Contemporary Filipino Culture

Asian Journal of Social Psychology(2000)3: 49–71

SikolohiyangPilipino(Filipino psychology):

A legacy of Virgilio G. Enriquez*

Rogelia Pe-Pua

TheUniversity of New South Wales

ElizabethProtacio-Marcelino

University of the Philippines

Sikolohiyang Pilipino(Filipino psychology) refers to the psychology born out of

the experience, thought and orientation of the Filipinos, based on the full use of

Filipino culture and language. The approach is one of ‘‘indigenization from

within’’ whereby the theoretical framework and methodology emerge from the

experiences of the people from the indigenous culture. It is based on assessing

historical and socio-cultural realities, understanding the local language,

unraveling Filipino characteristics, and explaining them through the eyes of

the native Filipino. Among the outcomes are: a body of knowledge including

indigenous concepts, development of indigenous research methods and

indigenous personality testing, new directions in teaching psychology, and an

active participation in organisations among Filipino psychologists and social

scientists, both in the Philippines and overseas.

The beginnings of Sikolohiyang Pilipino(Filipino psychology)

From the beginning of the periods when the Philippines was colonized by Spain, and then

the USA, academic psychology, or the psychology taught in schools, was predominantly

Western in theory and in methodology. Many Filipino intellectuals, notably the two

Philippine heroes Jose Rizal and Apolinario Mabini, expressed dissatisfaction at the

pejorative interpretations of Filipino behavior by Western observers. This disenchantment

continued as Filipinos struggled to assert their national and cultural identity.

In the 1960s, many Filipino intellectuals and scholars were already sensitive both to the

inadequacy as well as the unfairness of the Western-oriented approaches to psychology. For

instance, in the area of personality, the Western approach in research of not being enmeshed

and bound by the culture being studied has resulted in a characterization of the Filipino from

the ‘‘judgmental and impressionistic point of view of the colonizers’’ (Enriquez, 1992, p.

57). For example, the predisposition to indirectness of Filipino communication was regarded

Asian Journal of Social Psychology(2000)3: 49–71

* The authors acknowledge with thanks the contribution of Ma. Angeles Guanzon-Lapen˜a to the

section on the Development of Indigenous Personality Measures.

ßBlackwell Publishers Ltd with the Asian Association of Social Psychology

and the Japanese Group Dynamics Association 2000

as being dishonest and socially ingratiating and reflecting a deceptive verbal description of

reality (Lawless, 1969, cited in Enriquez, 1992) rather than a concern for the feelings of

others. (There are many other examples which are discussed further in this article.) Thus,

using American categories and standards, ‘‘the native Filipino invariably suffers from the

comparison in not too subtle attempts to put forward Western behavior patterns as models

for the Filipino (Enriquez, 1992, p. 57).

However, there was no concerted effort in the 1960s to reject and correct the traditional

way of teaching and studying psychology. It was in the early 1970s that this was initiated

when Virgilio Gaspar Enriquez returned to the Philippines from Northwestern University,

USA with a Ph.D. in Social Psychology and lost no time in introducing the concept of

Sikolohiyang Pilipino (Filipino Psychology). Together with then-chairman of the

Department of Psychology at the University of the Philippines (U.P.), Dr. Alfredo V.

Lagmay, Enriquez embarked on a research into the historical and cultural roots of Philippine

Psychology. Subsequently, the research included identifying indigenous concepts and

approaches in Philippine psychology and developing creativity and inventiveness among

Filipinos. From these researches, a two-volume bibliography on Filipino psychology and a

locally developed personality test,Panukat ng Ugali at Pagkatao(Measure of Character and

Personality), were produced. In 1975, Enriquez chaired the Unang Pambansang

Kumperensya sa Sikolohiyang Pilipino (First National Conference on Filipino

Psychology) which was held at the Abelardo Auditorium at U.P. In this conference, the

ideas, concepts, and formulations of Sikolohiyang Pilipinowere formally articulated.

What is Sikolohiyang Pilipino

Sikolohiyang Pilipinois anchored on Filipino thought and experience as understood from a

Filipino perspective (Enriquez, 1975). The most important aspect of this definition is the

Filipino orientation. For centuries, Filipino behavior has been analyzed and interpreted in

the light of Western theories. Since these theories are inevitably culture-bound, the picture

of the Filipino has been inaccurate, if not distorted. Enriquez (1985) later defined

Sikolohiyang Pilipinoas ‘‘the study ofdiwa(‘psyche’), which in Filipino directly refers to

the wealth of ideas referred to by the philosophical concept of ‘essence’ and an entire range

of psychological concepts from awareness to motives to behavior’’ (p. 160).

Reservations regarding the appropriateness and applicability of Western models in the

Third World setting have been expressed by a growing number of social scientists

(Enriquez, 1987, 1992; Diaz-Guerrero, 1977; Sinha, 1984). The Philippine experience has

proven that approaching psychology using these models cannot encompass the subtleties of

Asian cultures. Thus, the move towards understanding the particular nature of Filipino

psychology. It must be stressed at the outset though that developing a particularistic

psychology such as Filipino psychology is not anti-universal inasmuch as the ultimate aim of

Sikolohiyang Pilipinois to contribute to universal psychology, which can be realized only if

each group of people is adequately understood by themselves and from their own

perspective.Sikolohiyang Pilipinois a step towards contributing to universal psychology.

(We will return to this important issue towards the end of this article.)

Initial work on developing Sikolohiyang Pilipino concentrated on a type of

indigenization which is based largely on simple translation of concepts, methods, theories

and measures into Filipino. For example, psychological tests were translated into the local

language, modified in content, so that a Philippine-type version of the originally borrowed

50 Rogelia Pe-Pua and Elizabeth Protacio-Marcelino

ßBlackwell Publishers Ltd with the Asian Association of Social Psychology

and the Japanese Group Dynamics Association 2000

test was produced. On the other hand, another type of indigenization was given more

emphasis after the translation attempts failed to capture or express a truly Filipino

psychology. This is called indigenization from within (as against indigenization from

without), which means looking for the indigenous psychology from within the culture itself

and not just clothing a foreign body with a local dress. In fact, the wordindigenization is

erroneous because how can you indigenize something which is already indigenous?Cultural

revalidationis a better term for it, as Enriquez (1992) suggested. Much of the strategy for

discovering Sikolohiyang Pilipino is based on assessing historical and socio-cultural

realities, understanding the local language, unraveling Filipino characteristics and

explaining them through the eyes of the native Filipino. These resulted in a body of

knowledge which includes indigenous concepts and methods, in short, a psychology which

is appropriate and significant to Filipinos.

The principal emphasis ofSikolohiyang Pilipino is to foster national identity and

consciousness, social involvement, and psychology of language and culture. It is thus

concerned with proper applications to health, agriculture, art, mass media, religion, and

other spheres of people’s daily life.

VirgilioEnriquez: Pioneer of Sikolohiyang Pilipino

Born in the province of Bulacan, Philippines, Virgilio Gaspar Enriquez was trained by his

father to speak the native tongue fluently since he was a child. His father would always find

time to have a discussion with him in Filipino. For example, he would ask the young Virgilio

to read the day’s English language paper, but read it out loud in Filipino as if it was

originally written in that language. Even with his Ph.D. dissertation which was written in

English, he had to explain it to his father in Filipino.

Enriquez was formally initiated into psychology in 1963 when he started teaching at the

University of the Philippines (U.P.). As early as 1965, he was using the Filipino language in

teaching. For example, in a Psychology class exam, he did not translate a certain dream to

English because this was an actual dream told to him by a resident of Bulacan.

In 1966, he left for the United States to pursue a Masters, then later a Doctoral degree in

Psychology at Northwestern University at Evanston, Illinois. While in this foreign land, amidst

foreign theories, he watched the disenchantment of young student activists in the Philippines

over the deteriorating political and social conditions of the country. The stream of nationalism

was starting to have an effect on the teaching of different courses at U.P. Through his

correspondence with Lagmay, Enriquez learned that the matter of teaching in the Filipino

language was being taken up eagerly. He started preparing for the teaching of psychology in

Filipino, and had a number of discussions (and arguments) with friends and professors at

Northwestern University such as Ernesto Kole, Lee Sechrest and Donald Campbell.

Enriquez returned to the Philippines in 1971, bringing with him a wealth of Western

knowledge which he did not impose on his Filipino colleagues and students. His Western

education actually drove him to be more Filipino-oriented in his teaching and research in

psychology. He established the Philippine Psychology Research House (PPRH) which later

became the Philippine Psychology Research and Training House (PPRTH). This place

became home to materials onSikolohiyang Pilipino, growing to its present size of more than

10,000 references. It also became home to research with a Filipino perspective; as well as an

abode to individuals inspired by Enriquez’s enthusiasm, who eventually made their own

contribution to the growth ofSikolohiyang Pilipino.

Sikolohiyang Pilipino 51

ßBlackwell Publishers Ltd with the Asian Association of Social Psychology

and the Japanese Group Dynamics Association 2000

Enriquez became Chairman of the Department of Psychology in 1977–1982. He

motivated students to write their papers in Filipino to discover important ethnic concepts,

thus contributing to the growth of the national language. He was adviser and reader of theses

and dissertations written in Filipino in psychology, linguistics, anthropology, philosophy,

and Philippine Studies. His influence went beyond the U.P. He taught at other institutions,

such as De la Salle University, Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila, University of Santo

Tomas, and Centro Escolar University. He was also Visiting Professor at the University of

Hawaii, Tokyo University for Foreign Studies, University of Malaya, and University of

Hong Kong. (Pe-Pua, 1991)

A prolific scholar, Enriquez authored several publications in indigenous psychology,

Filipino personality, psychology of language and politics, philosophy and values, cross-cultural psychology, andPilipinolohiya(Philippine Studies). The list includes Indigenous

Psychology and National Consciousness(Enriquez, 1989), From Colonial to Liberation

Psychology(Enriquez, 1992), a chapter contribution to Blowers and turtle’s (1987) book

Psychology moving East(Enriquez, 1987), and his last publication before he passed away in

1994,Pagbabangong-Dangal: Indigenous Psychology & Cultural Empowerment(Enriquez,

1994).

Enriquez received numerous awards during his lifetime – fellowships, scholarships,

recognitions and grants – both in the Philippines and internationally. He made significant

contributions to the awareness ofSikolohiyang Pilipinoand Asian psychology. One of his

most significant award, the Outstanding Young Scientist of the Philippines from the

National Academy of Science and Technology in 1982, was in recognition of his work in

Sikolohiyang Pilipino. After his death, he was given a posthumous award, the National

Achievement in the Social Sciences Award (1997), by the National Research Council of the

Philippines for outstanding contribution in the social sciences on a national level.

Basic elements and features of Sikolohiyang Pilipino

DefiningSikolohiyang Pilipino

Enriquez’s most significant contribution to theSikolohiyang Pilipinomovement probably

lies in clarifying what Sikolohiyang Pilipinois. Without a clear definition, the direction of

the movement would not have been as focused and solid. In his 1975 article on the bases of

Sikolohiyang Pilipino on culture and history (Enriquez, 1975) and a 1976 article on

perspectives and directions ofSikolohiyang Pilipino (Enriquez, 1976), he distinguished

Sikolohiyang Pilipino(Filipino psychology) fromSikolohiya sa Pilipinas(psychology in the

Philippines – the general form of psychology in the Philippine context) andSikolohiya ng

mga Pilipino(psychology of the Filipinos – theorizing about the psychological nature of the

Filipinos, whether from a local or a foreign perspective).

Enriquez searched the Filipino culture and history for the bases ofSikolohiyang Pilipino

instead of tracing these back to Western theories. He even looked beyond the textbook

definition of psychology as the study of behaviour and thoughts to examine what psychology

means for the Filipinos. He came up with a definition ofpsychologythat takes into account

the study of emotions and experienced knowledge (kaloobanandkamalayan), awareness of

one’s surroundings (ulirat), information and understanding (isip), habits and behavior

(another meaning of diwa), and the soul (kaluluwa) which is the way to learning about

people’s conscience. (Enriquez, 1976)

52 Rogelia Pe-Pua and Elizabeth Protacio-Marcelino

ßBlackwell Publishers Ltd with the Asian Association of Social Psychology

and the Japanese Group Dynamics Association 2000

Four filiations ofSikolohiyang Pilipino

Zeus Salazar (1985a), a historian, later examined the history ofSikolohiyang Pilipinoand

came up with a description of the four filiations of Philippine psychology:

(a) The Academic-scientific psychology: the Western tradition – This coincided with the

birth of scientific psychology (German tradition) in 1876, and the entry of Western

psychology (mainly American tradition) at Philippine universities.

(b) Academic-philosophical psychology: the Western (mainly clerical) tradition – This was

pursued by the University of Santo Tomas and later other schools of higher learning,

under the leadership of individual monks and preachers and the Jesuits. The study of

psychology as an aspect of philosophy continued in the tradition of Thomistic

philosophy and psychology.

(c) Ethnic psychology – Major basis of Sikolohiyang Pilipinofor integrating academic-scientific and academic-philosophical tradition into a national tradition of Psychology

and Philosophy as universal disciplines. This stream includesindigenous psychology

(common to the Filipinos, culled from language, culture, literature, etc., psychological

systems worked out by Filipinos with indigenous elements as basis) psychology of

Filipinos(as observed by foreigners or as felt and expressed by Filipinos),the practice

of psychology by Filipinos(normal techniques of enculturation/socialization, and proto-clinical practice).

(d) Psycho-medical system with religion as cohesive element and explanation.

Major characteristics ofSikolohiyang Pilipinoas an indigenous Asian

psychology

Enriquez (1985, 1992) set out to define the major characteristics ofSikolohiyang Pilipino.

Its philosophical antecedents include (a) empirical philosophy, academic-scientific

psychology, the ideas and teachings of Ricardo Pascual, logical analysis of language; (b)

rational philosophy, the clerical tradition, phenomenology, Thomistic philosophy and

psychology; and (c) liberalism, the Philippine propaganda movement, the writings of

Philippine heroes Jacinto, Mabini and del Pilar, ethnic psychology.

Sikolohiyang Pilipino’s principal emphasis in psychology is on identity and national

consciousness, social awareness and involvement, psychology of language and culture, and

applications and bases of Filipino psychology in health practices, agriculture, art, mass

media, religion, etc.

As principal methods of investigation, Sikolohiyang Pilipino encourages cross-indigenous method, multi-method multi-language approach, appropriate field methods,

total approach (triangulation method).

In terms of areas of protest, Sikolohiyang Pilipino is against a psychology that

perpetuates the colonial status of the Filipino mind. It is against a psychology used for the

exploitation of the masses. It is also against the imposition to a Third World country of

psychologies developed in industrialized countries.

Regarding psychological practice, it endorses the conceptualization of psychological

practice in a Philippine context, for example, livelihood psychology instead of industrial

psychology, health psychology instead of clinical psychology. It is also concerned with folk

practices or indigenous techniques of healing, popular religio-political movements, and

community or rural psychology.

Sikolohiyang Pilipino 53

ßBlackwell Publishers Ltd with the Asian Association of Social Psychology

and the Japanese Group Dynamics Association 2000

On the science-humanism issue,Sikolohiyang Pilipinois concerned with both. Scientific

and humanistic approaches are both valid. It develops psychology as a science and

psychology as an art.

On the mentalism-behaviorism issue,Sikolohiyang Pilipinoadmits both but with lesser

emphasis on individual experience and with greater emphasis on the collective experience of

a people with a common bond of history. Greater importance is attached to kamalayan

(psyche), thus subsidiary importance attached to ulirat (lower level of physical

consciousness).

The analysis-wholeness issue is not a big issue in Sikolohiyang Pilipino.Itis

methodologically on the side of analysis but interprets the result of analysis with a bias for

wholeness.

Enriquez also clarified thatSikolohiyang Pilipinois not inconsistent with a universal

psychology but is actually a step towards the development of a universal psychology. It is

not anti-Western theory and methods either, but against a non-selective use of imposition of

Western knowledge.

A liberating, liberated and interdisciplinary psychology

Adhering to a philosophy ofSikolohiyang Pilipinobeing liberated and liberating, he eliminated

its bondage to the Western perspective, not only in theory and method but in practice. In place

of clinical psychology and industrial psychology, he brought in health psychology, livelihood

psychology, rural psychology, psychology of the arts, and others.Sikolohiyang Pilipinoalso

became more ‘‘responsible’’ and responsive to the needs of Filipinos due to the philosophy that

we need to make psychology benefit and be of service to the people.

Sikolohiyang Pilipino also became interdisciplinary – enriched by the different

disciplines to become more solid and closer to Philippine reality. Enriquez would be

heard saying, ‘‘Psychology is too important to be left to the psychologists alone.’’

Development of indigenous concepts and theories

There is a good deal of literature on the Filipino personality which has become available.

The Filipino personality is a popular area of study of many foreign scholars who came to the

Philippines. Using language interpreters and without really immersing themselves in the

culture of the people, these foreign ‘‘experts’’ have published their versions of Filipino

values. These depictions filtered into the textbooks of the Philippine educational system,

which was already greatly influenced by Western ideas to begin with. These ‘‘Filipino

values’’, together with other colonial interpretations offered by the foreign scholars, have

been transmitted from one generation to another, thus perpetuating a distorted, if not false,

picture of the Filipino.

Rethinking Filipino values

Enriquez was critical of this approach to the study of Filipino values. He encouraged

Filipino scholars to take a second look at these values using a Filipino orientation. Social

scientists such as Lagmay, Salazar, and Bonifacio took up the challenge in their own

research. Let us examine three of these ‘‘Filipino values’’ from the exogenous and

indigenous perspectives.

54 Rogelia Pe-Pua and Elizabeth Protacio-Marcelino

ßBlackwell Publishers Ltd with the Asian Association of Social Psychology

and the Japanese Group Dynamics Association 2000

Bahala Na. The Filipino cultural value of bahala nahas no exact English translation.

Bostrom (1968) was the first psychologist to analyze this value by comparing it with

American fatalism. This is obviously a pervasive interpretation that when Thomas Andres

published theDictionary of Filipino Culture and Values, he still defines bahala naas ‘‘the

Filipino attitude that makes him accept sufferings and problems, leaving everything to God.

‘Bahala na ang Diyos(God will take care of us)’ . . . This attitude is a fatalistic resignation

or withdrawal from an engagement or crisis or a shirking from personal responsibility’’

(Andres, 1994, p. 12).

TheSikolohiyang Pilipinoperspective interpretsbahala nadifferently. Lagmay (1977)

explained that bahala nais not ‘‘fatalism’’ but ‘‘determination and risk-taking’’. When

Filipinos utter the expression ‘‘Bahala na!’’ they are not leaving their fate to God and

remaining passive. Rather, they are telling themselves that they are ready to face the difficult

situation before them, and will do their best to achieve their objectives. The expression is a

way of pumping courage into their system so that they do not buckle down. In fact, even

before they have said ‘‘Bahala na!’’ they have probably done their best to prepare for the

forthcoming situation.

Hiya. Sibley (1965), an American scholar, translated hiya as ‘‘shame’’. Another

American, Lynch (1961) sawhiya as ‘‘the uncomfortable feeling that accompanies

awareness of being in a socially unacceptable position, or performing a socially

unacceptable action.’’ For example, when an employee is scolded in front of other

people. To add to the negativity of this interpretation ofhiya, Andres (1994) described hiya

as ‘‘an ingredient in why Filipinos overspend during fiestas in order to please their visitors,

even to the extent of going into debt’’ (p. 64).

This conventional interpretation ofhiyais inadequate because it does not take into

account the importance of understanding how affixations in Philippine languages can give a

new meaning to a word. Bonifacio (1976) alerted us to the different meanings of the word

hiyadepending on its form –nakakahiya(embarrassing),napahiya(placed in an awkward

position),ikinahiya (be embarrassed with someone), etc. With some affixes, it becomes

negative, e.g.,napahiya; with others, positive, e.g., mahiyain(shy); and in still other forms,

it can either be positive or negative depending on the context, e.g., kahihiyan(sense of

propriety, or embarrassment).

Salazar (1981, 1985b) expounded on affixation andhiyaand showed the internal and

external aspects ofhiya. Evidently, it is the external aspect which foreign scholars have

captured. After all is said and done, the more appropriate translation ofhiyain English is not

‘‘shame’’ but ‘‘sense of propriety’’.

Utang na loob. Utang na loobwas translated by Kaut (1961) as ‘‘debt of gratitude’’.

Andres (1994, pp. 190–191) defined it, following Kaut’s logic, as ‘‘the principle of

reciprocity incurred when an individual helps another. The person helped then feels an

obligation to repay the debt in the future when the helper himself (sic) is in need of aid, or he

(sic) may repay his debt by sending gifts. It is often not clear when a debt has been fully

paid, so that the relationship becomes an ongoing one.’’ Hollnsteiner (1961) took this

interpretation further by claiming that the recipient of the favor is forced ‘‘to show his (sic)

gratitude properly by returning the favorwith interest.’’

Enriquez (1977) dared to speculate that there is an element of wanting to promote

reciprocity which is useful for maintaining the image of the colonizer as benefactor. But

looking at utang na loobmore closely in the context of Filipino culture, it actually means

‘‘gratitude/solidarity’’. It is not necessarily a burden as the word ‘‘debt’’ connotes, because in

the Filipino pattern of interpersonal relations, there is always an opportunity to return a

Sikolohiyang Pilipino 55

ßBlackwell Publishers Ltd with the Asian Association of Social Psychology

and the Japanese Group Dynamics Association 2000

favor. It is not absolutely obligatory in the immediate future, for the opportunity to show

utang na loobmight come only in the next generation, maybe not in your lifetime. Your

children will see to it that it is recognized and respected. It is a beautiful element of Filipino

interpersonal relationships that binds a person to his or her home community or home

country. In fact, this is expressed in a popular Filipino saying, ‘‘Ang hindi lumingon sa

pinanggalingan ay hindi makakarating sa paroroonan. (Those who do not look back to

where they came from will not reach their destination)’’.Utang na loobis a calling heard by

many Filipinos who go to other lands but who still retain strong ties with their homeland.

Pakikisama vs. pakikipagkapwa. Pakikisamawas identified by Lynch (1961, 1973) as a

Filipino value, giving it the English translation of maintaining ‘‘smooth interpersonal

relations’’ by going along with the group or the majority decision, i.e., conformity.

Enriquez (1978, 1994) started unfolding the concept ofkapwa(shared identity), which is

at the core of Filipino social psychology, and which is at the heart of the structure of Filipino

values. He discovered that it is not maintaining smooth interpersonal relationships that

Filipinos are most concerned with, butpakikipagkapwawhich means treating the other

person askapwaor fellow human being. There are two categories ofkapwa: the Ibang-Tao

(outsider) and the Hindi-Ibang-Tao(‘‘one-of-us’’). In Filipino social interaction, one is

immediately ‘‘placed’’ into one of these two categories; and how one is placed determines

the level of interaction one is shown. For example, if one is regarded as ibang-tao, the

interaction can range from pakikitungo(transaction/civility with), topakikisalamuha(inter-action with), topakikilahok(joining/participating), to pakikibagay(in-conformity with/in-accord with), and topakikisama(being along with). If one is categorized ashindi-ibang-tao,

then you can expectpakikipagpalagayang-loob(being in-rapport/understanding/ acceptance

with), orpakikisangkot(getting involved), or the highest level ofpakikiisa(being one with).

Using theSikolohiyang Pilipino perspective, Enriquez (1992) re-conceptualized the

Filipino behaviour patterns and value structure where he designated hiya(‘‘propriety/

dignity’’), utang na loob (‘‘gratitude/solidarity’’) and pakikisama (‘‘companionship/

esteem’’) as colonial/accommodative surface values; and bahala na (‘‘determination’’),

sama/lakas ng loob (‘‘resentment/guts’’) and pakikibaka(‘‘resistance’’) as confrontative

surface values. He emphasized kapwa (‘‘shared identity’’) as core value; pakikiramdam

(‘‘shared inner perception’’) as pivotal interpersonal value; andkagandahang-loob(‘‘shared

humanity’’) as linking socio-personal value. Associated with the above are societal values

such askarangalan(‘‘dignity’’), katarungan(‘‘justice’’), and kalayaan(‘‘freedom’’).

Thus, the area of Filipino personality developed as a strong area using theSikolohiyang

Pilipinoperspective. The Filipino is a blend of East and West. The Western influence can be

seen more in external ways – dressing, liking for hamburger and other food, Western music

and dance, etc. However, the internal aspect, which is at the core of his pagkatao

(personality), is Asian – deference for authority, modesty/humility, concern for others, etc.

Indirect communication

Another aspect of Filipino personality that was given attention by theSikolohiyang Pilipino

perspective is the propensity for indirect communication. Part of our socialization is being

sensitive to non-verbal cues, having concern for the feelings of others, being truthful but not

at the expense of hurting others’ feelings. This has made the sharpening ofpakikiramdam

(shared inner perception) a particularly desirable skill in many situations involving Filipino

social interaction. Pakikiramdamis a request to feel or to be sensitive to. It is a shared

feeling, a kind of ‘‘emotional a priori’’. There is ‘‘hesitation to react, attention to subtle cues,

56 Rogelia Pe-Pua and Elizabeth Protacio-Marcelino

ßBlackwell Publishers Ltd with the Asian Association of Social Psychology

and the Japanese Group Dynamics Association 2000

and non-verbal behavior in mental role-playing (if I were in the other’s situation, how would

I feel)’’. In other words, it is ‘‘feeling for another’’, exercising great care and deliberation

(Mataragnon, 1987).Pakikiramdamis especially useful in conducting research in the rural

areas. Filipinos find it difficult to refuse when asked directly to participate in an interview or

survey. But if you havepakikiramdam, you can tell from their body language or the tone of

their voice that the participation they will show is ‘‘half-baked’’, thus not valid. If you have

taken the time to understand their cultural ways, you will know that it is very important to

spend time establishing rapport, letting them ‘‘interview’’ you first so they would feel

comfortable enough to disclose their opinions, knowledge and experiences to you.

The indirect pattern of communication of Filipinos has thus resulted in indirectness or

euphemisms in verbal exchange, expressive body language, voice intonations that say more

than the words themselves, and other similar behaviors. Among Filipinos, these are a

matter of fact, taken for granted, because they are what they are born into and grow up

with. It is only when these behaviors come in conflict with Western ways that the Filipino

gives them a second thought. In reality, the foreigner or the Westernized Filipino is

impatient with this mode of communication, and questions the usefulness of this cultural

way. The indirectness, for example, not saying ‘‘no’’ outright, has often been

misinterpreted to mean untruthfulness, dishonesty or hypocrisy. To the Filipinos, they

are being frank about their feelings, but they just do not express this verbally. It thus poses

as a great challenge for non-Filipinos to ‘‘read’’ these messages communicated indirectly,

or rather, non-verbally.

Internality-externality

Salazar (1985b), through his analysis of indigenous history and culture of the Filipinos,

points out the internality-externality component in the Filipino personality. The Filipino

language has two words for the English word ‘‘honor’’:purianddangal.Purirefers to honor

which is physical, such as that bestowed through compliments or applauses for a good

performance, thus external. It can also refer to virginity which is a virtue expected of

unmarried Filipino women.Dangalis honor from within – knowledge of one’s true worth,

character, achievement and success. It can be acknowledged through an award or a tribute

(parangal, which is actually pa-dangal) but even without such gestures from outside, it is

within you. Thus, a poor person who is a kind and honest person and respects the dignity of

hard work has a lot ofdangal. A woman who was raped is not stripped of her dangaleven

though herpuriwas taken away. Other examples of internality-externality includessayaand

ligaya for the English word ‘‘happiness’’; pigiland timpi for ‘‘control’’; and damaand

damdamfor ‘‘feel’’. This is not to say that this internal-external dimension is unique to the

Filipinos, but this is something researchers should be conscious of when trying to understand

the Filipino personality.

The great cultural divide

Enriquez (1992) also explored the idea of a ‘‘great cultural divide’’ in the analysis of Filipino

personality. On one side of the cultural divide are Filipinos who have maintained a more

mass-oriented worldview, culture, and way of life. They read thekomiks(popular illustrated

magazines in Filipino), listen to soap operas on radio, watch soap operas on television, and

so on. They visit the indigenous healers for both physical and mental or emotional ailments.

On the other side of the cultural divide are the Filipinos who have adhered to a more elitist

Sikolohiyang Pilipino 57

ßBlackwell Publishers Ltd with the Asian Association of Social Psychology

and the Japanese Group Dynamics Association 2000

viewpoint. They go to performances in cultural centres and theatres. They look down on

people on the other side of the divide.

Not only do the poor eat different food, if they eat at all, but they also have their own tastes in

leisure and entertainment. They are supposed to be bakyaor ‘lacking in sophistication’ (bakya

refers to the traditional wooden clogs, popular among the masses who cannot afford expensive

shoes). In fact, they have their own culture and speak their own language. While the elite speak

English and occasionally throw in some French for comfort, the Filipino masses speak Filipino

and a regional language’’ (Enriquez, 1992, p. 22).

Thus, it is not regionalism which divides the Filipinos. (In fact the authors believe that

regionalism is a myth, woven to sow disunity among Filipinos.) It is in the cultural aspect

where we witness a disparity. The concept of a great cultural divide is a legacy which

Enriquez has left behind, food for serious thought, for both academician and layman alike.

Development of indigenous personality measures

In the area of Filipino Personality, Enriquez, together with PPRH, developed thePanukat ng

Ugali at Pagkatao(PUP) (Measure of Character and Personality) in 1975 which utilized

dimensions of personality that are relevant to Filipinos. While psychological testing is of

Western origin, the substance of the PUP originated from an understanding of the Filipinos.

The test administration procedures were also adapted to Filipino ways (Enriquez &

Guanzon, 1985). It must be noted that Enriquez’s PUP and three other examples of

Philippine personality measures may actually have cross-cultural similarities in the

dimensions they measure (Guanzon-Lapen˜a, Church, Carlota, & Katigbak, 1998). Filipino

personality test development efforts have in fact come a long way, as can be seen in the

history of psychological measurement in the Philippines.

Reviews on the status of Philippine psychological measurement in the 1970s and 1980s

pointed out the twin problem of the inapplicability of foreign-made tests and the dearth of

locally developed tests (Carlota, 1980; Guanzon, 1985; Lazo, 1977; Lazo, de Jesus &

Tiglao, 1976; Ramos, 1977). Carlota (1980) noted several trends in personality

measurement, citing developments in the areas of personality testing, and the

measurement of abilities and aptitudes, and of deviant behavior. Guanzon (1985) also

noted the phenomenon of measures being locally developed particularly in the area of

personality measurement. Despite this welcome development, however, she decried the

tendency of local test users to use foreign-made tests lock, stock, and barrel, with no attempt

whatsoever to adapt these tests through item or test modification, test translation, or

development of local norms.

Cipres-Ortega and Guanzon-Lapen˜a (1997) documented and organized the information

on both published and unpublished work in the area of psychological measurement, and saw

a recent upsurge in the development of indigenous psychological measures. Interest has

grown by leaps and bounds from the handful of tests in educational psychology which were

locally developed in the 1950s, to the interest in personality testing of the projective type in

the 1960s. They further noted that ‘‘the 1970s saw tests developed in creativity, self-perception, personality and vocational testing, and the 1980s an increased interest in

personality testing, with a number of researchers doing studies on the Filipino child and the

Filipino adolescent. And in the 1990s, tests were developed to measure a wide variety of

58 Rogelia Pe-Pua and Elizabeth Protacio-Marcelino

ßBlackwell Publishers Ltd with the Asian Association of Social Psychology

and the Japanese Group Dynamics Association 2000

Filipino characteristics –katalinuhan[intelligence],pagkarelihiyoso[religiosity],kaasalang

sekswal [sexual behavior], kakayahang magdala ng tensyon [ability to handle stress],

pagkamabahala[anxiety],kahustuhang emosyonal[emotional stability],kakayahang berbal

sa Filipino [verbal ability in Filipino], Filipino management style, dementia screening,

empathy, and trustworthiness, to name a few’’ (Cipres-Ortega & Guanzon-Lapen˜a, 1997, p.

7). In the history of Philippine psychological measurement, Enriquez’sPanukat ng Ugali at

Pagkataoclearly stands out as one of the first, if not the first, instruments that are culturally

sensitive in its assessment of the Filipino personality.

Development of indigenous research methods

The impact ofSikolohiyang Pilipinowas greatly felt in the area of social research methods.

In 1975, Carmen Santiago, a postgraduate student of psychology at U.P., did a study on

pagkalalaki (no equivalent in English, but approximately, it means ‘‘masculinity’’,

‘‘maleness’’, ‘‘manhood’’, or all of these) for a class under Enriquez. This study was to

be the turning point in Philippine social research for it was in her articles (Santiago, 1975,

1977) that thepakapa-kapa(‘‘groping’’) approach was first introduced. To many traditional

researchers, her approach was avant-garde for she believed that it is not necessary to have a

clear-cut research design nor a review of related literature before embarking on a research,

especially if existing written materials are foreign to the culture being studied. In a

subsequent paper, she and Enriquez discussed the loopholes of Philippine social research,

including the lack of relevance of research topics to the needs of the people being studied,

inappropriateness of (Western) methods to the ways of the people, definitions based on

Western theories, and overemphasis on data rather than on the process. As an alternative,

they proposed ways of making research more Filipino, which eventually became the

backbone of indigenous research methods – methods which are not imported nor invented,

but are natural or existing patterns of behavior (not methods), discovered and developed as

research methods. (Santiago & Enriquez, 1976)

In searching for appropriate research methods that are indigenous to Filipino experience,

Filipino scholars have learned to assume thepakapa-kapaperspective, ‘‘a suppositionless

approach to social scientific investigations. As implied by the term itself,pakapa-kapais an

approach characterized by groping, searching and probing into an unsystematized mass of social

and cultural data to obtain order, meaning and directions for research’’ (Torres, 1982, p. 171).

There are at least five basic guiding principles relevant to the use of indigenous

perspective in general, and indigenous research methods in particular. First, the level of

interaction or relationship that exists between the researcher and the researched significantly

determines the quality of the data obtained in the research process. The levels of interaction

are the same ones as thekapwaclassifications –Ibang-Tao(‘‘Outsider’’) andHindi-Ibang-Tao(‘‘One-of-us’’). It is recommended that the first level underHindi-Ibang-Tao, which is

pakikipagpalagayang-loob(level of mutual trust, understanding, rapport) should be reached,

at the minimum, in order to be assured of good quality data.

The dichotomy of the ‘‘One-of-us’’ and the ‘‘Outsider’’ categories reflects a value for

defining membership in a group which determines the boundaries or the extent of allowable

behavior for a person. Many a time, the relationship between the researcher and the research

participants continues long after the research is over.

Second, research participants should always be treated by researchers as equal, if not

superior – a fellow human being and not like a ‘‘guinea pig’’ whose sole function is to

Sikolohiyang Pilipino 59

ßBlackwell Publishers Ltd with the Asian Association of Social Psychology

and the Japanese Group Dynamics Association 2000

provide data. From this principle, certain behaviors on the part of the researcher are

prescribed. For example, in the method of pagtatanong-tanong (literally, ‘‘asking

questions’’, marked by casualness when in fact, the researcher is truly determined to get

answers to his questions), the research participants are free to ask the researcher as many

questions as they want, therefore acting much like a ‘‘researcher’’ themselves. These

questions should be accorded the same respect and not avoided (Pe-Pua, 1989). In many of

the research methods, research participants actually have an input in the research process

itself – in terms of time management, structure of the questions, interpretation – without

their being aware of it.

Third, the welfare of the research participants take precedence over the data obtained from

them. The goal of research is understanding, but not at the expense of the very people from

whom this understanding will spring. The primary ethical responsibility of researchers should

be to the people and not to their institution or funding agency. For example, if the publication

of the research report will jeopardize the situation of the people, then it should not be

continued. If the needs of the community are unearthed in the course of doing research on a

different topic, and it is within the researchers’ capability to help, then they should help. The

research, aside from being enlightening for the respondents, should also be empowering.

Fourth, the method to be used in a research should be chosen on the basis of

appropriateness to the population (and not sophistication of the method) and it should be

made to adapt to existing cultural norms. For example, having somebody else butt in in the

middle of an interview session is not something to be upset over; one should go through the

process of getting to know each other first informally before asking questions on topics that

are not that common to people. Researchers cannot expect people to adjust to the method;

the method should adjust to the people. And here is where pakikiramdam(sensitivity) is

most needed – in trying to figure out how the research method will work most effectively.

One essential ability that researchers must possess, whatever method they are using, is

pakikiramdam, a special kind of sensitivity to cues which will guide them in their interaction

with group members, especially with Filipinos who are used to indirect and non-verbal

manner of communicating and expressing thoughts, attitudes, feelings and emotions. It is

throughpakikiramdamthat a researcher will know when to ask personal questions and when

not to pursue them; when it is time to leave; or how to interpret a ‘‘yes’’ or a ‘‘no’’.

Fifth, the language of the people should be the language of research at all times. If this is

not possible, local researchers should be tapped for assistance. It is in their own mother

tongue that a person can truly express their innermost sentiments, ideas, perceptions, and

attitudes.

Some of the indigenous research methods that have been identified arepagtatanong-tanong(improvised informal, unstructured interview) (Pe-Pua, 1989),pakikipagkuwentuhan

(‘‘story telling’’ or ‘‘informal conversations’’) (Orteza, 1997), ginabayang talakayan

(collective indigenous discussion), nakikiugaling pagmamasid (participant observation)

(Bennagen, 1985), pakikisama (‘‘getting along with’’) (Nery, 1979), pagdalaw-dalaw

(‘‘visiting’’) (Gepigon & Francisco, 1978), and panunuluyan(‘‘residing in the research

setting’’) (San Juan & Soriaga, 1985).

Inpact on the teaching of psychology in the Philippines

In a U.P. Psychology faculty meeting in 1970, Lagmay asked the staff who would like to

teach psychology in Filipino. This was the time of the First Quarter Storm in the Philippines

60 Rogelia Pe-Pua and Elizabeth Protacio-Marcelino

ßBlackwell Publishers Ltd with the Asian Association of Social Psychology

and the Japanese Group Dynamics Association 2000

when nationalism was sweeping the country. Academe responded to this call by trying to

make the university more relevant to the interest of the commontao (people or mass).

Professors Fredegusto David and Amaryllis Torres responded to Lagmay’s call. Lagmay had

always been supportive of a Filipino orientation in psychology. David taught psychology in

Filipino the year before he left to pursue his Ph.D. at Temple University in Pennsylvania.

Torres used and developed the Filipino language in psychology consistently and

continuously, inspiring others to follow. Initially, she used the terminologies

recommended by the National Science Development Board.

After Enriquez arrived from the United States in 1971, he embarked on a full-scale effort

translating psychological materials into Filipino. The primary purpose was to equip teachers

with materials that would facilitate the use of Filipino in psychology subjects. Several

materials in the different areas of psychology were published. Enriquez built up a collection

of student papers and set up a library of Philippine psychology, housing materials written in

English and in Filipino, published and unpublished, at the PPRTH.

The reaction to the use of Filipino was varied. Initially, students avoided classes which

were conducted in Filipino because they were used to speaking English inside the classroom

from grade school to high school. But after a few years, they became comfortable in Filipino

classes. Today, a large percentage of classes at the Department are conducted in Filipino,

whether completely or partially. The benefits are many – more relaxed atmosphere, more

confidence on the part of students to express themselves (without fear of making

grammatical mistakes and then being ridiculed), discovery of indigenous concepts,

opportunities for creative discussions, and a realization that psychology must relate

intimately and significantly to the life of the people.

In 1978, Sikolohiyang Pilipino as a subject was instituted and offered at the

undergraduate level for the first time. The U.P. was the first university to offer it. The

first faculty member to teach the course was Jose Ma. Bartolome. Rogelia Pe-Pua took off

where Bartolome left as far as teaching the subjectSikolohiyang Pilipino(Psychology 108)

was concerned. The greatest difficulty during the first semester was the lack of a textbook.

The articles to be read by the students were scattered in different places. So, the students and

Pe-Pua immediately worked at gathering these materials, reproducing them and binding

them into one volume (Enriquez, 1992).

The next group of students the following semester helped with indexing and publication

work. The final printed form of the bookSikolohiyang Pilipino: Teorya, Metodo at Gamit

was launched towards the end of that semester. Since the articles in the book were in both

Filipino and English, the book was given an English subtitle,Filipino Psychology: Theory,

Method and Application. Enriquez described this as a reflection ‘‘of the language situation in

the Philippine academic setting. English is still dominant in academe but Filipino has

emerged as the language of the educated Filipino in the seventies’’ (Enriquez, 1987, p. 281).

Two other compilations have been published since 1982 when the first compilation on

Sikolohiyang Pilipinowas published. In 1985,Sikolohiyang Pilipino Isyu, Pananaw at

Kaalaman(New Directions in Indigenous Psychology) edited by two postgraduate students

of Enriquez, Allen Aganon (a priest) and Ma. Assumpta David (a nun), was published. In

1992, Enriquez came out withIndigenous Psychology: A Book of Readings. Aside from

these major books, proceedings of the conferences on Sikolohiyang Pilipinohave been

published by the Pambansang Samahan sa Sikolohiyang Pilipino (PSSP, National

Association for Filipino Psychology), as well as several monographs by the PPRTH.

At the graduate level, the Filipino language has been preponderantly used, both in

teaching and research. Several theses and doctoral dissertations have been written in

Sikolohiyang Pilipino 61

ßBlackwell Publishers Ltd with the Asian Association of Social Psychology

and the Japanese Group Dynamics Association 2000

Filipino. The first M.A. Psychology thesis in Filippino was written in 1972 by Amelia

Alfonso. The first two dissertations, defended in May 1990, were by Danilo Tuazon (on

brain lateralization) and Grace Aguiling-Dalisay (on the concept of peace among children).

Lagmay was the first to teach Philippine Psychology as a ‘‘special topics’’ course at the

graduate level before it was formally instituted as a separate graduate course in 1978. Since

then, it has been offered by Enriquez, Salazar, Pe-Pua and others. Theoretical and scientific

issues are discussed, as well as social and political issues, psychologies in contact, the etic

andemicissue, and the extent to which psychology in the Third World is international or

Western.

Philippine Psychology is an area of concentration in the Ph.D. program of the U.P.

Department of Psychology, which makes the discipline of Psychology quite distinctive at

U.P. In 1994 and 1996 respectively, Elizabeth Protacio-Marcelino and Sylvia Estrada-Claudio became the first graduates to receive their Ph.D. with Philippine Psychology as the

area of concentration.

Areas of applications of Sikolohiyang Pilipino

There are several areas whereSikolohiyang Pilipinohas been applied. Much of the early

work was focused on the use of the local language in teaching, research and in the conduct

of various conferences and symposia in Psychology. This development, in turn, inspired the

mass media to use the local language in radio programs, talk shows and other official events

of local and national importance to Philippine life and culture. This further led to the

popularity of inviting Flipino psychologists to talk shows to give some insight on the

relevance ofSikolohiyang Pilipinoto the various topics under discussion.

There were some attempts to formulate appropriate techniques in therapy suited to the

Filipino personality. Bulatao (1978, cited in Enriquez, 1992), for example, made the

following observations regarding counselling in the Philippines: Filipinos are freer to be

themselves when in a sympathetic group of friends than in a one on one situation. When

supported by the group, Filipino clients prefer paternalistic counsellors to non-directive ones

who are perceived to be detached and non-caring. Filipino subjects are more susceptible to

hypnotic suggestions and enter into altered states of consciousness more readily than

American subjects.

Another area of application was in providing psychological help to children in especially

difficult circumstances such as children in situations of armed conflict, street children,

prostituted children, etc. Pioneering efforts were made by Elizabeth Protacio-Marcelino and

her colleagues at the Children’s Rehabilitation Center. Their program focused mainly on

crisis intervention through treatment and rehabilitation of these traumatized children. It

applied the orientation ofSikolohiyang Pilipinoby looking at the problem of the children at

two levels. The first level focused on the specific needs and problems of the individual child.

The second level underscored the socio-economic and political roots of the problem and

their consequences on the child’s rights and welfare (Protacio-Marcelino, 1985).

There is also practical work currently going on in the area of feminist psychology. Using

the same principles of Sikolohiyang Pilipino, social and clinical psychologists have helped

battered women understand their problems in the light of the different socio-cultural

conditions affecting women in Philippine society.

Sikolohiyang Pilipinohas also been applied in industry particularly in the marketing

of specific products and understanding consumer behavior. Several multi-national

62 Rogelia Pe-Pua and Elizabeth Protacio-Marcelino

ßBlackwell Publishers Ltd with the Asian Association of Social Psychology

and the Japanese Group Dynamics Association 2000

companies have contracted the PPRTH to train their personnel in this field. Companies

have also become more conscious of a management style that is appropriate and suited

to Filipinos.

Non-government organizations involved in community education particularly in

grassroots leadership formation have developed a training module on Sikolohiyang

Pilipinothat has proven to be quite relevant and useful to their work. The PPRTH is

currently doing a three-year research project commissioned by the Education for Life

Foundation (ELF) to look into the Filipino concept of a grassroot leader and the elements of

Filipino leadership.

Associations, conferences and other professional meetings

Further to his role in defining the characteristics and perspectives ofSikolohiyang Pilipinoand

charting its direction, Enriquez spearheaded several activities that have continued long after

his death in 1994 such as the holding of annual national conferences on Filipino psychology.

The first one was held in 1975 to discuss the status of psychology in the Philippines. From this

conference, the Pambansang Samahan sa Sikolohiyang Pilipino (PSSP, National Association

for Filipino Psychology) was born, aiming to promote Filipino thought. The annual

conferences are held in different regions of the country to encourage greater participation, to

promote a more regional focus, and to encourage a more national view of psychology. Thus

there were conferences held in Tacloban, Bicol, Marawi and other places; the 1997 one was in

Puerto Princesa in Palawan. The conferences and seminars he initiated generated a wealth of

information and experiences exchanged among scholars. Enriquez was also responsible for

establishing organizations in specialized areas such as child psychology, psychology of the

arts, psychology of language, history of psychology, and so on.

The spread of Sikolohiyang Pilipinooutside the Philippines

During his lifetime, Enriquez traveled a lot and in some cases lived for some time in various

countries to teach, do research, and participate in conferences. It was during these trips that

he was able to influence scholars living abroad (Filipinos and foreigners) to take a keen

interest in Sikolohiyang Pilipino. This brought them together in various occasions and

eventually led them to set up organizations and associations that supported the goals of

Sikolohiyang Pilipino.

In the 1970’s and 1980’s there were quite a number of these organizations in the United

States (San Francisco and New Haven), Japan, Malaysia, Thailand and Hongkong. With the

death of Enriquez, however, only one has managed to continue with its activities and this is

the association in San Francisco, California. However, there are still a number of individuals

in these countries who believe in the Sikolohiyang Pilipinoorientation and tradition though

they may no longer have the organizational expression.

Debates within Sikolohiyang Pilipino

Since the inception ofSikolohiyang Pilipinothere has been a number of issues and concerns

articulated by its proponents and critics. The most prominent debate in the area was initiated

Sikolohiyang Pilipino 63

ßBlackwell Publishers Ltd with the Asian Association of Social Psychology

and the Japanese Group Dynamics Association 2000

by Zeus Salazar, a historian who did most of his graduate and postgraduate training in

Europe. He made significant contributions toSikolohiyang Pilipinoby underscoring the

need for a socio-historical perspective in understanding the psychology of the Filipino.

Salazar was both a friend and critic of Enriquez’s work. While he agrees with Enriquez

on the basic principles ofSikolohiyang Pilipino, especially the importance of culture, the use

of the local languages and the development of a national consciousness, there are

disagreements or differences on a number of issues. Significant among these is the issue of

Filipino-Americans. Salazar criticized Enriquez for including the study of Filipino-Americans in the discourse ofSikolohiyang Pilipino. For Salazar (1991), Filipino-Americans are not ‘‘Filipinos’’ since they are not legitimate culture bearers – they were

born in the United States, do not share the Philippine cultural experience, and hardly speak

any Philippine language.

Sikolohiyang Pilipino, according to him, should focus on the lived experiences of people

immersed in Philippine life and culture. Filipino-Americans do not have what both Salazar

and Enriquez calls a ‘‘national consciousness’’ precisely because they are ‘‘outsiders’’ and

unable to participate in national discourse that shapes consciousness. On a more personal

note, he pointed to the contradiction in Enriquez’s pro-Filipino views and convictions while

at the same time writing in English for an Western audience.

Enriquez, on the other hand, called Salazar’s (1991) ‘‘pantayong pananaw’’ (the insider

view representing ‘‘us’’ – ‘‘tayo’’ and excluding ‘‘them’’ – ‘‘sila’’) as ‘‘unabashedly emic’’. He

labeled Salazar’s position as ‘‘reactionary ethnocentrism’’ which limits his views to the

confines of national boundaries’’. He maintained that Filipino-Americans are Filipinos because

some aspects of their identity and cultural experiences are still Filipino (Enriquez, 1994).

Protacio-Marcelino (1996) responded to these points in her Ph.D. dissertation on

ethnicity and identity issues of second generation Filipino-Americans by stressing that

indeed Filipino-Americans are not Filipino – they are both Filipino and American. They

have different cultural experiences growing up in America. However, they can still lay claim

to Filipino cultural identity (differentiated from a national identity) because both their

parents are Filipino, some of them still speak or at least understand one Philippine language.

They share the very same values that Filipinos in the Philippines hold dear, such as respect

for elders, sense of family and community, value for education, appreciation of the

language, and devotion to religion. They may be ‘‘outsiders’’ to everyday Philippine

experience but they still possess some critical elements of Philippine life and culture as

transmitted by their parents and reinforced by their regular visits to the Philippines. This

makes them ‘‘insiders’’ to a significant extent.

Madelene Avila-Sta Maria (1998) went several steps further to critically analyze the

differences in the thinking of both and pointed to several areas of debate. Below are some

highlights of the issues she raised in reading Salazar and Enriquez.

Psychology and culture. Psychology, according to Salazar, is necessarily part of culture.

First, there should be a psychological tradition in Philippine culture before one can say that

there is such a concept as Sikolohiyang Pilipino. He explains that the discipline of

Psychology is foreign in origin and therefore, should be given a new meaning and re-interpreted in a context relevant to Philippine life and culture. It is imperative then for

psychologists to develop the discipline by abstraction, elucidation and articulation of new

concepts and theories, thus, enriching that tradition.

Enriquez, on the other hand, held that culture is derived from the process of discovering

individual psychological elements and themes. To him, Sikolohiyang Pilipinoexists as long

64 Rogelia Pe-Pua and Elizabeth Protacio-Marcelino

ßBlackwell Publishers Ltd with the Asian Association of Social Psychology

and the Japanese Group Dynamics Association 2000

as there are Filipinos. This type of psychology is already found in Philippine life and culture.

One simply has to examine the attitudes, beliefs, values and practices of the Filipino and

give importance to the Filipino’s personhood and aspirations as a people.

Enriquez elaborates by saying that psychology in the Philippines is both foreign and

indigenous to the culture. One simply has to recognize, appreciate and emphasize the

indigenous elements and reject the foreign aspects and put them in the context of Philippine

colonial history. For him, what is important is the immediate application of psychology in

understanding and helping solve the problems in Philippine society.

Universality of psychology. For Salazar, the history and traditions of a particular culture is

sufficient to contribute to universal psychology. He believes that universal knowledge

cannot be found at the level of phenomenon or experience but rather in the construction and

interpretation of meaningful concepts and theories.

For Enriquez, it is necessary to understand the experiences of many cultures and

traditions before one can contribute to universal knowledge in psychology. He considers the

similarity of observations of phenomena and diverse cultural experiences as indicators of

universal knowledge in psychology.

While there may be differences in thinking between Salazar and Enriquez as discussed

by Avila-Sta Maria (1998) we think that it is more appropriate to look at this in a continuum.

Salazar’s more ‘‘emic’’ approach and Enriquez’s more ‘‘etic’’ approach (without any one of

them neglecting or emphasizing only one approach) when put together eventually leads to

the formation of universal knowledge in psychology.

Enriquez did not stop at hypothesis-generation (level of perceptual knowledge and

experience) but rather went on to develop core concepts and theories in psychology (e.g.,

kapwapsychology) and linked these to the diverse realities and experiences of other cultures

and ethnicities. Salazar, on the other hand, continues to draw material for his theories from

his critical understanding of culture and history.

Following this debate closely is Roberto Tangco who teaches Philosophy at the

University of the Philippines. He basically questionedSikolohiyang Pilipino’s position on

the issue of universality and asserts that Sikolohiyang Pilipino, although it claims to

contribute to universal knowledge, has not shown sufficient proof of its contribution or even

proof that such knowledge exists in any given culture. He argues that the ‘‘valuing’’ of a

universal psychology is not reflected in Sikolohiyang Pilipino’s accumulated body of

literature and research data. He therefore also questions Sikolohiyang Pilipino’s

methodology and practice and traces the problem toSikolohiyang Pilipino’s underlying

philosophy (Tangco, 1998). Tangco is in the process of writing his Ph.D. dissertation,

focusing on the metaphors that guide discourse inSikolohiyang Pilipinoas well as determine

its methodology.

Although Tangco does not say so, he is implying thatSikolohiyang Pilipino’s

phenomenological orientation is not scientific and cannot pass the scientific standards of

objectivity, reliability and validity – understood of course from a logico-positivist

framework. These issues are not new and have actually been addressed by many

Philippine scholars in the past (Jimenez, 1982; Feliciano, 1982; Margallo, 1982). The

response to Tangco’s criticism is this: While Sikolohiyang Pilipino tends to be

phenomenological in orientation, it has mechanisms in place to ensure that the tenets of

scientific endeavor are upheld.

While there may be no research as yet on cross-cultural comparisons of the concepts and

theories developed by Enriquez, there are already various attempts at applying such concepts

Sikolohiyang Pilipino 65

ßBlackwell Publishers Ltd with the Asian Association of Social Psychology

and the Japanese Group Dynamics Association 2000

to understand other social and cultural realities (De la Torre, 1995; Lopez, 1996) In other

words, the body of knowledge is there. Through a close examination of similar bodies of

knowledge in other countries, comparisons can be made.

Sylvia Estrada-Claudio (1997) was also critical of the notions of indigenous cultural

elements and concepts because of the assumption that such are inherent or given in a culture.

According to her, culture is not given nor static. There seems to be a tendency forSikolohiyang

Pilipinoto gloss over negative aspects of Philippine culture and ignore the power dynamics at

play in given cultural contexts. She asserts that there is a hegemonic type of consciousness

present in culture that needs to be confronted. At the same time, there is a need to acknowledge

positive elements in mainstream culture and psychology that are transformative and liberating.

Thus, she advocates a critical perspective of culture and psychology that looks into the

dimensions of power and how this influences the articulation of concepts and theories in

psychology. She thinks that a phenomenological approach, although perhaps useful in the

past, can no longer move Sikolohiyang Pilipino forward. It is therefore important for

Sikolohiyang Pilipinoto take a more critical stance and re-examine its methodology. She

proposes to de-construct the hegemonic discourse by using discourse analysis in the context

of a postmodern (post colonial) perspective. Estrada-Claudio’s radical postmodern feminist

thinking should be given some consideration, although it is not an approach that has gained

popularity in the discipline of psychology in the Philippines.

In contrast to the debates, there are a number of new researches that have been able to

present revisions and elaborations on the basic tenets ofSikolohiyang Pilipinoas articulated

by Enriquez. Grace Orteza has improved on Sikolohiyang Pilipino’s understanding of

pakikipagkuwentuhan(‘‘story-telling’’) as consistent with the core concept of Enriquez’s

kapwapsychology. She compared thepakikipagkuwentuhanof the 1980’s to that of the

1990’s and corrected the mistaken notion that this is used only for sensitive and difficult

topics/issues. She made the important point that one can use pakikipagkuwentuhan in

practically any given situation in the spirit ofpakikipagkapwa. (Orteza, 1997)

Guanzon-Lapen˜a has made significant contributions in the understanding of the concept

of leadership among the grassroots Filipinos by developing a new framework for leadership

among Filipinos. She looked into the essential elements articulated inSikolohiyang Pilipino

in discovering the richness of indigenous knowledge, beliefs and practices as related to the

various applications and areas of grassroots leadership formation.

There are still no resolutions to these debates at this point. What is clear, however, from

the foregoing discussion is the fact that,Sikolohiyang Pilipino, several years after Enriquez’s

death, is alive and well and continues to interest and inspire scholars from different

persuasions – to give new meaning and direction to the development not only of Philippine

Psychology but of the larger discourse of the social sciences.

Sikolohiyang Pilipino in the realm of universal and world psychology

We put forward now that what is generally considered as ‘‘universal’’ psychology is based

on the psychology of industrialized and developed countries of the West. This psychology

aims to be a science comparable to that of the natural sciences, thus approximating the laws

of universality. Influenced by logico-positivist thinking to a large extent, this psychology

emphasizes what is directly observable, measurable and quantifiable. It has set some kind of

‘universal’’ standard that has come to be accepted widely among the social sciences.

66 Rogelia Pe-Pua and Elizabeth Protacio-Marcelino

ßBlackwell Publishers Ltd with the Asian Association of Social Psychology

and the Japanese Group Dynamics Association 2000

Because its goal is to generalize research findings, this brand of psychology seeks to

apply western theories and methods to non-western societies and cultures. It is assumed that

all human beings are the same and their context in time and space is not important. In so

doing it became ‘‘the Psychology’’ by which all other psychologies are judged. Thus, one

does not question a textbook with the title ‘‘Introduction to Psychology’’ used to teach

undergraduate psychology students in the Philippines, when the correct title perhaps should

be ‘‘Introduction to American Psychology’’. This is the brand of psychology that

Sikolohiyang Pilipinoobjects to.

It was mentioned earlier in this article that Sikolohiyang Pilipinois regarded as a step

towards the development of a truly universal psychology. It has been shown that ‘‘Philippine

psychology’s colonial character as a captive of an American dominated, English-speaking

world is one ofSikolohiyang Pilipino’s major areas of protest’’ (Enriquez, 1987, p. 279).

Sikolohiyang Pilipino accepts the scientific character of psychology but questions its

universality which is also questioned in other parts of the world, e.g., in Mexico (Diaz-Guerrero, 1977) and India (Sinha, 1984). ‘‘The history of psychology as it has evolved in the

western tradition can be interpreted as moving towards the goal of a truly universal psychology.

Unfortunately, psychology is still a far from that goal in spite of over a hundred years of

scientific research,’’ said Enriquez (1987, p. 279). For as long as the orientation is western, the

growth in psychology will simply be a broadening of the data base which is inadequate for

assuring a universal psychology. Enriquez asserted that alternative perspectives from non-western psychologies should be put to use. The history of psychology must be rewritten ‘‘with

due consideration to Asian experience and perspectives’’ (Enriquez, 1987).

Sikolohiyang Pilipinorecognizes the demands of universal science but ‘‘it likewise

appreciates the value of affirming the peculiarity and distinctiveness of man as a socio-cultural being’’ (Enriquez, 1992, p. 27). It attempts to discover universals by encouraging

cross-indigenous perspectives, i.e., individual cultures use methods of investigation and

theories that are indigenous or appropriate to their cultures, and cross-cultural comparisons

made with respect to variations in these approaches. However, ‘‘this does not mean that one

has to set aside and ignore the specific aspects of man associated with his culture’’ (p. 27).

While it emphasizes the objective study of psychology,Sikolohiyang Pilipinoalso believes

in the use of psychology in helping to develop a national culture which is into Western-dominated but considers the aspirations of the Filipino.

The concept of a universal psychology based on a broader range of cultures is not new.

‘‘Western psychologists themselves, who rally under the banner of ‘‘cross-cultural

psychology’’ have pushed for a universal psychology, as contrasted with the psychology

based on generalizations from studies done in industrialized countries. While the arguments

are forceful and the sentiments real, a ‘cross-cultural psychology’ will remain a promise for

as long as the indigenous psychologies are untapped because of language and culture

barriers’’ (Enriquez, 1992, p. 81).

Through the discovery and use of indigenous concepts and methods,Sikolohiyang

Pilipinois contributing to a truly universal psychology which is based on a new set of

principles: diversity and equality. Diversity because it is a psychology that is drawn from the

experiences and particularities of various countries and cultures, and equality because it

respects these various psychologies as equally valid, important and relevant and does not

attempt to impose its ideas on others. Such a universal psychology is perhaps more of a

vision than a reality.

In an effort to understand and discover its own ‘‘particularities’’ not dictated by the

West,Sikolohiyang Pilipinoattempts not only to test hypotheses based on western theories

Sikolohiyang Pilipino 67

ßBlackwell Publishers Ltd with the Asian Association of Social Psychology

and the Japanese Group Dynamics Association 2000

but rather to generate its own set of hypotheses, theories and body of knowledge. This is

only possible whenSikolohiyang Pilipinoembarks on a search for its essence through

indigenous concepts and methods. This, in turn, gives birth to new theories and

methodologies, as has already happened and is still happening at least in Asia and

perhaps Latin America. Such an endeavor may be considered as a contribution to universal

psychology. In fact at this point, it can truly be said thatSikolohiyang Pilipinohas long

started that process through its articulation and elucidation of new concepts and methods

that have been considered meaningful not only for Filipinos but also for some other Asian

cultures as well.

References:

Andres, T.D. (1994).Dictionary of Filipino Culture and Values. Quezon City: Giraffe Books.

Avila-Sta. Maria, M. (1998). Ang Kaisipang Enriquez at Salazar saSikolohiyang Pilipino (The

thoughts of Enriquez and Salazar on Sikolohiyang Pilipino). Paper read at the Forum on ‘Piling-piling Pananaliksik Pilipino’ (Selected Filipino Research), De La Salle University, Manila,

Philippines, June 1998.

Bennagen, P.L. (1985). Nakikiugaling pagmamasid: Pananaliksik sa kulturang Agta (Participant

observation: Research on Agta culture). In A. Aganon and M. David (Eds.),Sikolohiyang Pilipino:

Isyu, Pananaw at Kaalaman (New Directions in Indigenous Psychology) (pp. 397–415). Manila:

National Book Store.

Bonifacio, A. (1976). Hinggil sa kaisipang Pilipino (On Filipino thought). In L.F. Antonio, E.S. Reyes,

R.E. Pe and N.R. Almonte (Eds.),Ulat ng Unang Pambansang Kumperensya sa Sikolohiyang

Pilipino (Proceedings of the First National Conference on Filipino Psychology)(pp. 24–48).

Quezon City: Pambansang Samahan sa Sikolohiyang Pilipino.

Bostrom, L.C. (1968). FilipinoBahala naand American fatalism.Silliman University Journal, 51,

399–413.

Carlota, A.J. (1980). Research tends in psychological testing. In A. Carlota and L. Lazo (Eds.),

Psychological Measurement: A Book of Readings(pp. 31–47). Quezon City: U.P. Psychology

Foundation, 1987.

Cipres-Ortega, S. and Guanzon-Lapen˜a, M.A. (1997). Locally developed psychological tests: A critical

review. Paper presented at the Annual Scientific Meeting of the National Academy of Science and

Technology, Manila, July 10, 1997.

De la Torre, E. (1995). The valuing process among caregivers. In L. Teodoro and P. Sicam (Eds.),

Torture Survivors and Caregivers: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Therapy and

Research Issues(pp. 117–128). Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press.

Diaz-Guerrero, R. (1977). A Mexican psychology.American Psychologist, 32(11), 934–944.

Enriquez, V.G. (1975). Mga batayan ng Sikolohiyang Pilipino sa kultura at kasaysayan (The bases of

Filipino psychology in culture and history).General Education Journal, 29, 61–88.

Enriquez, V.G. (1976). Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Perspektibo at direksyon (Filipino psychology:

perspective and directioon). In L.F. Antonio, E.S. Reyes, R.E. Pe and N.R. Almonte (Eds.),Ulat ng

Unang Pambansang Kumperensya sa Sikolohiyang Pilipino (Proceedings of the First National

Conference on Filipino Psychology)(pp. 221–243). Quezon City: Pambasang Samahan sa

Sikolohiyang Pilipino.

Enriquez, V.G. (1977). Pakikisama o pakikibaka: Understanding the psychology of the Filipino. Paper

read at the Conference on Philippine Culture, Bay Area Bilingual Education League, Berkeley, CA.

Enriquez, V.G. (1978).Kapwa: A core concept in Filipino social psychology. Philippine Social

Sciences and Humanities Review, 42(1–4).

Enriquez, V.G. (1985). The development of psychological thought in the Philippines. In A. Aganon

and M. David (Eds.), Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Isyu, Pananaw at Kaalaman (New Directions in

68 Rogelia Pe-Pua and Elizabeth Protacio-Marcelino

ßBlackwell Publishers Ltd with the Asian Association of Social Psychology

and the Japanese Group Dynamics Association 2000

Indigenous Psychology) (pp. 1149–176). Manila: National Book Store.

Enriquez, V.G. (1987). Decolonizing the Filipino psyche: Impetus for the development of psychology

in the Philippines. In G.H. Blowers and A.M. Turtle (Eds.),Psychology Moving East: The Status of

Western Psychology in Asia and Oceania(pp. 265–287). Boulder and London: Westview Press.

Enriquez, V.G. (1989).Indigenous Psychology and National Consciousness. Tokyo: Institute for the

Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.

Enriquez, V.G. (1992).From Colonial to Liberation Psychology. Quezon City: University of the

Philippines Press.

Enriquez, V.G. (1994).Pagbabangong-dangal: Psychology and Cultural Empowerment. Quezon City:

Akademya ng Kultura at Sikolohiyang Pilipino.

Enriquez, V.G. and Guanzon-Lapen˜a, M.C. (1985). Towards the assessment of personality and culture:

ThePanukat ng Ugali at Pagkatao. Philippine Journal of Educational Measurement, 4(1), 15–54.

Estrada-Claudio, S. (1997). Sekswalidad, Babae at Pagkatao: Isang Pagsusuri ng Konsepto ng

Pagkababae sa Kulturang Pilipino (Sexuality, Woman and Personality: An Analysis of the Concept

of Woman in Philippine Culture). Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation in Psychology, University of

the Philippines, Quezon City, Philippines.

Feliciano, G. (1982). The limits of Western social research methods in rural Philippines: The need for

innovation. In R. Pe-Pua (Ed.), Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Teorya, Metodo at Gamit (Filipino

Psychology: Theory, Method and Application)(pp. 99–110). Quezon City: Surian ng Sikolohiyang

Pilipino.

Gepigon, S.D. and Francisco, V.A. (1978). Pagdalaw at pakikipagpalagayang-loob sa mamumulot ng

basura (Visiting and making friends with the garbage scavengers). In L.F. Antonio, et.al. (Eds.),

Ulat ng Ikatlong Pambansang Kumperensya sa Sikolohiyang Pilipino (Proceedings of the Third

National Conference on Filipino Psychology)(pp. 133–146). Quezon City: Pambansang Samahan

sa Sikolohiyang Pilipino.

Guanzon, M.A. (1985). Paggamit ng panukat sikolohikal sa Pilipinas: Kalagayan at mga isyu

(Psychological measurement in the Philippines: Status and issues). In A. Aganon and M. David

(Eds.), Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Isyu, Pananaw at Kaalaman (New Directions in Indigenous

Psychology)(pp. 341–370). Manila: National Book Store.

Guanzon-Lapen˜a, M.A., Church, A.T., Carlota, A.J., and Katigbak, M.S. (1998). Indigenous

personality measures: Philippine examples.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,29(1), 249–270.

Hollnsteiner, M.R. (1961) Reciprocity in the lowland Philippines.IPC Papers No. 1. Quezon City:

Ateneo de Manila University.

Jimenez, M.C. (1982) Ang kabuluhan ng sikolohiya: Isang pagsusuri (The relevance of psychology:

An analysis). In R. Pe-Pua (Ed.),Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Teorya, Metodo at Gamit (Filipino

Psychology: Theory, Method and Application)(pp. 22–30). Quezon City: Surian ng Sikolohiyang

Pilipino.

Kaut, C.R. (1961).Utang-na-loob: A system of contractual obligation. Southwestern Journal of

Anthropology, 17, 256–272.

Lagmay, A.V. (1977). ‘‘Bahala na’’. In L.F. Antonio, L.L. Samson, E.S. Reyes and M.A. Paguio

(Eds.),Ulat ng Ikalawang Pambansang Kumperensya sa Sikolohiyang Pilipino (Proceedings of the

Second National Conference on Filipino Psychology)(pp. 120–130). Quezon City: Pambansang

Samahan sa Sikolohiyang Pilipino.

Lazo, L. (1977). Psychological testing in schools: An assessment.Philippine Journal of Psychology,11

(1), 23–27.

Lazo, L., Vasquez-de Jesus, L. and Edralin-Tiglao, R. (1976). A survey of psychological measurement

practices in the Philippines: Clinical, industrial, and educational settings. In A. Carlota and L. Lazo

(Eds.),Psychological Measurement: A Book of Readings(pp. 2–30). Quezon City: U.P. Psychology

Foundation, 1987.

Lopez, J. (1996). The valuing process between survivors and caregivers. In C. Bautista, J. Lopez and S.

Ocampo (Eds.),Human Rights and Health Professionals: Proceedings of the Seminar on Medical

Ethics, Torture and Rehabilitation(pp. 203–214). Quezon City: University of the Philippines

Sikolohiyang Pilipino 69

ßBlackwell Publishers Ltd with the Asian Association of Social Psychology

and the Japanese Group Dynamics Association 2000

Center for Integrative and Development Studies.

Lynch, F. (1961). Social acceptance. In F. Lynch (Ed.),Four Readings on Philippine Values(pp. 1–

21). Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.

Lynch, F. (1973). Social acceptance reconsidered. In F. Lynch and A. de Guzman II (Eds.),IPC Papers

No. 2. Four Readings on Philippine Values(pp. 1–68). Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University.

Margallo, S. (1982). The challenge of making a scientific indigenous field research: An evaluation of

studies using maka-Pilipinong pananaliksik(Filipino-oriented research). In R. Pe-Pua (Ed.),

Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Teorya, Metodo at Gamit (Filipino Psychology: Theory, Method and

Application)(pp. 233–239). Quezon City: Surian ng Sikolohiyang Pilipino.

Mataragnon, R. (1987)Pakikiramdamin Filipino social interaction. In Foundations of Behavioral

Sciences: A Book of Readings. Quezon City: University of the Philippines.

Nery, L. (1979).Pakikisamaas a method: A study of a subculture.Philippine Journal of Psychology,

12(1), 27–32.

Orteza, G.O. (1997). Pakikipagkuwentuhan (Indigenous Research Methods).PPRTH Occasional

Papers Series No. 1. Quezon City: Philippine Psychology Research and Training House.

Pe-Pua, R. (1989).Pagtatanong-tanong: A cross-cultural research method. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 13, 147–163.

Pe-Pua, R. (1991). UP pioneers in indigenous Filipino psychology. In B. Aquino (Ed.),The University

Experience(pp. 152–164). Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press.

Protacio-Marcelino, E. (1985). Pag-angkop sa kagipitan at ligalig: Isang panimulang pag-aaral sa

karanasan ng mga anak ng bilanggong pulitikal (Stress and coping: A preliminary study of the

experiences of children of political prisoners).Diwa, 14(1–2).

Protacio-Marcelino, E. (1996). Identidad at Etnisidad: Pananaw at Karanasan ng mga Estudyanteng

Filipino-Amerikano sa California (Identity and Ethnicity: Perspectives and Experiences of Filipino-American Students in California). Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation in Psychology, University of

the Philippines, Quezon City, Philippines.

Ramos, E. (1977). Assessment of psychological testing in the Philippines: Focus on industries and

national education.Philippine Journal of Psychology, 11(1), 19–22.

Salazar, Z. (1981). Wika atdiwa: Isang panglinggwistikang analisis sa halimbawa ng konsepto ng

‘‘hiya’’ (Language and consciousness: An illustrative psycholinguistic analysis of the concept of

‘‘hiya’’). In S. Cipres-Ortega (Ed.), Ulat ng Ikalabindalawang Seminar sa Sikolohiya ng Wika

(Proceedings of the 12th Seminar on the Psychology of Language) (pp. 38–43). Quezon City:

Unibersidad ng Pilipinas.

Salazar, Z. (1985a). Four filiations in Philippine psychological thought. In A. Aganon and M. David

(Eds.), Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Isyu, Pananaw at Kaalaman (New Directions in Indigenous

Psychology)(pp. 194–214). Manila: National Book Store.

Salazar, Z. (1985b) Hiya: Panlapi at salita (Hiya: Affixations and word). In A. Aganon and M. David

(Eds.), Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Isyu, Pananaw at Kaalaman (New Directions in Indigenous

Psychology)(pp. 288–296). Manila: National Book Store.

Salazar, Z. (1991). Ang pantayong pananaw bilang dikursong pangkabihasnan (The pantayo

perspective as cultural discourse). In V. Bautista and R. Pe-Pua (Eds.), Pilipinolohiya:

Kasaysayan, Pilosopiya at Pananaliksik (Philippine Studies: History, Philosophy and Research).

Manila: Kalikasan Press.

San Juan, J. and Soriaga, R. (1985). Panunuluyan: Mula paninimbang hanggang malalimang

pakikipagpalagayang-loob (Panunuluyan: Interaction techniques and levels of relationship). In A.

Aganon and M. David (Eds.),Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Isyu, Pananaw at Kaalaman (New Directions

in Indigenous Psychology) (pp. 433–480). Manila: National Book Store.

Santiago, C.E. (1975). Ang kahulugan ng pagkalalake sa mga Pilipino (The meaning of ‘masculinity’

among Filipinos). In V.G. Enriquez (Ed.),Serye ng mga Papel sa Pagkataong Pilipino (Series of

Papers in Filipino Personality)(pp. 51–70). Lunsod Quezon: Philippine Psychology Research

House.

Santiago, C.E. (1977). Pakapa-kapa: Paglilinaw ng isang konsepto sa nayon (Pakapa-kapa: Clarifying a

70 Rogelia Pe-Pua and Elizabeth Protacio-Marcelino

ßBlackwell Publishers Ltd with the Asian Association of Social Psychology

and the Japanese Group Dynamics Association 2000

concept in a rural setting). In R. Pe-Pua (Ed.),Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Teorya, Metodo at Gamit

(Filipino Psychology: Theory, Method and Application) (pp. 161–170). Quezon City: Surian ng

Sikolohiyang Pilipino.

Santiago, C.E. and Enriquez, V.G. (1976). Tungo sa makapilipinong pananaliksik (Towards a Filipino-oriented research).Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Mga piling Papel, 1(4), 3–10.

Sibley, W. (1965).Area Handbook on the Philippines. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Sinha, D. (1984) Psychology in rural areas: The case of a developing country. Invited address,

International Congress of Psychology, Acapulco, Mexico, September 2–7.

Tangco, R. (1998). Personal interview during the Forum on ‘‘Piling-piling Pananaliksik Pilipino’’

(Selected Filipino Research), De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines. June 1998.

Torres, A. (1982). ‘‘Pakapa-kapa’’ as an approach in Philippine Psychology. In R. Pe-Pua (Ed.),

Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Teorya, Metodo at Gamit (Filipino Psychology: Theory, Method and

Application)(pp. 171–174). Quezon City: Surian ng Sikolohiyang Pilipino.

Sikolohiyang Pilipino 71

ßBlackwell Publishers Ltd with the Asian Association of Social Psychology

and the Japanese Group Dynamics Association 2000

Contemporary Filipino Culture

Saturday, October 5, 2013

Latest News on the Philippine Economy

Discussion about Filipino Psychology by Julie Ann Badilla

Friday, October 4, 2013

Sikolohiyang Filipino (Filipino Psychology) by Virgilio Enriquez