Koreanovelas (Part 3)

Filipino-Korean Contact. Fluidity of inter-cultural contact is more acknowledged lately despite the fact that actual contact between Filipinos and Koreans is more widely known to have happened during the Korean War in the 1950s. During that war, five Battalion Combat Teams of the Philippine Army comprised of more than 7,000 Filipino soldiers, served in Korea from 1950-1955 under the flag of the Philippine Expeditionary Force to Korea of PEFTOK on the United Nations Command during the North and South Korean conflict.

Bernaldez (2003) is inclined to believe differently. In an article, he told of a possibility that peoples of what is now the Philippines and the then Silla Kingdom have had contacts much before the colonial period. Apparently, a young Malay Datu sailed northwards and reached the territories of the Silla Kingdom sometime in the middle of the first millennium. The Malays failed to go back to their place of origin and was hosted by a royal Shilla nobleman until his death. The Malay datu was supposed to have been entombed in a giant mound similar to the burial places of the Silla royalty, speculated to be somewhere in the vast area of Kyongju City.

In recent times, Koreans have flooded the Philippines. They are not just found in tourist sites (largely in baguio City), but moreso in our universities, and residential and commercial areas as well. They have established their own communities, with commercial establishments, churches, and recreational facilities. Filipinos have begun to recognize their difference with the more familiar Chinese and Japanese, not just physically but in terms of their social behavior as well. How much the Koreanovelas have contributed to this familiarity is still empirically unknown.

Tayo and Sila. Social identity theory takes off from three basic assumptions: a) people categorize themselves and other people according to similar attributes, b) people identify with certain groups by associating with them to gain self-esteem, and c) people compare their own groups with other groups favoring their own in the process. Social identity theory posits that a shift from personal to social identity becomes imperative when an individual sees the value of including others or being included by others with whom the individual perceives similarity. This shift from “me” to “we” is triggered by something salient in the situation and when the perceived membership is foreseen to increase self-worth. The third premise provides for the distinction between ingroups (similar others) and outgroups (different others). Ingroup members are evaluated more favorably than outgroup members. This is known as ingroup-outgroup bias. In larger social groups, it is termed as ethnocentrism. The magnitude of ingroup-outgroup bias varies with several situational factors, yet it has been considered robust on the account that it is essentially a combination of two biases: selective favoring of the ingroup and derogation of the outgroup.

In fleshing out Filipino psychology, Enriquez (1992) noted three pronouns used by Filipinos to refer to the English pronoun “we”: a) kita (dual), which focuses on the listener in relation to the speaker, b) tayo (inclusive), which includes the listener, and c) kami (exclusive), which excludes the listener as referent. Such levels of distinction from the English structure connote the Filipinos’ concept of kapwa. Kapwa is recognizing that one is not different from others. It refers to the Filipinos’ awareness of this shared inner self, a shared identity stemming from collective values shared with the whole humanity. The Filipinos’ shared inner self depends on the social interaction that happens in pakikipagkapwa (collectivistic levels of interaction) and in pag-iisa (individualistic levels of interaction) (Enriquez, 1994). These do not necessarily operate exclusively among Filipinos. Even foreigners who demonstrate conformity to the Filipino subjective norms experience informal membership (“Pilipino na ‘yan”).

Ingroups and outgroups are defined very flexibly for Filipinos. The saling-pusa, the informal member who enjoys privileges not particularly enjoyed by the legitimate member and is allowed to break some rules that are for strict compliance by the legitimate members (Enriquez, 1992), is common practice in involving honorary members in groups. The tulay (bridge) is valued as an important person in achieving or elevating social interaction in courtship, joining formal and informal groups, and in field researches (Sto. Domingo, 1991; Protacio-Marcelino, 1996).

Recognizing the difference between individualistic and collectivistic cultures, Triandis (1997) also explained the behavioral difference regarding ingroup-outgroup bias- collectivistic cultures manifesting high helpful and cooperative behaviors among ingroups while taking as much advantage over their outgroups.

The Contact Hypothesis. The contact hypothesis introduced by Allport (1954) is considered to be among the most prevailing ideas in the history of social psychology. Its basic premise is that bringing groups in contact with one another reduces existing tension between them. The principles of dissonance theory by Festinger (1957) are applied in the conditions for contact hypothesis. That is, when people find themselves working with outgroup members, they resolve their cognitive dissonance by justifying their behavior and changing their attitudes toward the outgroup.

Researches on this hypothesis have dwelt largely on necessary conditions for contact to be successful. These are social and institutional support, personal interaction, equal status, and cooperation.

Contact has been found to have stronger impact on prejudice reduction when the necessary conditions are met (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2000 cited in Forsythe, 2006). Contact hypothesis has been found to be mostly effective in cooperative learning programs where inter-racial children are required to help each other learn in desegregated classrooms. In cases where intergroup contact is facilitated without these conditions, conflicts either remain or escalate.

Recent findings have also shown that anxiety can be induced by intergroup contact, and this anxiety can lead to avoidance behaviors or in the case of unavoidable situations, increased reliance on stereotypes.

Reduction of Prejudice. After several years of research on the conditions for contact hypothesis to work, process models began to emerge from studies on social identity theory. Alternative models on altering intergroup cognition, taking into account the cognitive nature of ingroup and outgroup categorization, were proposed towards reducing prejudice. These are the decategorization, recategorization, subcategorization, and cross-categorization models.

Decategorization (personalization model by Brewer and Miller, 1984) proposes that contact will be most effective if interactions are person-based rather than category-based. Hence, it suggests that interactions should be structured towards reducing the salience of category distinctions. Hewstone & Brown (1986, cited in Gilbert, Fiske, and Lindzey, 1998) criticized this model and posited that positive interpersonal experiences do not always effect to positive attitude towards the group as a whole. Instead, it only increases the complexity and variability of representations of the outgroup (Brewer & Miller, 1998 cited in Gilbert, Fiske, and Lindzey, 1998), which may ultimately reduce the possibility of applying the stereotype to individual group members in the future. The mutual-differentiation model was then proposed (Hewstone and Brown 1986, cited in Wright & Taylor, 2003), where salience of group categories during interactions was imperative.

Recategorization (common ingroup identity model by Gaertner et al, 1993) suggests structuring the contact situation so that focus is driven away from the salient group categories towards a superordinate category, without eliminating the salient subgroup differentiations.

Subcategorization (distinct social identity model) suggests structuring the contact situation so that members of the respective groups have distinct but complementary roles to contribute towards achieving common goals (Marcus-Newhall et al, 1993 cited in Brewer, 2000).

Cross-categorization takes into account the possibility that the three models proposed may not be stable once the context is altered. Hence, cross-cutting categories may be utilized to replace hierarchical representations of multiple category identities.

Cultural Proximity Thesis. Kwon (2005) cited the cultural proximity thesis of Straubharr (1991) as utilized by Ryu and Lee (2001) in analyzing the contents of widely accepted Korean television dramas among East Asia countries. The study concluded that the Korean dramas that have been widely accepted in Asia contain the Confucian values that are close to Chinese culture, or contain the common culture and value between Korean and Chinese. From this theory, a model of Korean television program exports based on cultural factors in relation to the “cultural proximity” thesis was drawn.

In his study, Kwon (2005) found some cultural similarities between Korean culture (as depicted in Koreanovelas) and Filipino culture in terms of social aspects such as hierarchical family relation between elders and younger ones and extended family relationships. He found that when the Filipino audience recognized these cultural similarities, they felt more relevance and close sympathy, which eventually have led them to closer viewership of Koreanovela.

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.

Kapwa: Common Fate

Kami (we) and tayo (us) are concepts intrinsic to the Filipino culture of kapwa, which includes others in the shared identity either through an inclusive identity that evolves with group and intergroup relations, or a superordinate identity, an identity shift from an ingroup towards an identity that supersedes the existing ingroup-outgroup relationship.

In the studies concerning superordinate goals, the effects of common fate, a coincidence of outcomes among two or more persons that arises because they have all been subjected to the same external forces or decision rules, becomes central. Although Brewer (in Capozza & Brown, 2000) found that shared fate does not necessarily entail any interdependence among the groups, common fate was perceived to provide one potentially powerful basis for common identity because subjecting groups to the same external forces and decision rules creates a social category boundary that highlights the difference between those affected and unaffected. Brewer found that shared fate will have to be complemented by trust and argued that some shared identity is prerequisite to recognition and achievement of cooperative interdependence.

The study of Sto. Domingo (1991) illustrates how fisherfolks in Laguna Lake view themselves as the major stakeholders of the outcomes in the Napindan Channel (the ingroup) as against the residents of Metro Manila who will benefit from the MWSS Project (the first outgroup). The fisherfolk of Laguna Lake were also found to have contradictory opinions regarding the status of the lake with the scientist-technicians (the second outgroup). Typical to the Filipinos’ oneness with humanity, however, they recognize the need to share the natural resource with the Metro Manila residents and the scientist-technicians. Hence, they engage in cooperation among themselves, do not engage in direct confrontation with the scientist-technicians and in fact demonstrated openness to cooperate with these outgroups- proving that common fate is significant in the concept of pakikipag-kapwa.

Ingroup-outgroup identification in Filipino psychology can be observed in terms of simple intergroup relations (kami and kayo) or in terms of superordinate identity (kami and tayo). An interesting area for investigation in Filipino psychology regarding superordinate identity lies in the interplay of ethnic and national identity.

Kapwa and Cooperative Resistance

Kapwa, as a non-antagonistic worldview, also espouses pakikibaka (fusion in a common struggle) in the face of injustice and exploitation not as a form of pakikisama (adjusting) but as an affirmation of “one’s conviction as part of one’s being” (Enriquez, 1992).

In Western individualistic literature, Haslam (2001) explains social mobility and social change following on Tajfel’s (1978a) psychological and behavioral continua associated with the interpersonal-intergroup continuum. When the individual views the social system as flexible and permeable, they move between groups to maintain to improve or maintain their social standing. When the individual views the social system as inescapable, collective action is initiated to improve negative conditions or maintain positive ones. Catellani (in Semin & Fiedler, 1996) goes further by positing that involvement in collective action [for social change] boosts a group’s identity, but social identity generates collective action if it results from membership to a group that is oriented towards collective action and human relationships (Kelly & Kelly, 1994).

The Filipino culture may be considered as a group oriented towards collective action and human relationships under this assumption, but collective action for social change exists in the Filipino Filipino psyche in two levels- those that engage in collective action for being aktibista or activist (defined as resistance against a social issue or belief), and those that join collective actions for being mulat or having sufficient knowledge regarding the issues at hand (Almario, 2001). Interestingly, mulat is also associated with how an individual is brought up, implying that social knowledge building is essential in the enculturation of Filipinos.

Two studies on Filipino ingroup-outgroup identification elucidates the social identification process in Filipinos.

Huyong (1997) found that for intergroup movement to occur, at least in terms of religion, lower degree of identification with the old ingroup and/or a higher identification with the new ingroup or dissatisfaction with the old ingroup and/or satisfaction with the new ingroup are sufficient. This is consistent with the findings of Jaime (1974-75) with Filipino skilled migrants where identification with the US was found to be a good predictor of migration, and identification with the Philippines as a good predictor of returning home. Time was also found to be an important element in social identification processes (Huyong, 1997; Jaime, 1974-74; Marcelino, 1996).

Filipino Humor and Social Comparison

As mentioned above, within the Filipino construct of hiya (propriety/dignity), addition of labas-oriented affix would indicate whther the act is vountary or involuntary. Hiyain refers to the conscious act of embarassing or putting to ashame another (or an outgroup). Ikinahihiya, diametrically opposed to being proud of, refers to the deliberate act of outcasting or exclusion of another (an old ingroup or an outgroup). Napahiya would refer to the recipient of embarassment, or the person who experiences shame or even derogation.

Interestingly, Filipinos commonly express stereotypes, prejudice and discrimination through humor. Labeling is common in ethnic jokes and political jokes that can be observed in speeches, informal gatherings, and different forms of media such as the caricatures in the editorial cartoons, text jokes, email jokes, stand-up comedy, komiks, newspaper and radio commentaries, theatrical plays, films, television sitcoms and gag shows.

Nuncio (2000), in his study regarding shows, humor, and criticisms, coined the term pantawang pananaw to refer to the humor that is innate to the kamalayan (consciousness) and diwa (spiritual core) of the Filipinos. Tawa is an emotional reaction, while pananaw refers to thoughts. Put together, pantawang pananaw refers to humor that is not just affective but cognitive as well, such that it involves critical understanding of the social issues.

Humor, therefore, is a means for the message source to express their innermost feelings and critique to the socio-political situation. Laughing, on one hand, is the message recipient’s way of agreeing that the joke truly captures the real situation. Through such exchanges, the source and the recipient levels the field with an understanding that something in the situation needs to be corrected.

Kapwa: Coming Together and Setting Apart

Just how much of the inner self is shared is determined by the collectivistic level of social interaction that happens in pakikipagkapwa.

Under the ibang-tao (not one of us/outsider) category, pakikitungo (amenities/civility), pakikisalamuha (mixing), pakikilahok (joining/participating), pakikibagay (conforming), and pakikisama (adjusting) are immersing levels of interaction.

Under the hindi ibang-tao (one of us/insider) category, pakikipagpalagayang-loob (mutual trust/support) , pakikisangkot (getting involved), and pakikiisa (fusion, oneness, full trust) are deepening levels of interaction such that the individual acquires a total sense of identification in pakikiisa.

On the other hand, in pag-iisa (individualistic levels of interaction), pagsasarili (individuation), pag-iwas (avoidance), paghiwalay (separation), pagmamalaki (autonomy), and pakikinabang (self-gain) are classified under the ibang-tao category while pagkukubli (masking), pagwawalang-bahala (lack of concern), and pagsalungat (disagreement) are found under the hindi ibang-tao category. (Enriquez, 1994)

It would seem apparent in the Filipino psychology that maintaining self-esteem is part of the Filipino psyche. Hiya (propriety/dignity) is one the Filipinos’ values that have been studied as early as 1965. Further inspection of the concept by Salazar in 1981 stressed the importance of looking into the external and internal dimensions in the analysis of Filipino psychology. The loob (internal) aspect is related to qualities and the foundation of karangalan, as in mahiyain (shy), kahiya-hiya (shameful), and hiyang-hiya (very shy). As such, it also involves an emotional dimension. The labas (external) aspect is related to the social dimensions such as pakikitungo (amenities/civility), pakikisalamuha (mixing), pakikibagay (conforming), and pakikisama (adjusting) – levels of social interaction that fall under the hindi ibang-tao (one of us/insider) category. Addition of labas-oriented affix (as in hiyain, ikinahihiya, napahiya) denotes that hiya can be a voluntary, conscious act (sinasadya) or involuntary, beyond one’s volition (di-sinasadya) (Enriquez, 1992).

Maintaining and enhancing self-esteem is also part of the Filipinos’ motivation in joining groups. Cooperation is part of Filipinos’ norms, such that they engage in practices and activities involving mutual benefits for all participants. Two of the most commonly known are the bayanihan and paluwagan. Bayanihan has been historically recognized as Filipinos’ way of helping each other in times of need by volunteering time and labor for planting and harvesting. The practice has been expanded to include other activities outside of the farm, such is constructing homes, schools and other buildings, as well as in establishing institutions where many people will benefit. The Gawad Kalinga and Pahinungod are organizations that provide exemplary examples of this helping behavior. The paluwagan is another practice among small groups (formal or informal) aiming to help each other by rotating acquisition of pot money from a common monetary fund.

Ingroups and outgroups are defined very flexibly for Filipinos; hence, the concept of the saling-pusa, the informal member who enjoys privileges not particularly enjoyed by the legitimate member and is allowed to break some rules expected to be strictly followed by the legitimate members (Enriquez, 1992). Such is exercised not only among Filipinos, but by Filipinos with individuals of other nationalities. Foreigners whose attitudes are similar to Filipinos and behave in similar ways with Filipinos experience informal membership (“Pilipino na ‘yan”). There are implications, however, that Filipinos recognize these boundaries. The tulay (bridge) is valued as an important person in achieving or elevating social interaction in courtship, joining formal and informal groups, and in field researches implementing both universal and Filipino psychology in the Philippines (Sto. Domingo, 1991) and in other countries (Marcelino, 1996).

From the assumption of social identity theory that people are highly motivated to achieve high self-esteem, people are thereby compelled to employ creative (or proactive) social comparisons to protect collective self-esteem that is inter-related with the personal self-esteem. This would include: a) selecting dimensions on which to compare from dimensions that highlight the ingroup’s deficiencies to those on which the ingroup excels (Forsyth, 2006), b) distorting perception of outgroups and ingroups by stereotyping and prejudice, c) promoting and/or giving advantages to one’s ingroup through nepotism, and d) hindering outgroups through discrimination (Myers, 2002).

Literatures would often cite Filipinos in the receiving end of stereotyping, prejudice, nepotism and discrimination, probably because Filipinos are considered a minority in the global arena. Among Filipinos, however, these behaviors can also be observed.

Labelling is one form of prejudice that is common among Filipinos, but just how much has not been cited in the literatures. Common terms used are bansag, different from alyas (alias) and palayaw (nickname), which is associated with favoritism. Alyas is a label usually assigned by the individual to himself to hide his true identity. Palayaw is a positive label assigned to people with close relationships. Among the popular negative labels used are ulikba (dark-skinned, usually associated with the visual representation of Negritos, Black Americans), pakawala (loose women, loose gangsters), taba (fat), duling (cross-eyed), tanda (old), and bakekang (an extremely ugly woman).

Nepotism is one of the various -isms or institutional discrimination particularly because it entails preferential treatment solely on the basis of group membership (Matsumoto, 2000). In the Philippines, nepotism is labeled as palakasan. Palakasan has two meanings, one that refers to a physical competition and one that refers to the use of force (force defined as influence which is associated with favoritism). The practice is rooted in the Filipino value system of concern for the family, and is common in organizations (from the barkada or informal small groups to the work place including government and private organizations), in the facilitation of documents (in both public and private offices), and even in the delivery of justice (such as in competitions, in government decisions including court ruling). Abueva and Guerrero (2003) in their survey on Philippine democracy, governance and development found that 656,000 15-30 years old Filipinos defined Philippine democracy with criticisms involving undesirable conditions they observed- "Magulo, uso ang red tape, may palakasan" (inefficient/red tape and favoritism). One blog, in defense of the criticisms regarding Filipino values, noted that Filipinos love their family and friends and like getting good deals for them, which sometimes lead to nepotism and corruption, but is also responsible for filial piety and expansive business networks.

Filipino Social Identification: Kapwa

Social identity theory is one of social psychology’s most popular theories. It has been proven to be most useful to practitioners of applied science in that it has proved its value in explaining important aspects of social behavior (Haslam, 2001). In theorizing, social identity theory complements other major theoretical orientations in intergroup relations, combines cognitive and motivational processes into one explanatory account, and opens possibilities for resolving the relationship between the individual and the group (Capozza and Brown, 2000). Social identity theory relates to studies on stereotypes, prejudice, discrimination (individual and institutional), inter-cultural conflict, cooperation and competition, and organizational psychology.

The theory takes off from three basic assumptions: a) people categorize themselves and other people according to similar attributes, b) people identify with certain groups by associating with them to gain self-esteem, and c) people compare their own groups with other groups favoring their own in the process. Turner and Oakes (in McGarty, 1997) described the theory as one that “offers an analysis of the complex processes at work at the interface between self-definition, social comparison, social values and perceived social structure”.

Social identity includes the “me” and the “we” (consequently touching on the “they”) of people’s self-definition. Unique individualistic qualities, such as traits, beliefs, and skills, constitute the individual’s personal identity or the “me” of the independent self. Qualities that spring from membership in a vast array of social groups compose the social identity or the “we” of the interdependent self. The distinctions imply categorization for ingroup (similar others) and outgroup (different others).

Social identity theory posits that a shift from personal to social identity becomes imperative when an individual sees the value of including others or being included by others with whom the individual perceives similarity. This shift from “me” to “we” is triggered by something salient in the situation and when the perceived membership is foreseen to increase self-worth. Enriquez (1992) noted three pronouns used by Filipinos to refer to the English pronoun “we”: a) kita (dual), which focuses on the listener in relation to the speaker, b) tayo (inclusive), which includes the listener, and c) kami (exclusive), which excludes the listener as referent. Such levels of distinction from the English structure connote the Filipinos’ concept of kapwa.

The shared inner self is an important component of kapwa. The concept is rooted in the deeper concept of kapwa and dangal. Kapwa is recognizing that one is not different from others. Dangal, on one hand, is associated with honor and even self-respect in that it is entirely internal and enables the individual to stand out amidst an unfavorable situation. Kapwa refers to the Filipinos’ awareness of this shared inner self, a shared identity which stems from collective values shared with the whole humanity.

Enriquez (1992) presented an analytic framework of the indigenous Philippine value structure and correlated behavior patterns in four major categories (surface values, a pivot, a core, and a foundation of human values) are placed in a system represented through a three-tiered structure with the surface value on the top tier, the pivot and the core on the middle tier, and the foundation values on the bottom tier. The surface are further classified as accomodative (hiya or dignity, utang na loob or gratitude, and pakikisama or companionship) and confrontative (bahala na or determination in the face of uncertainty, lakas ng loob or inner resource for change, and pakikibaka or resistance through cooperative action). The pivot includes pakiramdam or shared inner perception implied in biro-lambing-tampo (tease-caress-resent). Kapwa psychology is found as the core value in this framework. Kalayaan (freedom), karangalan (dignity), and katarungan (justice) are the socio-political elements and foundation of the Philippine value system, where kagandahang-loob (shared inner nobility) is basic.

Filipino Social Identification: Intro

Triandis (in McGarty, 1997) clearly described traditional social psychology as “largely Western, and reflects cultures that are relatively high in individualism and low on collectivism”. True enough, the theories espoused by this field although predicts group and inter-group behavior puts premium on the individual’s attitudes and beliefs towards the situation and how the externalities affect the individual.

There is no contesting the fact that the self is a central element in intra-group and inter-group relations. However, the individual is also socially variable- operating within a social context (Turner and Oakes in McGarty, 1997) – raising and redefining the sense of self with every new relevant information acquired (Forsyth 2006), seeking memberships to groups of similar others in a process of categorization as a means of anchor to a complex and potentially overwhelming environment (Lingle, Alton, and Medin, 1984 in Conaco, 1997). Hence, the individual always acts as a member of a group, society or culture, behaving in ways like his similar others and applying norms in a particular situation even in the absence of their ingroups (Turner and Oakes in McGarty, 1997). The individual, therefore, is a continuously evolving product and factor of the group he belongs to.

Behavior in individualistic and collectivistic cultures vary, such that norms and roles are the most important determinants for collectivistic cultures while attitudes and beliefs have been found to be most important in individualistic cultures (Triandis in McGarty, 1997).

They also vary in the value they give to group membership. Greater weight on ingroups and outgroups are ascribed by collectivistic cultures than by individualistic cultures (Triandis in McGarty, 1997). People in individualistic cultures often belong to multiple ingroups, as many as their activities will requires them to belong to groups, but have lesser commitments and therefore moving easily from one ingroup to another. People in collectivistic cultures, however, belong to fewer ingroups, more deeply committed to their groups, identify more with their ingroup, and subjugate personal goals in favor of collective goals. Further, hierarchical differences and vertical relationships are emphasized and appropriate behaviors are more clearly defined in collectivistic cultures (Matsumoto, 2000).

Recognizing the need to utilize social psychology not just as a social discipline but as a socially mediated account of the way humans think about social behavior, and taking into account that these vary with culture, Triandis (in McGarty, 1997) posited a framework sorting out universal and culture-specific social psychology. The framework recognizes four levels of analysis. At Level 1, phenomena found among all humans and many mammals are studied (domain of the general and comparative as well as neuro-physiological psychology). Level 2 studies phenomena common among large groups (domain of the cross-cultural psychology). Level 3 deals with phenomena that only occur in specific cultures (domain of indigenous psychology). Level 4 focuses on personality differences that may occur regardless of culture (domain of personality psychology).

Enriquez (1994) likewise presented a comparison of the different perspectives and interpretative models in the study of Filipino Psychology: absolutist, relativist, and universalist. The absolutist perspective is the prevalent research orientation, which focuses on the basic congruence of psychological phenomena across humankind implementing objective data-gathering and objective reporting. The relativist perspective centers on understanding people in their own terms, and therefore may arise from two different frames of reference: a) the Pangkaming Pananaw, which is we-inclusive that utilizes an alien frame of reference even in studying one’s heritage, and b) the Pantayong Pananaw, which is we-exclusive and is an absolutist indigenous perspective. The universalist model is an etic approach that assumes basic psychological processes are likely to be common features of human life everywhere, although their manifestations are likely to be influenced by culture.

Considering the framework proposed by Triandis, Filipino Psychology can be classified within the Level 3. It is apparent from the models discussed by Enriquez, however, that researches in Filipino Psychology are implemented embracing the different levels of analysis mentioned by Triandis.

Forsyth (2006) stressed the need to practice equivalence, a state or condition of similarity in conceptual meaning and empirical method between cultures, in cross-cultural research to allow for meaningful comparisons. The proposal is not far from the position of Enriquez (1994) regarding the appropriateness of the mutual-orientation model in data collection, where the researcher is required to be a culture-bearer himself. Conaco (2005) cited the suggestion of Ho (1998) regarding the use of “a metatheory of psychological theories as a means of clarifying convergences and consistencies across theories of cultures by insider and outsider theorists”, going beyond indigenization to realize a universal psychology. In addition, however, she urged researchers to ensure that this call is not another form of colonialism and imperialism in the academic realm.

It is therefore correct to place the study of Filipino psychology from the standpoint of social psychology, but care has to be taken in understanding whether the concepts are universal, cross-cultural, or indigenous to the group (in this case, the culture). In the context of studying specific psycho-social conditions and social structures, a psychology indigenous to the culture will have to be highlighted. Generalization will entail several parameters, particularly similarity in conceptual meaning and empirical method.