"lIlippint' }num#l III 'rrc'tn/t"lf ..1971, Vol. ,n,NII. I, J.18

' ... I, '., " 1. "

•

•

FIliPINO PSYCHOLOGY IN THETHIRD WORLDI

VIRGILIO G. ENRIQUEZ

Department ofPsychologyUniversity ofthe Philippines

The paper focuses on the psychology of the Filipinos and discusses Filipinopsychology as a discipline in the context of universal psychology and the ThirdWorld. The author argues that the Filipino experience can reasonably be viewed interms of the realities of the relationship between the West and the Third World. Adistinction is made between Filipino values and panlnlndigan. It is noted thatwhat has previously been identified as values among the Filipinos are not really asimportant as his panlnlndigan. The author also criticizes token use of Filipinoconcepts while 'mainta~ foreign categories of analysis that only lead to adistortion of Philippine realities and a furtherance of the miseducation of theFilipinos.

A call is made for indigenous research using concepts and methods that arerelevant to the culture.

For this year's convention, we chose "TheSocial Responsibility of Psychologists" astheme. Part' of this responsibility as Filipinosocial scientists is to help contribute towardsthe understanding of the psychology of the

• Filipino in particular and Philippinesociety andculture in general. For this reason, the presentpaper consists of two parts. The first partfocuses on the psychology of the Filipino whilethe second part discusses Filipino psychology asa discipline in the context of universal psycho­logyand the Third World.

IVALUES AND PANININDIGAN:

UNDERSTANDING THE PSYCHOLOGYOF THE FILIPINO

• From the psychological point of view it isparticularly difficult to address the question"Who is the Filipino? " One might try to settlethe issue on legal grounds and havea definitionon the basis of birth or geographic origin orblood. While these criteria might be convenientand fairly easy to understand and utilize, theyare unfortunately far from adequate from the

... 1A presidential address to the Psychological Asso-ciation of the Philippines on its 14th Annual NationalConvention, Alumni Hostel. University of the Phi­lippines, Dillman, Quezon City, May 7·8, 1977.

3

psychological perspective. Considerations ofhistorical background or socio-cultural :charac­teristics are not adequate either. Birth andblood, geography and citizenship, history andcultural background are all important to under­standing the Filipino but the question "Who isthe Filipino?" cannot be adequately answeredfrom the psychological perspectiveunlessatten­tion is focused on Filipino identity, image (be itself-image or projected image or ster~otyped

image) and consciousness.

Filipino identity is not static; a Filipino'sself-image as a Filipino can be as varied as hisbackground; it goes without saying that not allFilipinos are alikebut regardless of all these, hisconsciousness of being a Filipino psycholo­gically defines him as one, no matter how hesees and defines the Filipino. Consciousness ofbeing a Filipino does not necessarily bnply avalid awareness of the Filipino situation, pre­dicament and social reality but it does Imply anintimate knowledge of his personal experienceas an individual Filipino. This personal expe­rience and knowledge starts with lVs firstawareness and contact with the non-Pilipino,possibly a visitor, or a missionary, or a trader inthe Philippines, or a native of another 9<>untrywhom the Filipino meets should he himselftravel outside the Philippines. Awareness ofbeing a Filipino implies identification 'Yith the

I

4

I I·

VIRGILIO G. ENRIQUEZ

papino as a people not just through empathyand concern but as one of them. Some Filipinosmay not "behave" like a Filipino according tostereotypes or expectations, they may not evenlook Filipino but the more important psycho­logical element is there: he identifies and thinksas a Filipino; he also acts accordingly. Thisdefinition is valid, barring delusions such as thatof the three "Christs" in a mental hospital inYpsilanti.

• M .As ufioz (1971 :161) puts it: "A Filipino is'anyone who feels and thinks he is - who sayshe is. It is a definition he does not just want tobe smart about. It is something he has come tobelieve in, deeply and honestly."

The Filipino Experience and the Third World.

The Filipino experience both at home andabroad can reasonably be viewed in terms ofthe realities of the relationship between theWest and the Third World; the dominant andtie minority culture; the colonizer and thecolonized. In addition, his experience includes agrowth in consciousness as he hurdles hissub-national regional identity towards a na­tional identity. The llocano is as Filipinoas his Cebuano or Bicolano compatriot. Heis as Filipino as the Chinese-Filipino and themestizo who "feels, thinks, and says" he isFilipino. (For a discussion on the so-calledFilipino hyphenates, see Munoz, 1971: 115­150). Furthermore, he is an Asian. He is anAsian together with the Chinese, the Koreanand the Japanese but he sees his roots not onlyin Asia. His country is in the Pacific. He seestrinity with the Indonesians, the native Ha­waiians, and the Malayo-polynesians for he isone. He has a socio-cultural background whichrelates him not only to the Christians but alsoto the Muslims. His country had "specialrelations" with the United States after the firstVietnam: the Philippine-American war of 1899­1902 "with apologies to Mexicans, AmericanIndians, and other early victims of imperialism"~·rancisco, ·1973).

By whatever name, "benevolent assimila­tion," "westernization" or "modernization,"

and in all stages of his history, he has a cultureand identity of his own. An early Jesuitmissionary, Chirino (1604) himself admittedhow members of his religious order destroyedabout three hundred Tagalog manuscripts inBalayan, Batangas, an act which 370 yearssomehow cannot erase in the despair and angerwhich a scholar of Filipino literature telt andexpressed (Hosillos, 1969). The Filipino and hisculture is an ongoing process. The destructionof manuscripts does not entail the destructionof the culture. The Filipino continues to buildand to grow, to fail and to succeed, 10 evolveandto triumph. It can be seen in his towns andcities; it is reflected in the growth of settle­ments that are transformed into cities (Zialcita,1976), be it Manila or Cebu, The process wasconcretized as success in a ceremony such aswhen Emilio Aguinaldo (1898) made his inau­gural address as president of the First Republicof the Philippines. As a collective conscious­ness, he has his most pleasant and most painfulexperiences called "peak" and "nadir' expe­riences by Maslow, the psychologist. His dis­appointments can be many but I choose not todiscuss them at this point.

A distinction can be made between filipinovalues and paninindigan which closely appro­ximates the English words "commitment" and"conviction." What has been previously iden­tified as values among the Filipinos are notreally as important as his paninindigan: It canbe argued that the Filipino commitments andconvictions should be given as much attentionas his supposed values.

The following has been identified as some ofthe more enduring paninindigan: \poggaJang atpagmamalasakit (respect and concern), pag­tulong at pagdamay (helping), pagpuno sakakulangan (understanding limitations), pakiki­ramdam (sensitivity and regard! for others),gaan ng loob (rapport and acceptance), andpakikipagkapwa (human concern and inter­action as one with others).

The token use of Filipino concepts and thelocal language have led to the identification ofsome supposedly Filipino national values.

- -----------------FILIPINO PSYCHOLOGY IN THE THIRD WORLD 5

• Among the more frequently mentioned valuesare hiya (shame), pakikisama (yielding to theleader or the majority), utang na loob (gradi­tude), amor propio (sensitivity to personalaffront), and bayanihan (togetherness in com­mon effort). Some regional values which havebeen recognized include rnaratabat (a complexcombination of pride, honor, and shame),balatu (sharing one's fortune), ilus (sharingsurplus food), kakugi (meticulousness and at-

• tention to detail), patugsiling (compassion),kalulu (empathy), hatag-gusto {pagbibigay],paghiliupod [katapatan or faithfulness in needor in plenty), and pagsinabtanay (fidelity withone's promises). (See Elequin, 1974).

Navarro (1974) very clearly called attentionto the mis-education of the Filipino as original­ly articulated by Constantino (1970) and ap­propriately zeroed in on colonization of theFilipino mind:

Take western psychology for instance. It• generally takes the position that the individual

is mostly. to be blamed for his psychologicalproblems. The sooner he accepts his problems,the faster the psychological intervention isprovided, thus facilitating adjustment to hisenvironment. A Pilipino psychologist who sub­scribes to such a tenet by itself is ignorant ofhis country's history and lacks a total gasp ofthe psycho-social and political problems of thePhilippine society. (p. 24)

Navarro sees the colonizers as having a hand onthe decadence of the colonized society; thepoverty and the uneven distribution of wealth.She argues that "to the extent that the Pilipino,

• after the end of his academic training, tries toexplain away the problems of the Pilipinosaccording to the white man's concept of theetiology of mental illness, he continues themiseducation process."

Effective treatment is by no means limitedto Western psychology. It did not start withCharcot and Freud. In the Phlllpplnes, it started

• with the babaylans way before Chirino tookhold of any indigenous manuscripts to destroyand supplant with western belief systems.

The problems with the token use of Filipino

psychological concepts in the context of awestern analysis that relies on the Englishlanguage and English categories of analysis aremany. It no doubt can lead to the distortion ofPhilippine social reality and the furtherance ofthe mis-education of the Filipinos. It is nocoincidence that Kaut (1961) hit upon utangnaloob as a key concept for the analysis ofTagalog interpersonal relations considering thatutang na loob is just one among many psycho­social concepts that relate to the theoreticallyfertile concept of loob. We have sama ng loob,kusang loob, takas ng loob, and many manyothers. Samonte (1973) needed no less thanthree pages just to list down such concepts. Inaddition, Kaut himself admitted that "debt ofgratitude" is not altogether unknown in Wa­shington, D.C. Even Americans recognize utangna loob, they just happen to prefer kaliwaan orimmediate pay-offs whenever possible. To arguethat utang na loob is a Filipino value istherefore misleading, to say the least, anddangerous at best. Utang na loob would becovenient in perpetuating the colonial status ofthe Filipino mind. For example, the Filipinoshould be grateful for "American aid" re­gardless of how much it is shown to be a formof imperialism (Hayter, 197n). It is interestingto contrast the social implications of sama ngloob or kusang loob or takas ngloob to that ofutang na loob.

Pakikisama is another supposed value whichwas identified by western-oriented social scien­tists during the period of token use of theFilipino language in Philippine Social Science.In fact, said token use is still persisting to datein many schools in the JPhilippines because ofthe continued use of English as medium ofinstruction and research in social science byFilipino social scientists. Because of this ano­malous situation, even otherwise perceptiveFilipino social scientists were led to forget thatpakikisama is just one among many levels andmode of interaction in Filipino indigenouspsychology. Pakikitungo (transaction/civilitywith), pakikisalimuha (interaction with), paid­kilaho k (joining/participating with), pakiki­bagay (in consonance within accord with),

6

" ! , •

VIRGILIO G. ENRIQUEZ

f/flkikisama (being along with), pakikipag­palagayanjpakikipagpalagayang loob (being inrapport/understanding/acceptance with), andpakikiisa (being one with) have been identifiedas some of the more important levels and modeof interpersonal relations in Filipino. In ourPAP paper last year, Santiago presented saidconcepts not only as interrelated modes ofinterpersonal relations but also as levels ofinteraction which ordinally ranges from the

4lelatively uninvolved civility in pakikitungo tothe total sense of identification in pakikiisa:

Just like in utang na loob, it.is reasonable tolook at the attention given to pakikisama asconsistent with the mis-education of the Fili­pino. In Dissent and Counter-consciousness,Constantino (1970) argued how the academicianas recipient ofmiseducation can very well be thePhilippine society's mis-educator instead of

professing the new consciousness. Social scien­tists who unwittingly yank out the concept ofpakikisama from pakikitungo, pakikibagay,'akikisalimuha, pakikipagpalagayang-Ioob, andpakikiisa and then elevate it to a status of valueis at the same time reinforcing (intentionally orunintentionally) "skills and talents... sold tothe highest bidder - usually the elite and vestedinterest groups. Without question they rewarddocility, conformity and western orientation.The logical consequence is that they are nega­tive on social protest" (Navarro, 1974). Moreaccurately it is not pakikisama as value which isimportant but pakikipagkapwa as a Filipinopaninindigan; Take the supposed social value ofpakikisama; It is not even clear if one should

.ccept and identify pakikisama as a Filipinovalue. If it is truly a value, how do we explainthe many people who insists on their pagkataoand karapatan and say out right ayaw kongmakisama: Supposing one does not want tohave a part of corruption, he is identified ashindi marunong makisama. If he does not carefor docility, conformity and the western orien­tation, he is walang pakisama: What kind of

trctlue is that? What self-Image does that createfor the Filipino, should social scientists per­petuate such an idea? It is probably under­standable for a westerner interested in Philip-

pine society to jump to the conclusion thatpakikisama is a Filipino value. After all, he isnot immersed in the culture, his interests andgoals are different, and he does not evenunderstand the language. However, the Filipinoshould marshal his knowledge as a culturebearer and as speaker of the language toheighten his awareness of Philippine socialreality. The taken use of Filipino in Philippinesocial science work is even more dangerous thannot using it at all. Nagpilipino pa. Iningles nalang sanang lahat. Mabuti na .'sa siguro ifpeople talk about "smooth interpersonal rela­tions" and "split-level personality." At least thediscussion is alien to Filipino mass conscious­ness and remains to be so for as long as the

. concepts are delivered in a western language.

Instead of a token use of Filipino, full use ofthe language would easily and naturally avoidthe pre-occupation with words as against boundmorphemes and the fear that such wordscannot be translated to English. Presumablybecause of this fear pseudotranslations' becomeassociated with the Filipino word as if lit is an .accurate equivalent (e.g., hiya as "shame" andnot as "propriety"). The Filipino language hasan elaborate system of affixation which Englishlacks. Instead of getting fixated witlh the word"hiya" the Filipino social scientist should makeuse of the resources of his language and I?myattention to the prefix napa- or nakaka- or ikina­as in napahiya, nakakahiya, and ikina(hi)hiy(!"As Bonifacio (1976) correctly noted each ofthese differ in meaning from one another.Similarly, it can be argued that the prefixpaki­in pakikisama is even more important than theroot word sama. Clearly the prefix introducesan important psychological or "humanizing"role. For example, usap literally means "talk"but pakiusap tranforms it to a request. Further'more, ignoring the preflx and being word­oriented (which makes more sense with theEnglish language but not with Filipino) makethe western-oriented social scientist ignore theconnections between pakikisama and pakikibakaor pakikialam, for example.

In spite of the fact that western psychology

prising people offered their love and attentionfor a fee to terminal patients. This isunthinkable in the Philippines but it turr:.ed outto be a financially successful program in theUnited States.

It is by no means claimed that everyone isagreed that there is a Filipino way of expressingemotions. Bonifacio (1976) argued that thereare no Filipino concepts since concepts areuniversal. Some also claim that the expressionof emotions among humans is universal. How.ever, I would like to share with you an examplefrom Lee's (1976) characterization of the wayFilipinos react to frustration. "Ano ba augginagawa ng Pilipino kapag siya'y nabibigo? Sa

Pakikipagkapwa as a paninindigan does notsimply imply either pakikitungo or pakikisamaor any of the other mentioned modes and levelsof inter-action. Pakikipagkapwa is much deeperand profound in its implications. It also meansaccepting and dealing with the other person asan equal: The company president and the clerkin an office may not have equivalent roles,statuses, or incomes but the Filipino waydemands and implements the idea that theytreat one· another as fellow human beings[kapwa tao). This means a regard for thedignity and being of others. "Madaling magingtao, mahirap magpakatao. "

Coping with change in a new situation orenvironment.

Aside from the sccio-psychological dimen­sian, pakikipagkapwa has a moral and norma.tive aspect as a value and paninindigan. Situa­tions change and relations vary according toenvironment. For example, pakikipagkapwa isdefinitely inconsistent with exploitative humantransactions. Giving the Filipino a bad deal is achallenge to kapwa tao. The question at thisjuncture is "What coping strategies do Filiplnosuse in a hostile environment?" This question isactually related to the question "How doFilipinos express their feelings and erno­tions?" Said questions are most interestingfrom the point of view of psychological reosearch and theory.

7

Should the Filipino get sick, he is curedphysically with drugs and medical aid butsocio-psychologically with fruits beside himwhich he may not even eat. More importantly,he has people: friends and relatives. Even a

• room in a supposedly modern hospital whichsays "strictly no visitors" as you enter proves tobe crowded with people. It was in Californiawhen in the early seventies, a group of enter-

FILIPINO PSYCHOLOGY IN THE THIRD WORLD

-looms large in psychological work in the Philip­pines, especially in western-oriented univer­sities, the full use of Filipino has led to theidentification of the value pakikipagkapwawhich is surely more important than pakiki­sama. The barkada (peer group) would not behappy with the walang pakisama but Philippinesociety at large cannot accept the walang kapwatao. Pakikipagkapwa is both a paninindigan anda value. It includes all the other mentioned

• modes and levels of interaction. Pakikisama is aform of pakikipagkapwa but not the other wayaround. In fact, pakikisalimuha is even closerthan pakikisama in meaning to pakikipagkapwa:In a manner of speaking, the Filipino is neveralone. He has a companion from birth tilldeath. When the social scientist interviews theFilipino, there is someone also listening in theroom and perhaps a crowd of curious neighborseavesdropping or peeking by the window (SeeFeliciano, 1965). As a child, the Westernermight pity him for not having as many toys to

• play with but actually, it is the Filipino childwho pities the Westerner for not having asmany friends and playmates, and for not havingas many brothers and sisters who care andhordes of cousins with whom to enjoy tumbangpreso or patintero or sipa. He may not have atoy car or a doll imported from the UnitedStates for such toys are better kept anddisplayed in the eskaparate: Baka masira; butsurely he can playas much as he wants with thelata ng sardinas 110 may gulong. In fact hiscreativity was first challenged most likely, by themany toys he himself had to construct as a

• child. In any case, the Filipino child wasnurtured with games more than with toys. Forinstance, he deals with people and learns torelate with others at an early age.

8

, ' . !\\

VIRGILIO G. ENRIQUEZ

pl-ibig, halimbawa. Papaano ito ipinapahayagsa kanyang awit?" The example he gave is theTagalogsong "Ako'y iniwan mo." Compare thisto the English "Oh no, you don't love me nomore, no more."

This topic can be approached by callingattention to Reyes (1968) description of adog's reaction to being lashed by someone. Saiddescription was prominently printed together.th announcements for the Filipino. movie"Maynila: Sa Kuko ng Liwanag." It says "Angaso sa unang hagupit ay magtataka. 'Bakitniya ginagawa sa akin ito?' Sa ikalawang hagu­pit, ang aso'y mag-iisip. 'Ano ang aking kasala­nan? Bakit ako inaapi?' " After all, the dog issupposedly man's best friend. Is this what hegets for being loyal to his master? Who knows,the master might be testing his patience andunderstanding. Baka sakaling medyo umungolang aso ni Reyes sa ikalawang hagupit. Suba­lit "Sa ikatlong hagupit," ayon kay Reyes,'fjumanda ka:" There is a theory which saysthat Reyes' dog is a Filipino dog. Not all dogsare like that. Some dogs growl and seem readyto bite you even before -you deliver the firstlash. There are at least two theories to charac­terize the American dog. For example, (l) theyeither growl a lot without biting (Nandudurolamangjtigreng papel) or (2) they attack orbite at every lash. (Ganti-ganti lamang; an eye­fer-an-eye ).

While Reyes' dog seem Filipino, based onstereotypes, it can reasonably be argued thatone should not rely on such a stereotype tooMuch. In fact, it is a distortion of the Filipinoresponse to codify his reaction to exploitationas essentially that of silence and pagtitiis. Kungtumahimik man ang Pilipino, ito'y sapagkatsiya'y nag-iisip. Maling isipin na siya ay hindikikibo. It is wrong to assume that as a copingmechanism he accepts his fate with resignationor fatalism [bahak: 11Q has been mis-used toperpetuate this idea). While there is some truth~ the observation that Filipinos do not ver­bally display their emotions at slightest stimu­lation, we should not forget the adeptness ofthe Filipino with non-verbal cues (known as

pahiwatig in Filipino) and the elaborate art Ofpakiramdaman; not only in courtship but moteimportantly, in everyday interactions. A nega­tive emotion or reaction may not be expressedright away in the form of verbal abuse but theFilipino's silence is sometimes misinterpretedby the uninitiated as either acquiescence orresignation. This is far from the truth. In Ilculture which is alive and vibrant because of adisposition toward lighthearted banterring andjoking relationshipseven a painful batok is notright away answered with a suntok: It is aculture where the lambing is meaningfulbecause people test limits and test reactions, inlove .and jest. It is a culture where the Tagalogtampa and the Cebuano mahay exist becauseexpectations are not met by someone whoshould know better. In fact, there are peoplewho sometimes misread the lambing or evenfind the biro (joke) intolerable. They arepiqued by the jesting and teasing. In a culturewhere light-hearted bantering seldom occurs,thin-skinned people who would object to suchbantering (called pikon in Filipino, would notbe noticed. But what if the "biro" turns out tobe maliciously motivated? Or as Filipinos say"Hindi na biro yan pare ko." The Filipinoresponse is to re-interpret the behavior asneither lambing nor biro but correctly sees thebehavior as pagsasamantala or in plain language"abuso. "

The Filipino would entertain the value ofpagbibigay only if there are doubts about themeaning of the behavior. Even if the abusivebehavior is not repeated, the absence of expla­nation or peace-making amends can lead to thetransformation of the tampa by perceptibledegrees to an outright hinanakit which isusually expressed nonverbally or throughindirect verbal means. Only the trusted friendor relative is given the privilege of suspendedcounter-provocation or suspended retaliation inthe form of samarig loob which eventually getsknown anyway, thru an intermediary. A short­term hinanakit and ~ comparatively longer term

.sama ng 100b can nurture into an overt gaUt."Ang tapayan kapag napuno ay umaapaw'' (Ajar when filled shall overflow) is a saying which

'd', 1._.', .'

FILIPINO PSYCHOLOGY IN THE THIRD WORLD 9

•

~pports the theory that Filipinos express theiremotions in a step-wise function. Injusticeaccumulates in bits before overt action is taken.

The Filipino in The Third World is not allsmiles and pakikisama. He knows the meaningof cooperation and concerted action to promotethe rights of a minority culture. He knows thatpakikibaka is just as valid an aspect of pakiki­pagkapwa in the face of injustice and adversity.

.If kapwa-tao is challenged, the Filipino copingresponse is not pakikisama but most defmitelypakikibaka even when he seems utterly power­less.

In Quiansaat's (1976) "An exercise on howto join the navyand still not see the world," wehave an example of a seemingly powerlessform of pakikibaka or exerting pressure:

The officers, some of them from the Southwere really very nasty, they thought you were amanservant through an act of congress, thatyou were inducted to be their personal servant.Well, some of them learned the hard way. Theydidn't know what was going on in the kitchen.Yeah, that's right, they didn't know how theircoffee was made with our socks that we hadworn for a week. And that some of their foodhad Filipino saliva in it. Sometimes it took awhile until someone told them that the worstenemy you could have viasyour steward.

There is nothing particularly Filipino about be­ing a "mabuting kaibigan, masamang kaaway,"Considering the situation, a person of anothernationality or background would have done asimilar thing. What is simply being argued atthis point is that one should not under-estimate

• the Filipino with supposed values such as paki­kisama when more accurately, it is pakikipag­kapwa that moves him. In addition, pakikibakais not alien to him, it is not even new to him, aFilipino should remember with pride thatMagellan did not make it in Mactan. (Angyabang kosi niya. Sabi ba naman sa mgaCebuano ay panoorin ninyo kung paano akonglumaban. Kawawa iyang si Lapu-lapung iyan sa

• akin). While he might have Magellan's statue inthe island today, it was because of Spanishinterest and Filipino pagblbigay, more thananything else.

OnFilipino Food andFilipino Culture.Concerning food, I am aware of at least two

arguments hurled to the Filipino, one from anoutsider (and therefore a non-Filipinoculture-bearer) and another from an insider(and therefore a "culture-bearer"). the outsiderclaims that "there is no such thing as Filipinofood." My initial reaction to this comment is"nonsense, you don't know what you aretalking about." In fact, I actually heard thisclaim made at a time when I was hankering forFilipino food. (Gusto kong dagukan, kaya langay nagpigil ako; I think that's an example ofhow Filipinos express emotions), The argumentgoes this way: Food is more social thanbiological in the Philippines, you get to see andtaste food when it is available and. visible. Themost dramatic example is the town fiesta. Andwhat do Filipinos serve? Chinese food, Spanishfood or American food but Filipino food isnowhere to be found. The well known adobo isSpanish, so is the sarciado, menudo, embutido,and morcon. Filipinos eat pan cit, Chop sui, andsio pao. That's Chinese. Even the Tagalog bistikis actually beef steak.

I don't know how many Filipinos buy thatkind of argument. I, for one, don't see anyvalidity in the argument quite apart from thefact that I can mention examples. of fineindigenous cooking unless someone turns upand claim that kare-kare is Indianor sinigang isIndonesian. An important reason for going intothis lengthy discussion is the fact that this kindof argument, while patently ridiculous, isprevalently and extensively used. The argumentbecomes more involved but used even inclaiming, that "there is no lPhiJipppineCulture." Similarly, it has been claimed that"there is no Philippine psychology." EverythingFilipino psychologists do is 3Jl1 extension ofwestern Psychology - a claim which shouldprove clearly false in the light of current workon Sikolohiyang Plliplno. In her explanation ofhow Philippine Culture and heritage is taught inschools, Mendez (1976) had to say:

Isang araw ay tinanong ako n~ isa kongapong sampung taong grllang. Ano ba anya angimpiuwensiya ng India so Pilipinas: Ako ay na·

VIRGILIO G. ENRIQUEZ

, .,~

10

•pohinto at nagulumihan: Sinabi ko sa sariliko -Ano kaya ang itinuturo sa ating mga mag-aaral?

At sinimulan ko nangbasahin angmga aklatng kasaysayan at social studies. Sa halip na akoay matuwaay nagngitnglt ako, at lalo akong lIa·lungkot liang aking suriin ang iba pang aklat sapaghahanda ko ng papel na ito. Hindi ko ila­lahad dito ang lahat ng tinatawag na influenceIta nabasa ko sapagkat napakahab« ang sino­sabing minana natin so mga lndiyo, sa mgaArabe, so mga Kastlla, sa mga Amerikano, sa

• mge Hapon. "Eh, saan naroroon atlgPilipino?"ang tanong ko sa isang superbisora 0 tagamasidng social studies. A ng kanyang sagotay ganito:"Iyan po "among mga naturang impluwensiyaay ayon sa mga dalubhasa," at binanggi; niyasino Dr. Pardo de Tavera, Dr. Otley Beyer, Dr.Fox at marami pang iba. ldinagdag pa, Gayun­paman, nanatili pa rin tayong Pilipino. AyonIIga naman sa scope and sequence na binanggitko, Filipino culture has a uniqueness of its own.

Ang sagot ko ay ganito: "Ang mga kaba­taang Pilipino ay dapat lumaking umiibig saating sariling bayatt.. dapat nilangipagmalaki nasila ay Pilipino: Dapat nilangdakilain ang kani­lang tinubuang lupa at ang ating kabihasnan.

• Paano natin mahuhubog ang kaisipang ito kungang ating ipamumulat sa'kanllang mga murangisip ay kung anu-anong minana 0 hiniram natinso iba't ibang bansa? Ang pagtukoy sa implu­wensiya ay nararapat sa mga may sapat nanggulang at hindi para sa mga musmos. Kung bagasa punongkahoy ay malalim na angmza ugat athindi no maibubuwal ng hanging amihan 0

habagat: Kung maliliit pa ang mga bata at ma·bubuksan ang isipan nila sa mga tinutukoy naimpluwensiya ay ana ang iisipin nila tungkol sakanilang sarili? Magkakaroon sila ng inferioritycomplex. Itulad natin sa isang batang pinagsa­bihan ng ganito: Hoy, Pedro, ang pangalan moay salitang Kastila; ang katapangan mo ay ,,0-

• mana mo sa iyong ama na binyag no Hapon.Kawawang Pedro! Saan nandoon ang kanyangpagko-Pilipino?

Ako'y nagpapasalamat at nagkaroon ako ngisang ama na nagsabi sa akin. "Pacita, bago kamag-aral IIg wikang Ingles ay pag-aralan momUlla ang Tagalog sapagkat ito ang wika natin."At siya na rin ani nagturo sa aking ng pagbasasa pamamagitan ng caton. Hindi niya binanggitsaakin na ang caton ay librongKastila.

• IIFIUPINO PSYCHOLOGY AS APERSPECTIVE

Psychology as a scientific discipline has been

"

partial to universal fmdings, or at least makesmodest claims to "generalizability." Thehistory of psychology as it has evolved in theWest and the Western tradition can beinterpreted as moving towards this goal. In asense, universality is the motive behind theseries of systematically replicated experimentsfrom rats to humans; from the laboratory tothe field. The psychologists are no longercontented with sophomore white students fromAmerican universities; they are now equallyinterested in Blacks and other groups. In fact,they have gone beyond the convenience ofcaptive university classes in the many countriesof the world and just like their colleagues inAnthropology would now occasionally risk theinconvenience of "mud huts and mosquitoes."While this development might not always bewelcomed as a socio-political development, Le.,more and more countries say no tocross-cultural researchers (Brislin, 1977), fit isprobably a turning point in the growth ofwestern psychology for the data base ofwesternpsychology is now much broader.

It should be stressed however that a broaderdata base is far from adequate in assuring auniversal psychology unless alternativeperspectives from non-western psychologies areput to use.

Rewriting the history ofpsychology.

Psychology as a field of knowledge in theWestern tradition has been treated historicallyby psychologists themselves (e.g., Boring, 1929;Watson, 1963). One may look at the field as ascience and date it back to 1879 or as has beena habit in the West, trace its history as a humanconcern to the Greeks. Psychologists wouldfind Aristotle's De Anima a reasonabledocument for a start should they want to tracetheir roots. It must be noted however thathistorians of psychology conscious!y orunconsciously drop the word "Western" Whenthey write about the history of We$ternpsychology. On t~e other hand, Asianpsychology (e.g., Murphy and Murphy, 19(8) isalways properly designated as such, "Asian."This state of affairs can continue and is

l' ,\III

, ! . 1'1

FILIPINO PSYCHOLOGY IN THE THIRD WORLD

•

•

•

•

•

admittedly understandable especially if theaudience consists of western scholars andreaders, exclusively.

Reference to national psychologies is notnew at all.Psychologists also talk. about Koreanpsychology, French psychology, Chinesepsychology, and Indian psychology, forexample. What should be made clear, however,is that they usually mean psychology inCommunist China or India or France (in theWestern tradition) and not Chinese psychologyor Indian Psychology in the Chinese or Indiantradition. It is no surprise, then, that Westernersfeel at home writing about the "psychologyof,by, and for" natives of a Third World countrywithout being immersed in the native culture orat least having learned the local language (e.g.,Sechrest and Guthrie, 1974). They must bereferring to Western psychology of, by, and forthe Third World. All these could very wellbe aproduct of a well-meaning interest in a formercolonial country or a commitment to thediscipline of psychology but the fact remainsthat the history of psychology has to berewritten so as to reflect the different bodies ofpsychological knowledge, formal or informal,found in the different cultures of the world. Ifthis is not done, what one has is at best ahistory of Western psychology with the word"Western" unsaid or unwritten.

On the unstated bias of the "dependency anduni-nationaldominance view in psychology.

A growing number of social scientists havelong been wary of the inappropriateness or evenpatent inapplicability of Western modelson theThird World setting. The problem can be diffi­cult or bafflingbecausemost of the peoplewhoexpress this kind of concern are precisely theThird World social scientists trained in the Westor the Western tradition. Reservations rangefrom a call to a local adaptation or modifica­tion of western models to outright charges of"intellectual dependence" and "academic im­perialism." However, there are some whoacknowledge the issues or problems but shrugthem off in the grounds that there are no othersuitable models and concepts to use anyway, In .

addition, there are those who see nothing atissue at all because they are convinced that anydeparture from the western approach isblasphemybefore the altar of science.

Issues along this line are not limited to theThird World countries in relation to the West. Itis also found in the West as can be gleaned fromGraumann's (1972) report as past president ofthe German Society of Psychology on the stateof German psychology. He noted O'Connell's(1970) perception of" ... a relatively uncriticaldependence on American psychology" as"thriving in Germanytoday." Graumann foundthis hard to deny because "at least 50% (oreven more likely 80%) of all psychologists illthe world live in the U.S.A. and a similar highpercentage of the more than 20,000 yearlypsychological publications are written inEnglish." .

This view needs to be re-examined not onlybecause of "the notable achievements of Sovietpsychology which are relatively .inaccessiblemainly due to the language barrrier" but moreso because of the invaluable resource lodged inotherwise ignored national psychologies,particularly from the Third World. Westernpsychologists themselves who rally under thebanner of "cross-cultural psychology" haveargued for a universal psychology ascontrasted from the psychofogy based ongeneralizations from studies done inindustrialized countries. While the argumentsare forceful and the sentiments real, a"cross-cultural psychology" will continue to beonly a promise for as lung as the indigenouspsychologies are untapped because of languageand culture barriers. Of necessity, one mustchallenge the unstated bias in O'Connell'sconcern for the German dependence onAmerican psychology and Graumann's measurefor reacting to this concern. By "psychologist"they apparently mean someone who has anacademic degree in psychology. A strictadherence to the union-cardcriterion to being apsychologist would of course exclude not onlya sizable number of eminent thinkers in thewestern tradition, or people who happen to get

12 VIRGILIO G. ENRIQUEZ

ttheir degrees in history or anthropology in thespecialized West, but also the unwritten but noless real psychologies of people who may noteven have a tradition of publishing journalarticlesin psychology.

The validity of unwritten psychologies doesnot depend on the extent and manner of itsarticulation.

• Graumann's statistics on publications alsoimply a regard if a reverence for the printed orwritten word. In this mode of thinking, oneimmediately looks away from cultures withunwritten languages and almost unconsciouslylooks up to the university-trained psychologist.Carl lung's reminder is appropriate in thiscontext: "If you want to learn psychology,avoid the university."

Psychology in the Philippines, Indigenous• Psychology and the Third World.

Psychology in the Third World has a short ora long history depending upon how one looksat it. In fact, there are some who argue thatthere is no such thing as Third Worldpsychologies, much less a history of indigenouspsychologies. If one happens to disagree withthe latter position, let him be comforted by thethought that acceptance and interest inindigenous psychologies are forthcominganyway. After all, it is now recognized that"natives" of far-away countries have their ownreligion, art, medicine, and philosophy. Of

• course, labels are still used to distinguishedthem from western forms such as can be seenfrom references to "pagan religions." "primitiveart," "folk medical practice;' or "implicit ethnicphilosophy." It is just another step to grantthem "psychology."

After generously or even reluctantlyconceding a "psychology" to a Third World

• country (it helps to put it in quotation marksor qualify it with with the word "indigenous"or even label it "non-scientific"), it becomeseasier to discuss and see a history of

psychology- in the Philippines. From thebulong of the early Filipinos, thepsychotherapy practised by the babaylans fromthe remote past to the present day; the beliefs,practices, and psychology of the natives whichthe early Christian missionaries aimed to changeand almost successfully destroyed in its writtenform; to the present issues of modernizationwhich is sometimes equated with westerniza­tion, Philippine and Filipino psychology is verymuch alive.

It is admittedly unlikely that the manu­scripts destroyed by Chirino and his com­panions are psychology dissertations. Some ofsaid manuscripts may even be not more thanlove notes from one native to another. Butwhoare we to pre-judge their importance one wayor the other? Whatever they may be, the senseof loss felt by Filipinos can only be shared byevery psychologist interested no the history ofpsychology in Third World countries especiallyif he is interested in indigenous psychology.Fortunately, in much the same sense that wecan have a literature (written) and an oraltradition (unwritten), we can also argue for apsychological tradition (unpublished, but noless real invalid) apart from a psychologicalliterature (published) in every country of theWorld.

While Chirino's act sets the tone for Philip­pine psychology in the written tradition from1521 to the 1800's, it is still definitely ofpsychology in non-industrialized settings (e.g.,Plasencia's Los costumbres de los Tagalogs). Itis no surprise that EmilioAguinaldosingled outwith thanks the "psicologos del verbo Tagalog"in his inaugural address as presidentof the firstRepublic of the Philippines.

The bases of an indigenous psychology inhistory and culture has been discussed inanother article (Enriquez, 1975). SUffice it tosay that in particular, the following were

2The word 'psychology' is given an even broadormeaning than the more common usage in westernpsychology when it refers not only to a discipline orfield of study, but also to a professlon,

Just like everything else, "indigenization"can be viewed from within the culture or fromwithout. An insider understandably seesnothing really exciting about indigenization ashe views it from within. After all, the indi­genous is the given in his culture. It is thestarting point and it continues to evolve in timeas a precondition to the culture's survival, The

Be that as it may, if Canadians find reasonfor searching for a distinct Canadian Sociologythen what's new with a Third World countryasserting what it need not search tor in the firstplace? At this point, one must explicate theconviction that an "indigenous" psychology isnot just a reaction to western psychology.Singh (I977) is probably right in his admoni­tion to Canadians that they cannot form adistinct national sociology by simply criticizingAmerican sociology. If one is careful with hisuse of the word "indigenous" he would mostlikely realize that it is not something "formed"but something "recognized" or "discovered" byoutsiders.

the "theoretic." Kumar's stance is of coursebased on the assumption that indigenizationcomes in types. In fact, he explicitly arguedagainst indigenization as a strategy. Hisapproach makes a lot of sense to anyone whocan conceive of indigenization as something lessthan what it is. The present paper would like tolook at "indigenization" as a total, privileged,and inalienable process - total because thedevelopment of an idea without the attendantstrategy to make it a reality is Without meaning;privileged and inalienable because the decisionon its strategy and implementation does notbelong to anyone in particular, much less to anoutsider. For this reason, among others, a wordlike "indigenization" is suspect at worst andinadequate at best. It is curious how the word isused if the source of a psychological concept,approach, or theory is a Third World country(Africa, Latin America, or India) but not Japan,the United States, or England, A trace ofsurprise is even evident when t!lle country inconsideration is Canada; thus "Africanization"makes more sense than "Canadianization."

In the particular case of the Philippines, theunfolding and interactions among those basesoccurred in the context of a continuousstruggle (or give and take, if one pleases)between the indigenous culture and the Westernconcerns and points of view in psychology.

Kumar (1976) recognized the probleminvolved in constructing a social reality out of

• indigenous content but utilizing conceptualcategories and theories which are betteradapted to industrialized countries. This pain­fully points to the inadequacy of what he calls"content indigenization" without indigenizing

The politicsand ethicsof indigenization:

Berry (1977) surmissed that the uni-national• dominance (of American psychology) may be

unfortunate even ifone assumes that it is notnaughty, i.e., it has not come about by cons­piracy or design. "Naughty" or not, one gets tobe uneasy as psychologists try hard at being"cross-cultural" and yet persist at a uni-nationalbias. It is perhaps time to argue for a cross-indi­genous perspective if only to alleviate theimbalance which is to be expected from auni-national "cross-cultural" psychology. Any­way, we can at least be happy with the thoughtthat finally we have a self-conscious cross­cultural psychology whose data are not limited

• to sophomore Anglo-Saxon university students.While the data base is now much broader, theperspective is essentially the same and thedanger of being lulled with the belief that auniversal science of psychology is in the offingbecomes serious indeed.

FILIPINO PSYCHOLOGY IN THE THIRD WORLD

• •

identified as bases for an indigenous nationalpsychology: (I) Early or traditional psycho­logy, (2) Man and diwa (consciousness andmeaning or the local conception and definitionof the psyche as a focus of psychologicalinterest), (3) psychology of pagbabagong-isip(re-awakening as an attitude and as a stage inthe development of national consciousness), (4)psychology of behavior and human abilities

• (western psychology has much to contribute onthis), (5) social issues and problems, and (6)native languages, culture, and orientation.

14

",i l'

VIRGILIO G. ENRIQUEZ

id:a that "indigenization" should be encou­raged can only come from without. One cannotblame an insider if he senses a patronizingattitude if he is told that "indigenization" is the"in-thing" to do as if the indigenous has to becreated or formed or as if it does not exist tobegin with. All that might be needed is theinstitutionalization and/or political legitimiza­tion of the indigenous.

• Conversely, if one views indigenization fromoutside the culture then he would see it as areaction, or as a deliberate process, or even asfragmented types or strategies but not as a totalreality inherent in the culture. For example, aninsider sees the use of a native language as partof an over-all concern for the study andapplication of indigenous psychological theoriesand methods relevant to the native experienceand thought, while the outsider sees it as analternative to the use of an exogenous language.

In the first printed Englishlanguage book on~chological testing in the Philippine setting(Carreon, 1923), it can be seen that Filipinoeducational psychologists insisted on modifyingitems found in psychologicaltests as a first steptowards the full indigenization of Philippinemental testing. This was because the tests andtheir underlying conception were borrowed.This is precisely the type of "indigenization"which is generally appreciated and understoodoutside the confines of the native culture. Whatis ignored is the fact that the native culture hastime-tested ways of mental and behavioralassessmentwhich need not be "indigenized" for

'they are already indigenous to the culture. It isthe main argument of this paper that indi­genous psychology focuses on such elements inthe culture.

At the risk of belaboring a point, "indi­genization" from without can actually be aform of "modernization" or "westernization,"a slogan to assuage the Third World cultures tohospitably receive what they would otherwise

-reject. "Westernization" while attractive tosome because of a desire for the "good life" isparadoxically rejected in the same vein becausepeople do not want the change in "life style"

and values that goes with it. "Modernlzation,"for its part, is seen more as a challenge than athreat to the indigenous culture; in fact. itsimply impels the traditional culture to movetowards progress. Even granting that "western­ization" is an imposition from the outside,"modernization" must be seen as a motivatedchange from within the culture (except that inmany cases,westerners show a greater amountof enthusiasm in this endeavor as agents ofchange). "Indigenization" from without evengoes further than modernization in its appeal asa point of departure for social science andtheory. It cuts even deeper into the sensitiveissue of culture change. To put it bluntly, thisform of "indigenization" can only be necessaryif one is trying to transport an exogenouselement into the culture. (Please refer to Figure1 for a schematic diagram on this point). Theflow is still the Same, we only emphasizethe direction by calling it "indigenizatjon.'How about changing the direction of flow andarguing for the decolonization of social scien­ce? Anthropologists and sociologists have re­cently examined "decolonization"; psy­chologists who do cross-cultural work shouldlikewise be sensitive to the meaning of theirwork in the context of the Third Worldreaction to their otherwise objective and scien­tific studies (Keesing, 1976; Stauffer, 1975).

Rationale for the indigenous perspective.

The indigenous perspective is of coursemotivated by the search for universals. AsJacob (1977), in another but similarly mo­tivated context, puts it,

... the variables affecting human relationsmay differ radically across national cultures, sothat studies within one country will no t provideadequate evidence for universal generalizetlcnsabout social dynamics. At least one cannot telilwithout conducting comparative studies in anumber of differing cultural situations,

Jacob happens to be ahead of this time. He isquite right in saying that "common tools andtechniques are essential for successful com­parative research, and they must be relevant tothe circumstances being investigated." However

FILIPINO PSYCHOLOGY IN TIlE THIRD WORLD !5

•

•

INDIGENOUS

Identification of key indigenous concepts!methods/theories

Semantic elaboratio!~.

Indigenous codification or re-codification

~Systematization/Explication of implied

theoretical frameworks

~Application/Use, t

EXOGENOUS

Comparison with other theories, methods,techniques, etc.

INDIGENIZATION FROM WITHINBasis: The indigenousDirection: Outwards(Culture-as-source)

INDIGENOUS

Culture assimilation indigenous versionsof imported systems

tIndigenization as strategy

tTheoretic indigenization

tContent indigenization; tex t modification;

translation 0jlmPOmd materials

EXOGENOUS

Transfer of technology; modernization

INDIGENIZATION FROM WITHO'VlI'Basis: The exogenousDirection: Inwards(Cuiture-as-targe t)

Figure I. Indigenizatio1Z according to source and direction of culture flow

• such tools and techniques have to be identifiedand refined. Even the "simple" task of askingquestions can have a variety of parameters tomake its use in one situation in the sameculture different from its use in another. Moreso -if you have a number of cultural settingsinvolved. Even assuming that the questions are"the same" (after a series of translations,back-translations, calibration according to func­tional equivalence, contextualization, etc.), theanswers may lend themselves to a variety ofinterpretations. (See Rubin, 1976 on "how totell when someone is saying 'no' " and Torres,1973 on "the Filipino 'yes' ").

While people find it easy to appreciateindigenous concepts (this is by no means aclosed issue, Cf. Bonifacio, 1976), they showinitial puzzlement when the "radical culturalrelativistic" tell them about indigenous me­thods. It is excruciatingly hard to liberateoneself of ethnocentric bias especially when"your way" has been adopted and' used inmany situations and places in the world. In anycase, it can be reasonably argued that simplybecause the questionnaire has evolved into atechnology or even an industry in the United

States of America, it does not follow' that itshould be used in the Third Woll'1d. Simplybecause the interview has been tossed aboutand refined (in certain particular ways:) in theWest (from research to therapy), it does notmean the Third World researcher should learnto do it the Western way. (See, for example,Feliciano, 1965; de Vera, Montano, and Ange­les, 1975; de Peralta and Racelis, 197'4; San­tiago, 1975).

Jacob (1977) sees that "too much 0 f socialscience is guilty of influential propositionsgiven broad applicability even though based onmonocultural explorations." 10 this can beadded the use of influential western methods.Such wholesale use is sometimes tempered bytoken modifications but nonetheless genuineinterest in reliability and validity. In any case,little is heard or written about the issues ofappropriateness and wastefulness. Researchersactually go to the farm or the mountains withquestionnaires in a language the people .10 nottruly comprehend even granting that said Ian..guage is considered official in the country ofresearch. It is one thing to Use English orFrench as a tourist but another to use ,It as a

16

"

VIRGILIO G. ENRIQUEZ

~searcher for one's Ph.D. dissertation.

The idea of cost validity is important. Someapproaches can be very expensive by ThirdWorld standards and should be carefullyweigh­ed in termsof relative efficiency versus cost andimmediacy of need. If the results can waitanother year, it might even be practical fromthe point of view of resource training andinstitution building not to rely heavily on

.fUlchines. The Third World's strength is in itspeople.

Instead of arguing about the relative meritsof influential methods, the cross-indigenousperspective may be viewed in the lightof Camp­bell and Fiske's (1959) argument for the multi­method approach. The cross-indigenous methodis a call for the multi-language-rnulti-cul tureapproach based on indigenous viewpoints (Cf.Enriquez, 1975). Even if it is granted that theuse of a foreign language and culture does notdistort social reality in the indigenous culture,~t still makes a great deal of sense for scientific

and not maudlin reasons to use the local lan­guages and cultures as sources for theory, me­thod, and praxis. As Alfonso (1977) puts it, theexclusive use of a supposedly internationallanguage "can lead to the neglect of the wealthof indigenous concepts and methods embodiedin a language more meaningful to the culture."She argues that "developing and following aFilipino orientation in the conduct of researchand teaching in psychology is not inconsistentwith the goals of psychology as a science insearch fer universalities but rather a contri-

• bution t~ it." In fact, the cross-indigenousmethod better assures generalizability of fin­dings precisely because several languages andcultures are used as sources and bases. The find­ings of Western based psychology as applied inresearch and practice in a Third World countryusing a Western language and orientation canvery well be an artifact of the language and themethod.

• REFERENCES

AGUINALDO, E. M. (Message). Delivered at the open­ing of the National Assembly in Malolos, Bulacan,

September 15, 1978. In At the Helm of the No­tion; Inaugural Addresses of the President of thePhilippine Republic 'and the Commonwealth. Com­piled by C. V. Fonacier. Manila: National MediaProduction Center, 1973, 1-6.

ALFONSO, A. B. Towards developing PhilippinePsychology: Language-related issues in teachingand research. Paper prepared for the Fourth Con­ference of Asian Association on National Lan­guages, University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Ma­laysia, April 25-30, 1977.

BERRY, J. W. Introduction to Journal ofCros~·Cultu.rolPsychology, 1977,8,131-133.

BONIFACIO, A. Ringgit sa kaisipang Pihpino, mot ngUnang Pombonsong Kumperensya sa SikolohiyongPilipino. Edited by L. F. Antonio, E. S. Reyes, R.E. Pe and N. R. Almonte. Quezon City: Pam­bansang Samahan sa Sikilohlyang lPilifilinp, 1976,24-48.

BORING, E. G. A History ofExperimental Psycholo­gy. New York: Appleton Century Crofts, 1929.

BRISLIN, R. Ethical issues influencing the acceptanceand rejection of cross-cultural researchers Whovisitvarious countries. Issues in Cross-Culturel Research(Annals of the New York Academy of Scjences).Edited by L. L. Adler, 1977,285, 185-202.

CAMPBELL, D. T. and FISKE, D. Convergent and dis­criminant validation by the multitrait-multimethodmatrix. Psychological Bulletin, 1959, 56, 82-105.-

CARREON, M. Philippine Studies in Menial Measure.ment: New York: World Book, 1923.

CHiRINO, P. Relacion de las Islas Filipinas, Rome:1604; 2nd Ed.: Manila: Imprenta de Esteban Bal­bas, 1890. Cited by the historian. A. Agoncillo inhis introduction to the book Introduction toModem Pilipino Literature. Edited by E. San Juan,Jr. New York: Twayne Publishers, Inc., 1974, 3,228•

CONSTANTINO, R. Dissent and Counter COYlScious­ness. Quezon City: Malaya Books, Inc., 1970.

DE PERALTA, P. and RACELlS, A. D. Mila uri ngpahiwatig. Sikolinggwistikang Piliptno. Edited byV. G. Enriquez. Quezon City: University of thePhilippines Press, 1974.

DE VERA, M. G. A., MONTANO, A. and ANGELES,E. A. Ang metodo ng pagtatBlllong-tanong. Reportprepared for Psychology 180 (Social Psychology),College of Arts and Sciences, University of thePhilippines (November 11, 1975).

ELEQUlN, E. Educational Goals. Aims, aM Objec­tives. Report of a study by a working group in

FILIPINO PSYCHOLOGY IN THE THIRD WORLD

•

•

•

•

•

Asia. Unesco-Nier Regional Programme for Educa­tional Research in Asia. Tokyo, Japan: NationalInstitute for Educational Researdi, 1974.

ENRIQUEZ, V. G. Mga batayan ng Sikolohiyang Pili­pino sa kultura at kasaysayan. General EducationJoumd; 29 (First Semester 1975-76),61-88.

f'ELlClANO, G. The limits of Western social researchmethods in rural Philippines: the need for innova­tion.Lipunan, 1965, I, (I), 114-128.

FRANCISCO, L. The first Vietnam - the Philippine­American War of 1899-1902. Letters of Exile: Anintroductory reeder on the history of Pilipinos inA merica. Edited by J. Quinsaat. Los Angeles: Re­source Development and Publications, UCLA AsianAmerican Studies version taken from The Bulletinof Concerned Asian Scholars. December 1973, p.2-16, which first appeared in "The Philippines:End of an Illusion" published by the Associationfor Radical Asian Studies in London, 1973.

GRAUMANN, C. F. The state of psychology (partone). International Joumal ofPsychology, 1972, 7(2), 123-134.

HAYTER, T. Aid as Imperialism. Middlesex, England:Penguin, 1971.

HOSILLOS, L. V. Philippine·American Literary Rela·tions 1898·1941. Quezon City: University of UtePhilippines Press, 1969.

JACOB, P. E. Paper included ill Bond Without Bond­age. Honolulu: Culture Learning Institute, East­West Center, 1977.

KAUT, C. R. Utang-na-loob: a system of contractualobligation among Tagalogs. Southwestern JournalofAnthropology, 1961,17,256-272.

KEESING, R. M. Cultural Anthropology: A Contem­porary Perspective. New York: Holt, Rinehart &Winston, 1976 •

KUMAR, K. Indigenization and transnational coopera­tion in the Social Sciences. Paper for the confe­rence on "Emerging Issues in Culture Relations,"Honolulu, December 9.10, 1976.

LEE, Z. Tungo sa pagbuo ng teorya sa SikolohiyangPilipino. Invited seminar for a class in PsychologyISO (personality). Diliman, Quezon City: Univer­sity of the Philippines, 1976.

MENDEZ, P. P. Sikolohiyang Pilipino at ang edukas­yon. Ulat ng Unang Pambansang Kumperensya saSikolohiyang Pilipino. Quezon City: PambansangSamahan sa Sikolobiyang Pilipino, 1976, 124-134.

,MUNOZ, A. N. The Filipinos in America. Los Angeles:Mount~View Publishers, 1971.

MURPHY, G. and MURPHY, L. B. (Eds.). AsiaJPsychology. New York Basic Books, 1968.

NAVARRO, J. The flight of the newRy-arrived immigrants. Diwang Pilipino (Pilipillo Consciousness)Edited by J. Navarro. Davis, California: AsiaAmerican Studies, Department of Applied Behrvioral Sciences, University of California, 1974.

O'CONNELL, D. C. The changing faces of Europeapsychology: Germany. Paper presented at thmeeting of the American Psychological Associ:tion, Miami Beach, September, 1910.

QUlNSAAT, J. G. An exercise on how to join tl1Navy and still not see the world. Letters in Exit.96.111. Also in Counterpoint: Perspectives 0

Asian America. Edited by E. ~e. Los AngeleAsian American Studies Center, University of Calfornia, 1976,97-105.

REYES', R. M. Sa Mga Kuko ng J.,iwanag: Nobel,Manila: Liwayway PUblishing, 1968.

RUBIN, J. How to tell when someoae is saying "no'Topics in Culture Learning, 1976,4, 61-65.

SAMONTE, E. Kabuuan ng mga kahulugan ng m!salita sa larangang leksikal ng "loob." Unpublishcpaper. Dillman, Quezon City: University of t1Philippines, 1973.

SANTIAGO, C. E. Ang kahulugan ng pagkalalake :.mga Pilipino. Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Mga PilitPopel, 4, November 1975.

SANTIAGO, C. E. and ENRIQUEZ, V. G. Tungomaka-Pilipinong pananaliksik, Sikolohiyallg Pili/110: Mga Ulat at Bolita, June 1976,1, (4),3-10.

SECHREST, L. and GU1rHRllE, G. Psychology of, band for Filipinos. Philippine Studies: Geograph,Archeology, Psychology, and Literature: SpeciReport No. 10. Center for Southeast Asian StudkNorthern Illinois Universi1y, 1974,44·70.

SINGH, A. Nationalized social sciences and teachiiof sociology in Canada: A sociology of sociologapproach Paper presented at H'Ie Canadian Socilogy and Anthropology Association's MeetingsEdmonton, May 1970.

STAUFFER, R. B. Western values and the case fThird World cultural disengagement. Paper pIsented to a conference on "Inter-cultural Transa.tion for the Future," held at the East-West CulturLearning Institute, Honolulu, f1awaii, June 22..21975.

TORRES, E. A. Analysis of thll meanings of yamong Filipino college students, Quezon CitUniversity of the Philippines, October 7, 1973.

ZIALCITA, F. N. History as a process in QUi,ano deManila. The Manila Review, December 1976, 2,(4),20-35 •

{, 'I· t"I"·· 'iil'I", (,' i

18 VIRGILIO G. ENRIQUEZ•WATSON, R. I. The Great Psychologists from Ans.totleto Freud. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1963.

•

•

.:

•