t Filipino Psychology in the Third World '

VIRGILIO G. ENRIQUEZUniversity ofthePhilippines

•

•

,

r

•

For this year's convention, we chose "The Social Responsibility ofPsychologist" astheme.Part of the responsibility asFilipinosocial scientists istohelpcontribute towards theunderstandingofthepsychology oftheFilipino inparticularandPhilippine society andcultureingeneral. For thisreason, the presentpaperconsistsof two parts.The firstpart focuses on the psychology ofthe Filipinowhilethe secondpartdiscusses Filipinopsychology asadiscipline in the contextofuniversal psychologyandthe ThirdWorld.

I. VALUES AND PANININDIGAN: UNDERSTANDINGTHE PSYCHOLOGY OFTHE FILIPINO

Fromthepsychological pointofviewit isparticularly difficult to address thequestion"Who isthe Filipino?"One might try to settlethe issue on legal grounds and haveadefinition on the basis ofbirthor geographic originor blood.Whilethese criteriamightbeconvenient andfairly easy to understand andutilize, they areunfortunatelyfarfromadequate fromthepsychological perspective. Considerations ofhistorical background orsociocultural characteristics are not adequate either.Birth and blood, geographyandcitizenship, history andcultural background are all important to understanding theFilipinobut the question "Who is the Filipino?" cannot be adequately answered from thepsychological perspective unless attention isfocused on Filipinoidentity, image (beitself-image or projected image or stereotyped image) andconsciousness.

Filipino identityisnot static; aFilipino's self-image asaFilipino canbeasvaried ashisbackground; it goes without sayingthat not allFilipinosarealikebut regardless of allthese, his consciousness of being a Filipino psychologically defines the Filipino.Consciousness of beingaFilipinodoesnot necessarily imply avalidawareness of theFilipino situation, predicament andsocial reality butitdoes implyanintimate knowledgestartswith hisfirstawareness andcontactwith the non-Filipino, possibly avisitor,or anative ofanothercountrywhom theFilipino meets shouldhehimself travel outside thePhilippines. Awareness ofbeingaFilipinoimplies identification with the Filipinoasapeoplenot justthrough empathyandconcernbut asoneof them.SomeFilipinosmaynot "behave" likeaFilipino according to stereotypes or expectations, theymaynot evenlook Filipinobut the moreimportant psychological elementisthere:he identifies andthinks asaFilipino; healsoactsaccordingly. Thisdefinitionisvalid, barringdelusionssuchasthat of the three "Christs"in a mentalhospitalin Ypsilanti.

ORIGINALLY PUBLISHEDIN PHILIPPINE JOURNAL OF PS'lCHOLOGY (1977) VOL. 10, No. I,PP. 3-18.

8

AsMunoz (1971:161) put it: "A Filipinoisanyonewho feel andthinks he is-whosayshe is.It isadefinition he doesnot justwant to be smart about. It issomething hehascometo believe in,deeplyandhonestly."

The Filipino Experience and the Third World

The Filipinoexperience both athomeandabroadcanreasonably beviewed in termsof the realities ofthe relationship between theWestandtheThird World;thedominantand the minority culture;the colonizerand the colonized. In addition,hisexperienceincludes agrowthinconsciousness ashehurdles his sub-national regional identitytowardsanational identity. ThellocanoisasFilipino ashisCebuanoor Bicolano compatriot.HeisasFilipinosasthe Chinese-Filipino andthe mestizowho "feels, thinks, and says"heisFilipino. (Foradiscussion on theso-called Filipinohyphenates, seeMunoz, 1971:115-150). Furthermore,heisanAsian. He isanAsian togetherwith the Chinese, the KoreanandtheJapanese but hesees,his root not only in Asia. His country isin the Pacific. Hesees affmity with the Indonesians, the native Hawaiians, andthe Malaya-polynesians forhe isone.He hasasocio-cultural backgroundwhichrelates himnot onlyto theChristiansbut also to the Muslims. Hiscountryhas"special relations" with the United States afterthe first Vietnam: the Philippine-American war of 1899-1902"with apologies toMexicans, American Indians, andother earlyvictims ofimperialism" (Francisco, 1973).

Bywhatever name, "benevolent assimilation," "westernization" or "modernization"and in allstages of hishistory, he hasacultureand identity of hisown. An earlyJesuitmissionary, Chirino (1604) himself admitted how members of his religious order.destroyed aboutthreehundredTagalog manuscripts inBalayan, Batangas, an actwhich370yearssomehow cannot erasein the despairand angerwhich ascholarof Filipinoliteraturefeltandexpressed (Hosillos, 1969). The Filipinoandhisculture isan ongoingprocess. The destructionofmanuscripts doesnot entailthe destructionof the culture.The Filipino continues to build and to grow, to failand to succeed, to evolveand totriumph. It canbeseenin histownsandcities; it isreflected in the growthofsettlementsthat are transformedinto cities (Zialcita, 1976), beit Manilaor Cebu. The process wasconcretizedassuccess in aceremonysuch aswhen EmilioAguinaldo(1898) madehisinauguraladdress aspresidentof the First Republicof the Philippines.As acollectiveconsciousness, he hashismostpleasant andmostpainfulexperiences called "peak"and"nadir"experiences byMaslow, thepsychologist. Hisdisappointments canbemanybutI choosenot to discuss them at this point.

A distinctioncanbemadebetweenFilipinovalues andpaninindigan which closelyapproximates the English.words"commitment" and "conviction." What has beenpreviouslyidentifiedasvaluesamong the Filipinosare not reallyasimportant ashispaninindigan. It canbearguedthatthe Filipino commitments andconvictions shouldbegivenasmuch attention ashissupposedvalues.

Thefollowing has been identifiedassomeofthemoreenduringpaninindigan:paggalangatpagmamalasakit (respect andconcern),pagtulongatpagdamay (helping), pagpunp sakakulangan (understanding limitations),pakikiramdam (sensitivityandregard forothers),gaan ngloob (rapponandacceptance), andpakikipagkapwa (human concern andinteractionasone with others).

t

\•j

•

1

,

•

9

Thetokenuse ofFilipino concepts andthelocal language have ledto theidentificationofsomesupposedly Filipinonationalvalues. Amongthe more frequentlymentionedvalues arehiya (shame),pakikisarna (yielding to the leader or the majority), utang naloob(gratitude), amorpropio (sensitivity to personal affront), andbayanihan (togetherness incommoneffort). Some regional values whichhave beenrecognized include rnaratabat (acomplexcombinationofpride,honor, andshame), balatu (sharing one's fortune),ilus(sharingsurplus food), kakugi(meticulousness and attention to detail),patugsiling(compassion), kalulu(empathy),hatag·gusto (pagbibigay) paghiliupod (katapatan orfaithfulness in needor in plenty),andpagsinabtanay (fidelity with one's promises) (SeeElequin,1974).

Navarro(1974) veryclearly attention to themiseducation oftheFilipino asoriginallyarticulated by Constantino (1970) andappropriatelyzeroedin on colonizationof theFilipinomind:

Take western psychologyfor instance.It generallytakes the position that theindividual ismostlyto beblamedfor hispsychological problems. The soonerheaccepts hisproblems,the fasterthe psychological intervention isprovided,thusfacilitating adjustment to hisenvironment. AFilipino psychologist whosubscribesto suchatenetby itself isignorantofhiscountry'shistoryandlacks atotal gasp ofthepsychosocial andpolitical problemsofthePhilippinesociety (p. 24).

Navarro sees the colonizerssociety;the poverty and the uneven distribution ofwealth.Sheargues that "to the extent that the Filipino, after the end of hisacademictraining, triesto explain awaytheproblems oftheFilipinos according to thewhiteman'sconcepts of the etiologyofmentalillness, hecontinuesthe miseducation process."

Effective treatment isby no means limitedto Westernpsychology. It did not startwith Charcot andFreud. In the Philippines, it startedwith the babaylans way beforeChirinotook holdofanyindigenous manuscripts to destroyandsupplant with westernbeliefsystems.

The problemwith the tokenuse ofFilipino psychological concepts in the contextofawesternanalysis that relies on the English language andEnglish categories ofanalysisare many. It no doubt can leadto the distortion of Philippine socialreality and thefurtheranceof the miseducation of the Filipinos. It isno coincidence that Kaut (1961)hituponutangnaloobasakeyconcept fortheanalysis ofTagalog interpersonal relationsconsidering thatutang naloob isjustoneamong manypsychosocialconcepts thatrelate tothe theoretically fertile conceptof loob, lakas ngloob, andmanyothers.Samonte(1973)needed no lessthan three pagesjust to list down such concepts. In addition, Kauthimselfadmitted that "debt of gratitude"isnot altogetherunknown in Washington,D.C. EvenAmericans recognize utang naloob, they justhappento preferkaliwaan orimmediate payoffs wheneverpossible. To argue that utang naloob isaFilipinovalueistherefore misleading, to saythe least, and dangerous at best.Utang naloob would beconvenientin perpetuatingthe colonial statusof the Filipinomind.For example, theFilipinoshouldbegrateful for"American aid" regardless ofhow muchit isshownto beaform of imperialism (Hayter,1971). It isinteresting to contrastthe social implicationsofsarna ngloobor kusang loobor lakasng loobto that ofutang naloob. e

10

Pakikisama isanothersupposed value whichwasidentified bywestern-oriented socialscientists during the period of token useof the Filipino language in Philippine socialscience. In fact, saidtoken useisstillpersisting to datein manyschools in the Philippinebecause of the continueduseofEnglish asmediumof instructionand research in socialscience by Filipinosocial scientists. Because of thisanomalous situation,evenotherwiseperspective Filipinosocial scientists wereledto forget thatpakikisama isjustoneamongmany leveland mode of interaction in Filipino indigenouspsychology.Pakikitungo(transaction/civility with), pakikisalimuha (interaction with),pakikilahok (joining/participatingwith),pakikibagay (in consonance withinaccordwith),pakikisama (beingalongwith), pakikipagpalagayan/pakikipagpalagayangloob (being inrapport!understanding!acceptance with), andpakikiisa (beingone with) havebeen identified assome of themoreimportant levels andmodeofinterpersonal relation inFilipino. In our PAP paperlast year, Santiago presented said concepts not onlyasinterrelated modes ofinterpersonalrelations but alsoaslevels of interaction which ordinally rangesfrom the relativelyuninvolved civility inpakikituYfgo to the totalsense of identification inpakikiisa.

Just likeinutang naloob, it isreasonable to lookattheattention given topakikisama asconsistent with the miseducation ofthe Filipino. InDissent andCounter-eonsciousness,Constantino (1970) argued how the academician asrecipientof miseducation canverywellbethePhilippine society's mis-educator instead ofprofessing the newconsciousness.Social scientists who unwittinglyyankout theconceptofpakikisama frompakikitungo,pakikibagay,pakikisalimuha,pakikipagpalagayang-Ioob, andpakikiisa andthenelevate itto astatusof valueisat the sametime reinforcing(intentionallyor unintentionally)"skillsand talents... sold to the highest bidder -usuallythe elite and vestedinterest groups.Withoutquestion theyrewarddocility, conformityandwesternorientation. The logicalconsequences isthat theyarenegative onsocial protest" (Navarro, 1974). Moreaccuratelyit isnotpakikisama asaFilipinovalue. If it istruly avalue, how do we explainthe manypeople whoinsists on theirpagkatao andkarapatan andsayoutrightayawkong makisama.Supposing one does not want to have a part of corruption, he is identified ashindimarunong makisama. Whatkindofvalue isthat?Whatself-image doesthat create for theFilipino,shouldsocial scientists perpetuatesuchan idea? It isprobably understandableforawesterner interested inPhilippine society to jumpto theconclusion thatpakikisamaisaFilipinovalue. Afterall,he isnot immersed in the culture,hisinterests andgoals aredifferent, andhedoesnot evenunderstandthe language. However, the Filipinoshouldmarshalhisknowledge asaculturebearerandaspeakerofthe language to heightenhisawareness of Philippinesocial reality.The token useof Filipino in Philippinessocialscience workiseven moredangerous thannotusing itatall. Nagpilipinopa. Iningles nalangsanang lahat. Mabuti nanga siguro ifpeopletalkabout "smoothinterpersonal relations"and"split-level personality." At least thediscussion isalien to Filipino mass consciousnessand remainsto besofor aslongasthe conceptsaredelivered in awesternlanguage.

Insteadofa token useofFilipino,full useof the language wouldeasily and naturallyavoidthe preoccupation with wordsasagainst boundmorphemesandthe fearthat suchwordscannotbetranslated to English. Presumably because ofthisfearpseudotranslations

. becomeassociated with the Filipinoword asif it isan accurateequivalent(e.g., hiya as

\11

"shame" and not as 'propriety"). The Filipino language has an elaborate system ofaffixation whichEnglish lacks. Insteadofgettingfixated with the word "hiya"the Filipinosocialscientistshould makeuseof the resources of hislanguage and pay attention to theprefix napa- or nakaka- or ikina- asinnapahiya, nakakahiya, and ikina(hijhiya. AsBonifacio(1976) correctlynoted eachofthese differin meaningfrom one another. Similarly, it canbearguedthat the prefixpaki- inpakikisama isevenmore important than the root wordsama. Clearlythe prefixintroduces an importantpsychological or "humanizing"role.Forexample, usap literallymean"talk" butpakiusap transformsit to a request. Furthermore,ignoringthe prefix and beingword-oriented(whichmakesmore sensewith the Englishlanguage but not with Filipino) makes the western-oriented socialscientist ignore theconnections betweenpakikisama andpakikibaka orpakikialam, forexample.

In spiteof the factthat westernpsychology loomslarge in psychological work in thePhilippines,especially in western-oriented universities, the fulluseofFilipino hasledtothe identification of the valuepakikipagkapwa which is surely more important thanpakikisama. The barkada (peergroup) wouldnot behappywith the walangpakisama butPhilippinesocietyat large cannot acceptthe walangkapwa tao. Pakikipagkapwa isboth apaninindigan and a value. It includes all the other mentioned modes and levels ofinteraction. Pakikisama isaformofpakikipagkapwa but not theother wayaround.In fact,pakikisalamuha isevencloserthanpakikisama inmeaningto pakikipagkapwa. In amannerofspeaking, the Filipinoisneveralone.He hasacompanionfrom birth tilldeath.Whenthe socialscientist interviewsthe Filipino, there issomeone alsolistening in the roomand perhapsacrowd ofcuriosneighborseavesdropping or peekingby the window (SeeFeleciano, 1965). Asachild,the Westernermightpity him for not havingamany toys toplaywith but actually, it isthe Filipinochildwho pitiesthe Westerner for not havingasmany friendsand playmates,and for not havingasmany brothers and sisterswho careandhordesofcousins with whom to enjoytumbangpreso orpatintero or sipa. He may nothavea toy caror adoll imported from the United Statesfor such toy are better kept anddisplayed in the eskaparate. Saka mastra; but surelyhe canplayas much ashe wantswiththelata ngsardines namaygulong. In fact his creativitywasfirst challenged mostlikely, bythemany toys he himself had to construct as a child. In any case, the Filipino child wasnurtured with games more than with toys.For instance, he dealswith peopleand learnsto relatewith othersatan earlyage.

Should the Filipino get sick,he iscured physicallywith drugs and medicalaid butsocio-psychologicallywithfruits beside him whichhemaynot eveneat.More importantly,he haspeople:friendsand relatives. Evena room in supposedlymodern hospitalwhichsays "strictly no visitors" as you enter proves to be crowded with people. It was inCaliforniawhen in the earlyseventies, a group of enterprisingpeopleofferedtheir loveand attention for a fee to terminal patients.This isunthinkable in the Philippines but itturned out to bea financially successful program in the Unites States.

Pakikipagkapwaaspaninindigan does not simplyimplyeitherpakikitungoorpakikisamaor any of the other mentioned modesand levels of interaction.Pakikipagkapwa ismuchdeeper and profound in its implications. It alsomeans acceptingand dealingwith theother personasan equal. The company presidentandthe clerkin an office may not have

12

equivalent roles, statuses, or incomes but theFilipinowaydemandsandimplements theideathat theytreatoneanotherasfellow human beings (kapwa tao). Thismeansaregardforthedignityandbeing ofothers. "Madalmg magingtao, mahirap magpakatao. "

Coping with change in a new situation or environment

Asidefrom the socio-psychological dimension,pakikipagkapwa has a moral andnormative aspect asavalue andpaninindigan, situationschange andrelations varyaccordingtoenvironment. For example,pakikipagkapwa isdefinitely inconsistent withexploitativehuman transactions. Giving the Filipino a bad deal is a challengeto kapwa tao. Thequestion at this juncture is "What coping strategies do Filipinos use in a hostileenvironment?" This question isactually related to the question "How do Filipinosexpress their feelings andemotions?" Said questions aremost interesting from the pointofviewofpsychological research andtheory.

It is by no meansclaimedthat everyone isagreedthat there is a Filipino way ofexpressing emotions.Bonifacio(1976) arguedthat there areno Filipinoconceptssinceconcepts areuniversal. Somealso claimthat the expression ofemotionsamonghumansisuniversal.However, I would like to sharewith you an examplefrom Lee's (1976)characterization ofthewayFilipinos react to frustration. "Anobaangginagawa ngPilipinokapagsiyay nabibigo?£Ipag-ibig, halimbawa. Papaano ito ipinapahayagsakanyangawit?' theexample hegave istheTagalogsong'/lkoy iniwan mo." Comparethis to theEnglish "Ohno, you don't loveme no more, no more."

This topic can beapproachedby calling attention to Reyes(1968) descriptionof adog's reactionto beinglashedby someone.Said descriptionwasprominently printedtogetherwith announcements for the Filipinomovie"Maynila: £I Kuko ngLiuanag. "Itsays '/tngasosa unanghagupittry magtataka. "Bakit niyaginagawa saakinito?"£I ikalawanghagupit, andaso y mag-iisip. '/InoangakingkasalananiBakitako inaapi?"Afterall, thedogissupposedlyman's bestfriend. Isthis what he getsfor beingloyal to his master?Whoknows,the mastermightbetesting hispatience andunderstanding. Baka sakaling medyoumungolangaso niReyessa ikalawanghagupit. Subalit "£I ikatlonghagupit, "tryon kayReyes,"humanda ka. "Thereisatheorywhichsays thatReyes' dogisaFilipino dog. Not all dogsarelikethat.Somedogs growlandseem readyto biteyouevenbefore youdeliver the firstlash. Thereareat least two theories to characterize thisdog: (1) growlalotwithout biting(Nanduduro lamang/tigrengpape~ or (2) theyattackorbiteateverylash. (Ganti-ganti lamang;aneye-fer-an-eye). .

WhileReyes: dogseems Filipino,based on stereotypes, it canreasonably bearguedthat one shouldnot relyon suchastereotypetoo much. In fact, it isadistortion of theFilipinoresponse to codifyhisreactionto exploitationasessentially that of silence andpagtitiis. Kung tumahimik manangPilipino, itoysapagkatsiyaynag-iisip. Maling isipin nasiya.tryhindikikibo. It iswrongto assume that asacopingmechanism heaccepts hisfatewithresignation or fatalism (bahala nahasbeenmisused to perpetuatethis idea). Whilethereissometruth to the observation that Filipinos do not verballydisplay their emotionsatslightest stimulation, weshouldnot forget the adeptness ofthe Filipinowith nonverbalcues(knownaspahiwatig in Filipino) andthe elaborateart ofpakiramdam, not only in

13

courtship butmoreimportantly, ineveryday interactions. A negative emotionor reactionmaynot beexpressed rightawayin the formofverbal abuse but theFilipino'ssilence issometimes misinterpreted bytheuninitiated aseitheracquiescence or resignation. Thisisfarfromthe truth. Inaculturewhichisalive andvibrantbecause ofadisposition towardlightheartedbanteringand jokingrelationships evenapainfulbatok isnot right awayanswered withasuntok. It isaculturewherethe lambing ismeaningful because people testlimitsandtestreactions, in loveandjest. It isaculturewherethe Tagalog tampo andtheCebuanomahay exist because expectations arenot metbysomeonewho shouldknowbetter,In fact, therearepeople whosometimes misread the lambing ofevenfindthebiroGoke) intolerable. Theyarepiqued bythejestingandteasing. Inaculturewherelightheartedbanteringseldomoccurs, thin-skinned (calledpikon in Filipino) would not benoticed.Butwhat ifthe "biro"'turns out to bemaliciously motivated? Or asFilipinos say"Hindinabiro Yan pareko. ", TheFilipino response isto reinterpret thebehaviorasneither lambingnorbiro butcorrectlysees thebehavioraspagsasamanta14 or inplainlanguage "abuso. ",

The Filipinowouldentertainthe value ofpagbibigay only ifthere aredoubtsaboutthe meaningof the behavior. Evenifthe abusive behaviorisnot repeated, the absenceofexplanation or peacemaking amends canlead to anoutrighthinanakitwhichisindirectverbal means.Only the trusted friend or relativeisgiventhe privilegeof suspendedcounter-provocation or suspended retaliation inknownanyway, thru anintermediary. Ashort termhinanakit andacomparatively longerterm sama ngloob cannurture into anovertgalit. "Ang tapayan kapag napunoayumaapaw'"(Ajarwhenfilled shall overflow) isasayingwhich supports the theory that Filipinosexpress their emotions in astep-wisefunction. Injustice accumulates in bitsbefore overtactionistaken.

The Filipino in The Third World isnot allsmiles andpakikisama. He knows themeaning ofcooperation andconcerted action to promotetherights ofaminorityculture.He knows that pakikibaka is just asvalidan aspectofpakikipagkapwa in the face ofinjustice andadversity. Ifkapwa-tao ischallenged, the Filipinocopingresponse isnotpakikisama but mostdefinitelypakikibaka evenwhenheseems unerlypowerless.

InQuiansaat (1976), wehave anexample ofaseemingly powerless formofpakikibakaor exerting pressure:

Theofficers, someofthemfromtheSouthwerereally verynasty, theythoughtyouwerea manservant through anactofcongress, that you wereinductedto betheirpersonalservant.Well,someof them learnedthe hard way. They didn't knowwhatwasgoingon in the kitchen.Yeah, that's right,theydidn't know how theircoffee wasmadewith our socksthat we hadworn for aweek.And that someoftheir foodhadFilipinosaliva in it. Sometimes it took awhileuntil someonetoldthemthat theworstenemyyou couldhave wasyoursteward.

ThereisnothingparticularlyFilipino aboutbeing a "mabutingkaibigan, masamangkaaway. "'Considering thesituation, aperson ofanothernationality or backgroundwouldhavedone asimilarthing,what issimplybeingarguedat this point isthat one shouldnot underestimatethe Filipinowith supposedvalues suchaspakikisama when moreaccurately, it ispakikipagkapwa that moves him.In addition,pakikibaka isnot aliento

14

him, it isnor evennewto him, aFilipino shouldremember withpridethat Magellan didnotmake itinMactan. (Angyah:tngkttsiniya. SabilunamansamgaCebuanoaypanoorinninyokungpaano akong lumaban. Kawawa iyangsiLapu-lapu iyan saakin). WhilehemighthaveMagellan's statue in the islandtoday, it wasbecause of Spanishinterest and Filipinopagbibigay, morethananything else.

On Filipino Food and Filipino Culture

Concerningfood,I am awareof at least two arguments hurledto the Filipino,onefrom an outsider (andtherefore a non-Filipinoculture-bearer) and another from aninsider (andtherefore a "culture-bearer"). The outsider claimsthat "there isno suchthing asFilipino food."My initial reactionto this comment is"nonsense,you don'tknowwhatyouaretalking about." In fact, I actually heardthisclaim madeatatimewhenIwashankering forFilipino food. (Gusto kong dagukan, kaya langaynagpigilako, I thinkthat's an exampleof how Filipinosexpress emotions).The argument goesthis way:Foodismoresocial than biological in thePhilippines, yougetto seeandtastefoodwhenit isavailable andvisible. The mostdramaticexample isthe town fiesta. And what doFilipinos serve? Chinese food, Spanishfood or American food but Filipino food isnowhere to befound. The wellknown adobo isSpanish, so is the sarciado, menudo,embutido, andmorcon, Filipino eatpain cit, chop sui, andsuipao. That'sChinese. EventheTagalog bistik isactually beefsteak.

I don't know how manyFilipinosbuy that kind ofargument.I, for one, don't seeanyvalidityin the argumentquiteapartfrom the factthat I canmention examples, offineindigenous cookingunless someoneturns up andclaimthat kare-kare isIndianorsinigang isIndonesian. An importantreason for goinginto thislengthydiscussion isthefact that thiskindofargument, whilepatentlyridiculous, isprevalently andextensivelyused. The argumentbecomes moreinvolved but used eveninclaiming, that "thereisnoPhilippine Culture." Similarly, ithas beenclaimed that"there isnoPhilippine psychology."EverythingFilipinopsychologists do isan extensionofwesternPsychology-a claimwhichshouldproveclearly false in the lightofcurrentwork onSikolohiyangPilipino. Inher explanationof how Philippineculture and heritageis taught in schools,Mendez(1976) had to say:

Isangarawaytinanongakongisakongapongsampungtaonggulang.AnoluanyaangimpluwensiyangIndiasa Pilipinas. Akoaynapahintoatnagulumihan. Sinabikosa sariliko-Anokayaanditinurosaatingmgamag-aaral?

Atsinimulankonanglusahinangmgaaklatngkasaysayanatsocialstudies. Sabdip naakoaymatuwaaynagngitngitako, atIaloakong nalungkotnangakingsuriinangihapangaklat sapaghahanda kosapapelnaito. Hindi koilalahaddito anglahat ngtinatawag nainfluencenanab:tsakosapagkatnapakdhahaangsinasabingminananatinsamgalndiyo,samgaArabe, sa mgaKastila, sa mgaAmerikano, sa mgaHapon. "Eh, saan naroroonangPilipino?"angtanongkosasuperbisora 0 tagamasidngsocialstudies. Angkanyangsagotayganiro:"lyanponamingmganaturangimpluwensiyaayayonsamgadalubhasa,"atbinttnggitniyasinaDr. Pardo de Tavera, Dr. OtleyBeyer.Dr. Foxatmaramipangiha. Idinagdagpa,Gayunpaman,nanatiliparintayongPilipino.Ayonnganamansascopeandsequencenabinanggitko, Filipino culturehasauniqueness ofits own.

15

•

•

•

•

Angsagotkoayganito: "Ang mga kabataangPilipinoaydapat lumaking umiibigsaatingsarilingbayan;dapatnilang ipagmdakinasilaayPilipino. Dapatnilangdakilainangkanilangtinubuanglupaatangatingkabihasnan.Paanonatinmahuhul:xJgangkaisipangitokungangatingipamumulatsa kanilang mga murang isipaykunganu-anong minana 0hiniramnatinsaiba':ib:mg!Jansa?Angpagtukaysa impluwensiyaaynararapatsa mgamaysapatnanggulangathindiparasamga musmos. Kungbagasapunongkahayaymalalimnaangmgaugatathindinarrzaibubmwlnghangingamihanohahtgat.Kungmaliliitpaangmgabataatmabubuksanang isipan nilasamga tinutukaynaimpluwensiyaayanoangiisipinnilatungkolsa kanilangsarili?Magkakaroon sila nginferioritycomplex. Itulad natin sila saisangbatangpinagsabihan ngganito:Hay, Pedro, angpangalan moaysalitangKastila;angkatapanganmoaynamanamosaiyongamanabirryagnaHapon.Ka'UXl'UXlngPedrolSaannandoonangkarryangpagka-Pilipino?

Akoynagpapasalamatatnagkaroonakongisangamananagsabisaakin. "PtteiM,bagokamag-aralngwikangInglesaypag-aralan momunaang Tagalog sapagkat itoangwikanatin."Atsiyanarinangnagturosaakinngpagbasasapamamagitanngeatan.HindiniyabinanggitsaakinnaangeatonaylibrongKastila.

II. FILIPINO PSYCHOLOGY AS A PERSPECTIVE

Psychology asascientific discipline hasbeenpartialto universal findings, or at leastmakes modest claims to "generalizabiliry." The historyofpsychology asit hasevolved inthe Westandthe Westerntraditioncanbeinterpretedasmovingtowardsthisgoal. In asense, universality isthemotivebehindtheseries ofsystematically replicated experimentsfrom ratsto humans;from the laboratoryto the field. The psychologists areno longercontentedwith sophomore white studentsfrom Americanuniversities; they arenowequally interested inBlacks andothergroups. In fact, captive university classes in themaycountries of the world and just like their colleaguesin Anthropology would nowoccasionally risk the inconvenience of "mud huts and mosquitoes." While thisdevelopment mightnot always bewelcomed asasocio-political development, i.e., cross-cultural researchers (Brislin, 1977), it isprobablyaturningpoint in thegrowthofwesternpsychology for the database ofwesternpsychology isnow much broader.

It should be stressed however that a broader data base is far from adequate inassuring a universal psychology unless alternative perspective from non-westernpsychologies areput to use.

Rewriting the history ofpsychologyPsychologyasafield ofknowledge intheWestern tradition hasbeen treated historically

by psychologists themselves (e.g., Boring,1929; Watson, 1963). One may look at thefield asascience anddateit backto 1879 or ashasbeenahabitin theWest, traceitshistoryasa human concern to the Greeks.Psychologists would findAristotle's De Anima areasonable documentfor astart shouldthey want to tracetheir roots. It must benotedhowever that historiansof psychologyconsciously or unconsciouslydrop the word"Western" whentheywriteaboutthehistoryofWestem psychology. On theotherhand,Asian psychology (e.g., MurphyandMurphy,1968) isalways properlydesignated assuch,

16

"Asian."Thisstateofaffairs cancontinueandisadmittedly understandable especially ifthe audience consists ofwestern scholars andreaders, exclusively.

References to nationalpsychologies isnot newat all. Psychologists alsotalk aboutKorean psychology, French psychology, Chinese psychology, andIndian psychology, forexample. Whatshouldbemade clear, however, is that theyusually meanpsychology inCommunist China or India or France (in the Western tradition) and not Chinesepsychologyor IndianPsychology in theChineseor Indiantradition. It isno surprise,then,thatWesterners feel athomewritingaboutthe"psychologyof,by,andfor"nativesofaThirdWorldcountrywithoutbeing immersed inthenative cultureor atleast havinglearnedthe locallanguage (e.g., Sechrest andGuthrie, 1974),They must bereferringtoWestern psychologyof, by, and for the Third World. All thesecouldvery well be aproductofawell-meaning interestin aformercolonial country or commitmentto thediscipline ofpsychology but the factremainsthat the historyofpsychologyhasto berewrittensoasto reflect the different cultures oftheworld.If thisisnot done,what onehas is at best a history of West~rn psychology with the word "Western" unsaid or. .unwntten.

On the unstated bios of the dependency and uni-national dominance view inpsychology

A growing numberofsocial scientists have longbeenwaryofthe inappropriatenessoreven patent inapplicabilityofWestern models ontheThirdWorldsetting. Theproblemcanbedifficult or baffling because mostofthepeoplewho express thiskind ofconcernareprecisely theThirdWorldsocial scientists trained intheWest or theWestern tradition.Reservations range fromacall to alocal adaptation or modification ofwestern models tooutrightcharges of"intellectual dependence" andacademic imperialism." However, therearesomewho acknowledge the issues or problemsbut shrugthem offin the groundsthattherearenoothersuitable models andconcepts to use anyway. In addition, therearethosewho seenothingat issue at allbecause theyareconvinced that anydeparturefromthe westernapproachisblasphemy before the altarofscience.

Issues alongthislinearenot limitedto the Third Worldcountriesin relationto theWest.It isalsofound in the Westascanbe gleaned from Graumann's (1972) report aspastpresident oftheGermanSociety ofPsychology onthestateofGermanpsychology.He noted O'Connell's (1970) perceptionof" .....a relatively uncriticaldependence onAmericanpsychology" as"thrivinginGermanytoday."Graumannfoundthishard todenybecause "atleast 50percent(orevenmorelikely80percent) ofallpsychologists intheworldlivein theU.S.A. andasimilarhighpercentage ofthemorethan20,000 yearlypsychological publications arewritteninEnglish."

Thisviewneeds to bere-examined not only because of"thenotableachievements ofSoviet psychologywhicharerelatively inaccessible mainlydueto thelanguage barrier" butmore so because of the invaluable resource lodged in otherwise ignored nationalpsychologies, particularlyfromtheThirdWorld.Western psychologists themselves whorally under the banner of "cross-culturalpsychology" have argued for a universalpsychologyascontrastedfrom the psychologybased on generalizations from studiesdone in industrialized countries. Whilethe arguments areforceful and the sentiments

•

•

•

•

17

real, a "cross-cultural psychology" willcontinueto beonlyapromisefor aslongastheindigenouspsychologies are untapped because of language and culture barriers. Ofnecessity, onemustchallenge theunstated bias in O'Connell'sconcernfor the Germandependence onAmerican psychologyandGraumann's measure forreactingto this concern.By"psychologist" they apparently mean someone who hasan academic degreeinpsychology. Astrictadherence to theunion-card criterion to being apsychologist wouldofcourse exclude not onlyasizable numberofeminent thinkers inthewestern tradition,or people who happento gettheirdegrees inhistoryor anthropology in thespecializedWest, but also the unwrittenbut no less realpsychologies ofpeoplewho maynot even

• have atraditionofpublishing journalarticles inpsychology.

Thevalidity ofunwrittenpsychologies does not dependon theextentandmannerof itsarticulation.

Graunmann's statistics on publicationsalsoimply a regardifa reverence for theprintedor written word. In thismodeof thinking,one immediately looksawayfromcultures withunwrittenlanguages andalmost unconsciously looksup to theuniversity-trainedpsychologists. CarlJung'sreminder isappropriate in thiscontextr'Tf youwantto learnpsychology, avoid theuniversity."

•

•

•

Psychology in the Philippines, Indigenous Psychology and the Third World

Psychology inthethird Worldhasashortor alonghistorydepending uponhowonelooksat it. In fact, therearesomewho argue that thereisno suchthingasThird Worldpsychologies, muchless ahistoryofindigenous psychologies. Ifonehappens to disagreewiththelanerposition, lethim becomforted bythethoughtthatacceptance andinterestin indigenous psychologies areforthcoming anyway. Afterall,it isnow recognized that"natives" offaraway countries have theirown religion, art, medicine, andphilosophy.Of course, labels arestillusedto distinguished themfromwesternformssuchascanbeseenfrom references to "pagan religions," "primitiveart," "folkmedical practice," or"implicit ethnicphilosophy." It isjustanotherstepto grantthem "psychology."

Aftergenerouslyoreven reluctantlyconcedinga"psychology" toathirdWorldcountry(ithelps to put it in quotationmarksor qualify it with the world"indigenous" or evenlabel it "nonscientific"), it becomes easier to discuss andsee ahistoryofpsychology' inthe Philippines. FromthebulongoftheearlyFilipinos, thepsychotherapy practiced bythebabaylans fromtheremote past to thepresent day; thebeliefs, practices, andpsychologyof the nativeswhich the early Christian missionaries aimed to changeand almostsuccessfullydestroyed in itswrittenform;to thepresent issues ofmodernization whichissometimes equated withwesternization, Philippines andFilipinos psychology isverymuchalive.

It is admittedly unlikely that the manuscripts destroyed by Chirino and hiscompanions arepsychology dissertations. Someofsaidmanuscripts mayevenbenotmore than lovenotes from one nativeto another. Butwho arewe to prejudgetheirimportance one way or the other? Whatever they may be, the senseof lossfelt byFilipinos canonlybeshared byeverypsychologist interested inthehistoryofpsychologyinThirdWorld countriesespecially ifheisinterestedinindigenouspsychology. Fortunately,

18

in much the samesensethat we can havea literature (written) and an oral tradition(unwritten), wecanalso argue forapsychological tradition(unpublished, but no less realinvalid) apartfromapsychological literature (published) ineverycountryofthe WorId.

WhileChirino'sactsetsthe tone for Philippine psychology in the written traditionfrom 1521 to the 1800s, it isstilldefinitely ofpsychology in nonindustrialized settings(e.g., Plasencia's Loscostumbres delosTagalog). It isno surprise that EmilioAguinaldosingledoutwiththanks the "psicologos delveho Tagalog"inhis inaugural address aspresidentof the firstRepublicof the Philippines.

The baseofan indigenous psychology in history andculturehasbeendiscussed inanother article(Enriquez, 1975). Suffice it to saythat in particular,the following wereidentified as basesfor an indigenous national psychology: (1) Early or traditionalpsychology, (2) Mananddiwa (consciousness andmeaning or the localconceptionanddefinition ofthepsyche asafocus ofpsychological interest, (3) psychologyofpagbabagong-isip (re-awakening as an attitude and as a stage in the development of nationalconsciousness), (4) psychology ofbehavior andhumanabilities (western psychology hasmuch to contribute on this), (5) social issues and problems, and (6) native languages,culture, andorientation.

In theparticular case ofthePhilippines, theunfolding andinteractions amongthosebases occurredin the contextofa continuousstruggle (orgive and take, ifone pleases)between the indigenous culture and the Western concerns and points of view inpsychology.

The politics and ethics ofindigenizationBerry(1977) surmissed that the uni-national dominance (ofAmericanpsychology)

maybeunfortunateevenif oneassumes that it isnot naughty, i.e., it hasnot comeaboutby conspiracyor design. "Naughty"or not, one getsto beuneasyaspsychologists tryhard at being"cross-cultural" andyet persistat auni-national bias. It isperhapstime toargue for across-indigenous perspective if onlyto alleviate the imbalance which isto beexpected from auni-national "cross-cultural" psychology. Anyway,wecanat leastbehappywith the thought that finally wehaveaself-conscious cross-cultural psychologywhosedataarenot limitedto sophomoreAnglo-Saxon universitystudents.Whilethedatabase isnow muchboarder,theperspective isessentially the sameandthe dangerofbeing lulled withthe beliefthat auniversal science ofpsychology isin the offing becomesseriousindeed.

Kumar(1976) recognized theprobleminvolved inconstructing asocial realityout ofindigenouscontent but utilizingconceptualcategories and theorieswhich are betteradaptedto industrialized countries. Thispainfully pointsto the inadequacy ofwhat hecalls "contentindigenization" without indigenizing the "theoretic" Kumar'sstance isofcourse based on the assumption that indigenization comes in types.In fact, heexplicitlyargued against indigenization asastrategy. His approachmakes alot ofsense to anyonewho canconceive ofindigenization assomething less than what it is.The presentpaperwouldliketo lookat "indigenization" asatotal,privileged, andinalienable process- totalbecause thedevelopment ofan ideawithout the attendantstrategy to makeit a realityis

•

le'

•

•

•

•

•

•

19

without meaning; privileged and inalienable because the decision on its strategy andimplementationdoesnot belongto anyonein particular, much less to anoutsider.Forthis reason, amongothers, awordlike"indigenization" issuspect atworstandinadequateat best. It is curious how the word is usedif the source of a psychologicalconcept,approach, or theory isaThird Worldcountry (Africa, LatinAmerica, or India) but notJapan, the United States, or England. A trace of surprise is even evident when thecountry in consideration is Canada; thus"Africanization" makes more sensethat"Canadianization"

Bethat as it may, if Canadiansfind reason for searchingfor a distinct CanadianSociology then what'snewwithathirdWorldcountryasserting what it neednot searchforin thefirst place? At this point,onemustexplicate theconviction thatan"indigenous"psychology isnot justa reaction to western psychology. Singh (1971) isprobablyrightinhisadmonition to Canadiansthat they cannot form adistinct national sociologybysimply criticizing American sociology. If one is careful with his use of the word"indigenous" he would most likely realize that it is not something "formed" butsomething"recognized" or "discovered" by outsiders.

Just likeeverything else, "indigenization" canbeviewed fromwithin the cultureorfromwithout. Aninsider understandably sees nothingreally excitingaboutindigenizationasheviews it from within. After all, the indigenous isthe givenin hisculture. It isthestarting pointanditcontinues to evolve in timeasaprecondition to theculture's survival.The ideathat "indigenization" shouldbeencouraged canonlycomefrom without.Onecannot blame an insider if he senses a patronizing attitude if he is told that"indigenization" isthe "in-thing"to do asifthe indigenous hasto becratedor formedor asif it indigenizationhasto becreatedor formed or asif it doesnot existto beginwith.Allthat mightbeneeded isthe institutionalization and!or political legitimizationof the indigenous.

Conversely, if oneviews indigenizations fromoutside theculturethen hewouldseeit asareaction, or asadeliberate process, or evenasfragmented typesor strategies but notasatotal realityinherent in the culture.For example, an insidersees the useofanativelanguageaspart of an overall concern for the study and application of indigenouspsychological theories andmethods relevant to thenative experience andthought,whilethe outsidersees it asan alternative to the useof anexogenous language.

In thefirstprintedEnglish language bookon psychological testing in the Philippinesetting (Carreon, 1923), it canbeseen thatFilipinoeducational psychologists insisted Onmodifying items foundinpsychological tests asafirst steptowardsthefull indigenizationofPhilippine mentaltesting. Thiswasbecause the tests andtheirunderlying conceptionwereborrowed. Thisispreciselythetype of"indigenization" whichisgenerallyappreciatedand understood outsidethe confinesof the nativeculture. What is ignored is the factthat the nativeculturehastime-tested waysofmentalandbehavioral assessment whichneednot be"indigenized" for they arealreadyindigenous to the culture.It isthe mainargument of this paper that indigenouspsychology focuses on such elements in theculture.

20 •

At the riskofbelaboring apoint,"indigenization"fromwithoutcanactually beaformof" modernization"or "westernization," aslogan to assuage the Third World culturesto hospitably receive whattheywouldotherwise reject. "Westernization" whileattractiveto somebecause ofadesire for the "goodlife" isparadoxically rejected in the sameveinbecausepeople do not want the change in "life style" and values that goeswith it."Modernization," for itspart, isseenmore asachallenge than athreat to the indigenousculture;in fact, issimplyimpels the traditionalcultureto movetowardsprogress. Evengranting that "westernization" is an imposition from the outside, "modernization"must beseenasamotivatedchange from within the culture (except that in many cases,westernersshow a greateramount of enthusiasmin this endeavor asagentschange). •"Indigenization" from without evengoes further than modernizationin itsappealasapoint of departure for social science and theory. It cutsevendeeper into the sensitiveissueof culture change.To put it bluntly, this form of "indigenization" can only benecessary if oneistryingto transportanexogenous element intotheculture. {please referto Figure 1for aschematicdiagramon this point). The flow isstill the same,we onlyemphasize thedirection bycalling it 'indigenization." How aboutchanging thedirectionof flow and arguing for the decolonization of social science? Anthropologists andsociologists have recently examined "decolonization": psychologists whodocross-culturalwork should likewisebe sensitive to the meaningof their work in the context of thethird World reactionto their otherwiseobjective andscientific studies(Keesing, 1976;Stauffer, 1975).

Rationale for the indigenous perspective

The indigenous perspective isofcoursemotivatedby the searchfor universals. AsJacob (1977), in another but similarly motivatedcontext,puts it,

.....the variablesaffecting human relations may differ radicallyacrossnationalcultures, sothat studies withinonecountrywillnot provideadequate evidence foruniversal generalizations about social dynamics. At leastone cannot tellwithoutconductingcomparative studies in anumber ofdiffering culturalsituations.

Jacob happensto beaheadof this time. He isquite right in sayingthat "commontoolsandtechniques areessential for successful comparative research, andthey must berelevantto the circumstances beinginvestigated." However,suchtoolsandtechniqueshaveto be identified andrefined, Eventhe "simple" taskofaskingquestions canhaveavarietyof parameters to makeitsusein onesituationin the sameculturedifferentfromits use in another. More so ifyou havea number of cultural settings involved. Evenassumingthat the questionsare "the same" (aftera seriesof translations, calibrationaccordingto functional equivalence, contextualization, etc.),the answersmay lendthemselves to avariety ofinterpretations. (See Rubin,1976 on "howto tellwhensomeoneissaying'no'" andTorres, 1973 on "the Filipino'yes").

While peoplefind it easyto appreciate indigenousconcepts(thisisby no meansaclosed issue, Cf.Bonifacio, 1976), theyshowinitial puzzlementwhenthe"radical culturalrelativistic" tell them about indigenousmethods. It isexcruciatinglyhard to liberate

•

•

•

• 21Figure1.Indigenization accordingto sourceanddirectionandculture flow

•

•

INDIGENOUS

Identification ofkeyindigenous concepts/methods/theories

~Semantic elaboration

~Indigenous codification or re-codification

~Systematization/Explication ofimpliedtheoretical freworks

Application/Use

~EXOGENOUS

Comparison withothertheories, methods,techniques, etc.

INDIGENIZATIONFROMWITHIN

Basis: TheindigenousDirection: Outwards(Culture-as-source)

INDIGENOUS

Cultureassimilation indigenous versions ofimportedsystems

Indi. . i

gemzanon as strategy

Th ··dit .eorencin gemzanont

Contentindigenization; textmodification;translation ofimported materials

1EXOGENOUS

Transfer oftechnology; modernization

INDIGENIZATIONFROMWTIHOUT

Basis: TheexogenousDirection: Inwards(Cultural-as-target]

oneselfof ethnocentric biasespecially when "your way" hasbeen adopted and usedinmany situations and placesin the world. In any case,it can be reasonably argued thatsimplybecause thequestionnaire hasevolved into atechnologyor evenanindustryin theUnited StatesofAmerica, it doesnot follow that it should beusedin the third World.

• Simply becausethe interview hasbeen tossedabout and refined (in certain particularways) in the West(fromresearch to therapy), it does not meanthethirdWorld researchershouldlearnto doittheWesternway.(See, forexample,Feliciano, 1965;de Vera, Montano,and Angeles, 1975; de PeraltaandRacelis, 1974; Santiago, 1975).

Jacob (1977) sees that "too much ofsocial science isguiltyof influentialpropositionsgivenabroad applicabilityeventhough basedon monocultural explorations." To thiscan be addedthe useof influentialwestern methods. Suchwholesaleuse issometimestempered by token modifications but nonetheless genuine interest in reliability andvalidity. In any case,little isheard or written about the issueof appropriateness andwastefulness. Researchers actuallygoto the farm or the mountains with questionnairesin a languagethe people do not truly comprehend even granting that said languageis

•

22

considered official in thecountryofresearch. It isonethingto use English or Frenchasatouristbut anotherto use it asaresearcherfor one'sPh.D.dissertation.

The idea ofcostvalidity isimportant.Some approaches canbeveryexpensive byThirdWorldstandards andshouldbecarefullyweighed in termsof relative efficiencyversus costandimmediacy ofneed. Iftheresults canwaitanotheryear, itmightevenbepractical fromthepointofview ofresource training andinstitution building not to relyheavily on machines. TheThirdWorld'sstrength isin itspeople.

Insteadof arguingabout the relative merits of influential methods, the cross-indigenous perspective may beviewed in the lightsof Campbelland Fiske's (1959)argument forthe multi-method approach. Thecross-indigenous methodisacall forthemultilanguage-multiculture approach based on indigenous viewpoints (d. Enriquez,1975). Evenifit isgranted that theuse ofaforeign language andculturedoes not distortsocial reality intheindigenous culture, it still makes agreat deal ofsense forscientific andnotmaudlin reasons to use thelocal languages andcultures assources fortheory, method,andpraxis. AsAlfonso (1977) puts it, the exclusive useof asupposedly internationallanguage "canleadto the neglect of the wealthof indigenous concepts and methodsembodied in alanguage moremeaningful to theculture." She argues that "developingandfollowing aFilipino orientation intheconduct ofresearch andteaching inpsychologyisnot inconsistent withthegoals ofpsychology asascience insearch foruniversities butrather acontribution to it." In fact, the cross-indigenous method better assures andbases. Thefindings ofWestern based psychology asapplied in research andpractice inaThirdWorldcountry using aWestern language andorientation canverywell be anartifactofthe language andthe method.

NarES

IA presidential address to the Psychological Association of the Philippines on its 4thAnnual National Convention, Alumni Hostel, University of the Philippines, Diliman, QuezonCity,May7-8,1977.

2 The word "psychology" is given an even broader meaning than the more common usagein western psychology when it refers not only to discipline or field of study, but also to aprofession.

•

.'

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

23

REFERENCES

Aguinaldo, E. M. (Message). (1973). Deliveredat the openingof the National AssemblyinMalolos, Bulacan, September 15, 1978. InAt theHelm oftheNation; InauguralAddresses ofthePresident ofthePhilippineRepublicandthe Commonwealth, Compiled byC. V.Fonacier.Manila: NationalMedia ProductionCenter, 1-6.

Alfonso, A.B.(1977). Towards developing Philippines Psychology: Language-related issues inteaching andresearch. Paperprepared for theFourthConference ofAsian Association onNationalLanguages, UniversityofMalaysia, Kuala Lumpur,Malaysia, April25-30.

Berry,].W.Introduction ofjournalofCross-eulturalPsychology, 8,131-133.Bonifacio, A. (1976). Hinggil sakaisipang Pilipino. Ulat ngUnang Pambansang Kumprehensyasa

Sikolohiyang Pilipino. EditedbyL. F. Antonio,E.S.Reyes, R. E.PeandN. R. Almonte.QuezonCity:Pambansang Samahan saSikolohiyang Pilipino,

Boring,E. G. (1929).A History ofExperimental Psychology. NewYork:Appleton CenturyCrofts.Brislin,R. (1977). Ethical issues influencingthe acceptance and rejection of cross-cultural

researchers who visitvarious countries. Issues in Cross-Cultural Research (Annals oftheNewYorkAcademy ofSciences). Editedby L.L. Adler, 285,185-202.

Campbell, D. T. & Fiske, D. (1959). Convergent anddiscriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56,82-105.

Carreon,M. (1923). Philippine Studies inMentalMeasurement. NewYork:WorldBook,1923.Chirino, P. (1890). Relacion de lasIslas Filipinas. Rome: 1604; 2ndEd.:Manila: Imprentade

Esteban Balbas. Cited by the historian A. Agoncilloin his introduction to the bookIntroduce toModern Pilipino Literature, Editedby E. SanJuan,Jr. New York: TwaynePublishers,Inc. 1974,3,228.

Constantino, R. (1970). DissentandCounter Consciousness. QuezonCity:Malaya Books, Inc,DePeralta, P. & Racelis, A.D. (197~). Mga uringpahiwatig. SikolinggwistikangFilipino. Edited

byV.G. Enriquez. QuezonCity:University ofthe Philippines Press.DeVera, M.G. A., Montano, A.& Angeles, E.A. (1975). Angrnetodo ngpagtatanong-tanong.

Report preparedfor Psychology 180 (Social Psychology), College of Arts andSciences,Universityof the Philippines (November11).

Elequin,E. (1974). Educational Goals,Aims, andObjectives. Report of aStudyby a workinggroupin Asia. UNESCO-NierRegional Programme for Educational Research in Asia.Tokyo,Japan:NationalInstitutefor Educational Research.

Enriquez, V.G.Mga batayan ngSikolohiyangPilipino sakultura atkasaysayan. GeneralEducationjournal, 29 (FirstSemester 1975-1976), 61-88.

Feliciano, G. (1965). The limitsofWesternsocial research methodsin ruralPhilippines: theneedfor innovation. Lipunan, 1, (1), 114-128.

Francisco, L. (1973). The firstVietnam-the Philippine-American War of 1899-1902. LettersofExile:An introductory readeronthehistory ofFilipinos inAmenca. Edited byJ.Quinsar, LosAngeles: Resource Development andPublications, UCLAAsian American Studies versiontakenfrom The BulletinforConcernedAsian Scholars, December 1973, p. 2-16,whichfirstappeared in "The Philippines:End of an Illusion" published by the AssociationforRadical AsianStudies in London.

Graumann, E.F. (1972). Thestateofpsychology (pan one). Internationaljoumal ofPsychology,7 (2), 123-134.

Hayter,T. (1971). AidasImperialism. Middlesex, England: Penguin.Jacob, P. E. (1977). Paper includedin BondWithout Bondage. Honolulu: Culture Learning

Institute,East-West, Center.Kaut, C. R. (1961). Utang-na-loob: a system of contractual obligation among Tagalogs.

Southwestern journalofAnthropology, 17,256-272.Keesing, R. M. (1976). CulturalAnthropology:A Contemporary Perspective. New York:Holt,

RinehartandWinston.

24

Kumar,K. (1976). Indigenization andtransnational cooperationin the Social Sciences. Paperfor the conference on "Emerging Issues in Culture Relations," Honolulu, December9-10.

Lee, Z. (1976). Tungosapagbuo ngteoryasaSikolohiyang Pilipino. Invitedseminarfor aclassin Psychology 150 (personality). Diliman,QuezonCity:Universityof the Philippines,

Mendez,P. P. (1976). Sikolohiyang Pilipino at angedukasyon.Ulat ngUnang PambansangKumperensya sa SikolohiyangPilipino. QuezonCity:PambansangSamahan saSikolohiyangPilipino, 124-134.

Munoz,A. N. (1971). The Filipino inAmerica. LosAngeles: Mountain-View Publishers.Murphy,G. & Murphy,L.B.(Eds.). (1968). AsianPsychology. NewYork Basic Book.Navarro, J. (1974). The flightof the newly-arrived immigrants.Diwang Pilipino (pilipino

Consciousness). Edited byJ.Navarro. Davis, California: Asian American Studies, DepartmentofAppliedBehavioral Sciences, Universityof California.

O'Connell,D.C. (1970). Thechanging faces ofEuropean psychology: Germany. Paperpresentedat the meetingofthe American Psychological Association, MiamiBeach, September. .

Quinsaat,D.C. (1976). Anexercise on howto jointheNavyandstillnot seethe world.Lettersin Exile, 96-111. Alsoin Counterpoint:Perspectives onAsianAmerica. Editedby E. Gee.LosAngeles: AsianAmerican Studies Center,UniversityofCalifornia, 97-105.

Reyes, R. M. (1968). SaMgaKuko ngLiwanag: Nobela. Manila: Liwayway Publishing.Rubin,J. (1976). How to tellwhensomeone issaying "no." Topics inCultureLearning, 4,61-

65.Samonte, E. (1973). Kabuuan ngmgakahulugan ngmgasalitasalarangan leksikal ng"loob."

Unpublished paper.Diliman, QuezonCity:University of thePhilippines.Santiago, C. E. (1975). Angkahulugan ngpagkalalake samgaPilipino. SikolohiyangPilipino:Mga

PilingPapel, 4,November.Sechrest, L. & Guthrie, G. (1974). Psychologyof, by, and. for Filipinos.Philippine Studies:

Geography,Archeology, Psychology, andLiterature: SpecialReport No. 10CenterforSoutheastAsianStudies, Northern illinoisUniversity, 44-70.

Singh, A. (1970). Nationalized social sciences andteaching ofsociology in Canada: Asociologyof sociologyapproachPaperpresentedat the CanadianSociology and AnthropologyAssociation's Meetings atEdmonton,May.

Stauffer, R. B.Westernvalues and the case for Third World culturaldisengagement. Paperpresentedto aconference on "InterculturalTransaction for the Future," helda the East-WestCulturalLearning Institute,Honolulu,Hawaii, June 22-26.

Torres,E: A. (1973). Analysis ofthe meaning ofyesamongFilipinocollege students. QuezonCity:Universityof the Philippines, October 7.

Watson,R. I. (1963). Tbe Great Psychologistsfrom Aristotle toFreud. Philadelphia: Lippincott.Zialcita, F.N. (1976). Historyasaprocess inQuijanodeManila. 1beManilaReuiew, December,

2, (4), 20-35..

•

•

•

•