An autopsy of our values?
DR. Jose Rizal once diagnosed the social cancer of the country to refer to its social ills. American journalist James Fallows in 1987 described the Philippines as a “damaged culture.” But he didn’t have any evidence for such a claim. In defensive denial, we cried foul.
Filipinos, for ages, have heard about the clarion call for moral recovery. We still hold on to hope that moral and values education may serve as an antidote or cure, with optimism that such is not futile. We can only wish for a moral revolution as we ask the most difficult questions — of which morality are we talking about and whose revolution are we fighting for. We remain positive that moral revolution can save the country from falling into complete and irreversible moral decay.
We have to see our lives through the lens of collective nationalistic identity and an authentic value system. Filipino values and norms serve as a general reference for the being and becoming of the Filipinos.
And yes, we can fix this, unless it is dead.
Something is wrong with us?
American anthropologist Frank Lynch, in his groundbreaking work on Filipino values in 1961, configured a Filipino values system anchored on social acceptance as a core value. Social acceptance finds support in the intermediate values of smooth interpersonal relations (SIR) and of self-esteem (sensitivity to personal affront). SIR is exemplified by the values of pakikisama (getting along with), euphemism (pleasantness) and go-between (third-party mediation). Hiya (feeling of embarrassment) and amor propio (sensitivity to personal affront) are normative sanctions against behaviors that violate the value of social acceptance.
We attributed that pakikisama emphasis on social harmony that can translate into political alliances, patronage networks and even compromise — at the expense of transparency and accountability. Utang na loob, the concept of debt of gratitude, can cultivate loyalty and strong community ties but can also be exploited for political gain, leading to clientelism and a culture of dependency. Hiya, the fear of shame and public disapproval, can act as a social control mechanism but can also stifle dissent and criticism, hindering political participation and accountability.
We were shown that familial ties and networks are built on pakikisama and utang na loob, and can solidify political dynasties, hindering political mobility and perpetuating inequalities. Corruption and patronage result from the exploitation of utang na loob and weak accountability systems fueled by hiya can foster a culture of corruption and patronage, undermining public trust in institutions.
Populism and Filipino values can also give rise to a strong yearning for charismatic leaders who embody virtues like tapang (courage) and malasakit (compassion). This can fuel populist movements but also lead to hero worship and overlooking potential flaws.
The religiosity of the Filipinos is a testament to the divine presence among the people. Ironically, many Filipinos indulge in self-defeating attitude and behavior that breeds cynicism leading to nihilism. Jesuit psychologist Fr. Jaime Bulatao in 1966 slapped us with the dissonance between our ways of thinking and acting labeled as “split-level Christianity,” a persistent social pathology. Central to this is a dark and painful colonial past aggravated by persistent poverty and ignorance that alienate us from our values and moral heritage.
Then we thought we understood ourselves enough.
Judged through the colonial lens
Many Filipino scholars and intellectuals were skeptical of the Western approach to Filipino values and culture, and considered Lynch’s findings as partial and inadequate. Instead, we insisted that the core Filipino value is kapwa (recognition of shared identity). Pakikipagkapwa is paramount to the Filipinos rather than the superficial smooth interpersonal relations. The values, such as hiya, pakikisama, utang na loob (gratitude), amor propio and bayanihan (solidarity), are surface concepts consistent with colonialism.
Scholars view Filipino values and norms as ambivalent due to their inherent potential to be good and evil, right and wrong. What is wrong with that?
Colonially, the Indigenous value of pakiramdam (empathy) is judged as being “onion-skinned.” Masamang asal at walang galang (bad conduct and disrespectful) is how modern norms that support freedom of expression and speech are perceived. Gift-giving, an Indigenous value, is viewed as bribery, kinship as nepotism, friends as cronies, asa (hope) as dependency and utang na loob as an occasion of corruption. The Indigenous ways of relating to the divine were frowned upon as superstition or devil worship. Local products were deemed inferior.
Filipino values are not only blamed for but also invoked to justify wrongdoing. Bahala na is practiced to justify katamaran (indolence), or hiya becomes a pretext for moral failings. Corrupt government officials justify their misdeeds, asserting that they are actually helping their constituents, or “tumatanaw lang ng utang na loob” (repaying a debt of gratitude). An unethical behavior is committed in the name of family welfare or is tolerated due to peer pressure “nakisama lang” (just going along).
Then, the social construct of language gives life to greater confusion and becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy of what we have become as a people. And our values are judged more than understood.
Who do we know we are?
The distance by which we can travel forward is only proportionate to the distance by which we can look back. The colonial experience explains most of the social pathologies that plague the nation. The colonial way of life has been ingrained in the Filipino collective consciousness, while the precolonial sense has been relegated to the collective subconscious.
Note that even the term “Filipino” is a colonial construct that stems from a Western project. Thankfully, the experience of colonialization may have not entirely deleted the Indigenous foundations of the nationalized Filipino given that certain values like “kapwa (other person), kagandahang-loob (goodwill), pakiramdam (empathy),” remain tangible underneath the colonially superimposed layers of our national being and becoming.
Colonizers cannibalized and hijacked our native mind (unawa), heart (damdamin), spirit (diwa) and imposed theirs upon us. We suffered the painful damage to our dignity and identity. But we survived.
After gaining its independence, the Filipino elite assumed the role of oppressors of their own people. The elite, whose principal orientation is familistic, took advantage of their positions by enriching their families and friends, manipulating the odd and dissonant combination of Indigenous and exogenous values and moral norms to maintain their dominance in society.
Meanwhile, the collective conscience of the people has stagnated at the “familisticclannish” level. There is extreme familycenteredness, making authority rest on the patron. In the political landscape, this reality plays out in patronage politics. And we witness these during elections.
Filipinos continue to grapple with profound and persistent identity, social and value crises. Without proper understanding and reflection, people misappropriate values and norms.
For evil to triumph
Our inability to consistently demonstrate moral outrage against blatant wrongs betrays our moral courage. The dissipation of moral courage in society leads to moral decadence. We must constantly approve what is right and disapprove of what is wrong. The values and norms of pagkabahala (concern), hiya (shame), bayanihan (solidarity), pakikiramay (sympathy), dangal (honor) and kalayaan (freedom) are chief sources of moral courage and sanction. However, our nonconfrontational orientation overshadows our growing culture of moral indifference. Aggravating this is the fear of backlash in social media, with rabid digital trolls and fanatics.
We are generally timid and euphemistic. We are “nakikiramdam” (wait and see) before we express disapproval, and such imposition of moral sanction is a communal rather than an individual act. The bandwagon bias is real.
The decline of moral courage is a symptom of the paralysis of social conscience. The fear of reprisal and the feeling of unworthiness due to the lack of moral ascendancy force people to keep quiet in the face of moral evils. Even the most brilliant, patriotic, educated and eloquent Filipinos are hesitant to speak up against wrongdoing, as our moral reluctance forces us into silence. We fail to be the Filipino’s champion due to our own moral failings. As Edmund Burke stated, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” And as the Bible asks in Psalm 94, “How long shall the wicked triumph?”
Filipinos, do we have an answer? The Filipino values are not dead…
(Suggested read: “An Inquiry into the Problems Concerning Filipino Values and Norms,” by Jiolito Benitez, 2022)