Ethnic Identity vs. National Identity

Culture can be defined as the shared meanings, which are given to events (Bierbrauer and Pedersen in Semin & Fiedler, 1996) and as such is socially and not naturally produced (Matsumoto, 2000), or a psychological construct that includes a shared system of rules (Forsyth, 2006). Ethnicity (from the Greek word ethnos, meaning people of nation or tribe) is generally used to refer to groups of common nationality, geographic origin, culture, or language (Betancourt & Lopez, 1993 cited in Matsumoto, 2000). Nationality often refers to the formal (or nominal) membership of an individual to a country.

Ethnicity, race, and national identity are often interchangeably used to refer to culture. Ethnic identity is a categorization based on objective genealogy (physical) and psychological differences brought about by a membership to an ethnic group (Linneken and Poyer, 1990 in Marcelino, 1996). In essence, ethnic identity includes cultural factors such as language, religion, ways of life, beliefs, and values of that ethnic group and the national identity associated with that ethnic group. National identity, however, does not include national consciousness or the unified ideals and goals of a community (Constantino, 1978 in Marcelino, 1996). Cultural identity is the individual’s psychological membership in a distinct culture with all its elements (Forsyth, 2006). It is part of a broader identity, which includes personal identity.

From a study on the migrant Filipino adolescents, Marcelino (1996) identified five stages that individuals undergo in shaping their cultural identity: a) panahon bago ang paghahanap (pre-exploration stage), b) panahon ng paghahanap (exploratory stage), c) panahon ng pagtuklas (discovery stage), d) panahon ng pagbubuo (consolidation stage), and e) panahon ng pag-unlad (development stage).

In addition, it was found that the respondents can be classified as mono-cultural (Filipinos or Americans) and bi-cultural (Filipino-Americans). Filipino-Americans are found as a culture distinctively identified in Marcelino’s study, having experiences and attributes different from the Filipino or Americans but some of the elements of the two cultures are present. Consequently, Filipino-Americans can be considered as a social category that is a product of the Filipino and American cultures, which may follow one of the complex social category structures proposed by Conaco (1991): additivity (where the traits of the social category is the union of the features of the component simple categories), hierarchical (where the features of the components are skewed towards the dominant component), category conjunction (where the features lie on specific attributes common to the component simple categories), and emergent category (where completely new attributes emerge as a result of the union of the categories).

The three-stage model of African-American ethnic identity (Phinney, 1996 in Forsyth, 2006) mentions the: a) Unexamined Identity Stage, b) Exploration Stage, and c) Identity Achievement Stage. The unexamined identity stage starts from the point when individuals do not yet characterize people, including themselves, on the basis of ethnicity (diffusion) or they accept other people’s definition of their ethnicity without question (foreclosure) to the point when individuals begin exploring the meaning of their ethnicity. Exploration stage is that period of immersion in one’s ethnic culture, and in some cases the adamant rejection of the values of the majority. At the identity achievement stage, individuals internalize their ethnicity in their sense of self.

It should be noted that the models of Marcelino (1996) and Phinney (1996) apply to two different cultures and are similar in the first stage in that it posits that people accept the outsiders’ definition of their culture without question and in a much later stage (and in some cases), the rejection of the values of the majority. However, consistent with the Filipino concept of hiya, the panahon bago ang paghahanap involves denial of their cultural identity. Marcelino’s observation also highlights the slow progress in the cognitive and affective acceptance by the Filipinos of their cultural identity where the family and school plays an important role. In addition, Marcelino’s model (particularly at Stage 4 and 5) illustrates how Filipinos come to terms with their social identity as Filipinos in the US, and as Filipino-Americans in the US, with objectives of achieving equality, liberation for the self and others, and peaceful coexistence. This is also reminiscent of the description of Filipino psychology by Enriquez (1994).

In the Philippines, ethnicity is often associated with the local dialect and as such Filipinos are often categorized by regions (Conaco, 1996), provinces (Yacat, 2005), and mixed ethnicity (e.g. Chinese-Mestizo, Manileño, combined groups in Conaco, 1996). Religion (e.g. Muslims, Muslims from Mindanao, Christians from Mindanao) is also used as a category.

Yacat (2005) posited that national identity can be thought of as three kinds of relationships: a) relationship with the state, b) relationship with culture, c) relationship with self and others. His review of literatures point to the fact that studies on national identity have focused on the political aspects, which is probably why national identity has often been shallowly defined to exclude national consciousness and center on citizenship. He further posited thrre dimensions of being Filipino: pinagmulan (socio-political), kinalakhan (cultural roots), and kamalayan (consciousness).

Jaime (1974-75) found that anchorage, source of support, and perception of comparative opportunities are the best predictors of migration intentions, both migrants and returnees did not only view the Philippines less favorably than the US they also identified more with the US than with the Philippines. Moreover, identification with the US was not a good predictor of migration, but identification with the Philippines was a good predictor of returning home. She also found that those who were not in the upper 5% of their college graduating class expressed the intention of migrating more than students in the upper 5%, the longer a person had lived in the US, the greater the tendency to express intentions of migrating, and Filipino-Chinese expressed the intention of migrating more than Filipino citizens.

Western studies concerning identification with major and minor political parties (Abrams, 1994, cited by Catellani in Semin & Fiedler, 1996) and preference on politicians (Abrams and Emlers (1991 cited by Catellani in Semin & Fiedler, 1996) found that support for major parties is an outcome of rational and instrumental reasoning while support for minority parties are more closely linked to identification, and sense of regional belonging is a primary factor in the selection of preferred politicians. Although it may not be appropriate to assume that the findings apply to the Filipinos, it is worth noting that in terms of political identification, the respondents in the studies mentioned were inclined to identify more with the subordinate than with the superordinate identity.

One might wonder why Filipino social identification tends to be outward. The importance in understanding the role of superordinate identity in Filipino psychology does not only aim to explore why this is so. It also lies in the fact that while there seems to be a cognitive recognition of the importance and relevance of national identity despite vagueness in understanding the traits of what constitutes the Filipino national identity and its relation to other social identities (Conaco, 1996; Yacat, 2005), ethnic identity is affectively favored over national identity while family was found most salient (Conaco, 1996). Filipino identity has been found to be relevant, without clear reasons, but participants in Yacat’s study (2005) were motivated to highlight their membership as a means to categorize themselves as loob (ingroup) - the Muslim participants emphasized their membership to the state while the Manila and Cebu participants highlighted their membership in terms of the consciousness dimension, despite their admission that their language, ideologies, and practices are more American-oriented.

Two possible explanations have been considered. The first would be the optimal group distinctiveness theory (Brewer in Capozza & Brown, 2000), which posits that social group identity arises from the interaction of two opposing human needs- the need for inclusion and the need for differentiation. The second possible explanation is found in the study of Deschamps and Doise (1978, cited in Conaco, 1991) following the accentuation theory prediction by Tajfel and Wilkes (1963), which posited that intergroup differentiation is greatest in superimposed categorization (when the target is an ingroup member in terms of all relevant group memberships) and least in crossed categories (when a target is an ingroup in one group membership and an outgroup in another).

These explanations, however, as have been repeated several times in this paper, are Western and might not appropriately apply to Filipino psychology. The studies of Yacat (2005) and Conaco (1996) referred to Doronila’s study (1992) on Filipino national identification, which discussed the subject on historical bases. As such, the 1992 study found and described the increasing nationalism marked by eagerness to participate in national thrusts as well as the general affirmation of including the different ethnic groups as Filipinos while demonstrating reluctance to admit similarities with these groups, among others.

The findings have been consistent in terms of: the salience of basic factors such as family/upbringing and religion, national identity (the superordinate identity) being viewed as relevant and important, and the greatest difference in proportions of positivity demonstrated by Mindanao groups and least difference by Manileños and Cebuano/Visayans. There are no clear definitions about the Filipino national identity and no clear reasons why Filipinos value this identity.

Yacat (2005) noted that “our notion of being Filipino as negotiated and not fixed …. may bring about more confusion about our national identity but on a positive note, this could also provide maneuverable spaces for marginalized groups to participate in a national context”.

Hence, it is not surprising that the Local Government Code of 1991 espoused the Filipino spirit of being inclusive. Since its enactment, other policies and organizations were established to enable marginalized groups to participate at the local and the national level.