clemen c. aquino

Mula sa Kinaroroonan:Kapwa, Kapatiran and Bayan inPhilippine Social Science1

Clemen C. AquinoDepartment of SociologyUniversity of the Philippines

From the pioneering works of Enriquez, Covar and Salazar, which paved the way forthe production of social science knowledge that is particularly meaningful and sensitive toPhilippine culture and society, this paper explores the social signi�cations of kapwa, kap-atiran and bayan. In the context of the dominant in�uence of Western perspectives inPhilippine social science, the understanding, appreciation and evaluation of their contribu-tions continue to be an important undertaking. As a preliminary attempt to contribute tothis discourse, a panlipunang pagbabanghay is oVered as an approach or an outline forthe analysis of Philippine social organization.

It was in the 1970s that the academic paths of Professor Virgilio G. Enriquezof the Department of Psychology, Professor Prospero R. Covar of theDepartment of Anthropology, and Professor Zeus A. Salazar of the Depart-ment of History — social science scholars at the University of the Philippines —converged. Through training in their respective � elds, these three profes-sors collectively cultivated scholarship on Philippine culture, diwa (spirit)and society. In the context of the pervasive in� uence of Western educa-tion in the country, and on social science in particular, they set out to for-mulate perspectives that are rooted in and signi� cant to their own society.During that particular period, a crucial factor was the imposition of mar-tial law in the country, especially in the task of confronting questions andproblems that may be unique to Philippine political and social life. The pro-fessors provided one another academic support, and the 1970s saw the insti-tution of the course Sikolohiyang Pilipino (Filipino Psychology) in the Departmentof Psychology and the establishment of the Pambansang Samahan sa SikolohiyangPilipino (National Confederation on Filipino Psychology), as well as thestrengthening of the Pantayong Pananaw (Pantayo perspective) in the Departmentof History. Moreover, in the latter part of the 1980s, Pilipinolohiya (Filipinology)was established in the graduate programme of the College of Social Sciencesand Philosophy.

Now that almost three decades have passed since they crossed acad-emic paths, it may be said that, in various ways, their intellectual endeav-ours have been developed and advanced. Even though there is no formalinstitution 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) also available online© 2004 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden see www.brill.nl

106 · Clemen C. Aquino

methods of research that are relevant and meaningful to Philippine soci-ety. Many students and junior faculty members have contributed substan-tially to their � eld and through ongoing clari� cation and debate, they haveadded vibrancy and meaning to their cause. Over the years, these studiescollectively serve to further explore, understand and articulate the multi-dimensional character of Philippine culture and society. It is equally signi� cantto note that from conventional reactions to Western ideas, the co-sojournershave been able to transcend the habitual responses to and struggles withwhat are perceived to be colonial perspectives and foreign in� uences.

The aim of this paper is to provide an exploratory analysis of selectedconcepts cultivated by Enriquez, Covar, and Salazar that have particularrelevance to the study of Philippine social organization. Written from theperspective of sociology that looks at the individual in society and the indi-vidual’s linkages with the broader social structure, this paper focuses onthree concepts: kapwa, one of the concepts � rst examined by Enriquez inhis time; kapatiran, which sums up the broad � eld of studies cultivated byCovar; and bayan, a concept that Salazar considers integral to the under-standing of Philippine history and cultural life.

Kapwa in Sikolohiyang Pilipino

Integral to the work of Enriquez is the concept of kapwa. In 1978, in thearticle “Kapwa: A Core Concept in Filipino Social Psychology” — one ofthe � rst seminal presentations of the concept — Enriquez recognized thecentrality of kapwa to the study of social interaction among Filipinos.2

Corollary attention was also given to Filipino society’s deep regard forpakikipagkapwa or pakikipagkapwa-tao, or having good and sincere relationswith one’s brethren.

It is important to note that Enriquez’s study of the concept of kapwais inextricably linked with the Sikolohiyang Pilipino’s cultivation of methodsof data collection that are meaningful in the Philippine context. In fact,one of the initial research activities of Sikolohiyang Pilipino that was priori-tized and instituted by Enriquez in the early 1970s focused on the studyof makaPilipinong pamamaraan ng pananaliksik (Filipino methods of research)which involves pakapa-kapa (groping), pagtatanong-tanong (querying), and pakikipag-kuwentuhan (sharing stories) (Santiago and Enriquez, 1982; Santiago, 1982).These methods of collecting data were considered integral to the under-standing and articulation of social science knowledge that is sensitive tothe nuances and dynamics of Philippine society.

Enriquez’s examination of the concept of kapwa is based on Santiago’searlier study about various kinds and levels of interaction in a Tagalog vil-lage. Santiago had looked at the social interaction related to the oVering offood to ibang-tao (outsider) and hindi-ibang-tao (one of us) in a Bulacan munic-ipality (1976:135). It is this study that, in turn, became the basis for Santiago

Mula sa Kinaroroonan · 107

and Enriquez (1982) in their formulation of a scale of pagtutunguhan (inter-action) between the researcher and the participant in the study.

Santiago and Enriquez (1982) developed eight categories of pagtutu-nguhan (interaction) between the researcher and the participant, and Enriquezused these same categories in his exploration of the concept of kapwa. Itis important to emphasize that the authors also considered these categoriesof interaction as methods of data gathering that the researcher may verywell use to discover and understand participants’ kalooban (inner self/innerfeelings). The following are the categories, structured according to “thecloseness of kalooban of the researcher and the participant”:

� pakikitungo (transaction/civility with)3

� pakikisalamuha (interaction with)� pakikilahok ( joining/participating with)� pakikibagay (in conformity with/in accord with)� pakikisama (being along with)� pakikipagpalagayan/pakikipagpalagayang-loob (being in rapport/understanding/

acceptance of )� pakikisangkot (getting involved with)� pakikiisa (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 levelor depth of the information that may be gathered. That is why the authorssuggest that the pagtutunguhan be brought to the level of pakikipagpalagayang-loob (being in rapport/understanding/acceptance with) because it is only atthis level that the true kalooban of the participant may be understood.4 Atthis level, each one is at ease with one’s kapwa. “There is no more shy-ness and the trust is almost absolute and unconditional” (Enriquez andSantiago, 1982:158, 159).

For Enriquez, the conceptual richness of the pagtutunguhan between theresearcher and the participant, which has diVerent kinds and levels of cat-egories of pag-uugnayan that may be applied, only mirrors the richness andvalue of pakikipag-ugnay or social interaction in Philippine society. That iswhy although Santiago in her earlier study considered pakikipagkapwa anideal in the � eld of pagtutunguhan (1976:133), Enriquez viewed pakikipagkapwanot as an ideal as such, but as a fundamental core concept that is actu-ally 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 pagtutunguhanmentioned above are subsumed within the sense of kapwa and/or pakikipag-kapwa. For example, pakikitungo is considered “obedience to the precepts ofmabuting asal (good behaviour) according to the kaugalian (custom) ofpakikipagkapwa” while pakikiisa is seen as “the acts, will, and speech of aperson that intimate a complete and absolute love, understanding, and


acceptance of what is aspired for as one’s own aspiration” (p. 159).5 Asimplied here and as will be further explained below, viewing the self andothers as one is the fundamental essence integral to kapwa.

The categories of interaction associated with the “one of us” or “notothers” (hindi iba) or “not other people” (hindi-ibang-tao ) (that is, pakikipag-palagayang-loob [being in rapport/understanding/acceptance with] and paki-kiisa [being one with]) and the categories associated with the “outsiders” or“others” (ibang-tao) (that is, pakikitungo, pakikibagay, and pakikisama) are com-ponents of the general concept of kapwa.6 Hence, every level of pagtutun-guhan (interaction) between the researcher and the participant is either anindication of or subsumed within the spirit of pakikipagkapwa (Enriquez,1978:103).

Similarly, every method of data gathering used in the research is anindication of the pakikipagkapwa of the researcher with the participant. Thisimplies that the conduct of genuine Filipino research needs to be sensitiveto the sense of pakikipagkapwa. From this perspective, pakikipagkapwa is theguiding spirit of truly Filipino research. The implication of such a view isimportant to social research in the country — especially in the � eld ofethics – for relations between the researcher and the participant, and evento 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 signi� cation or meaning of kapwa is actually theunity of the “self ” and “others.” The English term “others” is commonlyused in opposition to “self,” which implies their separate identities, whilekapwa means the uni� ed identity of the “self ” and “others.” If an individ-ual supposes the “self ” to be “other than” the kapwa, it will mean the lossof the treatment of “others” as kapwa. It is, therefore, recognized that atthe root of the concept of kapwa is the uni� ed 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 embody-ing spirit that encompasses various kinds or categories of pagtutunguhan insociety. In this view, pakikisama (being along with) is seen not as a socialvalue per se but as one of the levels or kinds of pagtutunguhan that nor-mally takes place between an individual and an “other”. Thus, pakikisama(being along with) and even pakikibaka (to struggle with) are inherent partsof the embodying spirit of pakikipagkapwa (1978:106).

As noted earlier, for Santiago, pakikipagkapwa or pakikipagkapwa-tao means


“humaneness at its highest level” (1976:133). In relation to the scale ofsocial interaction in Philippine society, and as noted earlier, she considerspakikipagkapwa or pakikipagkapwa-tao as a primary value, that is, the loftiestaspiration of pagtutunguhan in society.

Enriquez’s view of pakikipagkapwa as an overarching primary value maybe seen in the supposition that it is still possible for Filipinos to under-stand a person who is “without pakikisama,” or one who is “walanghiya”(shameless) or “walang utang na loob” (no sense of gratitude), while the samemay 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 ofthe recognition of the humanity and dignity of the kapwa as an equal. Evenin one of Enriquez’s last works before he passed on in 1994, Pagbabagong-Dangal: Indigenous Psychology and Cultural Empowerment, there is still the appre-ciation for the kind of pakikitungo (interaction) of the Filipino toward his orher kapwa, whatever the gender or social status may be (1994:75).

The collective orientation of Philippine culture in which there is ahigh valuation of pakikipag-ugnay (interacting with), pakikitungo (relating with),and pakikipagkapwa (relating with kapwa) may be implied from the preced-ing discussion. It seems that there is a close link, or perhaps a unity,between the social signi� cation of pakikipagkapwa (relating with kapwa) onthe one hand, and pagpapakatao (aspiring for humaneness) on the other.

Kapatiran in Pilipinolohiya

Known as the foremost advocate of Pilipinolohiya (Filipinology), Covar hasdeveloped anthropological studies that are based on concerns integral tohis roots in Laguna. Among these studies are the cultures of rice planting,the organization of messianic communities or kapatiran, in particular, theIglesia Watawat ng Lahi as well as groups worshipping Mount Banahaw.From these � rst studies, it may be seen in his book Larangan (1998a) — acollection of seminal essays on Philippine culture — that Covar has woventogether four signi� cant interrelated concepts: pagkatao (personhood/humane-ness), kapatiran (sodality), paniniwala (belief ), and wika (language), the lastbeing a primary basis for examining the � rst three (cf. Covar, 1998b). Inthis paper, the focus will be on the concept of kapatiran in the context ofCovar’s studies on paniniwala (belief ) and of the perspective of Pilipinolohiyahe developed.

Covar presented the scope of his � eld of study in ‘Balangkas ngPambansang Kaisipan, Kultura at Lipunang Pilipino,’ (An outline of nationalthought, culture and society) in the article “Pilipinolohiya”8 (1991:42) (Figure1). The concept of pagkatao was what he developed in relation to the nationalkaisipan (thought) where Covar used the metaphor of the banga (earthen jar)to illustrate the externality, interiority, and depth of Filipino personhood.


Figure 1: Outline of National Thought, Culture and Society

Tao Person

Pagkatao Personhood/Being Humane

Labas

KatawanMukhaDibdibTiyanSikmura

Kaluluwa/BudhiIsipPusoBitukaAtay

Soul/Conscience

Mind

Heart

Intestines

Liver

BodyFaceChestStomachGut

Externality Loob Interiority

Pagkatao

Pag-anib salipunan

Pakikipagkapwa

Personhood

SocialParticipation

PangkabuhayanLivelihood

PampulitikaPolitics

Kamag-anakan/Angkan/SambahayanKingship/Lineage/Household

(Kinship)

Samahan/Kapisanan/SimulainAssociation/Organization/Cause

(Interest)

PamayananCommunity

(Territoriality)

SambayananPeople/Nation(Citizenship)

Pagtuturo atpaniniwala

Istrukturang PanlipunanSocial Structure

Educationand Beliefs

Pagkatao Personhood

Relating with kapwa

“Pilipinolohiya”, P.R. CovarPilipinolohiya: Kasaysayan, Pilosopiya at PananaliksikBautista and Pe-Pua (editors), 1991, p. 42


In his view, corollary to the concept of pagkatao (personhood) is the con-cept of pakikipagkapwa (relating with kapwa) where, as had been shared byEnriquez, 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 ofpakikipagkapwa (1998:24). Furthermore, Covar also emphasized the elementsof soul and conscience that are at the heart of Filipino personhood andare the fundamental bases of an individual’s view of his/her own life andof his/her pakikitungo with kapwa (1998a:23).

Regarding the concept of social structure as the third and last dimen-sion of Pilipinolohiya, in accordance with “Balangkas” (1991), Covar viewsit at four institutional levels or categories found in Philippine society: kamag-anakan (kinship)/angkan (lineage)/sambahayan (household); samahan (associa-tion)/kapisanan (organization)/simulain (cause); pamayanan (community); andsambayanan (people/nation; see Figure 1).

Guided by the structural-functionalist perspective in sociology, Covarbelieves that the role of these institutions is geared towards the recruit-ment of members, enculturation, distribution of goods and services, and theallocation of power and authority (1998a:23). Yet in the Filipino context,Covar — in analyzing social structure — emphasized not only the struc-ture and its attendant activities but also, and more importantly, the preva-lent and intense pag-uugnayan (interrelationships) of the people. “In the areaof social organization, we classify our relationships with other people”(1998a:68).

For Covar and other specialists in Philippine society, the family is thefoundation of that society (1998a:22). Viewing the family as a group liv-ing in a house or a household, he presupposes that the stability of theentire sambayanan (people/nation/citizenship) is based on the stability offamilies in Philippine society. It may be worth noting that in the use ofthe sambahayan (household) as family, Covar implies that all who live inone house, that is, the sambahayan (household), are ordinarily consideredalso as members of a family, although not all who live there are boundby kinship ties.

In accordance with the aforementioned, in the Philippine context, thereis signi� cant appreciation for the nature of relations between and amongthe members of what is considered a family. In the Tagalog family, forinstance, these relations are presented according to the various levels of a“mag-anak”: spouse, siblings, parents, and children9 (cf. Salazar, 1999:78).

Moreover, another concept that is included in the structure of theFilipino family is the extended family, which broadens and makes richersaid relations at the level of the family (1991:39). In this context, Covaremphasized the important position of multiple in-law relations: magbalae orabalayan (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),


and bilas (wife/husband of sister/brother-in-law). In comparison with theAmerican family system, these are all subsumed under “in-laws.” In theTagalog context, there is a particular term for every category or level offamilial relations that indicates the various categories and levels of relat-ing. As will be discussed towards the end of this paper, even though notall of these relations are commonly linked to the category of the mag-anak(nuclear family), these are usually considered part of the category of thepamilya (extended family) and, therefore, “not others.”

It is still an indication of the rich and broad relations of relatives thatthere are, moreover, diVerences in references according to generation: pin-sang buo (� rst cousin), ikalawa (second cousin), ikatlo (third cousin), and atiba pa (and others). Also prevalent are categories according to relations byblood, baptism, marriage, and other rituals. Therefore, even those who arenot members of the same blood-family or nuclear family are granted titlesthat make them part of the family (1991:39). For example, it may be saidthat those who are magkumpare (co-godparents) through baptism or mar-riage may also consider their kumpare’s (co-godparent’s) siblings their ownkumare (co-godparent) or kumpare (co-godparent). Even the siblings of thekumare or kumpare are also considered hindi iba (not others/one-of-us).

The same may be said of relations with close friends; “We are alreadylike siblings.” As for the elders, “They are already like my own parents.”These do not only prove the Filipino culture’s rich appreciation for socialrelationships but also imply the unique and high regard for familial rela-tions, especially of parents and siblings as the primary kind of relationship.

In studying communities as one of the vital aspects of Filipino socialstructure, Covar used the ethnographic approach in his study of farmersin Coralan, a rural village in the province of Laguna (1998:79) and in thecity, “Panulukan ng Quezon Avenue AR West 4th” (Corner of QuezonAvenue and West 4th) (1998a:39). It may be said that in studying communitiesin the countryside and in the city, Covar is looking for the overarchingculture that links the various groups in the archipelago. Moreover, in con-sidering the physical relation of the household to the community, Covar re-cognized not only the ethnic communities in the country but also the ancientcommunities that existed before the arrival of the foreign colonizers. Theseinquiries on Philippine communities may be considered contributions tothe 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 andstreams but the likeness and form of an enriched philosophy, culture, andsociety — thus, civilization (Covar, 1998a:32).


At this point, focus will be directed to Covar’s views on kapatiran, a con-cept he developed and which has signi� cant bearing on Filipino socialorganization. Ostensibly, corollary to the study of kapatiran is Covar’s analy-sis of belief systems, so it is proper to use as an introduction to Covar’swritings on kapatiran his views on the Filipino’s mode of knowing, whichhe presented in the article “Indigenization of an Ideational System” (1998a).

According to Covar, this mode of knowing consists of three dimen-sions: divine knowing, human knowing, and arti� cial knowing. For him,the various traditions of belief and faith in the Philippines are based onthe Filipinos’ recognition of the absolute supremacy of divine knowing(1998a:119). Divine knowing remains a mystery, although it is sometimesexpressed through healers, mediums, baglan and others. Human knowingis considered a natural knowing that may be acquired by studying natureand one’s physical environment. Finally, what is called arti� cial knowingis “the human creation of various forms of knowledge, especially techno-logical ones” that can alter the � ow of nature. Covar cited the productionof “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 wisdomin the Philippines are widespread, that is, the search for the mysteriousdivine knowing that is freely bestowed and the search for the natural know-ing that may be gleaned from nature. From this viewpoint, it may be saidthat the activities and goals of the many kapatiran and of the worshippersin Mount Banahaw form part of the tradition of searching for divine wis-dom. Corollary to these beliefs is the understanding of human wisdomabout nature.

The Iglesia Watawat ng Lahi

Written at the outset of the 1960s, Covar’s master’s thesis on the IglesiaWatawat ng Lahi was guided by the standards current at the time in the� eld of sociology in the Philippines. He examined the Iglesia Watawat ngLahi of Calamba, Laguna as a social organization and as a social move-ment, focusing on the concept of “messianic social movement” consideredas “collective enterprises designed to establish a new social order” (1961:152).He discussed the organization’s history, structure, and leadership, as wellas events such as the Japanese Occupation, which furthered the cause ofthe organization’s sodality. In the collective quest for meaning in everydaylife and in the continuous eVorts to understand divine wisdom, the thesisfound the role of the bayani (heroes) of the country important, in particu-lar, Dr. Jose P. Rizal. Revered by members of the organization as the“new Christ,” Dr. Rizal had views and aspirations that contributed muchto the formation of the character and goal of the organization.


For his doctoral dissertation in the allied � eld of anthropology, Covarre-examined the Iglesia Watawat ng Lahi. This time, the study focused onthe structural development of the organization, that is, its evolution — frombeing a cause at the outset in the mid-1930s, through becoming a sodal-ity when the Samahang Watawat ng Lahi was established circa 1939–40, toits 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 inthe face of danger at the hands of the Japanese forces (1975:109).

In relation to the process of the organization’s development, the studyalso showed three important forces attendant to the various changes herein:traditional beliefs, Christianity, and Protestantism. It is assumed that thereis a signi� cant link between the traditional faith in Bathala and in naturespirits, and the Iglesia Watawat ng Lahi’s unique relationship to the spirit ofDr. Rizal, which they consider their mentor and guide. The dissertationshowed how the sodality accepted and advocated the causes of their bayaninot only as a specialist in the study of society, but more importantly, asthe “new Christ.”

On the other hand, the in� uence of Protestantism may be seen in thestructure of the leadership and general organization of the sodality; forinstance, in the use of phrases and positions like “presiding elder” and“second presiding elder”, and in the conduct of the ceremonies and ritu-als of the mass, baptisms, and weddings that were similar to the conven-tions of what Covar referred to as Orthodox Christianity (1975:110). Fromthese primary in� uences arose the “three golden causes” of the sodality:the aspiration to become maka-Dios (godly), maka-tao (humane), and maka-bayan (patriotic) (1975:95). In accordance with this, the three causes servedas the regulatory ethics in the daily life of the members and as the basisof one’s own salvation.

It seems that the concept of simulain (cause), from the point of theview of the members themselves, is a key to the understanding of the IglesiaWatawat ng Lahi. As Covar had said,

Epistemologically, the Iglesia Watawat ng Lahi imputes two usages to the termsimulain (cause). On the one hand, it refers to a set of objectives, aims, orpurposes. 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 tokapatid (brother/sister/brethren) in his master’s thesis in sociology (1961:156),it was in his later study of the groups worshipping in Mount Banahawthat he became deeply interested in exploring the spirit of kapatiran. It maybe said that it was the perspective set by Pilipinolohiya that intensi� ed thisparticular view of his subject matter.


The Devotee Kapatiran in Mount Banahaw

Through the ethnographic approach, Covar closely examined the groupsworshipping in Mount Banahaw since the 1970s. In particular, this maybe seen in such works as “Liham ng Isang Antropologista sa KanyangKaibigang 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 worship-ping groups, they all accept the mystical transfer of the holy sites fromAncient Palestine to Mount Banahaw. In the article “Kapahayagan ngIba’t Ibang Paniniwalang Pilipino” (Manifestations of diVerent Philippinebeliefs), Covar supposed that this belief was actually based on what hereferred to as isang alamat (a legend) (1998a:97).

Now home to many worshippers, Mount Banahaw is believed to havebeen � rst inhabited by Hermano Pule and his companions as early as1849. Given that the worship is centred on sacred sites, it is believed thatthere are about 100 such sites in Mount Banahaw, 20 of which are con-sidered traditional sites (1998a:89). To Covar, the beliefs in Mount Banahaware eclectic, where three intertwined dimensions of belief may be observed.Highly signi� cant are the role of animism, the Christian element, and theacceptance of the role of their bayani, especially of Dr. Rizal.

Covar shares the view of Isabelo de los Reyes that the primordialbelief of the Filipinos is animism, the term originating from the word“anima.” Covar calls them “nature spirits” that are to be found in nat-ural sites such as rivers, rocks, anthill and caves (1998a:95). In MountBanahaw, one may observe, through candles and icons, the regard andrelationship 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. Theseare bestowed on select people. Mountains, caves, swamps, rivers, waterfalls,plants, animals, even humans have their very own powers. The power may beobtained through the cultivation of a clean heart, conscience, and spirit andthrough the meticulous adherence to ritual, such as fervent praying (1980:77).

Apparently, sites in nature are also named according to Christian tradi-tion: Tubig ng Jordan (Water of Jordan), Kuweba ni San Pedro (Cave of St.Peter), San Pablo (St. Paul), Santisima Trinidad (Holy Trinity), Kuweba ng DiyosAma (Cave of God the Father), and others (1998:97). On the other hand,while Christianity eschews belief in anting-anting (amulets) and potensiya atbisa (mystical powers) as superstition, the worshippers of Mount Banahawas well as of many other places throughout the archipelago openly acceptsuch beliefs. Covar added:


Many sacri� ces, vows, missions, spirit-worship, and prayers are performed innurturing and testing the amulet. Every Lent, there are people who carrythe cross. This is solidarity with Christ in his suVering. They do not per-form the sacri� ce for the forgiveness of their sin. Their aim is to nurturetheir amulet in life. In like manner, � agellation is not an exorcism of evilspirits. It is done to cleanse the body so that it becomes a temple worthyof the amulet. The Filipino’s attendance at mass seems like the enactmentof ritual in the cave to nurture one’s native powers (1980:78).

What may also be seen is the connection of Christianity with the tradi-tional belief in the acceptance of the Holy Trinity in Mount Banahaw.However, the Holy Trinity — the mystery of God the Father, God theSon, and God the Holy Spirit — is a fundamental aspect of RomanCatholic belief that is accepted and appropriated in Mount Banahaw asthe Holy Family that consists of God the Father, God the Mother, andGod the Son. Apparently, God the Mother descended to earth, becameincarnate, and assumed the form of such blessed women as Maria BernardaBalitaan, Victoria Piedad, and Jose� na Lopez, who played signi� cant rolesin the various kapatiran in Mount Banahaw (1998a:101). For Covar,

Although the doctrine of the Holy Trinity remains, the retablo’s text is linkedto the concept of the holy family so as to quell the anxiety about why thereare God the Son and God the Father without a God the Mother. The roleof 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 Scriptureand other streams of belief and Filipino imagination, thus creating a neworder as a fruit of traditional experience (1998a:101).

Apparent here is the high regard for women and for the family. In Pesigan’sstudy (1992) of the Ciudad Mistica de Dios presided over by SupremaIsabel Suarez, it is evident that such a tradition remains up to the presentin Mount Banahaw. The importance placed on relationships within a modelfamily is markedly re� ected in the general reference to sodalities worship-ping Mount Banahaw as kapatiran (Pesigan, 1992:171; Alaras, 1988). A vitalsupport to what Covar had already expressed, the spirit of pakikipagkapati-ran (promoting sodality) is what guides worship activities and everyday lifein Mount Banahaw.

As has been said, in Covar’s study of the Iglesia Watawat ng Lahi andthe millenarian groups in Mount Banahaw, it is evident that Dr. Jose Rizalis revered. According to these groups’ beliefs, there is a poignant parallel-ism or analogy between the lives of Jesus Christ and Dr. Rizal: from theirbirth, name, ministry, and death; to their foundation of a new kingdom.For the Rizalists, it follows from this that, indeed, Dr. Rizal is the “newChrist”. The regard that these kapatiran have for their bayani and the rolethat these are performing or will perform in Philippine society is an indi-


cation that their faith or spiritual world includes a broad and marked polit-ical dimension (Covar, 1989).

In relation to this, Covar’s clari� cation about kasarinlan (indepen-dence/self-reliance) and kalayaan (freedom) as the primary aspiration ofevery kapatiran and every social movement is important. Looking back intohistory, Covar examined the Katipunan and the dovetailing of its goalsaccording to independence and freedom. Covar considered the aspirationto freedom as a part of the political sphere (which could bene� t only afew people), while the aspiration to independence/self-reliance is part ofthe cultural sphere, which has more meaning and relevance to the people(1992:9). Many millenarian kapatiran, like the Iglesia Watawat ng Lahi, actu-ally aspired for absolute independence/self-reliance. For Covar, the questfor independence/self-reliance remains current among the worshipping kapa-tiran in Mount Banahaw. At a gathering at the University of the Philippinesduring the early 1990s, Suprema Isabel Suarez of Ciudad Mistica de Diosreiterated: “we abide by the teachings of our ancestors” (1992:10).

As has been mentioned, the belief of all the kapatiran is not only ori-ented to the advancement of spirituality on the level of the self and of thekapatiran. It is also geared towards the well-being of society in general, asin the aspiration for independence. In connection with this, in his “AngPananaw sa Kasaysayan ng Pilipinas ng mga Kapatiran at KilusangMilinaryan” (The Kapatiran and millenarian movement’s views on Philippinehistory), Covar emphasized on viewing these organizations as organisms,that is, as movements that have life as well as a broad cause. Covar sup-posed that such groups are the ones that truly make history (1989:2).

In said article, Covar presented the interrelated concepts that he usedin his study of the worship groups, from the Iglesia Watawat ng Lahi toMount Banahaw: cause, sodality, kapatiran, and movement. Covar assumesthat each of these has its respective structure, that is, leadership, mem-bership, ideology, code of ethics, and rituals. He added: “the developmentand prospering of a cause to the status of a movement depends on themeshing together of the said structure” (1989:2).

At the personal level in Filipino society, cleansing of the kalooban (innerself ) in the context of belief is inextricably linked to pagpapakatao (aspiringfor humaneness). For Covar, Filipino spirituality is a result of the meldingof 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 achievingthe fullness of one’s potential. For Covar, this is geared toward being notonly a noble person but also a true Filipino (1998a:100). As in the causesof the Iglesia Watawat ng Lahi, it is not enough to become God-fearing andhumane; it is just as important to be patriotic.

In Covar’s presentation, it is clear that the tradition of the search fordivine wisdom, which is assumed to be the foundation of the quest forknowledge in Philippine society, is inextricably linked with the spirit of thekapatiran and with aspirations for the greater good of Philippine society.


Bayan from the Pantayo Perspective

Salazar’s analysis of the dalumat (social signi� cation) of bayan and its impor-tance to Filipino society has broad and deep roots. It needs to be con-textualized within Salazar’s view (1993a) of the history of the Philippinessince many thousands of years ago in the Austronesian world, and its formsnot only in the Philippines but also in Southeast Asia. For Salazar (1997a;1998b), the Austronesians who � rst arrived in the archipelago, circa7000/5000 BC, possessed the three important community ( pamayanan) con-cepts: banua, ili, and bayan.11 These are considered to be the most impor-tant elements in the traditional social structure of the archipelago from theinitial arrival of the Austronesians to circa 300 AD.

In the context of Austronesian civilization, Salazar examines the his-tory of the archipelago according to three broad dimensions: the socio-political organization, concerned with concepts pertaining to leadership andstate; the integration of society as a whole, with focus on community-relatedconcepts; 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 dimen-sions are closely interrelated and may be viewed within an overarchingframework of social organization. In any case, in relation to the outlineand purpose of this study, this section of the paper will be devoted to theconception of society according to Salazar’s views.

In his study of history, Salazar examined the two diVering traditionsof looking at the past: the tradition of historia, which expresses the Spaniards’perspective on the events during their stay in the country; and the tradi-tion of kasaysayan as a narrative that has sense, meaning, signi� cance, andrelevance to the people who are the very subject of the narrative (Navarroet al., 1997:70–71). That is why it is the pantayo perspective that is usedin studying the history of the Filipino people, that is, from our own pointof view.12

As noted earlier, integral to the pantayo perspective is the analysis ofthe dalumat of bayan in Philippine history and society (cf. Salazar in Veneracion(1986:xvi); Alaras, 1988:xii). For Navarro et al., local constructs related tothe pamayanan (community), bayan, and bansa (nation) “are what gave sub-stance to the alternative outline of history that is laid out by the pantayoperspective” (1997:129). Table 1 (Salazar, 1998b) gives a summary of theforms assumed by the bayan from the Austronesian period and various othereras in history: from the primordial banua/ili/bayan, the bayan; the ethnicstate to which the kingdom, rajahood and sultanate (circa 300 AD–1588)belonged; the revolutionary bayan (1588–1892); and the building up of asingle, uni� ed bayan on the level of the entire archipelago (1892–1913). Itis important to note that one of the aims of examining bayan is to estab-lish the links between the nacíon of the elite and the bayan of the people

Mula sa Kinaroroonan · 119Fig

ure

2:

Sta

te,

Soc

iety

and C

ult

ure

in t

he

His

tory

of

the

Arc

hipel

ago

hk 7

000

5000

BK

hk 1

500

1300

BK

hk 300

MK

1588

1892

I

AN

CIE

NT

SO

CIO

PO

LIT

ICA

L O

RG

AN

IZA

TIO

N

* balian

*Ili

( ilihan

)IL

I(H

ilaga

ng P

ilipi

nas

)

BA

YAN

(Gitn

ang

Pili

pin

as)

*bal

ayV

AH

AYA

N*y

umah

AU

STR

ON

ESY

AN

OPIL

IPIN

O-

IND

ON

ESY

AN

O(P

aglil

ibin

g sa

Tap

ayan

sa

Yung

ib)

Mga

Kal

inan

gang

etno

lingg

uw

istiko

ng

PIL

IPIN

Osa

DU

NIA

ME

LA

YU

Nam

umuon

gK

ALIN

AN

GA

NG

BA

YA

Nsa

loog

ng

EST

AD

ON

GK

OLO

NY

AL,

mga

SULT

AN

AT

O a

t m

gaK

AB

UU

AN

G L

UM

AD

Kal

inan

gan n

gB

AY

AN

at

ng m

gaba

yan,

ili,

ban

ua(b

angs

a) s

a K

apul

uan

KA

LIN

AN

GA

NG

BA

YA

N s

aT

agal

og o

P/F

ilipi

no

na

nak

auga

t sa

mga

kal

inan

gang

ili,

baya

n at

ban

ua (

bang

sa)

*luk

ù*B

anu(

v)à

balei

balen

bong

tolu

ngso

d, d

alep

a, a

tbp.

BA

NU

A(T

imog

Pili

pina

s)

ILI

NA

SYO

N(“

Nat

ion”

)sa

ing

les

vs.

BAY

ANsa

P/F

ilino

(bila

ngpa

glaw

ak/p

agka

bukl

odng

ili,

Bay

an a

t Ban

ua)

(mul

a sa

lab

as/i

ba)

Nac

ión/

Patri

asa

Kas

tila

Buo

ng K

apul

uan

bila

ngBA

YA

N:

INA

NG

BA

YA

N

(mul

a sa

loo

b/Sar

ili)

PAG

LAW

AKN

G S

AKL

AWN

G B

AYA

N

BA

NU

A

hari

sulta

nra

haha

rida

tupa

ndita

???

bayl

anra

ha m

uda?

??ba

yani

datu

pand

aypa

nday SU

LT

AN

AT

O

PA

GB

UBU

O N

G B

AY

AN

(Him

agsik,

Pag

hih

imag

sik,

HIM

AG

SIK

AN

)H

AR

ING

BA

YA

NG

KA

TA

GA

LU

GA

N(Ina

ng B

ayan

)

Kilu

sang

mos

yeri

ko(m

ilita

rist

a)

TA

AL

NA

KA

AY

USA

NG

SOSY

O-P

ULIT

IKA

L(E

ST

AD

O)

Latin

o-ilu

strad

o (n

acid

in)

Rep

ublic

a Fi

lipin

a (P

atria

)

Phil

ippin

e R

epubli

c(sa

huw

aran

g A

mer

ikan

o)K

ilusa

ng

“M

ASA

”(bat

ay s

a ka

says

ayan

g un

iber

sal ng

Kan

lura

n)

Har

ing

Bay

an(p

atul

oy n

a an

g p

angh

ihim

agsik

)

BAN

GSA

MO

RO

(Kilu

sang

Pan

g-etni

sidad

)K

ILU

SAN

G L

UM

AD

/KA

TU

TU

BO

(Kor

dilyer

a, M

inda

nao,

atb

p.)

mga

sek

ta/k

ilusa

ng m

ilnar

ista

KA

RA

HA

AN

(K

arad

yaha

n)

balia

nba

gani

* ha(

n)dì

* datù

*bay

ani

*pan

day

KA

HA

RIA

NK

AD

AT

UA

N(*

ha(n

)di)

?*d

atu

IIII

IIV

VV

I19

1319

98

hk 7

000

5000

BK

hk 1

500

1300

BK

hk 300

MK

1588

1892

1913

1998

BA

YA

N-S

TA

TE

BA

YA

N-S

TA

TE V

S.

CO

LO

NIA

L S

TA

TE

TO

WA

RD

S A

NA

TIO

NA

L S

TA

TE

TO

WA

RD

S A

N A

RC

HI-

PELA

GIC

BA

YA

N-S

TA

TE

B a n s a ?

AU

ST

RO

NE

SIA

N

CIV

IL

IZ

AT

IO

N

A B K

S O C I O P O L I T I C A L

O R G A N I Z A T I O N

S O C I A L

I N T E G R A T I O N

C U L T U R E

K A L I N A N G A N

<

<

<

<

>

>

>

>

> >

><

}}

>

?

KU

LTU

RA

NG

LAD

INO

-ILU

STRAD

OSA

KAS

TIL

AKU

LTU

RAN

G N

ASYO

NAL

SA W

IKAN

G I

NG

LES

“Estad

o, L

ipun

an a

t K

ultu

ra s

a K

asay

saya

n: A

ng W

ika

saPa

man

ang

Pang

kalin

anga

n ng

Pili

pino

” Z.A

. Sa

laza

rC

ente

nnia

l Lec

ture

, U

nive

rsity

of

the

Phili

ppin

es C

ente

r fo

r In

tegr

ativ

e an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Stud

ies

Sept

embe

r 28

, 19

98,

Bal

ay K

alin

aw,

UP

Dili

man

, Q

uezo

n C

ity

???

Sala

zar,

1998

(Kar

apatan

g-ar

i)


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 demon-strated the widespread usage of ili, bayan, banua, and other allied conceptsthroughout the archipelago (Salazar, 1997a:4).13 It is claimed that in placeswhere bayan and its allied concepts are used, the dominant feature of acommunity as bayan is “in the prevalence of permanent housing structures— that is, communities in a speci� c territory” (Salazar, 1997a:6). However,the basic de� nitions of bayan in Tagalog are not only “inhabited place orterritory” but also “the people living there.” It is analogous to the balei inPanggasinense and balen in Pampanggo (Salazar, 1997a:6–7).14

According to Salazar’s study, the banua is the most important conceptin Bicol, the Visayas, and Mindanao (1997a:6). The banua is part of theoriginal Austronesian vocabulary; banu[v]a means earth/land, house/resi-dence. That is why in Indo-Malaysia, there is the term benua (Malay), whichmeans lupalop; and in Oceania may be found the Paci� c state of Vanuatu.In the context of its origins, the banua is assumed to be the oldest conceptof community in the Philippines. It could also be said that it was the mostprevalent community in the archipelago before the appearance of the bayanthat was characterized by more permanent housing and communities.(Salazar 1997a:6–7).

As a pamayanan (community), the ili in turn may be found in placeswhere hostilities are prevalent. Since survival must be ensured, the ili isoften transferred. In these places, agriculture is based only on the slash-and-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 inthe regions of the bayan and the banua, which is why the ili is consideredthe most prevalent form of the pamayanan concepts (Salazar 1997a:7, 8).Salazar recognizes the signi� cant 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 ofbayan refers not only to the physical or geographical aspect or territory ofthe community. Bayan also refers to the inhabitants in that territory. AsSalazar 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 analy-sis, in summary, the breadth of territory that Filipinos refer to in relationto bayan are the following:


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 “BayangPilipino” or Florante’s “within and without my unfortunate bayan” — whichmeans a state, in Western conception), after (3) the ethno-linguistic wholeitself (i.e., communities such as Tagalog, Ibanag, Maranaw: for example, ifyou are Sugbuhanon or Bisaya or also another Filipino, especially if you arein another country) (in Navarro et al., 1997:117).

From being seen as a residence or as a congregation of houses inhabitedby 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 Diksyunaryo-Tesauro (1972) and in the Diksyunaryong Vicassan (1978), similar to whatSalazar had expressed, bayan also refers to both place and people. ForPanganiban, bayan means: (1) municipality, country, hometown and (2) pub-lic, audience, and all (1972:147). For Vicassan, still in accordance with thetwo de� nitions, the reference to bayan is divided into four categories. Theseare: bayan as (1) municipality, (2) country, nation, (3) motherland, home-land, and (4) public, taong-bayan, audience, citizens. In this dictionary, the� rst three levels of meaning of bayan as place were distinguished from oneanother, that is; speci� c and small places such as the municipality, thebroader category as country or nation, and the people’s reference for theirown bayan as their inang-bayan (motherland) (1978:150).

Summing up the foregoing de� nitions of bayan as place, we have: (1)centre or poblacion; (2) municipality and smaller surrounding units like thevillage; (3) residence or community of an ethnolinguistic group, such asthe Katagalugan; (4) a greater whole with political power, such as BayangPilipinas; and (5) common reference of people for their wider bayan as home-land or motherland. As people, the bayan may refer to: (1) a particular eth-nolinguistic group itself, such as the Tagalog and (2) all Filipino citizens,as the point of reference for the larger whole, such as the kababayan whenoutside the country.

As noted earlier, Salazar recognizes the formation of the ancient com-munities, such as the bayan, as a legacy of the Austronesian civilization.For example, he showed the social integration that was shaped in an envi-ronment consolidated by seas and rivers. In the Austronesians’ journeysfrom circa 7000 to circa 800 BC, one may see the ancestors’ knowledgeabout the movement of the seas, meteorology and — related to these —their expertise in the building of sea-faring vessels (1993:15; 17). The estab-lishment of the � rst communities or permanent residences at the mouth ofgreat rivers is a re� ection of the Austronesians’ knowledge of the bays, coasts,and deltas where they � rst settled. This fact is re� ected in the names ofmany bayan throughout the archipelago: Pampanga ( pampang ng ilog, or


river-bank), Tagalog (taga-ilog or from the river), Pangasinan (asin-ilog orsalt-river), Iloko (loko or deep part), and others (1993:17). This also impliesthe interactions within the whole archipelago that are based on relationswith 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), andniyog (coconut) (p. 17). Knowledge about the passage of time, the clearingof the forests, agriculture, the use of organic fertilizers that yielded morecrops, and eventually, the use of iron that expanded the plantations weresome of the interrelated reasons for people to settle in communities at thattime (1993:17–18).

. . . it is likely that these balayan, or vahayan are truly widespread only in rel-atively 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 whichforced people to be always on the move) and of stable trade, the bases ofpopulation growth and therefore of the building up of stronger socio-politicalcommunities (ethnic state or bayan state) (Salazar, 1997a:7).

The foregoing discussion shows the broader social organization in the arch-ipelago 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 founda-tion of political unity in its modern sense (Salazar, 1993a:5).

For Salazar, an important characteristic of the ancient communities is theAustronesian religious belief in the anito, which he presumes is the basis offaith in Philippine society. Rooted in the origins of the pamayanan (com-munity) itself, the anito is considered a native religion. “It is a faith ema-nating from a particular bayan or closely-related bayan whose language andculture are interconnected.” (Salazar, 1993b:1). Unlike Christianity andother religions that have a basis in sacred writing, this belief system hasimplicit knowledge or wisdom about godhood that is natural to its advo-cates (1993b). This faith focuses primarily on the anito, which is consideredpure soul ( purong kaluluwa), pure spirit ( purong ispiritu), or god (diyos); on theperson (tao), whose identity is based on the good relationship between thesoul (kaluluwa) and well-being ( ginhawa); and on the aswang, which is neitherperson (tao) nor anito and without a soul (kaluluwa), although it keeps seekingwell-being ( ginhawa) (1993b:4).

Salazar supposes that the anito religion continues to this day in the formof messianic confraternities, faith healing, and in what is referred to as folkCatholicism. The Filipinos’ reverence for All Souls’ Day may be related


to the customary cleaning of the bones of the departed in caves by theancient believers (1993b:6). Native faith is an important element for theunderstanding of the social integration of early Philippine communities.

The Inangbayan of the People and the Nación ofthe Elite

The advent of the 16th century played an important role in the transfor-mation of the pamayanan (community) from bayan to ethnic state or bayanstate. According to the study of Navarro et al., the latter were already acoalition of bayan as a result of trade relations and con� icts with otherbayan. The ethnic states are actually socio-political entities referred to askingdom, rajahdom, or sultanate ruled by a king, rajah, or sultan, respec-tively (1997:130).

With the coming of the Spaniards, however, a crisis developed betweenthe bayan states and the colonial states, presaging the beginnings of whatSalazar called the dambuhalang pagkakahating pangkalinangan (great culturaldivide). From the bayan, the Spanish colonial enterprise concentrated onthe formation of the interrelated pueblo, villa or ciudad, becoming organizedbayan or colonial states that are diVerent from one another only at thelevel of governance or administration (1993a:42).

Through reducción or the gathering of citizens from various places, theSpaniards established the pueblos, which had a centre featuring what iscalled the “plaza”. The former bayan’s centre changed and it acquired aplaza, church, and municipal hall. The former authorities, known as hari,rajah, or lakan were supplanted by the gobernadorcillo or kapitan. The formerdatu 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 remaineddistinct and separate. On the one hand, the struggle of the bayan state wasrooted in the tradition of the bayan, for the taumbayan. Founded on thedalumat of the inangbayan (motherland), the aspirations of the bayan state areguided by such values as “kapatiran, damayan (co-operation), pantay na kara-patan (equal rights), and ganap na kasarinlan (absolute independence)” (Navarroet al., 1997:132).

The image of the mother was used because it is in her womb that whole-ness is formed — a fraternity of the children of bayan. By the power of the“motherland,” Andres Bonifacio enshrined and developed the metaphor ofthe family as a symbol of the overall unity of all the bayan in the archipelago(1997:132; cf. Abrera, 1995; 1992).15


On the other hand, the second project is rooted in nación, emanating fromthe European culture and worldview, and “symbolic of the socio-politicalaspirations of the acculturated Filipino elite” (Navarro, et al., 1997:32) Ifthe inangbayan (motherland) is rooted in bayan, the social organization thatserved as the foundation of the nación project was the pueblo, a colonial state.The aspirations and foundations of the inangbayan and the nación are dis-tinct and separate from each other, which, as has been mentioned, signalother diVerences 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 theelite who support the nación “have been assimilated into other cultures asa result of acculturation in the West” (Salazar, 1998a:64). This con� ict isillustrated by the diVerence between “local culture” and “acculturation”(Salazar, 1998a:65).

For Salazar et al., the revolution in 1896 was signi� cant in exposing,on the one hand, the genuine children of the inangbayan who supportedthe cause of the bayan for the promotion of well-being and independencefor all and, on the other hand, the children of the inangbayan who turnedtheir back on said aspirations (Navarro et al., 1997:133).16

In “Wika ng Himagsikan, Lengguwahe ng Rebolusyon: Mga Suliraninng Pagpapakahulugan sa Pagbubuo ng Bansa” (Wika ng Himagsikan, lan-guage of the revolution: Problems in de� ning nationhood), Salazar (1998a)explored the basic diVerences between the “Tagalog” aspiration and the“Filipino” project. The “Tagalog” aspiration is rooted in the dalumat of theinangbayan, responding through rebellion and oriented towards the broaderformation of “Katagalugan”, which refers to the people of the entire arch-ipelago. The “Filipino” project, on the other hand, is rooted in the con-cept of nación, responding through revolution and oriented towards thegoals of liberalism of the 19th century.

What Salazar refers to as the “dambuhalang pagkakahating pangkali-nangan” (great cultural divide) which separates the kalinangang bayan (people’sculture) from national culture is markedly evident up to now. These analysesare important to the continuous understanding of Philippine society andto addressing problems attendant to the building of a Filipino bansa (nation).

The central idea of the cultural crisis is the ongoing division between theculture of the bayan (people) and the nación (elite). These two cultures aremarkedly divergent. The bayan uses and propagates the Filipino language,watches Pinoy action movies, and reads komiks. The nación still uses Englishand even Spanish, watches foreign-language � lms, and reads foreign-languagebooks (1993a:88).


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 signi� cance to the studyof Philippine social organization — were culled from the works of Enriquez,Covar, and Salazar. In this section, there will be an underscoring andclari� cation of some aspects of these concepts as well as an attempt towardsa preliminary synthesis or integration of their views.

Notably, in each of the concepts examined by the three scholars, thetheme of ugnayan (relations) in Philippine society was evident. Which kindsor forms of ugnayan (relating) were emphasized in their respective studies?How did they illustrate these? Would it be possible to integrate their viewstowards exploring a panlipunang pagbabanghay, an outline for the analysis ofPhilippine social organization?

From Santiago’s view of pakikipagkapwa as the ideal category of inter-action, Enriquez developed Santiago’s early studies to show kapwa andpakikipagkapwa as the broad basis of social interaction among Filipinos. Thekapwa 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 orintegral relation of the sarili (“self ”) to ibang tao (“others”). As has beenmentioned, for Enriquez, the sense of pakikipagkapwa is important to theconduct of meaningful Filipino research, in particular, in terms of the rela-tionship between the researcher and the participant.

Moreover, it is important to note what Ferriols, a scholar of Filipinophilosophy, had said about the kapuwa and the pre� x “ka” which is fre-quently used by Filipinos:

We are both (kapuwa) waiting for the dentist. We are both (kapuwa) waitingfor the traYc light to turn green. From the rain we are both (kapuwa) seek-ing shelter. The pre� x “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 (katra-baho), drinking buddy (kainuman), enemy (kaaway) . . . (1991:240).

In Covar’s analysis of personhood, he stressed pakikipagkapwa not only asthe basis of relations but as the corollary basis of pagpapakatao in Philippinesociety as well. In the � eld of social organization, Covar showed that cat-egories 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 orsocial interaction is highly signi� cant.17


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 tothe colonial state (cf., Maguinadanao and Sulu; other groups such as the ones inthe Cordilleras) or were not yet assimilated (cf., Mangyan, Manobo of the Maguindanaointerior, etc.)

Himagsikan/Revolucíon

2. The Nasyon of del Pilar/Jaena/Rizal/Aguinaldo (Filipinas; republic). Building byborrowing.

1. The New Bayan of Bonifacio (Inang Bayan; Haring Bayang Katagalugan). Buildingthat is pure and rooted in indigenous culture.

D. Building on the level of the entire archipelago as a unique, uni�ed 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 diVerent 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/Sultan3. 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 Pangkalinanganng Pilipino” Dr. Zeus A. Salazar, Centennial Lecture, UP Center for Integrative andDevelopment Studies September 29, 1998, 3–6 pm, Balay Kalinaw, University of thePhilippines, Diliman, Quezon City.


The concepts of the family and household as well as of the kapatiranthat Covar examined may be explored further. Even though Covar ini-tially studied the concept of messianic groups, these associations were actu-ally seen in the light of the kapatiran, an indication of the signi� cance ofcommon familial origin. The Roman Catholic belief in the Holy Trinitywas assimilated by the worshippers of Mount Banahaw into the belief inthe Holy Family, composed of God the Father, God the Mother, and Godthe Child. In these associations’ references to themselves as a kapatiran andin their appropriation of the Holy Family, it is evident that the familyplays a prominent role in their belief system.

In relation to this, the kapatiran’s adoption of the category of God theMother re� ects the status of women in their belief system and in their cul-tural life. It may also be said that the women leaders of the kapatiran carryon the important tradition of the katalonan (healers/spiritual guide) inPhilippine society.

The sense of family is pronounced even in the Katipunan. TheKatipunan is considered a kapatiran, comprised by anak ng bayan (childrenof bayan) as siblings (Abrera, 1995; 1992). In this context, the primary aspi-ration of the anak ng bayan is for the inangbayan (motherland), which againreveals the importance of the family and of the role of women in societyduring that time. As a manifestation of the spirit of kapatiran, in accep-tance 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), theritual performed is known as the sandugo (blood compact).

The blood compact (sandugo) is an ancient practice. The most profoundpakikipagkapwa of the Filipinos of old, the sandugo is a sacred and strong bondfor the greater good of those who have become united by blood. In the oldculture, two individuals may have a blood compact in order to become sib-lings — i.e., cut from the same umbilical cord. It may also be a union amongmany, to carry out one objective as siblings. The most prevalent kind is theblood compact that seeks to receive a “stranger” or an “outsider” into one’sown 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, espe-cially relations within a family. Even in contemporary times, close friendsare said to have relations like “siblings.” A friend’s mother here in MetroManila is now commonly called “mommy” or “tita” (auntie). “Ate” (a com-mon reference to older sister) or “kuya” (a common reference to olderbrother) is what household helpers usually call their employers. “Ate” isalso used by younger vendors in addressing female customers and by streetchildren begging alms from passing women. Among labourers in the coun-tryside, those who are in charge of hired workers claim that they are at


ease with the work groups because they actually “come from just one pisa(family)” (Aquino, 1990).

Like the sandugo, the rituals of baptism, con� rmation and marriage,where the participants are not usually related by blood, may be referredto as ways towards membership in a family or kinship network. It appearsthat in the Philippine context, familial relations are looked upon with muchgreater regard than friendships and other social relationships. In fact, inhis analysis of Philippine psychology and traditional culture, Salazar empha-sized the centrality of “the anak (child) as the primary reason for and pur-pose of the mag-anak (nuclear family)” (1999:78).

One of Salazar’s contributions to Philippine social science is the ground-ing of Filipino culture in the Austronesian civilization that serves as anessential basis of the country’s history. He laid down the physical, geo-graphical and cultural foundation of the ancient pamayanan, such as thebayan — the � rst permanent domiciles or housing by the river — and theirinitial interrelations based on communication and trade across rivers andseas. As noted earlier, up to the present, bayan has deep signi� cance inPhilippine society. That the bayan refers not only to diVerent levels of placebut also to the people and their relations with one another is evidence ofthe profound meaning of bayan to Filipinos. Their regard for a kababayancomes from their recognition of their common origin in a small bayan or,if in another country, the recognition of their common origin in the widerbayan that is the Philippines (cf. Salazar, 1999).

Salazar also emphasized the spiritual world that guided the relationsamong the ancient Filipinos — an aspect of the Philippine culture that bothhe and Covar cultivated. From the traditional religion that is based on theanito, albeit in divergent ways, central to the conceptualizations of Covarand Salazar is the kaluluwa (soul), ginhawa (well-being), and budhi (conscience),and their roles in relation to pagpapakatao (aspirations for humaneness). Thisbelief may be viewed as integral to the various social organizations in whichthe quest for the spiritual world may be seen — in the families, the kapa-tiran on Mount Banahaw, the Katipunan and other social movements, andeven in the various aspirations of the bayan, at both its micro and macrolevels. Many have remarked on the dramatic expression of spiritualityamong the Filipinos at EDSA in 1986. Even the Filipinos’ veneration ofthe departed during All Souls’ Day is an indication of their deep relationswith their forebearers.

From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the views of Enriquez,Covar, and Salazar revolve around the multiple meanings and the variousforms of ugnayan (relations). This seems to suggest that integral to the analy-sis of Philippine social organization ( panlipunang pagbabanghay) is the conceptof ugnayan: to the kapwa, to the sarili (self ), to the hindi ibang tao (not oth-ers), to ibang tao (others) to samahan (associations) and the kapatiran, to thevarious levels and meanings of bayan, to the ninuno (forebearers), to Bathala,or sa Dios (to God).


At this point, it is important to relate what Ferriols has said:

It seems that the ancients who had fashioned our various languages coulddiscern that the horizon of truth is replete with relations (ugnayan). Relationof event to event, of clan to clan, of self to self. They understood that eachperson’s being is open to have, receive, and create this relation. They regardedrelations as sacred . . . (1991:238)

To re-emphasize, among groups that are the common type of organizationin conventional sociology, it is assumed that great regard for the family iscentral in the Philippine context. In the preceding discussion, this has beendemonstrated in the Mount Banahaw worshippers’ appropriation of theHoly Family, in the view of the Katipunan and other social movementsor their associations as kapatiran, and the importance of the sandugo (bloodcompact) in making the iba (others) part of one’s own. It is also in thecontext of the family that women are held in esteem — God the Motheris venerated, women become leaders of worshipping kapatiran — and that theanak 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 conceptrefers not only to diVerent levels of place but also to people and thesigni� cant relations among them. It is communities such as the bayan that� rst cradled relations involving the family, blood kin, among others. Rootedin traditional faith, the � rst communities were naturally predisposed to ven-erating 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 notonly 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 verycomprehensive.

The relation to the kapwa is the basis of personhood and well-beingin Philippine society. On the level of the broader bayan, according to theassociation made by Salazar between Emilio Jacinto’s Kartilya and theFilipino diwa (spirit), it is important to note here that the Kartilya has astrong regard for “love for the kapua” as the “basis of the uni� cation ofthe bayan” (1999:73). According to Salazar, this means that, in the task ofbuilding bayan and eventually, the bansa (nation), the kapwa that is referredto here as kapwa-Pilipino is “not other people” (hindi ibang tao).18

Toward Panlipunang Pagbabanghay: Questions andPropositions

From the studies developed by Enriquez, Covar, and Salazar, this paperattempts to present and integrate their ideas towards exploring a panlipunangpagbabanghay, an outline for the analysis of social organization in the context


of Philippine social science (Figure 4). It is also a challenge to those engagedin the analysis of their views to carry on with the further examination anddevelopment of the earlier works.

In the context of the notion of ugnayan (relations) that overarches thepreceding discussion, some points regarding the concepts of kapwa and themag-anak (family/nuclear family) may be further clari� ed and developed. Itis important to focus on and clarify the scope and the signi� cance of thetwo concepts. In accordance with social signi� cation, do the members ofa mag-anak look upon each other as hindi iba (not others), one of the twodimensions of kapwa according to Enriquez? Is the mag-anak subsumed underhindi ibang tao (not other people)? It is possible that hindi iba (not others)refers to a close friend, kumare/kumpare (co-godparent), neighbour or house-mate rather than to one’s child, parent, spouse, or sibling. It is possiblethat the mag-anak has an identity that is more integral than the entityimplied by hindi iba (not others).

What could be the speci� c social signi� cation of hindi iba (not others)and iba (others)? It may be that the hindi iba (not others) refers to thosewho are not members of the mag-anak but, as has been said, have closerelations with one or some of the mag-anak. Is the relative, whether byblood or by ritual, part of the hindi iba (not others)? Could the malapit nakamag-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 partof hindi iba (not others), which also implies the integral diVerence of thekamag-anak (relative), not only from the mag-anak but also from hindi iba(“not others”). Moreover, the cousins to the second and third degrees, forexample, are commonly considered as kamag-anak (relatives) and not quitepart of hindi iba (“not others”). The regard for the kamag-anak (relative) asrelative per se or hindi iba (“not others”) may actually be in accordancewith the kind of relations between them (blood or ritual ties) or the inti-macy of the relationship.

As the � rst proposition oVered for subsequent study, Figure 4, in con-sonance with the prior studies and observations of the author, presents theintegral position of the mag-anak as a social signi� cation that is not withinthe scope of kapwa (cf. Aquino, 1990, 1999). It is posited that the mag-anakcomposed of parents and their children is conceptually diVerent from thehindi iba (not others); that is, the mag-anak does not fall within the categoryof hindi iba (not others).19

In addition to what has been mentioned earlier as constituting hindiiba (not others), for example, kumare/kumpare (co-godparenthood); neighbour,or friend); depending on the context. For instance, when in another coun-try, all the kababayan (compatriots) there are viewed as hindi ibang tao (notother people). More importantly, and in consonance with what Jacinto hadimplied, the basis of the bayan’s unity is love for the kapwa, who are regardedas hindi ibang tao (not other people; Salazar, 1999:73).


Fig

ure

4:

Tow

ards

Pan

lipun

ang

Pag

baba

ngha

y

“oth

er p

eopl

e”

Kap

wa:

iban

g ta

oA

ssoc

iatio

n

Aso

sasy

onSt

ate

Est

ado

Nac

ion

Nas

yon

Inan

gBay

anM

othe

rlan

d

Mal

awak

ang

Bay

anBro

ader

Bay

an

Kap

wa:

hin

di

iban

g ta

o“n

ot o

ther

peo

ple”

Sar

ili

Self

Kap

atir

an

Ban

saN

atio

n

siyu

dad

(city

)ba

yan

(sent

ro/p

obla

cion

) (cen

ter)

Pam

ayan

an(C

omm

unity

)na

yon

(vill

age)

pam

ayan

ang

etni

ko (et

hnic

com

mun

ity)

baya

n (sm

all

baya

n)

Sam

bah

ayan

Hou

seho

ldM

ag-a

nak

Nuc

lear

fam

ily


On the other hand, strangers or foreigners are commonly viewed asibang tao (other people), as in Ibang tao sila; “Those are other people”. Domestichelpers are often cautioned against letting ibang tao (other people) into thehouse. Then, according to diVerences in class position, ideology, or thebeliefs of an individual, the household help, gardener, or driver may beregarded as either hindi iba (not others) or ibang tao (other people).

As a second proposition, the diVerence between mag-anak and pamilyais posited here. As discussed previously, the mag-anak is generally viewedto consist of the father, mother and children, while the pamilya is generallycomposed of the mother, the father, their children as well as in-laws, grand-children, great-grandchildren, and other relatives. However, since the mag-anak tends to have an exclusive signi� cation, it is usually referred to only inthe presence of its members and not in the presence of an extended familyor household.20 What is illustrated here also is how the concept of the “fam-ily” is actually used and understood in the Philippine context. [For exam-ple, in comparison with the Western notion of the family, mag-anak mayrefer to the nuclear family while the pamilya may be more closely associ-ated with the extended family.]

In Figure 4, the sambahayan (household) is considered as a domicilefor one or more mag-anak, pamilya, relatives, other household members, orjust one individual. According to diVerences in class position, ideology orbeliefs of the members of a household, the regard for the residents of asingle 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 (greatcultural divide), which Salazar is developing, as a heuristic device. In con-ceptualizing the divisions that are prevalent in Philippine society, Salazartakes into consideration the integral role, for instance, of the language thatis used by the elite, on the one hand, and by the people, on the other;the varying attitude towards other countries and foreign in� uences; andthe diVerence between the kulturang nasyunal (national, that is, elite culture)and the kalinangang bayan (people’s culture) (Salazar, 1998a; 1997b). Yet, inusing the concept of dambuhalang pagkakahating pangkalinangan in Figure 4, itdoes not imply that there are no relations between the “not others” andthe “others”, between nayon and siyudad, and others. The division in Figure4 is used to primarily illustrate and elucidate the concepts developed bythe three scholars. In the context of one’s culture and society, that is, mulasa kinaroroonan, an attempt was made to show and develop the interrela-tionships among kapwa, kapatiran, and bayan, and to explore their place inexploring a panlipunang pagbabanghay — an outline of Philippine social orga-nization.21 With regard to the pamayanan (community), it is apparent thatboth sides of the divide have bayan. As explained earlier, bayan has deepmeanings in Philippine culture. Since the taganayon (people from the nayon)


perceive the tagabayan (people from the bayan) as those who live in the towncentre or the poblacion, it may be said that at this level, there is a diVerence,distance, or divide between the taganayon and the tagabayan (Aquino, 1998;cf. Ileto, 1998; Rodriguez, 1996:23). For instance, even though a farmerlives in a nayon (village) within the municipality of Pila, he says “I’m goingto the bayan” or “I’m going to Pila,” where bayan or Pila herein refers onlyto the centre or poblacion of Pila (although administratively, the nayon actu-ally belongs to the bayan of Pila). In the study of people-land relations ofthe Mangyan Alangan of Oriental Mindoro, Quiaoit-Bae (1999) illustratedtheir understanding of their environment and the occasions when the high-landers “go down to the bayan”, referring to the centre (although admin-istratively, their villages also belong to the bayan).

Especially because the economic standing of the tagabayan is usuallyhigh and the centre of formal political power is often based there, a thirdproposition is oVered: there is still a need to understand and explore themeanings of the social signi� cation of the more numerous taganayon in rela-tion to their connection to the bayan as the centre as well as to those whoreside there as tagabayan.

On a general level, the bayan may reveal various kinds of distanceand division, as well as bases of relatedness and unity. This suggests thatthere is a level where there is diVerence or division in the social signi� cation(for instance, between nayon and bayan); but there is also a level where thenayon (or province, perhaps) and its inhabitants are considered to be partof a larger bayan, thus, signifying a broader form of unity. As has beensaid, Filipinos overseas regard each other as magkababayan. These socialsigni� cations conveyed by bayan re� ect deeper cultural meanings, clearlytranscending divisions imposed through administrative and political decisions.

In the context of panlipunang pagbabanghay and in light of aspirationstowards pagiging isang bansa (becoming one nation), it is also important tosee the relations among and the bases of unity of the various kapatiran thatare oriented towards natural belief systems on the one hand, and formalassociations such as religious groups and civic organizations on the other.According to Covar’s analysis, the kapatiran has an integral ugnayan (rela-tions) to the simulain (cause), samahan (associations) and kilusan (social move-ments) rooted in and focused on one’s resources, culture and needs.

It is, likewise, important to see the role of the state and of formalinstitutions such as those to do with government, education, media andthe military vis-a-vis the aspirations of the larger bayan. It is also at thislevel that it would be possible to explore the arena of international forcesand of the corollary relations of Philippine institutions with other societiesand cultures.

On the other hand, do the present militant movements genuinely embodythe aspirations of the larger bayan? May it also be said that struggles forthe inangbayan are carried out not only by social movements but also by


unorganized people in their everyday lives? From the lessons in history, asshown 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, onthe other, it is important to further examine the various forces that hinderthe uni� cation of the Filipino nation ( pagiging isang bansa) (cf. Salazar 1997b).

In connection with the dambuhalang pagkakahating pangkalinangan presentedby Salazar, it is also important to examine the dynamic relations of thesocial classes, ethnic groups, and various kinds of beliefs and/or ideologiessuch as religion, feminism, social movements, and others, towards aspira-tions for pagiging isang bansa (building a nation). There may be associations,organizations, or non-government organizations that have genuine aspira-tions for the bayan. There may also be religious groups that are simplypretending to be kapatiran. It also cannot be denied that in the advocacyand practice of a belief or ideology, powerful forces such as those embod-ied by social class or political power may be transcended or overcome.

The theme of paniniwala (belief ) that both Covar and Salazar developedis evident in the preliminary synthesis of their views. Could paniniwala(belief ) be the basis of pakikipag-ugnay (interacting), pakikipagkapwa (relatingwith kapwa) and pagpapakatao (aspiring for humaneness)? If so, pakikipagkapwa,as based on local belief systems — which are integral to the work of thethree scholars — may be considered a shared goal or a social value in thePhilippine context. Pakikipagkapwa may be referred to as embodying a setof cultural standards or an ethical imperative to treat ibang tao (others) assarili (self ). It is not only the mag-anak, pamilya, kamag-anak (relatives), andhindi ibang tao (not others) who are worthy of respect and deserve to beregarded like the sarili (self ). Pakikipagkapwa is the cultural standard in thebroad arena of social interaction. On the other hand, pakikipagkapwa is alsoa standard for pagpapakatao (aspirations for humaneness) in the Philippinecontext. It is also important to further clarify the distinctions betweenpakikipagkapwa 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 empiri-cal bases that would show the views of the various sectors in Philippinesociety. For example, it is evident that the works of the three scholars werecon�ned to local or non-formal groups and associations prevalent in Philippinesociety. In the context of the study of Philippine culture and of pagigingbansa (building a nation), it is also important to examine formal institutionssuch as schools, churces, media, factories, the government, and other moreestablished organizations. How do aspects of Philippine culture relate withthe concrete needs and standards of formal institutions?

It is, likewise, important to carry this out using approaches that arecomprehensible to the participants and in the context of research topicsthat are pertinent to their daily lives. Here is where local histories may beused, as well as the study of epics and folklore. The collection of kuwen-


tong bayan (people’s stories) and kuwentong buhay (life stories) can facilitate theunderstanding of cultural meanings and signi� cation. Corollary to this isthe depositing of research materials in aklatang bayan (people’s libraries) forthe bene� t of the participants in the study and for their own bayan.

It will be observed that although Enriquez, Covar, and Salazar trainedin particular disciplines of social science, they did not limit themselves tothose disciplinal perspectives. That is why Covar’s words will continue tobe an intellectual challenge to social science researchers:

In the beginning, I was convinced that the academic discipline shed light onour culture. But in my re� ections, I realized that our academic disciplines en-courage us to contribute to theory, method, and content of the disciplines andnot 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 � amingof the discipline but not the development of F/Pilipino thought, culture, andsociety. In Pilipinolohiya, the academic disciplines are the very tools to liber-ate F/Pilipino thought, culture, and society and not its opposite (1988:30).

In the midst of tremendous changes that Filipinos confront in their every-day lives, it is important to continue recognizing and cultivating our socialsigni� cations. These provide one of the bases for understanding where weare 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 Seriesof 1999, College of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of the Philippines.“Mula sa Kinaroroonan” is roughly translated as “From Where We Are”, a wayof 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 OilCompany Professorial Chair in Sociology. The author wishes to thank ProfessorProspero R. Covar, Professor Zeus A. Salazar and Professor Grace Aguiling-Dalisay for their comments and suggestions on an earlier version of this paper.Students of Sociology 102 (Social Organization), First Semester 1999–2000 alsoparticipated in the discussion of selected themes explored in the paper.

2. For a review of said paper, see also Enriquez, Virgilio (1992) “Kapwa and theStruggle for Justice, Freedom and Dignity” in From Colonial Liberation to LiberationPsychology: The Philippine Experience. Quezon City: University of the PhilippinesPress and Obusan, Teresita and Angelina Enriquez (1994) Pamamaraan: IndigenousKnowledge and Evolving Research Paradigms. Quezon City: Asian Center, Universityof the Philippines, Quezon City (cf. Enriquez, 1991).

3. The translations used herein are those found in Enriquez, Virgilio, “Kapwa: ACore Concept in Filipino Social Psychology” (1978:102).


4. See also the recent study by Rivera, Ma. Kristina (1996), “Iskala ng Pagtutunguhanng 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 researcherand participant (as developed by Enriquez and Santiago) and proposed that itshould be seen not only as a scale but also as a dynamic and complicatedprocess of interaction between researcher and participant. From the eight cat-egories or levels of interaction, it is assumed that because the diVerences betweensome categories are minimal, it will become clearer if pakikitungo, pakikibagay,pakikipagpalagayang-loob, and pakikiisa are seen as the four primary dimensions ofinteraction between researcher and participant.

6. As indicated earlier, Santiago referred to ibang-tao as “outsider”, but “otherpeople”, “others” or “other” will also be used in this paper. Similarly, whileshe refers to hindi-ibang-tao as “one of us”, the terms “not other people”, “notothers” or “not other” will also be used.

7. As Aguiling-Dalisay had shared in her comment on this paper, it may be saidthat 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) “UnburdeningPhilippine Society of Colonialism” and “Pilipinolohiya” in Larangan. In sociol-ogy, sambahayan is now commonly translated as “household”, and kamag-anakanas “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 AnthropologicalStudy of a Social Movement in the Philippines”, doctoral dissertation in anthro-pology, University of Arizona, 1975).

9. The parallelisms between mag-anak and the nuclear family will be posited laterin 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 wereused: 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 PamanangPangkalinangan ng Pilipinas”. As Salazar continues to develop these conceptsin history and social science, there is a slight change in the presentation ofsome concepts. For example, in Kasaysayan ng Pilipinas (1993), the presentationis divided into three periods, Pamayanan (ca. 250,000 BC–1565), Bayan (1565–1913), and Bansa (1913–1992) which also became the basis of the summationby Navarro et al., in Pantayong Pananaw (1997). In “Ang ‘Real’ ni BonifacioBilang Teknikang Militar sa Kasaysayan ng Pilipinas” (1997a) and in “Estado,Lipunan at Kultura sa Kasaysayan: Ang Wika sa Pamanang Pangkalinanganng Pilipinas” (1998), Salazar identi� ed bayan as one of three pamayanan (com-munity) concepts, the other two being banua and ili. In this paper, an attemptwill be made to present Salazar’s views about the concept of bayan based onhis latest works.

12. In recent years, Salazar has also been using the term Bagong Kasaysayan (newhistory). For details on this, see “Kasaysayan at Talastasang Bayan sa Wikang


Filipino: Sa Duyan ng Pagbubuo ng Inang Bayan, Bansa at Sambayanan” byNavarro, Atoy (1999) in Adhika, Tomo 1. In relation to Kasaysayang Bayan, seealso 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).

13. Also see the paper by Rodriguez, M.J., “Ang Dalumat ng Bayan sa KamalayangPilipino”, paper submitted for Anthropology 270, Summer, Academic Year,1995–96.

14. According to Salazar, what unites the three concepts is a common etymology:bahay or balay (cf. Tagalog balayan, where the intervocalic has disappeared, suchas the Tagalog daan from the Proto-Filipino and even Austronesian dalan; thetwin-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).

15. At this point, it is important to pay attention to the centrality of the use ofthe mag-anak as a symbol for the aspirations of the bayan throughout the arch-ipelago. According to Salazar, “within the mag-anak, the child is central as thereason for and purpose of the mag-anak towards the survival of one’s group asa 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 regardfor the Holy Family among the kapatiran in Mount Banahaw. This will be dis-cussed further in the next section of this paper.

16. It will be noted that this point is relevant to the clari� cation made by Covar(1992) in relation to the concepts of freedom and sovereignty.

17. This seems to imply that, in accordance with what Ferriols has shared, evenrelating with the enemy falls within the scope of pakikipagkapwa.

18. According to his comment on this paper (August, 1999).19. This is also supported in some discussions among students in Sociology 102

(Social Organization/Panlipunang Pagbabanghay), First Semester, 1999–2000.20. Also according to the reports of some students in Sociology 102 (Social

Organization/Panlipunang Pagbabanghay), First Semester, 1999–2000.21. 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 signi� cations from other ethnolinguisticgroups in Philippine society in subsequent studies.

References

Abrera, Ma. Bernadette (1992) Ang Numismatika ng Anting-Anting: Panimulang Paghawanng Isang Landas Tungo sa Pag-unawa ng Kasaysayan at Kalinangang Pilipino. LunsodQuezon: Publikasyon Bilang 2, Programang Kaalamang Bayan, Tanggapan ngDekano, Dalubhasaan ng Agham Panlipunan at Pilosopiya, Unibersidad ngPilipinas.

—— (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.


—— (1998) “Pasko sa Labuin”, section in chapter “Palay at Buhay: Mga KuwentoMula sa Isang Nayon sa Pilipinas”. Submitted for the PRELUDE project “Ricein Asian Cultures”, UNESCO.

Asis, Maruja, patnugot (1999) Mga Eksilo, Inang Bayan at Panlipunang Pagbabago. QuezonCity: Center for Integrative and Development Studies, University of the Philippines.

Covar, Prospero (1961) “The Watawat ng Lahi: Sociological Study of a SocialMovement”. MA thesis in Sociology, University of the Philippines, Diliman,Quezon City.

—— (1975) “The Iglesia Watawat ng Lahi — An Anthropological Study of a SocialMovement in the Philippines”. PhD dissertation in Anthropology, University ofArizona.

—— (1980) “Potensiya, Bisa at Anting-Anting”, Asian Studies (April, December).18:71–78.

—— (1989) “Ang Pananaw ng Kasaysayan ng Pilipinas ng mga Kapatiran atKilusang 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 thePhilippines.

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 FromColonial Liberation to Liberation Psychology: The Philippine Experience. Quezon City:University of the Philippines Press.

—— (1994) Pagbabangong-Dangal: Indigenous Psychology and Cultural Empowerment. LunsodQuezon: Akademya ng Kultura at Sikolohiyang Pilipino.

—— (1997) “Filipino Psychology: Concepts and Methods”, in Henry S.R. Kaoand Durganand Sinha, eds., Asian Perspectives on Psychology. Cross-Cultural Researchand Methodology Series, Volume 19. New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Ferriols, Roque (1991) Pambungad sa Metapisika. Quezon City: OYce of Researchand 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 Kasaysayanng Historiograpiya at Pagkabansang Pilipino. Lunsod Quezon: Rex Bookstore.

—— (1999) “Kasaysayang Bayan: Pagsulat ng Kasaysayan ng Bayan (Isang PanimulaTungo sa Paglilinang)” in Adhika, Nilo Ocampo (editor ng isyu), Tomo 1. LunsodQuezon: Adhika ng Pilipinas, Inc.

Navarro, Atoy (1999) “Kasaysayan at Talastasang Bayan sa Wikang Filipino: SaDuyan ng Pagbubuo ng Inang Bayan, Bansa at Sambayanan”, in Adhika, NiloOcampo (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 Kasay-sayan). Lunsod Mandaluyong: Palimbagang Kalawakan.


Obusan, Teresita and Angelina Enriquez, eds. (1994) Pamamaraan: Indigenous Knowledge andEvolving Research Paradigms. Quezon City: Asian Center, University of the Philippines.

Pesigan, Guillermo (1992) Dulang-Buhay ng Bundok Banahaw Karanasan ng Ciudad Mistika.Lunsod Quezon: Programang Pangkaalamang Bayan, Dalubhasaan ng AghamPanlipunan at Pilosopiya, Unibersidad ng Pilipinas, Diliman at Bahay Saliksikanng Pilipinolohiyang Simulain.

Quiaoit-Bae, Jocelyn (1999) “Ang Nagbabagong Ugnayang Tao-lupang mga MangyanAlangan ng Oriental Mindoro”. Paper presented at the 10th National Conferenceof ADHIKA, Inc., November 28–30 1999, Divine Word College, Calapan City,Oriental Mindoro.

Rivera, Ma. Kristina C.V. (1996) “Iskala ng Pagtutunguhan ng Mananaliksik atKalahok: Isang Pagbabalik-Aral”, Tesis sa Masterado sa Sikolohiya, Dalubhasaanng Agham Panlipunan at Pilosopiya, Unibersidad ng Pilipinas, Diliman, LunsodQuezon.

Rodriquez, Mary Jane. B. (1996) “Ang Dalumat ng Bayan sa Kamalayang Pilipino”.Paper submitted for Anthropology 270, Summer, 1995–96, Department ofAnthropology, University of the Philippines, Quezon City.

Salazar, Zeus (1993b) “Ang Relihiyong Austronesyano ng Anito: Batayan ngSinaunang Sampalataya ng Kapilipinuhan.” Lecture for the Christian MeditationCenter, Philippine International Convention Center, Manila.

—— (1997a) “Ang Real ni Bonifacio Bilang Teknikang Militar sa Kasaysayan ngPilipinas” Bagong Kasaysayan. Lathalain Bilang 1 Lunsod Mandaluyong: PalimbagangKalawakan.

—— (1997b) “Ang Limang Panahon ng Pamumunong Bayan sa Kasaysayan ngPilipinas”. Panayam Pangkatedra, Bulwagang Rizal, ika-10 ng Pebrero 1997.

—— (1998a) “Wika ng Himagsikan, Lengguwahe ng Rebolusyon: Mga Suliraninng Pagpapakahulugan sa Pagbubuo ng Bansa”, Panayam Pangkatedra, Dalubhasaanng Agham Panlipunan at Pilosopiya, ika-17 ng Pebrero 1998.

—— (1998b) “Estado, Lipunan at Kultura sa Kasaysayan: Ang Wika sa PamanangPangkalinangan ng Pilipino.” Centennial Lecture. Quezon City: Center forIntegrative and Development Studies, University of the Philippines.

—— (1999) “Ang Kartilya ni Emilio Jacinto at ang Diwang Pilipino sa Agos ngKasaysayan”, sa Bagong Kasaysayan. Lathalain Bilang 6. Lunsod Mandaluyong:Palimbagang Kalawakan.

Salazar, Zeus with Marita Castillo-Pimentel, Dedina Lapar, Marcial Pimentel, Jr.and Noelle Rodriguez (1993a) Kasaysayan ng Pilipinas: Isang Balangkas. Departamentong Kasaysayan, Unibersidad ng Pilipinas, Diliman, Lunsod Quezon.

Santiago, Carmen (1976) “The Language of Food”, in Gilda Cordero-Fernando,ed. The Culinary Culture of the Philippines. Makati, Metro Manila: Bancom AudiovisionCorporation, pp. 132–139.

—— (1982) “Pakapa-kapa: Paglilinaw ng Isang Konsepto sa Nayon”, sa SikolohiyangPilipino: Teorya, Metodo at Gamit. Rogelia Pe-Pua (patnugot). Lunsod Quezon:University of the Philippines Press at Akademya ng Sikolohiyang Pilipino.

Santiago, Carmen at Virgilio Enriquez (1982) “Tungo sa Makapilipinong Pananaliksik”,sa Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Teorya, Metodo at Gamit. Rogelia Pe-Pua (patnugot). LunsodQuezon: University of the Philippines Press at Akademya ng Sikolohiyang Pilipino.

Veneracion, Jaime (1986) Kasaysayan ng Bulacan. Kolonya, Alemanya: Bahay-Saliksikanng Kasaysayan.

clemen c. aquino

Documents

watawat ng

lengguwahe

suprema isabel

editor ng

dambuhalang

mula sa kinaroroonan

unibersidad

kasaysayan