women are held in esteem — God the Mother is venerated, women become leaders of worshipping kapatiran — and that the anak ng bayan , such as the Katipunan, aspire for the good of the inangbayan . Moreover, in the dalumat of bayan, it may be seen that the concept refers not only to di V erent levels of place but also to people and the signicant relations among them. It is communities such as the bayan that rst cradled relations involving the family, blood kin, among others. Rooted in traditional faith, the rst communities were naturally predisposed to venerating their ancestors as well as their Dios or their Bathala . The concept of kapwa , which focuses on the relation of the sarili (self ) to the broader ibang tao (others), expresses the high regard for relating not only to hindi ibang tao (not others) but also to ibang tao (others). In this context, the scope of kapwa and pakikipagkapwa in Filipino relations is very comprehensive. The relation to the kapwa is the basis of personhood and well-being in Philippine society. On the level of the broader bayan, according to the association made by Salazar between Emilio Jacinto’s Kartilya and the Filipino diwa (spirit), it is important to note here that the Kartilya has a strong regard for “love for the kapua ” as the “basis of the unication of the bayan ” (1999:73). According to Salazar, this means that, in the task of building bayan and eventually, the bansa (nation), the kapwa that is referred to here as kapwa -Pilipino is “not other people” ( hindi ibang tao ).18
Toward Panlipunang Pagbabanghay: Questions and Propositions From the studies developed by Enriquez, Covar, and Salazar, this paper attempts to present and integrate their ideas towards exploring a panlipunang pagbabanghay , an outline for the analysis of social organization in the context
130
·
Clemen C. Aquino
of Philippine social science (Figure 4). It is also a challenge to those engaged in the analysis of their views to carry on with the further examination and development of the earlier works. In the context of the notion of ugnayan (relations) that overarches the preceding discussion, some points regarding the concepts of kapwa and the mag-anak (family/nuclear family) may be further claried and developed. It is important to focus on and clarify the scope and the signicance of the two concepts. In accordance with social signication, do the members of a mag-anak look upon each other as hindi iba (not others), one of the two dimensions of kapwa according to Enriquez? Is the mag-anak subsumed under hindi ibang tao (not other people)? It is possible that hindi iba (not others) refers to a close friend, kumare /kumpare (co-godparent), neighbour or housemate rather than to one’s child, parent, spouse, or sibling. It is possible that the mag-anak has an identity that is more integral than the entity implied by hindi iba (not others). What could be the specic social signication of hindi iba (not others) and iba (others)? It may be that the hindi iba (not others) refers to those who are not members of the mag-anak but, as has been said, have close relations with one or some of the mag-anak . Is the relative, whether by blood or by ritual, part of the hindi iba (not others)? Could the malapit na kamag-anak (close relative) be hindi iba (not others) or simply a kamag-anak (relative)? It is possible that the malayong kamag-anak (distant relative) is part of hindi iba (not others), which also implies the integral di V erence of the kamag-anak (relative), not only from the mag-anak but also from hindi iba (“not others”). Moreover, the cousins to the second and third degrees, for example, are commonly considered as kamag-anak (relatives) and not quite part of hindi iba (“not others”). The regard for the kamag-anak (relative) as relative per se or hindi iba (“not others”) may actually be in accordance with the kind of relations between them (blood or ritual ties) or the intimacy of the relationship. As the rst proposition oV ered for subsequent study, Figure 4, in consonance with the prior studies and observations of the author, presents the integral position of the mag-anak as a social signication that is not within the scope of kapwa (cf. Aquino, 1990, 1999). It is posited that the mag-anak composed of parents and their children is conceptually di V erent from the hindi iba (not others); that is, the mag-anak does not fall within the category of hindi iba (not others).19 In addition to what has been mentioned earlier as constituting hindi iba (not others), for example, kumare/kumpare (co-godparenthood); neighbour, or friend); depending on the context. For instance, when in another country, all the kababayan (compatriots) there are viewed as hindi ibang tao (not other people). More importantly, and in consonance with what Jacinto had implied, the basis of the bayan’s unity is love for the kapwa , who are regarded as hindi ibang tao (not other people; Salazar, 1999:73).
Mula sa Kinaroroonan
a n s i o n t a a B N
d
n
n g n l a r n a e a y h a t n I B o M
n o o i y c a s N a
N
g n n a a y a k n B a a r e w y a d a l B a o r a B M
o
e d t a t a S t s
E
y a h g n a b a b g a P g n a n u p i l n a P
n
n o o y i t a s i c a s o s s o A s
A
s d r a w o T : 4 e r u g i F ” e o l p a t o e p g r e n a h t b o i “
: a w p a K
) y t i n u ) m r e m t o n c e c c ( i ) n n h t o i e ( c a l o ) n k b a i o n y n a p ) t y ) e b a t / e i ) o n n g g l y t r t a l a n l a i u n l c a m i ( e y n v s s ( a ( ( a m d y a n a n m d n m a o a o u y y y m a y a a a a i C s b P ( n p b
n a y d a l o h h s a e b u o m H a S
y k l i a m a n f a - r a g l e a c u M N
i l f i r l e a S S
n a r i t a p a K
o a t g n ” e a l p b i o e i p d r e n h t i h o o : t n a “ w p a K
·
131
132
·
Clemen C. Aquino
On the other hand, strangers or foreigners are commonly viewed as ibang tao (other people), as in Ibang tao sila ; “Those are other people”. Domestic helpers are often cautioned against letting ibang tao (other people) into the house. Then, according to di V erences in class position, ideology, or the beliefs of an individual, the household help, gardener, or driver may be regarded as either hindi iba (not others) or ibang tao (other people). As a second proposition, the diV erence between mag-anak and pamilya is posited here. As discussed previously, the mag-anak is generally viewed to consist of the father, mother and children, while the pamilya is generally composed of the mother, the father, their children as well as in-laws, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and other relatives. However, since the maganak tends to have an exclusive signication, it is usually referred to only in the presence of its members and not in the presence of an extended family or household.20 What is illustrated here also is how the concept of the “family” is actually used and understood in the Philippine context. [For example, in comparison with the Western notion of the family, mag-anak may refer to the nuclear family while the pamilya may be more closely associated with the extended family.] In Figure 4, the sambahayan (household) is considered as a domicile for one or more mag-anak, pamilya , relatives, other household members, or just one individual. According to diV erences in class position, ideology or beliefs of the members of a household, the regard for the residents of a single household may also be according to mag-anak, pamilya, kamag-anak (relative), hindi ibang tao (not others) or iba (others). The discourse on ugnayan and social integration is complex and dynamic. That is why Figure 4 uses the dambuhalang pagkakahating pangkalinangan (great cultural divide), which Salazar is developing, as a heuristic device. In conceptualizing the divisions that are prevalent in Philippine society, Salazar takes into consideration the integral role, for instance, of the language that is used by the elite, on the one hand, and by the people, on the other; the varying attitude towards other countries and foreign inuences; and the diV erence between the kulturang nasyunal (national, that is, elite culture) and the kalinangang bayan (people’s culture) (Salazar, 1998a; 1997b). Yet, in using the concept of dambuhalang pagkakahating pangkalinangan in Figure 4, it does not imply that there are no relations between the “not others” and the “others”, between nayon and siyudad , and others. The division in Figure 4 is used to primarily illustrate and elucidate the concepts developed by the three scholars. In the context of one’s culture and society, that is, mula sa kinaroroonan, an attempt was made to show and develop the interrelationships among kapwa, kapatiran, and bayan, and to explore their place in exploring a panlipunang pagbabanghay — an outline of Philippine social organization. 21 With regard to the pamayanan (community), it is apparent that both sides of the divide have bayan. As explained earlier, bayan has deep meanings in Philippine culture. Since the taganayon (people from the nayon )
Mula sa Kinaroroonan
·
133
perceive the tagabayan (people from the bayan ) as those who live in the town centre or the poblacion , it may be said that at this level, there is a diV erence, distance, or divide between the taganayon and the tagabayan (Aquino, 1998; cf. Ileto, 1998; Rodriguez, 1996:23). For instance, even though a farmer lives in a nayon (village) within the municipality of Pila, he says “I’m going to the bayan” or “I’m going to Pila,” where bayan or Pila herein refers only to the centre or poblacion of Pila (although administratively, the nayon actually belongs to the bayan of Pila). In the study of people-land relations of the Mangyan Alangan of Oriental Mindoro, Quiaoit-Bae (1999) illustrated their understanding of their environment and the occasions when the highlanders “go down to the bayan”, referring to the centre (although administratively, their villages also belong to the bayan ). Especially because the economic standing of the tagabayan is usually high and the centre of formal political power is often based there, a third proposition is oV ered: there is still a need to understand and explore the meanings of the social signication of the more numerous taganayon in relation to their connection to the bayan as the centre as well as to those who reside there as tagabayan. On a general level, the bayan may reveal various kinds of distance and division, as well as bases of relatedness and unity. This suggests that there is a level where there is diV erence or division in the social signication (for instance, between nayon and bayan ); but there is also a level where the nayon (or province, perhaps) and its inhabitants are considered to be part of a larger bayan, thus, signifying a broader form of unity. As has been said, Filipinos overseas regard each other as magkababayan. These social signications conveyed by bayan reect deeper cultural meanings, clearly transcending divisions imposed through administrative and political decisions. In the context of panlipunang pagbabanghay and in light of aspirations towards pagiging isang bansa (becoming one nation), it is also important to see the relations among and the bases of unity of the various kapatiran that are oriented towards natural belief systems on the one hand, and formal associations such as religious groups and civic organizations on the other. According to Covar’s analysis, the kapatiran has an integral ugnayan (relations) to the simulain (cause), samahan (associations) and kilusan (social movements) rooted in and focused on one’s resources, culture and needs. It is, likewise, important to see the role of the state and of formal institutions such as those to do with government, education, media and the military vis-a-vis the aspirations of the larger bayan . It is also at this level that it would be possible to explore the arena of international forces and of the corollary relations of Philippine institutions with other societies and cultures. On the other hand, do the present militant movements genuinely embody the aspirations of the larger bayan? May it also be said that struggles for the inangbayan are carried out not only by social movements but also by
134
·
Clemen C. Aquino
unorganized people in their everyday lives? From the lessons in history, as shown by the experience of the Katipunan, which aspired for the inangbayan, on the one hand, and of the elite which focused on the goals of the nación, on the other, it is important to further examine the various forces that hinder the unication of the Filipino nation ( pagiging isang bansa ) (cf. Salazar 1997b). In connection with the dambuhalang pagkakahating pangkalinangan presented by Salazar, it is also important to examine the dynamic relations of the social classes, ethnic groups, and various kinds of beliefs and/or ideologies such as religion, feminism, social movements, and others, towards aspirations for pagiging isang bansa (building a nation). There may be associations, organizations, or non-government organizations that have genuine aspirations for the bayan. There may also be religious groups that are simply pretending to be kapatiran . It also cannot be denied that in the advocacy and practice of a belief or ideology, powerful forces such as those embodied by social class or political power may be transcended or overcome. The theme of paniniwala (belief ) that both Covar and Salazar developed is evident in the preliminary synthesis of their views. Could paniniwala (belief ) be the basis of pakikipag-ugnay (interacting), pakikipagkapwa (relating with kapwa ) and pagpapakatao (aspiring for humaneness)? If so, pakikipagkapwa , as based on local belief systems — which are integral to the work of the three scholars — may be considered a shared goal or a social value in the Philippine context. Pakikipagkapwa may be referred to as embodying a set of cultural standards or an ethical imperative to treat ibang tao (others) as sarili (self ). It is not only the mag-anak, pamilya, kamag-anak (relatives), and hindi ibang tao (not others) who are worthy of respect and deserve to be regarded like the sarili (self ). Pakikipagkapwa is the cultural standard in the broad arena of social interaction. On the other hand, pakikipagkapwa is also a standard for pagpapakatao (aspirations for humaneness) in the Philippine context. It is also important to further clarify the distinctions between pakikipagkapwa and pagpapakatao . In the context of the continuing project of panlipunang pagbabanghay , part of what still needs to be done is the collection of additional empirical bases that would show the views of the various sectors in Philippine society. For example, it is evident that the works of the three scholars were conned to local or non-formal groups and associations prevalent in Philippine society. In the context of the study of Philippine culture and of pagiging bansa (building a nation), it is also important to examine formal institutions such as schools, churces, media, factories, the government, and other more established organizations. How do aspects of Philippine culture relate with the concrete needs and standards of formal institutions? It is, likewise, important to carry this out using approaches that are comprehensible to the participants and in the context of research topics that are pertinent to their daily lives. Here is where local histories may be used, as well as the study of epics and folklore. The collection of kuwen-
Mula sa Kinaroroonan
·
135
tong bayan (people’s stories) and kuwentong buhay (life stories) can facilitate the understanding of cultural meanings and signication. Corollary to this is the depositing of research materials in aklatang bayan (people’s libraries) for the benet of the participants in the study and for their own bayan. It will be observed that although Enriquez, Covar, and Salazar trained in particular disciplines of social science, they did not limit themselves to those disciplinal perspectives. That is why Covar’s words will continue to be an intellectual challenge to social science researchers: In the beginning, I was convinced that the academic discipline shed light on our culture. But in my reections, I realized that our academic disciplines encourage us to contribute to theory, method, and content of the disciplines and not to uncover the F/Pilipino thought, culture, and society. Thought, culture, and society in the context of the disciplines is only tinder for the fuller aming of the discipline but not the development of F/Pilipino thought, culture, and society. In Pilipinolohiya , the academic disciplines are the very tools to liberate F/Pilipino thought, culture, and society and not its opposite (1988:30).
In the midst of tremendous changes that Filipinos confront in their everyday lives, it is important to continue recognizing and cultivating our social signications. These provide one of the bases for understanding where we are and where we are rooted; a guide for charting a common future.
Notes 1. This is a translation by Randolf M. Bustamante of Mula sa Kinaroroonan: Kapwa, Kapatiran at Bayan sa Agham Panlipunan (in Pilipino), Professorial Chair Paper Series of 1999, College of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of the Philippines. “Mula sa Kinaroroonan” is roughly translated as “From Where We Are”, a way of saying that the key concepts explored here — kapwa, kapatiran and bayan — are particularly meaningful in the Filipino cultural context. This paper was undertaken through a grant from the Philippine National Oil Company Professorial Chair in Sociology. The author wishes to thank Professor Prospero R. Covar, Professor Zeus A. Salazar and Professor Grace AguilingDalisay for their comments and suggestions on an earlier version of this paper. Students of Sociology 102 (Social Organization), First Semester 1999–2000 also participated in the discussion of selected themes explored in the paper. 2. For a review of said paper, see also Enriquez, Virgilio (1992) “Kapwa and the Struggle for Justice, Freedom and Dignity” in From Colonial Liberation to Liberation Psychology: The Philippine Experience . Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press and Obusan, Teresita and Angelina Enriquez (1994) Pamamaraan: Indigenous Knowledge and Evolving Research Paradigms . Quezon City: Asian Center, University of the Philippines, Quezon City (cf. Enriquez, 1991). 3. The translations used herein are those found in Enriquez, Virgilio, “Kapwa : A Core Concept in Filipino Social Psychology” (1978:102).
136
·
Clemen C. Aquino
4. See also the recent study by Rivera, Ma. Kristina (1996), “Iskala ng Pagtutunguhan ng Mananaliksik at Kalahok: Isang Pagbabalik-aral”, Master’s thesis in Psychology, University of the Philippines, Quezon City. 5. In Rivera’s study (1996), she analyzed each level of relating between researcher and participant (as developed by Enriquez and Santiago) and proposed that it should be seen not only as a scale but also as a dynamic and complicated process of interaction between researcher and participant. From the eight categories or levels of interaction, it is assumed that because the di V erences between some categories are minimal, it will become clearer if pakikitungo, pakikibagay, pakikipagpalagayang-loob, and pakikiisa are seen as the four primary dimensions of interaction between researcher and participant. 6. As indicated earlier, Santiago referred to ibang-tao as “outsider”, but “other people”, “others” or “other” will also be used in this paper. Similarly, while she refers to hindi-ibang-tao as “one of us”, the terms “not other people”, “not others” or “not other” will also be used. 7. As Aguiling-Dalisay had shared in her comment on this paper, it may be said that the sarili (self ) becomes more meaningful or poignant in relation to iba (others). (Personal communication, November, 1999). 8. In connection with the Outline, see also Covar, Prospero (1998a) “Unburdening Philippine Society of Colonialism” and “Pilipinolohiya” in Larangan. In sociology, sambahayan is now commonly translated as “household”, and kamag-anakan as “kinship ties”. It is important to mention that in an earlier study by Covar, he used sodality for samahan (“The Iglesia Watawat ng Lahi — An Anthropological Study of a Social Movement in the Philippines”, doctoral dissertation in anthropology, University of Arizona, 1975). 9. The parallelisms between mag-anak and the nuclear family will be posited later in the paper. 10. A brief discussion of the interrelated concepts of aspiration, sodality, kapatiran, and movement follows in the next section. 11. It is important to mention that for this discussion, the following sources were used: Salazar, Zeus, with Castillo-Pimentel, Lapar, Pimentel, Jr. and Rodriguez (1993) Kasaysayan ng Pilipinas: Isang Balangkas ; Navarro, Rodriquez and Villan (1997) Pantayong Pananaw: Ugat at Kabuluhan; Salazar, Zeus (1997a), “Ang ‘Real’ ni Bonifacio Bilang Teknikang Militar sa Kasaysayan ng Pilipinas”; Salazar, Zeus (1998), “Estado, Lipunan at Kultura sa Kasaysayan: Ang Wika sa Pamanang Pangkalinangan ng Pilipinas”. As Salazar continues to develop these concepts in history and social science, there is a slight change in the presentation of some concepts. For example, in Kasaysayan ng Pilipinas (1993), the presentation is divided into three periods, Pamayanan (ca. 250,000 BC–1565), Bayan (1565– 1913), and Bansa (1913–1992) which also became the basis of the summation by Navarro et al., in Pantayong Pananaw (1997). In “Ang ‘Real’ ni Bonifacio Bilang Teknikang Militar sa Kasaysayan ng Pilipinas” (1997a) and in “Estado, Lipunan at Kultura sa Kasaysayan: Ang Wika sa Pamanang Pangkalinangan ng Pilipinas” (1998), Salazar identied bayan as one of three pamayanan (community) concepts, the other two being banua and ili . In this paper, an attempt will be made to present Salazar’s views about the concept of bayan based on his latest works. 12. In recent years, Salazar has also been using the term Bagong Kasaysayan (new history). For details on this, see “Kasaysayan at Talastasang Bayan sa Wikang
Mula sa Kinaroroonan
13.
14.
15.
16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.
·
137
Filipino: Sa Duyan ng Pagbubuo ng Inang Bayan, Bansa at Sambayanan” by Navarro, Atoy (1999) in Adhika , Tomo 1. In relation to Kasaysayang Bayan, see also Llanes, Ferdinand “Kasaysayang Bayan: Pagsulat ng Kasaysayan ng Bayan (Isang Panimula Tungo sa Paglilinang)” (1999) in Adhika , Tomo 1 (cf. Llanes, Ferdinand 1993; Veneracion, Jaime 1986). Also see the paper by Rodriguez, M.J., “Ang Dalumat ng Bayan sa Kamalayang Pilipino”, paper submitted for Anthropology 270, Summer, Academic Year, 1995–96. According to Salazar, what unites the three concepts is a common etymology: bahay or balay (cf. Tagalog balayan, where the intervocalic has disappeared, such as the Tagalog daan from the Proto-Filipino and even Austronesian dalan; the twin-vowel “e” [=ay] in balen is the phonemic result of the original “-aya-”); it appears that the “-n-” has disappeared from balei (1997a, p. 4). At this point, it is important to pay attention to the centrality of the use of the mag-anak as a symbol for the aspirations of the bayan throughout the archipelago. According to Salazar, “within the mag-anak , the child is central as the reason for and purpose of the mag-anak towards the survival of one’s group as a whole ( kamag-anakan, angkan, balangay, bayan or even larger) on earth” (1999:78). In the preceding section, Covar demonstrated that there is also a high regard for the Holy Family among the kapatiran in Mount Banahaw. This will be discussed further in the next section of this paper. It will be noted that this point is relevant to the clarication made by Covar (1992) in relation to the concepts of freedom and sovereignty. This seems to imply that, in accordance with what Ferriols has shared, even relating with the enemy falls within the scope of pakikipagkapwa . According to his comment on this paper (August, 1999). This is also supported in some discussions among students in Sociology 102 (Social Organization/Panlipunang Pagbabanghay ), First Semester, 1999–2000. Also according to the reports of some students in Sociology 102 (Social Organization/Panlipunang Pagbabanghay ), First Semester, 1999–2000. As this study is based on the writings of the three authorities, most of which are in Pilipino, and on the author’s perspectives within the Tagalog context, it is imperative to relate analogous signications from other ethnolinguistic groups in Philippine society in subsequent studies.
References Abrera, Ma. Bernadette (1992) Ang Numismatika ng Anting-Anting: Panimulang Paghawan ng Isang Landas Tungo sa Pag-unawa ng Kasaysayan at Kalinangang Pilipino . Lunsod Quezon: Publikasyon Bilang 2, Programang Kaalamang Bayan, Tanggapan ng Dekano, Dalubhasaan ng Agham Panlipunan at Pilosopiya, Unibersidad ng Pilipinas. —— (1995) “Sandugo”, in Zeus Salazar, Edward Yulo and Atoy Navarro Talaarawan, 1996 . Quezon City: Miranda Bookstore. Alaras, Consolacion R. (1988) Pamathalaan: Ang Pagbubukas sa Tipan ng Mahal na Ina. Kolonya, Alemanya at UP Diliman: Bahay Saliksikan sa Kasaysayan. Aquino, Clemen (1990) “Workers in the Philippines: Classes and Beyond”. DPhil. thesis in Sociological Studies, University of Sussex, United Kingdom.
138
·
Clemen C. Aquino
—— (1998) “Pasko sa Labuin”, section in chapter “Palay at Buhay: Mga Kuwento Mula sa Isang Nayon sa Pilipinas”. Submitted for the PRELUDE project “Rice in Asian Cultures”, UNESCO. Asis, Maruja, patnugot (1999) Mga Eksilo, Inang Bayan at Panlipunang Pagbabago. Quezon City: Center for Integrative and Development Studies, University of the Philippines. Covar, Prospero (1961) “The Watawat ng Lahi: Sociological Study of a Social Movement”. MA thesis in Sociology, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City. —— (1975) “The Iglesia Watawat ng Lahi — An Anthropological Study of a Social Movement in the Philippines”. PhD dissertation in Anthropology, University of Arizona. —— (1980) “Potensiya, Bisa at Anting-Anting”, Asian Studies (April, December). 18:71–78. —— (1989) “Ang Pananaw ng Kasaysayan ng Pilipinas ng mga Kapatiran at Kilusang Milinaryan”, manuskrito. Draft outline, 2 pp. —— (1991) “Pilipinolohiya”, in Violeta Bautista and Rogelia Pe-Pua, patnugot, Pilipinolohiya: Kasaysayan, Pilosopiya at Pananaliksik . Manila: Kalikasan Press. —— (1992) “Ang Tradisyon ng Katipunan”, Pantas V (2). —— (1998a) Larangan (Seminal Essays on Philippine Culture). Manila: National Commission for Culture and the Arts. —— (1998b) “Balarila ng Kultura: Lapit, Dulog at Dalumat”, Centennial Lecture. Quezon City: Center for Integrative and Development Studies, University of the Philippines. Enriquez, Virgilio (1978) “Kapwa: A Core Concept in Filipino Social Psychology”, Philippine Social Sciences and Humanities Review XLVII (pp. 100–108). —— (1992) “Kapwa and the Struggle for Justice, Freedom and Dignity”, in From Colonial Liberation to Liberation Psychology: The Philippine Experience . Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press. —— (1994) Pagbabangong-Dangal: Indigenous Psychology and Cultural Empowerment . Lunsod Quezon: Akademya ng Kultura at Sikolohiyang Pilipino. —— (1997) “Filipino Psychology: Concepts and Methods”, in Henry S.R. Kao and Durganand Sinha, eds., Asian Perspectives on Psychology. Cross-Cultural Research and Methodology Series, Volume 19. New Delhi: Sage Publications. Ferriols, Roque (1991) Pambungad sa Metapisika . Quezon City: OYce of Research and Publications, Ateneo de Manila University. Ileto, Reynaldo (1998) Filipinos and Their Revolution: Event, Discourse and Historiography . Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press. Llanes, Ferdinand, patnugot. (1993) Pagbabalik sa Bayan: Mga Lektura sa Kasaysayan ng Historiograpiya at Pagkabansang Pilipino. Lunsod Quezon: Rex Bookstore. —— (1999) “Kasaysayang Bayan: Pagsulat ng Kasaysayan ng Bayan (Isang Panimula Tungo sa Paglilinang)” in Adhika , Nilo Ocampo (editor ng isyu), Tomo 1. Lunsod Quezon: Adhika ng Pilipinas, Inc. Navarro, Atoy (1999) “Kasaysayan at Talastasang Bayan sa Wikang Filipino: Sa Duyan ng Pagbubuo ng Inang Bayan, Bansa at Sambayanan”, in Adhika , Nilo Ocampo (editor ng isyu), Tomo 1. Lunsod Quezon: Adhika ng Pilipinas, Inc. Navarro, Atoy, Mary Jane Rodriguez at Vicente Villan, mga patnugot. (1997) Pantayong Pananaw: Ugat at Kabuluhan (Pambungad na Pag-aaral ng Bagong Kasaysayan). Lunsod Mandaluyong: Palimbagang Kalawakan.
View more...
Comments
