THEORETICAL ADVANCES

*
IN THE DISCOURSE OF INDIGENIZATION

S. Lily L. Mendoza

Out of the initially uncoordinated and scattered moves to

revamp theorizing within the Western-introduced academic disciplines
in the Philippine academy, three programmatic narratives emerged
from the disciplines of psychology, anthropology, and history, notably,
Sikolohiyang Pilipino, Pilipinolohiya, and Pantayong Pananaw,
respectively. I take them here as part of a single discursive formation,
each working from the same principles of valuing pagsasarili (self-
determination) and pagtahak ng sariling landas tungo sa kabansaan
(“charting an autonomous path toward nation- or people-hood”).
Together, they offer what appears to be the first organized,
comprehensive, and programmatic challenge to the long-standing
hegemony of colonial theorizing in the disciplines beginning in the
period of the late 1970s and reaching a fuller maturation toward the
latter half of the 1980s to the present. To date, all three discourses
seem to have succeeded in attaining a certain measure of hegemony,
not without their share of momentary setbacks and capitulations, but
overall, managing to give force and direction to what heretofore had
been mostly scattered, diffused critiques of colonization within
Philippine higher education.

Sikolohiyang Pilipino

Beginnings, Institutionalization, and Pioneering Gains

The concept of Sikolohiyang Pilipino (Filipino Psychology) was

the brainchild of the late Virgilio G. Enriquez. Enriquez began teaching
psychology at the University of the Philippines (UP) in 1963. As early as

*
Excerpted from S.L. Mendoza, Between the Homeland and the Diaspora: The Politics of
Theorizing Filipino and Filipino American Identities; A Second Look at the
Poststructuralism-Indigenization Debates, New York at London: Routledge, 2002,
Revised Edition, Manila: University of Santo Tomas Publishing House, 2006, 61-109.
258 Mga Babasahin sa Agham Panlipunang Pilipino

1965, he began using Filipino, instead of the mandated English as

medium of instruction in the classroom.1 This shift in linguistic
practice constituted more than a gesture of formalism signifying a
nationalist orientation. Significantly, it served as a key radicalizing
element in the way theorizing within the indigenization movement
proceeded. By 1966, Enriquez left for the United States to take his
master’s, and thereafter, his doctoral degrees at Northwestern
University, Evanston, Illinois. Upon returning in the early 1970s with a
doctorate in Social Psychology, Enriquez became convinced that there
ought to be a different way of doing psychology than merely taking
Western psychological concepts and finding equivalents for them within
the structure of Filipino personality–-what he termed merely as
“indigenization from without.” Teaming up with then Department of
Psychology Chair, Alfredo V. Lagmay, at UP Diliman, Enriquez sought to
reorient the teaching of psychology in the university from an allegedly
“neutral” and “value-free” social science to one cognizant of the
politics behind Western, and for that matter, all theorizing practices.
In so doing, he aimed to debunk Western psychology’s claim to
universal applicability, working alternatively for its recognition as
merely another ethnic (i.e., American) psychology, no better than any
other. Corollarily, he proposed that a culturally-appropriate science of
psychology attuned to the nuances and differing cultural characteristics
of Filipinos be made the focus of theory development in psychology.
This, instead of a presumed universal psychology common to all human
beings regardless of cultural and historical specificities.

Thus persuaded, Enriquez began searching for indigenous

psychological concepts that could serve as bases for differently
construing psychology from a distinctively Filipino perspective. He
looked at such concepts of Filipino personality as creativity and
inventiveness, uniquely shared social attributes arising out of Filipinos’
shared collective experiences as a people, and diwa (roughly, psyche,
the equivalent in English of “essence” but also carrying “an entire
range of psychological concepts from awareness to motives to
behavior” [Enriquez in Pe-Pua and Protacio-Marcelino,2 1998, 2]). Out
of these studies were compiled two volumes of bibliographic sources on
Filipino psychology and a locally-developed personality test called
Panukat ng Ugali at Pagkatao (Measure of Character and Personality).3

Over time, Enriquez’s work became known to others, attracting

other scholars who by then had been similarly striving to develop a
distinctively Filipino orientation in their own work, notably,
anthropologist-sociologist Prospero R. Covar and historian-
 Theoretical Advances in the Discourse of Indigenization 259

anthropologist-ethnologist Zeus A. Salazar.4 A fourth colleague,

ethnomusicologist and humanities professor Felipe M. De Leon Jr.
became a strong ally coming from the humanities side. For the
succeeding years, Enriquez would devote his efforts to conducting first-
hand research (and encouraging his students to do likewise) on what he
considered ought to be the differing concerns of a “Filipino”
psychology. Some of these concerns would fall under the areas of:
sikolohiya ng bata (psychology of children), laro (play), pagkain (food),
pakikibaka (emancipatory struggles), antas ng pakikipagkapwa (levels
of relating with one’s fellow beings), panggagamot (healing practices),
anting-anting (charms or amulets), literatura (literature), sining (arts),
and other aspects of popular and folk practices expressive of a
different consciousness or, simply, of a different way of being. He
wrote, read papers, and published articles and essays on indigenous
psychology, the psychology and politics of language, philosophy and
values, and the practice of cross-cultural psychology (Enriquez, 1976;
1978; 1985; 1997; among others). Among his most important works
are: Indigenous Psychology and National Consciousness (1989), Ang
Sikolohiyang Malaya sa Panahon ng Krisis [Liberation Psychology in a
Time of Crisis] (1991), From Colonial to Liberation Psychology (1992), a
volume he edited titled, Indigenous Psychology: A Book of Readings
(1990), and his last publication shortly before he died in 1994,
Pagbabangong-Dangal [Restoring Honor]: Indigenous Psychology and
Cultural Empowerment (1994).

Under Enriquez’s leadership, Sikolohiyang Pilipino succeeded in

becoming institutionalized as a professional organization under the
name Pambansang Samahan sa Sikolohiyang Pilipino (National
Association for Filipino Psychology) or PSSP. In 1975, Enriquez
organized the First National Conference on Filipino Psychology (Unang
Pambansang Kumperensya sa Sikolohiyang Pilipino). This first meeting
provided a venue for the first-time articulation of basic ideas,
concepts, and formulations of a discourse on Sikolohiyang Pilipino (Pe-
Pua and Protacio-Marcelino, 1998). From then on, PSSP national
conferences would be held annually, each time in different regions of
the country so as to ensure the widest possible participation from
outside Metropolitan Manila.

Among Enriquez’s legacies is a center he established, first

named the Philippine Psychology Research House (PPRH), later to
become the Philippine Psychology Research and Training House
(PPRTH), then later renamed still as Akademya ng Sikolohiyang Pilipino
(Academy of Filipino Psychology). The center was designed to serve as
260 Mga Babasahin sa Agham Panlipunang Pilipino

a support-base for the growing research activities of Sikolohiyang

Pilipino. From its modest beginnings in 1971, it would grow into a
research library of more than 10,000 references with its own small
bookstore, the beginnings of a museum collection, and for some time
(no longer), would provide short-term residence quarters for visiting
researchers and foreign scholars (Enriquez, 1992; Pe-Pua and Protacio-
Marcelino, 1998). The project, as Enriquez envisioned, was intended to
offer support and nurturance for home-grown scholars to gain
confidence to theorize on their own, produce new knowledge, and
carry out innovative research as students of Filipino Psychology. A
practice he instituted toward this goal was to place students’ term
papers, theses, and other research reports at the PPRTH library and
make them publicly accessible, that is, short of outright publication for
which there wasn’t always sufficient funds available.

In the classroom, he sought to undermine students’ excessive

awe and unquestioning acceptance of Western norms of scholarship by
critiquing the whole citational tradition in Western social science
where a self-perpetuating logical system tends to be built around the
practice of name-dropping of published authorities as warrant for
knowledge claims. Instead, he encouraged students to trust their own
instincts and believe in their own ability to create new knowledge. In
lieu of outside (mostly Western) authorities, he motivated them to use
their own voices, think their own thoughts, and look to each other as
well as to other local authors and scholars for intellectual challenge
and stimulation. As an auxiliary activity, the center would hold regular
kapihans (coffee hours) and balitaktakans (informal exchanges) where
students, institute affiliates, and friends interested in the study of
Sikolohiyang Pilipino would congregate around native drink and
delicacies and exchange reports on their latest research findings,
brainstorm on possible research projects, or simply, engage in new
ways of conceptualizing (pagdadalumat) different aspects of the study
of Sikolohiyang Pilipino. Over time, Sikolohiyang Pilipino and the
PPRTH succeeded in developing a cadre of converts, believers,
committed scholars, and practitioners. The Psychology Department at
the University of the Philippines Diliman, however, was to remain split
between adherents of Western experimental psychology, on the one
hand, and proponents of Sikolohiyang Pilipino, on the other, thus for a
time stirring up considerable intra-departmental politics.

In what proved to be Sikolohiyang Pilipino’s difficult but

eventual success in fighting for equal space within the academy, it
helped initially that its primary exponent, Enriquez, possessed a high
 Theoretical Advances in the Discourse of Indigenization 261

profile as a respected scholar and intellectual. Beyond his influence at

U.P., his work became widely known in such other institutions in the
Philippines as De La Salle University (DLSU), Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng
Maynila, University of Santo Tomas, and Centro Escolar University
where he was invited to teach and/or lecture periodically. Eventually,
he would also gain international recognition in his stints as Visiting
Professor at the University of Hawaii, Tokyo University of Foreign
Studies, University of Malaya, University of Hongkong, and University of
California Berkeley.5 Enriquez was recognized not only for his
contributions to the study of Filipino psychology but more generally, to
Asian and cross-cultural psychology. Among the awards he received
are: the Outstanding Young Scientist of the Philippines Award granted
by the National Academy of Science and Technology in 1982 and
posthumously, the National Achievement in the Social Sciences Award
granted in 1997 by the National Research Council of the Philippines
“for outstanding contribution in the social sciences on a national level”
(Pe-Pua and Protacio-Marcelino, 1998, 4).

Such high-profile leadership, however, was not without its

costs. Potential critics (particularly those coming from within the
movement itself) would later on admit feeling constrained, in their
deference to Enriquez’s authority, from voicing questions and concerns
they had regarding some of the directions that Sikolohiyang Pilipino
was (or was not) taking and which are now seen, in retrospect, to have
had the effect of stunting its growth both as a movement and as a
theoretical project. More will be said on this later.

Meanwhile, Sikolohiyang Pilipino became more than just

another “school of thought” in the academy. In the sense that it
demanded a fundamental transformation in worldview and personal
valuing –– a change that inevitably creates a rippling effect to every
other aspect of life for the “true believer,” in Eric Hoffer’s sense ––
Sikolohiyang Pilipino may be said to have attained the momentum and
dynamics of a movement (cf. Gerlach and Hine, 1970). Such
paradigmatic “conversion” initiates adherents into a whole community
of like-minded colleagues motivated to live according to the new(ly
reclaimed) cultural ideology. Personal commitment in this regard
entailed bringing one’s life into alignment with a new set of values,
priorities, goals, and behavior. Among academics, these included,
among others, a commitment to a nationalist6 (versus a merely liberal,
universalist, or colonial/Western) orientation; the use of Filipino
(rather than English) as the medium of communication, instruction, and
scholarship; the adoption of indigenous research methods and, more
262 Mga Babasahin sa Agham Panlipunang Pilipino

generally, the centering of (reconstructed) Filipino worldview(s) in

their studies. The sharpness of the contrast between the received
paradigm of Western psychology and what was constructed to be a
“nationalist” orientation in Sikolohiyang Pilipino fomented rancorous
division among students, faculty, and professionals alike: on the one
hand, those who would insist on a strictly universalist, scientific,
experimental, and behaviorist orientation, and on the other, those in
the camp of Sikolohiyang Pilipino, insisting on a more indigenously-
grounded orientation. Inevitably, one had to identify with either one
or the other tradition.

With its influence spreading beyond disciplinary boundaries and

filtering into the media and spilling over into popular discourse, it
wasn’t long before Sikolohiyang Pilipino likewise gained a following
outside the academy. Before long, commercial and government
television caught onto the profitability of tapping into Sikolohiyang
Pilipino concepts for advertising and social marketing purposes. By the
1970s, pop music artists through such organizations as the Organisasyon
ng mga Pilipinong Mang-aawit (Organization of Filipino Music Artists) or
OPM succeeded in reversing the discourse in pop music from the usual
connotation of “local” and “Filipino” being mainly the consumption
domain of the so-called “masses” and therefore “low class” or bakya,7
to the same now taking a cut in the middle and upper middle classes
and signifying “hip,” “cool,” and “in.” As Elizabeth Protacio-Marcelino
(1999) reported in one conversation, despite what seemed to be the lag
in academic theorizing after Enriquez’s death in 1994,

… We’re sort of alive and kicking… talagang [really]

there’s no better time to do business in this country.
SP is just so accepted… in the schools… industry…
kamadrean [among nuns], kaparian [among priests],
media, communications, lahat puwedeng pasukan [you
can go into almost anything]. And you can package
yourself as an SP practitioner and you’ll get anywhere
if you really want to. Ang benta n’yo, ang bili-bili n’yo
[you’ll be hot, you’ll sell easily] (personal
communication, June 1999).

Protacio-Marcelino, a professor at the Psychology Department at U.P.

and among Enriquez’s early cohorts in pioneering Sikolohiyang Pilipino
herself holds consultancy with PIDRO8 Communications, Inc., an outfit
run by one of the members of a famous Filipino pop music group called
the APO Hiking Society. This group, composed of three talented
 Theoretical Advances in the Discourse of Indigenization 263

composers/singers –– all educated at a leading private university, the

Ateneo de Manila University –– was one of the earliest and best-known
popularizers of an affirming discourse on Filipino subjectivity in the
music and television industry. The group, at the time of writing, is now
going on its 32nd year in showbusiness and still going strong.

As a movement, Sikolohiyang Pilipino’s rhetoric in many places

is a fighting (palaban) rhetoric –– its language terse, politically charged,
at times laced with biting sarcasm, at other times, passionate and
emotive, in contrast to the neutral, objectivist, and scientific language
of Western psychology.9 Alternatively taking on the label sikolohiyang
mapagpalaya (liberation psychology), it appears that where the project
has made the most gains is in contributing toward efforts to decolonize
Philippine society through transformation of Filipino consciousness.
One way that it has sought to do this is by contesting the sedimented
negative meaning of the signifier “Filipino” as read from the colonial
master narratives and by working for a complete change in its valence
and signification.
264 Mga Babasahin sa Agham Panlipunang Pilipino

To show how this process played out discursively, in the

following section, I trace the shifts and turns in the discourse of
Filipino subjectivity as Sikolohiyang Pilipino struggled to intervene and
displace the colonial framework and work for the establishment of its
own counter-discourse.

Re-signifying the Sign “Filipino”: A Discursive Reversal

Off-hand, I want it noted that the chronology I construct here

on the developments in the Philippine discourse on identity and
subjectivity is not meant to imply a unilineal process of discursive
formation, for to this day, one can find in the current literature
simultaneous articulations of the differing modes of identity definitions
that predominated at various stages in the contest over cultural
representation. Rather, the sequential narrative is simply meant to
trace the logic of transformation that the discourse on Filipino
subjectivity underwent in the hegemonic struggle to re-capture the
“sign” Filipino and wrest it from its bastardization in the colonial
narratives.

From the initial works of foreign scholars training their Western

colonial disciplinary lenses on what they presumed to be “the”
indigenous culture of Filipinos, Filipino “identity” (in the singular) was
constructed in terms of a constellation of traits. These traits revolved
around certain surface values that had mostly to do with preserving
“face” or what has been labeled the “SIR syndrome” (i.e., penchant for
“smooth interpersonal relationships”). Identified as its concomitant
trilogy of values are utang na loob (roughly, debt of gratitude),
pakikisama (getting along), and hiya (shame). Accompanying this
trilogy of values is a set of loose negative trait attributions: the habit
of maňana (chronic procrastination), ningas cogon (good starters, poor
finishers like the short blaze of cogon grass), bahala na (fatalism), and
talangka mentality (“crab mentality,” i.e., the tendency to pull down
those who strive to be better). For decades, such identity constructs
were generally accepted and used in textbooks to teach Filipinos about
themselves.

One way that early Sikolohiyang Pilipino scholars sought to

counter such negative trait ascriptions was to seek to reinterpret the
same constellation of values from a more affirming trajectory. Thus,
bahala na (fatalism) was reinterpreted as “determination and risk-
taking,” “a way of pumping courage into one’s system so that [one
 Theoretical Advances in the Discourse of Indigenization 265

does] not buckle down in the face of formidable obstacles” (Pe-Pua,

1991, 157-158). Talangka or crab mentality became a call for
community members to acknowledge their indebtedness to others and
to work for the good of the entire community and not just for
themselves.10 But while such reinterpretations may have worked to
“improve” Filipino self-image somehow, the laundry list of traits
remained largely untouched, with the positive reinterpretations being
mainly reactive (i.e., a kind of reverse stereotyping), leaving the old
defining colonial framework intact.

From this phase of strategic reversal of negative stereotypes,

Sikolohiyang Pilipino, employing the principle of “indigenization from
within,” saw the need to reject the colonial framework totally, and to
replace it instead with an entirely new paradigm. Instead of seeking
positive ways to reinterpret the old colonial framework, this phase
argued that it was necessary to critique the very premises and
assumptions of a universalist, transcultural psychology that had sought
to define and measure “the” Filipino against its norms and tenets.
Though framed within psychology, inputs into this new framework
came from all quarters in the academy, as scholars from the various
disciplines, first independently, then collaboratively, discovered
surprising parallels in their findings. Here, the impetus has been to
challenge the dominant paradigm with alternative evidence from
various sources (historical, ethnographic, ethnolinguistic, folkloristic,
and so on). Such first-hand research on the diverse Filipino indigenous
communities, conducted in a range of academic disciplines
(particularly anthropology, linguistics, humanities, psychology, and
history) contributed to the emergence of a different concept, kapwa
(roughly, “shared being”11) as constituting the core of the Philippine
value system (Enriquez, 1992). In contrast to previous models that
stressed maintenance of surface harmony, this core value of kapwa,
once adopted, generated a set of associated social values totally
different from those culled from a putatively mistaken locating of the
pivotal value on the surface instead of in the “deep structure” of the
culture. These associated values were identified as karangalan
(dignity), katarungan (justice), and kalayaan (freedom). Together,
they formed the constitutive elements of “the” Filipino identity in
Sikolohiyang Pilipino.

At this phase of indigenous theorizing, a growing consciousness

of the political and historical dynamics involved in the very process of
identity construction also began to emerge. This amounted to an
awareness that identity is not a fixed datum that undergoes shifts and
266 Mga Babasahin sa Agham Panlipunang Pilipino

changes in response to external demands in the environment, although

still retaining a “core.” Melba P. Maggay’s (1993) contribution in this
regard is in highlighting the need for historical mediation in the
practice of “reading” culture. Her suggested framework distinguishes
between “core values” (the Sikolohiyang Pilipino framework of kapwa),
on the one hand, and what she considered mainly as “survival values”
developed as coping strategies in the face of colonial oppression and
marginalization, on the other. Though still premised on the presumed
existence of “inherent” cultural characteristics12 (for example, in terms
of world view, time orientation, and other cultural dimensions
suggested by traditional cultural anthropology), Maggay’s framework
provided a way of looking at the seeming contradictions, fissures, and
fractures in Filipino culture and personality (found to be most evident
in the urban communities more heavily exposed to the Western
influences of modern industrial culture) without naturalizing them.
This framework was seen to be more imaginative than the mere
drawing up of a laundry list of negative and positive traits.
Consequently, the latter was rejected in that it tended to fix what it
took to be “the” inherent Filipino character and personality into
nothing more than a distorted image. Unfortunately, despite the
latter’s debunking as a positivist, reductive model, such a framework
remains influential in the minds of many to this day, with unwitting
adherents even among well-meaning reformists in the Philippine
bureaucracy. One such is former Senator Leticia Ramos-Shahani. In
response to a certain U.S. journalist’s (Fallows, 1987) labeling of
Filipino culture as a “damaged culture” shortly after the 1986 People
Power Revolution ousting the Marcos dictatorship, Shahani (cf.
Licuanan, 1988) orchestrated a “Moral Recovery Program” under the
Senate Committee on Education, Arts, and Culture and the Committee
on Social Justice, Welfare, and Development to inquire into the
supposed “strengths and weaknesses of Filipino character.” Regarding
such as mainly a pathologizing, moralizing, and individualizing
approach to what in fact is a historic, structural social problem,
Rimonte (1997) warns that such a historically unmediated approach to
understanding “the” Filipino “character”

… endorses the essentialist myths that their problems

are entirely due to who they are: that history has little
to do with them and the problems they confront; that
the only way for them to solve their problems is to
change themselves; that if they have not changed
themselves yet, it is because they are too lazy or too
cheerful or too ignorant or too feckless or too sinful,
 Theoretical Advances in the Discourse of Indigenization 267

having strayed from the prescribed… path of

righteousness (page 59).

Thus, the alternative historicized framework proposed by

Maggay (1993) is a significant move away from the more received (and
essentialist) view of the earlier models. For one, it stresses the role
played by the abnormality of the colonial condition in producing such
cultural “distortions.” In the past, such distortions tended to be
blamed entirely on an inherent “flaw” in “the” Filipino “character” (as
in Fallows’ article charging “damaged culture” without inquiring as to
who or what may be responsible for such damage). By contrast, where
they occur at all are not simply projections of a view rationalizing
domination, these “distortions” can now be interpreted more
adequately as symptomatic of a pathology borne of marginalization,
denigration, and the prevention of a people from assuming their own
processes of self-direction and self-formation.13

Sikolohiyang Pilipino’s Role in Decolonization

The work of Sikolohiyang Pilipino now spans three decades and

goes beyond just the work of Enriquez to encompass a multiplicity of
other voices from other Filipino psychologists as well as scholars in
related disciplines.14 As it appears, Sikolohiyang Pilipino’s main
project in its originary moment has to do with the liberation of the
Filipino psyche from a colonized mentality, that is, the undoing of
those psychological mechanisms whereby Filipinos become unwitting
accomplices in their continuing colonial subjugation, mainly through
internalization of their own victimization. With the “processes of
subjectification” being secured mainly through discursive practices
(Bhabha, 1994, 67), it made sense for proponents of Sikolohiyang
Pilipino to work for the dismantling of colonial discourse –– an
“apparatus of power,” according to Bhabha (1994), whose
“predominant strategic function is the creation of space for ‘subject
peoples’ through the production of knowledges in terms of which
surveillance is exercised…” (page 70). If colonial discourse, inscribed
for centuries in official textbooks, was meant to contain and define
Filipino subjectivity for purposes of colonial surveillance, then undoing
such ideological inscription via the very instruments of knowing (that
is, via theorizing practices in the academy) was deemed a necessary
first step in the long process toward reclamation of agency and self re-
creation and production of a new Filipino subject.
268 Mga Babasahin sa Agham Panlipunang Pilipino

Part of Sikolohiyang Pilipino’s methodology in this regard is to

uncover and make conscious the processes by which the national
psyche became –– and to a degree, has remained –– captive to a
colonial imaginary. Ultimately, if such processes of subjectification are
to be unraveled, there has to be an understanding of how it is that
Filipinos were (and continue to be) enticed to participate in their own
self-subjection via the mechanisms of ideological interpellation.
Enriquez’s (1994) last volume written shortly before he died is meant
to analyze comprehensively the dynamics involved in both the
processes of “colonial domination,” on the one hand, and
“decolonization, counterdomination, and empowerment,” on the
other. He outlines the components of these two processes thus:

Phases of Cultural Domination:

Denial and Withdrawal [i.e., repression of indigenous
life and expression]
Destruction and Desecration [of cultural artifacts and
sacred ritual grounds];
Denigration and Marginalization [of the Filipino soul,
identity, values, artistic expressions,
appearance, etc.];
Redefinition and Token Utilization [of indigenous
cultural elements as means of colonial co-
optation];
Transformation and Mainstreaming [nativization of
aspects of dominating culture to facilitate
acceptance]; and
Commercialization and Commodification [of indigenous
knowledge and resources for capitalist greed
and profit].

Decolonization, Counterdomination, and

Empowerment:
Indigenous Theorizing and Empowerment;
Counterdomination through Indigenous Research
Methods;
Indigenous Resistance to Oppression;
Resisting Class Oppression;
Resisting Gender Oppression; and
Resisting Academic Dependency (pages vi-viii).

Unfortunately, the book, which could have been Enriquez’s most

important synthesis of Sikolohiyang Pilipino thought, appears to have
 Theoretical Advances in the Discourse of Indigenization 269

been unfinished and more of a rough draft, owing perhaps to his long
bout with illness at the time of writing. In many places, it is weakly-
argued and appears more polemical and anecdotal than carefully
theorized with well-substantiated evidence (a number of bibliographic
citations in the text are also missing in reference list). It also proved
too thin a volume for the sort of agenda it set out to accomplish. The
book definitely bears rewriting but the framework may yet be made
useful if reworked and thought through with much more care and
analytical rigor.

Current State of Sikolohiyang Pilipino

At the time of this essay’s original writing in 1999, there was

the prevailing sense that Enriquez’s early demise prevented the
training of a second generation of scholars who could continue the
work of theorizing within an indigenous framework. The view was that
despite the movement’s success in lending a more affirming trajectory
to the conception of Filipino identity and subjectivity, theoretical
output in the academy has failed to keep up with strides made outside.
According to Protacio-Marcelino (personal communication, July 1999),
this is due to the fact that Enriquez “used to take care of that aspect
of the work; all his money also went to that.” With the reality of Third
World conditions and economic demands, most of the second
generation Sikolohiyang Pilipino scholars, who were mostly in their 40s
at that time and already tenured, appear to have had other priorities
to think about. Most of them either had clinical practice on the side or
related consultancy jobs that more than augments their meager
university salaries. While most of these other jobs (e.g., counseling,
research projects on psychology-related topics such as child abuse,
human rights, and child welfare) could have served as rich sources of
insight for the productive theorizing of Sikolohiyang Pilipino, the time
for sustained writing for publication seemed to be the first to go when
pressures of teaching, consulting, and raising family mounted.15 Such a
situation has proven a disadvantage to Sikolohiyang Pilipino faculty vis-
à-vis the faculty of traditional Western psychology in terms of
departmental clout and leadership. With the latter camp receiving
reinforcement from younger, unmarried, mostly returning foreign-
trained scholars used to the rigors of a “publish-or-perish” culture,
Sikolohiyang Pilipino could not but suffer by comparison as its
proponents had not been as quick to translate researches into solid
publications.16
270 Mga Babasahin sa Agham Panlipunang Pilipino

Some critics of Sikolohiyang Pilipino, however, located the

problem at a much deeper level than just economics. One of the
problems pinpointed is theoretical: the pitfall of “crass empiricism” or
the failure to clearly articulate Filipino psychology’s methodological
bases for arriving at its theoretic formulations beyond the mere citing
of arbitrarily chosen empirical examples as warrant (Avila-Sta. Maria,
personal communication, July 1999). Salazar (1998b) and Madelene
Avila-Sta. Maria suggest in this regard that well-meaning nationalist
sentiments can, and should, never substitute for careful, clear-eyed
analysis if Sikolohiyang Pilipino is to advance as a discipline and not
just as a movement; otherwise, it would be nothing more than a case
of “cultural romanticism or chauvinism.” Not unrelated is the criticism
that Sikolohiyang Pilipino has gotten itself stuck in, and seems unable
to get itself unstuck from, its preoccupation with a merely reactive
stance vis-à-vis Western discourse. As such, it has failed to direct its
attention to more constructive theorizing in allowing itself to get
drawn into constantly repudiating Western psychology’s claim in so far
as they fail to apply to the Filipino case.

As a theoretical project, Sikolohiyang Pilipino then is accused of

falling short in its stated goal of “inaugurating a new discursive order”
or in Foucault’s term, a new “regime of truth.” Likewise, in terms of
establishing its own theoretical agenda and grounding it in a truly new
initiative Sikolohiyang Pilipino is deemed to have failed to move
forward. Avila-Sta. Maria (1996), herself a product of the Master’s
Program in Filipino Psychology at UP and now a holder of a doctorate
degree in Psychology at the University of Cologne, Germany, noted in
this regard:

This reactive stance, although perhaps a necessary

condition for the formulation and delineation of an
indigenous identity for a discipline, may in the long run
stunt the growth of the discipline within the Filipino
culture (page 115).

Contributing to this impasse, in Avila-Sta. Maria’s estimation, is the

shift in the locus of articulation of Sikolohiyang Pilipino from the
Philippine context where it has had its founding movement, to other
places outside the country where it happened to have found receptive
audiences in various Filipino diasporic communities, most notably, the
United States, Australia, and Japan, among others (personal
communication, July 1999). Those critical of such a move believe that
far from advancing the cause of Sikolohiyang Pilipino by casting a wider
 Theoretical Advances in the Discourse of Indigenization 271

net in terms of its target audience, this “marketing” of the discourse

under the rubric of “cross-cultural psychology” to outside consumers
(who are likely to have their own agendas and are working within other
sets of contextual problematics) is considered a “fatal mistake” in
terms of methodological strategy (Covar, Salazar, and Avila-Sta. Maria,
from various personal communications, July 1999). This is because to
do so, according to this view necessarily means reverting back to
writing, speaking, and publishing once more in English and addressing
other kinds of concerns more pertinent to such audiences’ differing
contexts, needs, and problems, when the more urgent task would have
been the deepening of theoretical work and research within the still-
emergent discipline as grounded in the national discourse. Inevitably,
in choosing to speak or report once more to an outside audience,
Sikolohiyang Pilipino has had to make itself relevant (i.e., attain saysay
[sense or meaning]) to such constituencies instead of continuing to
engage the national context as a matter of priority. Eventually, it was
seen as divorcing Sikolohiyang Pilipino from its indigenous moorings
which it would have needed as its lifeline and source of nourishment,
that is, if it is to keep growing and succeed in reclaiming initiative in
setting its own theoretical agenda.

Of course what is not obscured in any of this outward territorial

expansion is the politics involved in the choice of speaking contexts,
that is, the politics of funding sources, of foreign research, and travel
money to be had from addressing external audiences, especially from
the “First World.” And yet, what critics call for is a consideration of
the ultimate trade-offs given the severely limited (human) resources
that Sikolohiyang Pilipino had available to carry on the indigenization
initiative and consolidate the discipline’s theoretical gains beyond its
founding moment. In the end, Enriquez insisted on lending his
expertise and spending more and more time in the United States
nurturing a parallel movement in the Bay Area. Along with his
reverting once more to writing in English, such a move triggered a huge
controversy between him and one other leading figure in the
indigenization movement, Zeus Salazar. In effect, Salazar claims that
his charge against Enriquez having “betrayed the cause” is based on
Enriquez’s (1991) own earlier stated commitment:

… [K]inakailangang bumuo ng isang tradisyon ng

sikolohiyang Pilipino na ang patutungkulan ng ating
pang-unawa ay tayo mismong mga Pilipino at hindi ang
mga banyaga. Kaakibat nito ang paggamit ng sariling
wika upang matiyak na ang proseso ng pagsasalaysay sa
272 Mga Babasahin sa Agham Panlipunang Pilipino

mamamayang Pilipino ay higit na malinaw at higit na

maraming maabot. Ang sikolohiyang Pilipino, bilang
disiplina ay dapat lumago mula sa tunay at tapat na
pag-unawa sa sariling kultura. Hindi makakabuo ng
isang namumukod na pambansang sikolohiya sa
pamamagitan lamang ng pagbabatikos sa Amerikanong
sikolohiya… (page 131).

(… We need to establish a tradition of Filipino

psychology whose goal of understanding is we ourselves
as Filipino people and not foreigners. Necessarily, this
entails using our own language to ensure that the
process of narration to the Filipino people will be more
clearly understood by the majority. If Filipino
psychology were to prosper as a discipline, it should be
borne of a true and adequate understanding of our own
culture. There’s no way we can constitute a
distinctive national psychology by merely
deconstructing American psychology…) (emphasis
added).

With Enriquez and a number of his students going abroad on various

stints as scholars at the very height of Sikolohiyang Pilipino’s success in
the homeland, indigenous theorizing in the discipline was seen by its
internal critics to have taken a back seat even as old material was
merely rehashed and recycled for foreign audiences without new
theoretical production.17

In order to correct this perceived retrogressive trajectory,

what Avila-Sta. Maria (1996) suggests is for Sikolohiyang Pilipino to now
move beyond the framework (and polemics) of decolonization and
begin the real hard work of actually systematizing knowledge and
carrying out the methodological requirements for indigenous knowledge
production. For this, she believes that what is needed is no longer goal
enunciations and more motherhood statements about nationhood and
nationalist education, but actual conduct of research studies carried on
in the indigenous tradition –– with the constitutive elements of such
“indigenous research tradition” clearly spelled out (Avila-Sta. Maria,
1996). Today, however, despite the failure to overturn completely
Western psychology’s hegemony in the state university’s Psychology
Department and to institute Sikolohiyang Pilipino as the controlling
framework with mere sub-sections in American psychology, European
psychology, and other ethnic psychologies, one sees the auspicious
 Theoretical Advances in the Discourse of Indigenization 273

emergence of second and even third generation Sikolohiyang Pilipino

scholars doing critical work and publishing prodigiously in the new
tradition. To date, several works have been published in the following
subject areas: peace and human rights, in particular, the rights of
children under the leadership of Protacio-De Castro;18 sexuality and
human personality under the leadership of Grace Aguiling-Dalisay;19
pakikipagkapwa (ways of being with others) and voluntarism (cf.
Aguiling-Dalisay, Yacat, and Navarro, 2004); language, literature, and
communication;20 and concepts, theory, methodology, use, and
application.21 These empirically-based studies are examples of
attempts to use Sikolohiyang Pilipino concepts to understand Philippine
social realities and the sedimented culture(s) of Filipinos. Whether or
not they respond to the methodological issues raised by critics earlier
should be made the subject of another study.

As a movement, the PSSP continues to forge ahead with its

advocacy work, holding regular meetings, conferences, symposia, and
other activities centered on promoting Sikolohiyang Pilipino research
and scholarship. PPRTH, although now a separate entity, remains an
ally and a partner. Currently, the latter is mainly in charge of
administering (culturally-appropriate) psychological measurements as
requested by different institutions including industry. The other
partners of PSSP are Bagong Kasaysayan-Bahay Saliksikan sa Kasaysayan
(New Historiography-Research House for Historical Studies) or BAKAS,
Philippine Educational Theater Association (PETA), and Volunteer
Organizations, Information, Coordination, and Exchange (VOICE)
Network. Although located mostly outside the academy, such
institutions appear to indicate that Sikolohiyang Pilipino as a movement
has gotten back on track and remains alive and well today after the
setbacks it suffered earlier in its career. In 2005, PSSP celebrated the
30th year anniversary of its founding.

In the academy, Avila-Sta. Maria appears to have seized the

initiative of advancing the work of theorizing in Sikolohiyang Pilipino
even as its dynamic seems to have shifted from U.P. to another
institutional site, the De La Salle University in Manila, a private
Catholic school where Avila-Sta. Maria currently teaches psychology.
274 Mga Babasahin sa Agham Panlipunang Pilipino

Pilipinolohiya

From Area Studies Discourse to a Defining Framework

Pilipinolohiya is another discourse that has emerged within the

Philippine indigenization narrative, one that aims to constitute itself
into an indigenously-conceived discipline. Its purported goal is to
develop a new intellectual tradition that will undertake the production
of knowledge on the Philippines and Filipinos “mula sa loob” (from
within) in contrast to “mula sa labas” (from without) (Salazar, 1998d,
325). As such, it differentiates itself from the more popularly-known
field of study called “Philippine Studies.” This latter, according to
Salazar, derives from the larger discourse of “Area Studies” which
comes out of the post-war academic division of labor in the West
meant mainly to service the superpowers’ ideological requirements
during the Cold War era (cf. Pletsch, 1981). Depending on whether a
culture was considered capable of scientific and scholarly knowledge
production or not, it either became the “locus of disciplinary and
scholarly enterprise,” or else, the “object of study” (Mignolo, 1999,
47). Expectedly, the Philippines was one of those consigned to the
latter because of its strategic significance to U.S. geopolitics and its
status as a neocolony of the former Empire. Proponents of
Pilipinolohiya consider the knowledge produced under the rubric of
“Philippine Studies” (as a subset of Area Studies) as being “mula sa
labas” (a view from without) (Salazar, 1998b, 325). That is, it is
knowledge production initiated by, and for, First World nations’
consumption needs and, as such, deemed inimical to Filipino interest,
couched as it is mostly in Western-styled racialized analysis of
Philippine realities. In contrast, and consistent with Sikolohiyang
Pilipino’s notion of “indigenization from within,” Pilipinolohiya
proposes the development of a view that is “mula sa loob” (from
within) as an alternative way of structuring knowledge on the
Philippines.

Historical Formation and Conceptual Determinations

The notion of Pilipinolohiya was conceptualized jointly by UP

Diliman professors Prospero R. Covar from the Anthropology
Department, and Zeus A. Salazar, from the History Department. Covar
finished his undergraduate and master’s degrees both in Sociology at
UP Diliman, and his doctorate degree in Anthropology at the University
 Theoretical Advances in the Discourse of Indigenization 275

of Arizona in Tucson, Arizona. Salazar, for his part, obtained his

Bachelor of Arts degree (summa cum laude) in History at UP Diliman
and his doctorate in Ethnology at Sorbonne, University of Paris finishing
with the highest honors. He also trained at the Ecole Nationale des
Langues Orientales Vivantes in Paris, Freie Universitat Berlin in
Germany, and Universiteit te Leiden in Olanda. He speaks and writes
fluently in French and German and has published multilingually in
Filipino, English, French, and German.22 He offers a straightforward
definition of Pilipinolohiya as “ang pag-aaral ng Kapilipinuhan,
pagkaPilipino, at mga anyo’t paraan ng pagpapakaPilipino” (Salazar,
1998b, 327) (“the study of the world of Filipinos, of being Filipino, and
the different ways of being Filipino”) from the perspective of Filipinos.
For Covar (1991), it means the “systematic study of (1) Filipino psyche,
(2) Filipino culture, and (3) Philippine society using the terms and
categories of thought of the culture” (page 37, as translated from the
Filipino original). Both Covar and Salazar are for eschewing cultural
representations, views, and theoretical agendas set by others that
don’t address the needs and concerns of Filipinos, first and foremost.
They also reject constituting the Philippines and its people as mere
“objects of knowledge,” as one more specimen in a range of
experiments to test the validity of the Western-styled disciplines.
Salazar (1998c) emphasizes:

The gist of all of this is that Pilipinolohiya aims at

understanding Pilipinas from within –– that is, it has a
singular focus and a single vantage point, that of the
Filipino nationality. Therefore, the disciplines
(including disciplinal tools, approaches, methods, and
ways of posing problems) are only of auxiliary
importance, however professionally they might (as they
must) be applied (page 313, emphasis in original).

The term “nationality” here, as mentioned earlier, is not taken

unproblematically. Rather, the view “from within” takes on singularity
only within the context of a struggle for control of the symbolic means
of representation. Where before, the terms of definition had been
monopolized by an external ouvre or alien interpretation,
Pilipinolohiya seeks to seize control of the production of meanings in
the academy and ground the discourse within the codes of the
culturally-diverse nation. Production of consensus then is premised on
communication across, and recognition of, internal difference or
plurality, and not denial of such.23
276 Mga Babasahin sa Agham Panlipunang Pilipino

Prior to Pilipinolohiya’s formulation as a new approach to the

study of the Philippines, “Philippine Studies” as a degree program was
housed in three separate units of UP Diliman: at the Sentrong Asyano
(Asian Center), at the Kolehiyo ng Arte at Literatura (KAL) or College
of Arts and Literature, and at the Dalubhasaan ng Agham Panlipunan at
Pilosopiyang Pilipino (DAPP) or College of Social Sciences and
Philosophy. All three programs encouraged multidisciplinarity in
orientation and more or less espoused a nationalist bias of one sort or
another. Although established in the mid-1970s, it was not until 1989
–– when Salazar was appointed Dean of DAPP and Covar, as Program
Director –– that “Philippine Studies” was changed to Programang
Pilipinolohiya, signaling what was intended to be a radical
reorientation of the program toward a more indigenous point of view.
Whereas the discourse of “Philippine Studies” was one that circulated
among a community of international scholars invested in the
Philippines as a subject area and therefore conducted mostly in the
dominant language, framework, and categories of that community
(i.e., English/American), Covar and Salazar sought to ground the study
of the Philippines within the national context, that is, in the desire to
have Filipinos know and understand themselves, their society, and their
culture from within or from an insider’s point of view.24

Once again, as in the case of Sikolohiyang Pilipino, the

linguistic revision in this regard was more than simply a surface
formalistic move. Proponents of Pilipinolohiya believe that without a
working knowledge and actual use of the language(s) in which a culture
is encoded, no deep understanding of the same is possible. Salazar
(personal communication, July 1999) laments for instance the way so-
called Filipino “area specialists” never have a direct knowledge and
understanding of other cultures save via the American point of view as
encoded in English translations of those culture’s original works. Thus
“Japan Studies” at U.P.’s Asian Center is one that is taught in English
and Japanese works are read only in English translation. His own view
advocates a more direct manner of relating to others, hence:

Ano’ng ibig kong sabihin sa pakikipag-ugnay? Ibig

sabihin, magkakaroon tayo ng mga eksperto na hindi
sinasanay sa Amerika kundi sinasanay sa atin at
marunong ng wika at kultura ng bawat bansa sa ating
rehiyon. (What do I mean by establishing relations
[with others]? What I mean is we should have more
experts who are not trained in America but trained by
us here and who will be proficient in the language and
 Theoretical Advances in the Discourse of Indigenization 277

culture of every country in our region.) What do we

know about Japan? What we know about Japan is what
we read in Newsweek, Time Magazine, American books.
We do not make our own books on Japan based on our
direct experience. We need that direct experience na
that we report in our own language (Salazar, 1998d,
348).

The same holds true with the Department of English Program in

Comparative Literature –– only literary works from other countries with
available translations in English end up being read or taught even in
graduate level courses. Consequently, Salazar believes that Filipinos
have yet to lose their American lenses and begin to view the world
from their own eyes, using their own language as the medium of
perception, communication, and understanding. Covar (personal
communication, June 1999) likewise notes that for as long as Filipinos
remained enamored with the viewing lenses of others, they will remain
as nothing more than kibitzers, hangers-on, mere passengers in a
journey whose destination or direction they have no part in charting or
determining. Both Salazar and Covar believe that the language
imperative dictates that Filipinos must learn to set the agenda in any
discourse about themselves by insisting on commanding the medium of
communication. Outsiders who wish to participate in the national
discourse should be compelled to do the adapting and not the other
way around, thus for once reversing the centuries-old practice of
Filipinos always deferring to, and bending over backwards, to
accommodate others often to the point of self-marginalization and
national detriment. On the question of how the intellectual and
literary tradition carried on in the colonizer’s language is viewed by
proponents of Pilipinolohiya, there appears to be no problem
recognizing the role that such has played in the initial phase of
(counter-)cultural formation. Under domination, both mimicry, as well
as more consciously resistive communicative acts performed in the
language of the master, are deemed necessary coping or survival
mechanisms for a subject people. The need to contest, to prove
equality, or to counter allegations of inferiority or non-personhood
meant addressing one’s dominant other, and consequently needing to
speak in that other’s language. As Salazar (1998e) wryly observes in
this regard, “As Indio, he had to show Spaniard and American alike that
he could be at least as good as they in their game of culture and socio-
political forms” (page 101, emphasis in original). But to launch the
second phase of the struggle for liberation –– that of self-empowerment
–– means changing the communicative context: from one directed at
278 Mga Babasahin sa Agham Panlipunang Pilipino

one’s dominant other to one carried on among one’s fellows, in

solidarity with those who have gained neither position nor privilege to
master the colonizer’s language. Hence, the mandated adoption of the
subject people’s language(s) and perspectives in a powerful symbolic
act of separation from the master’s signifying codes.

In his essay, “Pilipinolohiya: Pagtatakda at Pagpapaibayo,”

(Pilipinolohiya: Prospects and Transformations), Salazar (1998d) traces
the history of Philippine Studies to attempts by Filipino patriot and
hailed national hero, Jose Rizal, to establish linkage with European and
American scholars studying the Philippines (called philippinistes or
Filipinists) as early as the 1800s. It was ostensibly part of a strategy
within the Philippine Propaganda Movement against Spain to win
support for the struggle of Filipinos for independence. Salazar credits
Rizal with attempting to pioneer Philippine Studies in its two senses:
one, as a field of study, albeit with an outsider’s point of view, and the
other, in the sense of Pilipinolohiya with a view to serving and
prioritizing the interests and welfare the Filipino people in its approach
and philosophy. The goal of Salazar and Covar is to strengthen the
latter sense and establish the discourse’s basis as an indigenously-
conceived discipline that would better serve and do justice to Filipino
interest and subjectivity.

Bases for an Indigenously-Conceived Discipline

Covar’s motivation in this regard comes from his own

experience of disillusionment with the Western disciplines’ failure to
shed light on the dynamics of Filipino culture and society. He notes
that far from helping Filipinos achieve greater self-knowledge and
understanding, it appears that with the way the knowledge is
structured within the Western disciplinary discourses, Filipino scholars
are merely enticed “to contribute to theory, method, and content of
the disciplines, but are not themselves permitted [given the
assumptions of the disciplines] to arrive at just and adequate
representations of Filipino thought, culture, and society” (1991, 40, as
translated from the Filipino original).

Covar narrates his personal experience in this regard.

Researching for his master’s thesis in Sociology in U.P. on Watawat ng
Lahi (roughly, Emblem of Our Race), an indigenous religious movement
whose core belief revolves around the veneration of Filipino national
hero, Jose Rizal, he was hard put to find relevant literature that could
 Theoretical Advances in the Discourse of Indigenization 279

shed light on the subject. For a long time, no one among his American
professors could direct him to the proper literature in sociology, unable
to categorize the phenomenon he was studying. The group could not
be classified as a religious system because it simply did not fit the
normative criteria for a legitimate “religion;” rather, it was labeled
“superstition” or “fanaticism” based on the existing literature. Finally,
on his own, Covar discovered that the place to look was in a whole area
in sociology called “sociology of deviancy” (personal communication,
June 1999). But Covar then thought, deviant from whose point of view?
According to whose standards of “normalcy”? He figured then that
from this framework, most native practices and other indigenous
phenomena would be most likely consigned to the lunacy bin, if not
judged as “misguided,” “unenlightened,” or simply, “barbaric” and
“uncivilized.” In effect, he began to see that it was this system of
normative, but really arbitrary, classification that conveniently
produced Filipinos as infantile primitives in need of colonialism’s
“civilizing mission.” This implicit view was surreptiously smuggled into
Filipino students’ consciousness through the naturalizing explanations
of the so-called social “sciences.”

But although it may appear that indigenization scholars have a

knee-jerk aversion toward anything “foreign” in their prescribed
process of knowledge-construction, a deeper grasp of their logic of
reasoning shows this not to be the case. Rather it is merely to urge
vigilance in the matter of whose controlling reference point is
employed in the conduct of scholarship. Salazar (1998d) for instance,
insists on the need to develop a healthy skepticism toward concepts
and theories that have become almost sacrosanct in Europe and
America instead of immediately taking them as universal and
indiscriminately aping and applying them to the Filipino context. That
he is not opposed to taking and appropriating (pag-aangkin) from other
cultures is shown by his openness to indigenizing or contextualizing
borrowed theories and knowledges provided these are properly
nuanced or critically appropriated to suit the Filipino context.25
Furthermore, he notes that the effectiveness of appropriation depends
on the “spirit of adaptation and originality [with which] Filipinos as
individuals and as a nation” do the adapting (page 332). As he
stipulates in one of his essays (Salazar, 1998b) dealing with the “matter
of ‘influence,’” there are “laws” that must govern cultural borrowing.
Quoting the European scholar, Hamilton Gibb who wrote to explain
Islamic influence on European civilization in medieval times, Salazar
writes,
280 Mga Babasahin sa Agham Panlipunang Pilipino

(1) … cultural influences (… genuinely assimilated

elements) are always preceded by an already
existing activity in the related fields, and… it is this
existing activity which creates the factor without
which no creative assimilation can take place.
(2) The borrowed elements conduce to the expanding
vitality of the borrowing culture only so far as they
draw their nourishment from the activities which
led to the borrowing in the first place.
(3) A living culture disregards or rejects all elements in
other cultures which conflict with its own
fundamental attitudes, or aesthetic criteria (page
60).

Salazar’s approach, however, is more of a cautionary attitude

than an enthusiastic endorsement when it comes to borrowing
conceptual categories from outside sources given Filipinos’ lingering
penchant for revering anything coming from the West as better. He
cites an example in psychology where Freudian psychoanalysis is
adopted wholesale as though it were a culturally-transcendent,
framework that can work regardless of context. What gets occluded in
such reckless appropriation, Salazar warns, are the vast differences in
cultural logic and contextual particularities between the theory’s locus
of origin, that is, in predominantly bourgeois patriarchal, puritanical
17th and 18th century Europe, and the relatively matriarchal non-
Western culture of the Philippines. Surely, he notes, it shouldn’t take
much to suppose that the two would most likely differ in notions of
sexuality and/or sexual norms. He asks,

Mailalapat nga ba talaga ang eros ng Europeo sa atin,

gayong may sarili tayong konsepto ng “libog”? Hindi pa
natin ito nasusuri nang masinsinan. Sa pahapyaw,
alam lamang natin na tayo’y napapangiti sa ating
“libog,” samantalang may pagkamistikong may halong
takot at pangamba ang pagtanaw ng mga Europeo sa
kanilang “eros” na kanila pa ngang ikinakabit sa
thanatos: ang kamatayan (1998d, 333).

(May we indeed apply the European concept of eros to

our case, when we have our own concept of libog? To
think that we haven’t even begun to examine this
concept carefully. At a glance, we simply know that
we tend to smile when we hear the term libog,
 Theoretical Advances in the Discourse of Indigenization 281

whereas there’s a certain mysticism combined with a

sense of fear and anxiety associated with the European
notion of eros to the extent that they even tend to
associate it with thanatos or [the] death [instinct].)

Salazar thus warns that it is crucial to understand fully this

basic opposition or difference in spirit (or consciousness) in the way
issues of sexuality are regarded in the two cultural contexts before
venturing to apply an alien framework arising from other psychological
imperatives rooted in another cultural context. However, should
Filipino scholars ever find reason to believe that Filipino sexuality can
be explained in Freudian terms, Salazar (1998d) admonishes that they
must then take care to determine “at what level, to what extent, and
in what way” Freudian psychoanalysis would be applicable to Filipino
notions of sexuality. By no means must the theory be simply
mechanistically invoked as canon (page 333).

And yet, after all is said and done, Salazar himself would not
count such endeavor (i.e., theory adaptation) all that worthwhile to
prioritize at this point. Not when Filipinos have yet to learn to explore
their own reality with their own eyes and not merely from the
authoritative dictates of the disciplines. Indeed, he cannot underscore
enough the dangers in Filipino scholars getting easily mesmerized by
imported theories from Europe and the West. He cringes, for example,
at the way such scholars often dare invoke the same, jargon and all, if
only to display their newly-acquired erudition and cosmopolitanism
that often turns out in the end to be only so much sophistry and
nothing more (personal communication, July 1999). To these
individuals he poses the challenge: “But think of what could happen if
the psychoanalyst or psychologist were to approach a Filipino [and
allow her psychic reality to be the ground of his theorizing]? What do
you suppose will happen to theory then?” (page 333, as translated from
the Filipino original). He cautions,

As far as adaptation is concerned… I don’t think that

such should be undertaken in the spirit of merely
wanting to prove [already established] theory [from
elsewhere] by means of data gathered on Filipinos…
Rather, the central concern must be Filipino culture,
Filipino experience, and the Filipino[‘s overall]
context. In any case, no theory should be deemed all
that authoritative to be exempt from critique. The
ultimate test is whether or not it holds up to Filipino
282 Mga Babasahin sa Agham Panlipunang Pilipino

experience” (page 334, as translated from the Filipino

original).

From Constitution of Self as “Other” to Ethno-Centering

The project of Pilipinolohiya then has to do with the centering

of the Filipino nation, its experiences as a people, and its culture and
society in the systematic construction of knowledge in the Philippine
academy. Whereas in “Philippine Studies” the Philippines and its
people were made mere objects of study of other nationalities and
cultures interested in learning about them for their own purposes and
interests, Pilipinolohiya aims to designate the study of Pilipinas for
itself and for its own interest, using its own conceptual categories as
the vantage point for interpretation. In Salazar’s (1998c) words, under
“Philippine Studies,”

Pilipinas is “the Other” for others but is not and cannot

be for itself! Pilipinolohiya thus studies Pilipinas as
the Filipino collective national Self, an endeavor which
other nationalities carry out implicitly for themselves,
generally without the support of various “area studies”
for the understanding of the world around them.

As “the Other,” Pilipinas is not and cannot be the

vantage point, much less the primary focus of
Philippine Studies. Philippine Studies has varied
vantage points, since it starts from the needs, images,
and problems and ways of seeing things of a wide
variety of cultures, mainly Western. Pilipinas just
happens to be the meeting ground of several national-
cultural “consciousnesses” (if such a plural exists),
each with its own world-view, understanding, and
agenda, which the term “Philippine Studies” more or
less summarizes. In that sense and in contrast,
Pilipinolohiya is concerned (happily) only and primarily
with Pilipinas! (page 314, emphasis in original).

This self-centering –– in a gesture of wresting determination of self

from the control of other’s gaze –– in the view of Pilipinolohiya
advocates, requires no less than the use of terms and categories of
thought of Filipinos as encoded in their languages. This is a recurrent
theme throughout both Covar’s and Salazar’s writings. The tragedy of
 Theoretical Advances in the Discourse of Indigenization 283

the continued use of English among other Filipino scholars as yet

unpersuaded by the indigenization imperative is graphically described
by Salazar (1998a) thus:

Para maintindihan ang mga manunulat sa Ingles,

kailangan ng karaniwang Pilipino na matutunan ang
buong “literaturang pandaigdig” (i.e., sa pagkaunawa
nito ng Kanluran!), sa wikang Ingles-Amerikano man
lamang –– ibig sabihin, kailangan muna ang kaawa-
awang Pinoy na manirahan sa Amerika at maging mala-
Amerikano, at pagkatapos makabasa ng libu-libong
libro sa Ingles na paggagastusan ng libu-libo ring pisong
pinaghirapan ng Bayan sa iba’t-ibang uri ng pag-
papaalipin sa iba’t-ibang dako ng daigdig! (page xx).

(In order for the writer of English to be understood, the

ordinary Filipino first has to learn the entire canon of
“world literature” (that is, from the point of view of
the West!), even only in American English –– in other
words, the hapless Pinoy26 first has to sojourn in
America and become like an American, and then read
thousands and thousands of books in English and be
funded by thousands and thousands of pesos that the
nation would have had to raise painstakingly by all
sorts of enslavements in different parts of the world!)

Within the framework of Pilipinolohiya, not until Filipino academics

learn to speak in the language(s) of the vast majority (i.e., the bottom
half of what is now normatively known in indigenization circles as Ang
Dambuhalang Pagkakahating Kultural [The Great/Monstrous Cultural
Divide between the elite and the Filipino masses]27 can they hope to
fulfill their role28 as producers of knowledge that will first and foremost
benefit the majority of Filipinos whose shared idiom is not English, but
rather, Filipino (along with their own respective regional languages).29

Today, the program appears to have suffered a temporary

setback with the change in administration and the reversion back to
Araling Pilipino (direct translation of “Philippine Studies”) as the
official title of the degree program. But Salazar and Covar are
undaunted, convinced that no matter the name change, the distinction
between Pilipinolohiya, on the one hand, and of Araling Pilipino, on
the other, would have become clear in people’s minds by now, it need
not be belabored. As far as proponents of Pilipinolohiya are
284 Mga Babasahin sa Agham Panlipunang Pilipino

concerned, the dynamic of indigenization and knowledge

transformation in the academy has already begun and will continue,
with or without formal institutional support and recognition.30

Pantayong Pananaw/Bagong Kasaysayan

A Communication-Based Framework for Historiography

Undoubtedly by far the most theoretically advanced and

productive in terms of research output within the indigenization
tradition is the discourse of what is called Pantayong Pananaw.
Pantayong Pananaw is a communication-based theoretical innovation
coming out of the field of Philippine historiography. This new paradigm
refers to the normative speaking context within which scholars in the
movement seek to help forge a “national” discourse on civilization.
Conceptualized by Salazar (1991) together with history professor Jaime
B. Veneracion and other younger members of the History Department
of U.P. Diliman, the goal of Pantayong Pananaw is to contribute to the
flourishing of a “talastasang bayan,” that is, a national discourse. A
descriptive etymological explication of the Filipino term for
“discourse” or talastasan is provided by Atoy M. Navarro, Mary Jane B.
Rodriguez, and Vicente C. Villan (1997) and by Navarro (2000) using
Salazar’s conceptualization. Talastasan is alternatively understood in
the two referenced works as coming from the root word talas,
pertaining to “sharpness” or “refinement,” and talastas referring to
“knowing,” “being persuaded,” or “realizing,” (unfortunately, there
are no exact equivalents of the terms in English). It is also understood
as having the notion of tastas, meaning “to unravel,” as in the
unraveling of a stitch. In other words, by discourse is meant “a
collective endeavor to know, to fathom, to realize, to be sharpened in
one’s understanding of an idea or thought with the hope of further
refining it and making it better” (Navarro et al., 1997, as translated
from the Filipino original). It also means the critical examination of
ideological formulations for the purpose of unraveling their constructed
naturalness and exposing their sutured seams and hidden
contradictions. In this sense, the English word “discourse” is regarded
as paling by comparison in that the latter merely signifies a back-and-
forth exchange of ideas without the corresponding notion in talastasan
of a deliberate intent of refining and sharpening the subject of
discussion. Together with the notion of history as salaysay which
carries with it the notion of the nation’s pag-uulat sa sarili or the
 Theoretical Advances in the Discourse of Indigenization 285

nation reporting to itself, Pantayong Pananaw hopes to create an ethos

or climate whereby the nation can share in one encompassing
discourse, one that would lend a sense of kabuuan or “totality,” not in
the reified sense of totalizing uniformity,31 but rather a shared
understanding of the nation’s history that can give force and direction
to a collective vision of the future. More will be said later on the
normative methodology for attaining this goal.

The term pantayo comes from the root word tayo, one of the
pronouns marking the first person plural, “we,” and the prefix pan-,
roughly the equivalent for the prefix “for.” With Pananaw translating
to “perspective,” Pantayong Pananaw can be roughly (awkwardly)
phrased in English as “A For-Us Perspective.” However, an important
revision to this literal translation into English is Ramon Guillermo’s
(2003) formulation, namely, “a from-us-for-us perspective.” In this
reformulated translation, Guillermo underscores that the cultural
nation is not only the subject and goal of the discourse, but it is also
the source of it. Taking the various pronoun referents and their
equivalent terms which are remarkably present in their fine
distinctions in all the Filipino languages and dialects, namely, kayo
(you-plural), kami (we-speaking to others), sila (they), and tayo (we-
speaking among ourselves), Salazar chooses the last pronoun referent
tayo as his basis for building a theoretical foundation for his
perspective. He explains his choice by referring to the taken-for-
granted speaking contexts of the various pronoun categories. The two
contending possibilities among the four pronoun referents are kami
(we-speaking to others) and tayo (we-speaking among ourselves).
Salazar chooses the latter because kami, he reasons, implies a context
where one is discoursing with an “other.”32 Within this discursive
context, one must constantly take the other’s context and perspective
into consideration in any communicative transaction. Such is the case
in (de-)colonization in that the self is constantly aware of an outsider’s
presence. This is an outsider who, far from friendly and sympathetic,
happens to be the self’s very own demon-tormentor.33 This outside
entity is seen at once as the cause of one’s identity distortion and
crisis, and yet, one still powerful enough (whether in actuality or
through habitual psychic conditioning) to harm if not somehow catered
to. As long as this outsider is included in the conversation, he or she
remains an influential determinant of the tone, direction, content, and
rules to be set in conducting the discourse. Likewise, the constraint
placed on the speakers by a context where the “other” or “others” are
constantly included even just as overhearers, in Salazar’s view, ensures
that the discourse on nationhood by Filipinos will remain unproductive
286 Mga Babasahin sa Agham Panlipunang Pilipino

and trapped in a reactive mode, unable to move forward or to create

new initiatives.

A Closed Circuit of Interaction

What Pantayong Pananaw proposes then, if only figuratively

speaking, is a “closed circuit” of interaction. This is a context where a
discourse is to be carried on only by, and among, Filipinos without the
inclusion (constant intrusion or meddling) of outside participants or
dominant perspectives inimical to Filipino interests. That way, he
argues, Filipinos can discourse and communicate freely –– in their own
terms, in their own language, using their own thought patterns and
manner of relating and, most importantly, with their own interests (as
Filipinos) kept in mind first and foremost. While this call for a closed
circuit of interaction appears retrogressive in comparison to the
outward-looking thrust of, say, the newly-democratizing countries of
Eastern Europe, proponents of Pantayong Pananaw see the move as a
much-needed first-time marking of boundaries, if only ideologically, by
a people whose former all-inclusiveness (borne not so much of
generosity as of a distorted prioritizing of others’ interest above one’s
own in a kind of reverse ethnocentrism) serve to work only to its own
detriment.

Traditionally, for instance, what succeeded in getting

established as “the” Filipino “nation” is one constructed by a national
elite under the banner of “official nationalism.” This brand of elite
nationalism is seen as harking back to a mode of acculturation which
prevailed throughout history among Filipinos whose exposure to Euro-
American culture and civilization is deemed to have led to their total
absorption into a different mode of thinking even while wishing to work
for an independent Filipinas. Thus, their sentiments, loyalties, mode
of consciousness, and interests are found to have greater affinity with
the liberal ideologies of Europe than with the thinking and
revolutionary philosophy of the Filipino people.34 Under these elites’
leadership, the country is deemed to have succeeded only in being
steered along the same beaten path to neocolonlialism and
dependency, unable to chart its own course. Stuck in a purely
reactionary mode, the nation is indicted as being locked in global
discourses without an agenda of its own to place on the table. Only by
instituting such a closed circuit interaction do proponents of Pantayong
Pananaw envision the possibility of a “truly” Filipino consensus
 Theoretical Advances in the Discourse of Indigenization 287

emerging, participated in widely by formerly excluded voices from the

diverse Philippine cultural communities.

In what follows, I outline the constitutive elements of the

framework of Pantayong Pananaw.

Philippine History from the Lens of Pantayong Pananaw

Historically, Salazar (1991) argues, there was not, prior to the

coming of Spain, one unified Pantayong Pananaw among the estimated
80 ethnolinguistic groups in the Philippine archipelago. He traces the
constitution of the Philippines into a national political entity to the
efforts of the elites in the Christianized areas to attain reforms and
eventual independence toward the end of the Spanish colonial regime.
These elites he refers to as “the acculturated group” or the ladino
class (page 51). By his account, these ladinos had very complex and
convoluted transactions and acculturative collaborations with the
Spanish colonizers: not only where they responsible for helping the
Spaniards insert their culture into the lives of Filipinos by indigenizing
and translating Spanish works into Tagalog (one of the Philippine
languages), they were also instrumental in the Hispanization of the
Filipino culture by promoting the learning of Spanish. Because of their
privileged status as culture brokers knowing both Spanish and Tagalog,
they prospered during the Spanish regime. Eventually, they also
emerged as the elite during the American occupation. Included in
these ranks, in Salazar’s estimation, are the Filipino propagandists
who, in the latter part of the Spanish period, became exposed to
liberal and progressive ideas in Europe and launched a movement (the
Propaganda Movement) for reform against Spanish abuses and
oppression. Although not discounting their contribution to the initial
phase of the resistance struggle, Salazar regards the Propaganda
Movement as still portraying primarily a pangkami (we-speaking-to-
others) form of discourse, not to discount their contribution to the
initial phase of the struggle. This is because the Filipino propagandists
wrote mostly in Spanish, directed their writing toward the Spaniards,
and used mostly concepts and ideas they learned from the liberal
traditions of Europe which the Spaniards understood as well, as grounds
for their fight for parity and independence. Ultimately, such reactive
nationalism, while perhaps inevitable given the phase of the struggle,
would prove inadequate, falling short of the desired goal of a radical
striving for independence on the people’s own terms.
288 Mga Babasahin sa Agham Panlipunang Pilipino

Since the American period, the elite have continued to derive

from the ranks of ladino-descended and European-educated
propagandists, with the addition today of Fulbright scholars and other
intellectuals sponsored by American foundations, Japan, and other
foreign countries. Salazar contends that because such scholars and
intellectuals continue to discourse in English and use alien constructs in
their study of Philippine society adopted mostly from their graduate
studies abroad, their scholarly practice serves to marginalize Filipino
culture in their own eyes, that is, even when they desire to work for
national liberation. Whether from the ideological left or right, Salazar
finds that the discourse of these individuals (labeled “National Culture
from Propaganda” in the framework) largely unrelated to the larger
discourses of the majority of the Filipino masses whose mode of
consciousness and communication remains rooted in the indigenous
traditions and languages of their respective ethnic communities.
Indeed, Salazar finds the elite to be suffering from what he calls as a
case of “cultural schizophrenia,” in that they are at once “being[s] of
and against the West while longing for [their] ‘native’ roots.” While
the common Filipino would ordinarily be spared such neurotic complex,
the fact that all means of social mobility, as well as all institutions of
power (from the state bureaucracy to the economy and the entire
educational system), are controlled and run on the basis of an elitist
ideology, ensures that anyone going through the system is bound to
undergo a measure of the same cultural alienation and fracturing of
consciousness. This is so given the exposure to alien modes of knowing
and being represented as the normative ideal of what it means for
Filipinos to become worthwhile human beings. To participate in, and
be educated at all under such an unreformed system, is to be forcibly
alienated from one’s native language and culture which one is taught
to regard as “inferior” and “inadequate” compared to the superior
language(s) and culture(s) of the West. From there follows the
internalization of the implicit assumption of Western racial superiority
with all its normative presumptions as to what counts for desirable,
“civilized” ways of being, knowing, and doing. Coupled with the
relentless bombardment of Western popular culture products through
cable television and the globalized media, the stage setting is complete
for the furthering of Western hegemony –– making the task of cultural
re-rooting and re-centering an even greater imperative, if fought with
more challenge.
 Theoretical Advances in the Discourse of Indigenization 289

Theorizing the “Great Cultural Divide”

Herein then lies what proponents of Pantayong Pananaw deem

responsible for the phenomenon they refer to in the framewoprk as
“The Great Cultural Divide” (Ang Dambuhalang Pagkakahating
Kultural). Maggay (1995) offers a representative expression:

Perhaps the greatest single source of anomie in this

country, there exists in the Philippines an invinsible yet
impermeable dividing line between those who are able
to function within the borrowed ethos of power
structures transplanted from without and those who
have remained within the functional meaning system of
the indigenous culture. Termed by academics as the
“great cultural divide,” this sharp disjunction in
sensibility has on top a thin layer of culture brokers
known as the “ladino” class, often co-identical with the
economic and political elite but also including middle
class intellectuals and technocrats sufficiently
educated and domesticated into the formal systems of
power introduced into the country by its colonial past.
The vast bottom half [actually vast “majority”] consists
of that supposedly silent and inert mass whose universe
of discourse is limited to the indigenous languages and
whose subterranean consciousness has remained
impervious to colonial influence. Thus is a situation
where the grammar of power is conducted within the
terms and the structures of a language alien to the
people’s way of thinking and feeling, rendering centers
of power not only inaccessible but profoundly
uninteresting, a political sideshadow that interfaces
only tangentially with what to the poor is the more
serious business of survival (page 3).

It is this monstrous cultural divide –– which translates into a

similar chasm on every other level (i.e., on the level of economics,
class, and political interest) between the country’s elite and the rest of
the Filipino people –– that Pantayong Pananaw seeks to bridge so that
the nation can move forward in a singular direction. In attempting to
close this gap, however, it is the elite nation (nasyon) that Pantayo
scholars hope to compel to accede to the demands of the Filipino
nation (bayan) even as the latter is empowered to assert its will over
the determination of the nation’s destiny. Urgent priority is given to
290 Mga Babasahin sa Agham Panlipunang Pilipino

pagbubuo (construction of a “totality” or national consensus), first, in

order to construct a shared framework for differently making sense of
the past. This shared historical framework may then serve as a basis
for charting a common future, all the more important because without
such, the nation may not continue to hold its own (in fact, has yet to
do so) amidst other totalities in the region all with their own strong
national identities and sense of destiny, notably, Taiwan, Indonesia,
Malaysia, and other neighboring countries. Salazar warns, “If in the
twenty-first century, we fail to constitute a free Philippines, with a
firm determination and common weal, we might find ourselves easily
destabilized and prone to other enticements and led to follow other
dubious destinies” (personal communication, July 1999, as translated
from the Filipino original).

While at the moment only the individual Filipino ethnic

communities may be said to have their own respective pantayong
pananaw, Salazar envisions that a “universal” Pantayong Pananaw
discourse unifying all Filipinos in one purpose may yet emerge through
efforts to transform Philippine education toward more culturally-
grounded production of knowledge and less dependence on foreign
ideological conceptualizations of the world. Given the strength,
vibrancy, and close interrelatedness of the cultures of the various
indigenous communities, it is believed that ethnolinguistic diversity,
far from hindering unity, can serve as a positive contribution to the
formation of a multi-accented national discourse. In Arnold M. Azurin’s
(1993) view, where earlier colonial policy exploited ethnic differences
as part of its strategy of divide-and-rule, much can be said for
“calibrating ethnicity progressively into nationhood” (page 12). Part of
this process is to view ethnic distinctions and dichotomies not as always
and already given or permanent, but, as Azurin suggests, as “shifting,
[at times] superficial, and situational,” that is, the result of certain
expediencies in one’s context or environment (Azurin, 1993, 53, citing
Padilla).

An even more fruitful approach from a historical perspective

that scholars of Pantayong Pananaw are already pursuing in the
consolidation of a national identity is to trace and underscore, the pre-
colonial interethnic linkages through trade and migratory contacts
between and among the different highland, midland, and lowland tribal
settlements in the islands. For as long as each group’s right to exist is
protected and not impinged upon by exploitative acts or repressive
impositions, ethnicity is not seen as contradicting the thrust toward
nationhood but rather complementing it. Here, the notion of there
 Theoretical Advances in the Discourse of Indigenization 291

being a basis for the conception of what Azurin (1993) calls,

“intersecting ethnicities” or “correlative cultures,” located not
necessarily in a correspondence of cultural traits and characteristics
but in the historically continuous and continuing interethnic
transactions that have created bonds of commonality and identification
between and among the various communities, is an even stronger base
for constituting national unity.

Strategies toward the Constitution of a National Discourse

What is the methodology of Pantayong Pananaw? Proponents

clarify that Pantayong Pananaw is not an already finished or pre-
packaged product to be merely sold and marketed to the nation from
the academy. Rather it is “a work in progress,” constituted in dialogue
and contestation (Salazar and Navarro, from various personal
communications, August 1999). In other words, only parameters are
given; the substance emerges in the course of engagement in dialogue.
One non-negotiable parameter is the insistence on Filipino as the
medium of exchange and communication within the discourse of
Pantayong Pananaw. The assumption is that an indigenous perspective
cannot emerge without employing the codes, concepts, and meanings
commonly shared by all. Since a truly national discourse requires
participation from all sectors of society, a common language becomes
an indispensable tool in its construction.

Proponents of Pantayong Pananaw have been hit hard on this

unbending language prerequisite and charged with advocating a form of
“linguistic essentialism.” Objectors to this requirement decry that it
would appear then that it doesn’t matter much what sort of ideological
persuasion is proffered, for as long as the thought is expressed in
Filipino, such is acceptable within the framework of the Pantayong
Pananaw discourse. One critic (Diokno, 1997) protests in this regard,
“Is expanding the arena of discourse through the use of the Filipino
language the sole consideration in the construction of indigenous
history? Does not content figure at all?” (page 10-11). Is it justified,
she asks, to hold “dependence on foreign aid and rejection of
imperialism [as, in effect] ‘paradoxical’ expressions of the same
‘attitude of dependence upon external forces’… [?]” quoting Salazar’s
own words (page 10). Academics opposed to this perceived dogmatic
stance on language are further indignant that the normative
presumption of native language –– once accepted –– would imply
diminishment or invalidation of the historic and exemplary
292 Mga Babasahin sa Agham Panlipunang Pilipino

contributions of, say, Filipino activists of the Propaganda Movement

against Spain or of other more contemporary nationalist writers35
simply because they wrote in other languages (e.g., Spanish and
English) rather than Filipino.36

When one considers the seeming smugness and indifference of

Pantayong Pananaw scholars in the face of such objections, the charge
of “dogmatism” would appear warranted. In my numerous
conversations with Pantayong Pananaw proponents, who by now have
gained a measure of ascendancy beyond the History Department and
have been publishing prodigiously in Filipino, I find that they often
cared little to explain themselves to others, i.e., much less to their
detractors who refuse to address them in Filipino. It is as if to say,
“You want to enter the discourse of the nation? Then speak in the
language of the people, i.e., in the language of that vast bottom half
of the Great Cultural Divide who for so long have had to endure
marginalization in their own country by your strange academic
ramblings in a strange foreign tongue.”

Indeed, when controversy broke out over American writer-

professor Glenn Anthony May’s 1997 book publication, Inventing a
Hero: The Posthumous Recreation of Andres Bonifacio alleging
“fakelore” and “mythmaking” in the nationalist historians’ hailing of
Bonifacio, leader of the Katipunan mass movement,37 as the true
Filipino revolutionary versus the reform-minded elite ilustrados,
Pantayong Pananaw scholars found no need to respond at all. Their
reason is that “to respond is to legitimize [May] as part of the national
discourse. The thing is… he is not… since by writing in English, he is
likely to be read and understood only by the elite Ingliseros who
participate with him in the same discourse” (Navarro, personal
communication, July 1999). The only time one of the Pantayong
Pananaw scholars ever reported feeling compelled to address the issue
was when it finally broke out in the local press as one tabloid bannered
in Filipino, “Bonifacio Fake in the End.” Even then, Navarro clarified,
the response was never intended to rebut May (as they couldn’t care
less about his opinion), but rather to speak with the Filipino people
who are now forced to think about the issue by one tabloid’s unwitting
translation of the controversy into Filipino thus bringing it onto the
national discourse agenda. Navarro would end up discussing the issue
in class and instructing his students to write their response to the
controversy (as goes without saying) in Filipino.
 Theoretical Advances in the Discourse of Indigenization 293

Incidents such as this illustrates that not even the

hegemonizing of a Pantayong Pananaw can keep foreign-originated
ideas or agenda from entering the nation’s discursive boundaries (i.e.,
boundaries are always inevitably transgressed). However, within
Pantayong Pananaw, discoursing about such in the native language can
now allow ordinary Filipinos to address such issues directly on their
own (because translated in a language they understand) instead of
having the educated “Ingliseros” constantly broker for them and hand
them only pre-digested interpretations.

Clearly, then, language as a controlling element in the

Pantayong Pananaw discourse is seen to have its own corrective
mechanism. That is to say, one might enter the talastasan bringing
what might be considered a “reactionary” agenda, but that is quite
alright for as long as the people are given a chance to consider it on
their own terms. And such is possible only when the medium of
expression is in their language. In other words, in order to be part of
the talastasang bayan (national discourse), one must address not
merely one sector of the national society (for example, the educated
elite), but the vast majority, using the same codes, the same
framework of intelligibility, as the rest of the national community. To
the extent that mastery of English has been the sole prerogative of the
country’s educated elite, Pantayo scholars believe that no informed
public opinion can be expected to emerge. This will be the case for as
long as the majority of folk are kept out of the circuit of official
national discourse through linguistic marginalization and exclusion from
participation. And without strong and informed public opinion,
democracy is deemed to exist only in form, not in substance.

Over the past decade-and-a-half, a change in awareness and

practice in this regard has been noted as most television and radio
programming began shifting their linguistic medium to Filipino. Indeed
on my trip back to the country in the summer of 1999 to conduct
research for this project (after four years of being away), I was
pleasantly surprised to find serious discussions of public issues on
television for the first time being conducted in Filipino. One talk show,
for example, which focused on the economy, was being hosted in
Filipino by a well known academic, former government economic
adviser and U.P. economics professor Solita Monsod, whose first
language (judging by the peculiar accent) was obviously not Tagalog
but most likely either English or another regional dialect. Yet, she
struggled gamely to explain complex economic issues in Filipino. When
I queried one Pantayong Pananaw scholar about this phenomenal
294 Mga Babasahin sa Agham Panlipunang Pilipino

change, I was told that the trend started right after the 1986 People
Power Revolution, mostly in recognition of what Navarro calls

… kapangyarihang bayan sa kamay ng tao, tawag natin,

yung pagkilala ng kakayahan ng Pilipino anuman ang
kanyang uri, anuman ang kanyang kasarian o
anupaman, na makilahok (Navarro, personal
communication, July 1999).

(… the power of the nation in the hands of the people,

what we call recognizing the capacity of every Filipino,
regardless of class, gender, or any other group
identification or belonging, to participate.)

The trend was apparently spearheaded by the largest television

network, ABS-CBN, following the euphoria of the 1986 People Power
Revolution which toppled the twenty-year Marcos dictatorship.
Navarro notes that the station apparently decided to switch its
programming to Filipino in honor of the ordinary Filipino masses’
remarkable achievement in this extraordinary event. The audience
response was tremendous and the channel ratings dramatically shot up.
Soon, other television stations had no choice but to follow suit if only
to keep up with the competition. Where before serious discussions of
public issues were almost always exclusively conducted in English (save
for one or two programs), today, even formerly non-Filipino speaking
talk show hosts are forced to learn the language and use it.
Notwithstanding the (still) heavy American twang of some of the
commentators, the viewers –– now broadened beyond the usual A, B,
and C audiences to include D and E audiences38 (even as studio
participants) –– don’t seem to mind at all.

There is a sense in which the ingenuity of this linguistic

prerequisite can be easily elided in its stark banality. But when one
considers how for centuries, access to the discourse on knowledge and
civilization has been denied the majority of the Filipinos who never
quite acculturated to the alien cultures of the colonizers, the
implications assume radical proportions. Much of the impact of this
phenomenon operated on the psychic level and, historically, it appears
that the Americans, much more than the Spaniards, appreciated the
tremendous efficacy of linguistic conquest as a form of subjugation.
Calling the imposition of English as “the master stroke” in America’s
intent to use education as the centerpiece of its colonial policy,
Constantino (1997) puts it simply:
 Theoretical Advances in the Discourse of Indigenization 295

Language is a tool of the thinking process. Through

language, thought develops, and the development of
thought leads to the further development of language.
But when a language becomes a barrier to thought, the
thinking process is impeded or retarded and we have
the resultant cultural stagnation. Creative thinking,
analytic thinking, abstract thinking, are not fostered
because the foreign language makes the student prone
to memorization. Because of the mechanical process
of learning, he is able to get only a general idea but
not a deeper understanding. So, the tendency of
students is to study in order to be able to answer
correctly and to pass the examinations and thereby
earn the required credits. Independent thinking is
smothered because the language of learning ceases to
be the language of communication outside the
classroom. A student is mainly concerned with the
acquisition of information. He is seldom able to utilize
this information for deepening his understanding of his
society’s problems (page 142).

The “language problem” then, within the Pantayong Pananaw

framework, is at the heart of the “Great Cultural Divide” between, on
the one hand, the nation’s acculturated elite (i.e., acculturated to
colonial cultures) who control the institutions of power, and on the
other, the vast majority of the Filipinos whose only hope for upward
mobility is through an elitist and colonial education oriented toward
parasitic dependence on an alien culture to gain the status of may
pinag-aralan (an “educated person”). In this regard, Salazar (1997a)
cites a 1968 survey that bears out parents’ reasons for preferring
English to Filipino, namely: “1) in order to be more proficient in
conversation, 2) to show that one is an educated person, 3) to get a
better job, 4) to be able to travel, 5) to learn more easily, and 6) to
maintain dignity and self-respect” (as cited and translated from the
Filipino original in Salazar, 1997a, 18-19). It is this linking of the
accouterments of education, prestige, sophistication, and (tragically)
even dignity and self-respect with the acquisition of the colonizer’s
language and culture, that Pantayong Pananaw scholars believe will
keep the nation hostage to elitist and alien interests, and its
attainment of a genuine Filipino intellectual and scientific tradition in
the country, virtually impossible (Salazar, 1997a). Dutch scholar Niels
Mulder (1996) who has had numerous conversations with Filipino
296 Mga Babasahin sa Agham Panlipunang Pilipino

indigenization scholars bears this out in his remarks regarding the

effects of U.S. colonialism on Philippine cultural history: “Once a
native history and identity had been driven out, cultural production
[becomes] largely sterile, imitative, and superficial” (page 198).

In the last three decades that the framework of Pantayong

Pananaw has been in use at U.P. Diliman, it appears that the shift in
speaking context from a pangkami (we-speaking to others) to a pantayo
(we-speaking among ourselves) frame of reference is the one crucial
theoretical move required for each of the disciplines to begin the
indigenization process and release the culture’s own internal dynamic.
I refer to this theoretical transformation resulting from such a move as
“the politics of speaking contexts.” What happens when formerly
colonized peoples finally turn from having to defend and explain
themselves to others and instead begin to concentrate speaking
together among themselves? What different sort of problems, topics of
conversations, issues, and concerns arise when they no longer have
outsiders to constantly reference, address, please, scapegoat, or,
simply, react to? How differently might the dialogue proceed and what
different sorts of stories would be told? What differing priorities would
be set? How differently would knowledge construction about
themselves and the world proceed? Salazar (1983b) asks,

Indeed, what would happen if… Filipinos ceased to be

the object of [other powers’] historical moulding?
Clearly, they would then acquire an historical will of
their own, constituting themselves into a different
historical unit which possessed its own model of action
in the world (a destiny, in fact), an explanation for
such an independent historical activity” (page 110).

Rather than a forced homogenization from having to fight a common

enemy, perhaps, a “remaking [of] the nation in its complex cultural
and ideological heterogeneity” could ensue (Werbner and Modood,
1997, 235).

Bagong Kasaysayan: The New Historiography

The corpus of work that has been taking shape within

Pantayong Pananaw in response to these questions is what is now called
Bagong Kasaysayan, or the New Historiography. This work, now
spanning three generations of scholars,39 appears to have succeeded in
 Theoretical Advances in the Discourse of Indigenization 297

establishing a solid foundation for a new intellectual tradition in

Philippine historiography written and taught entirely in Filipino.
Navarro (personal communication, July 1999) notes that for most young
people entering college, this is now the dominant paradigm taught with
only a minority of the faculty still teaching in the old Western
tradition. As a disciplinary discourse, Bagong Kasaysayan now has a
well-developed methodology grounded in the indigenous/native
conception of history (“kasaysayan”) as focused on drawing out the
saysay (meaning, sense, or relevance) of events for a constituent
people. But it is not unacquainted with the Western conception of
history (historia) either, a methodology introduced at the U.P. History
Department as early as 1910. This latter’s primary emphasis is on the
mere reporting (ulat) of the results of a critical examination of events
(siyasat) without explicit reference to any constituent audience or
identified sets of interests. Salazar (1983b) explains that while the
tradition of kasaysayan began in the oral literatures of the ethnic
communities, i.e., in the awit (songs), epiko (epics), and mitolohiya
(mythology), it began taking on a critical turn in the revolutionary
writings of Bonifacio and other Katipunan leaders. Today, in formal
historiographic training and practice, elements from the tradition of
historia are appropriated into the methodology of kasaysayan but
framed critically. To reiterate Salazar’s (1983b) notion of kasaysayan:

Kasaysayan comes from saysay which means both “to

relate in detail, to explain” and “value, worth,
significance.” In one sense, therefore, Kasaysayan is
story (like the German Geschichte or another Tagalog
term, salaysay, which is probably simply an extended
form of saysay). But kasaysayan is also “explanation,”
“significance,” or “relevance” (as in may saysay
“significant, relevant”; or its negated meaning of
walang saysay or walang kasaysayan, meaning
“irrelevant; senseless”). What was then important to
us was the story and its significance, in so far as this
could be explained and made relevant to a particular
group (page 108).

Historia, on the other hand, carries with it the three senses of: “1)
history as chronicle, or the sequential occurrence of events; 2) history
as a discipline based on positivism which is mostly limited to the use of
the scientific method in examining written records; and finally, 3) the
Anglo-American notion of ‘history’ as interpretation which is still
premised on an outsider’s ethnocentric point of view” (Navarro et al.,
298 Mga Babasahin sa Agham Panlipunang Pilipino

1997, 4; Navarro, 2000, 10-11 as translated from the Filipino original).

In effect, Bagong Kasaysayan seeks to combine the indigenous
perspective on history as kasaysayan and the Western historiographic
methods but with the important difference of having Pantayong
Pananaw serve as the controlling framework of interpretation. In a
move rejecting the notion that Filipino nationhood is nothing more than
the product of its experience of, and reaction to, colonial imposition
and initiative, Bagong Kasaysayan, in its various research studies,
strives to surface the cultural nation’s own internal dynamic and
encourage the flourishing of the same by adequately representing it in
its theorizing practices. As Covar comments in this regard, the
movement for indigenization is a “concerted, deliberate effort to
establish a new order of life [of which]… [c]olonization is merely a
temporary detraction” (Covar in Azurin, 1993, xii). Thus, even
periodisation within this tradition would differ from the normative
mode of cutting up Philippine history according to whichever colonial
power dominated it at any given moment, for example, “Spanish
Period,” “American Period,” or “Japanese Interlude,” which had the
effect of imbedding the colonial element ever more deeply in the
historical imagination. Instead, periodisation in the New
Historiography seeks to highlight the Filipino native culture’s own
internal dynamics, achievements, and persistent thrust toward
preserving their kabuuan (“totality”) and integrity. Periodisation in
the Bagong Kasaysayan then would proceed as follows: 1) the period of
the reign of pantayong pananaw among the ethnolinguistic
communities prior to contact with Europe (pre-1565); 2) the
persistence of the power of pantayong pananaw during the period of
colonial and neocolonial domination or historia (1565-1970); and 3) the
period of the construction of Bagong Kasaysayan (1970-present). A
defining principle in this radical revisioning of historical periodisation is
the recuperation of the repressed history (story) of the Filipino people
themselves and the tracing of this internal story’s stubborn
persistence, triumph, and continuity through all attempts to extinguish
and supplant it with an alien historia. Therefore, it is a story told by
Filipinos to fellow Filipinos for the benefit of Filipinos using their own
models of telling and making sense.

Another direction taken by Bagong Kasaysayan is the

development of a Pansila discourse (sila, meaning, “they” or “others”).
This is envisioned to be the equivalent of “Area Studies” in Western
discourse. It goes without saying that knowledge production in Pansila
is conducted in Filipino and viewed from a pook Pantayo or the
standpoint of Pantayo. This is the movement’s way of expanding its
 Theoretical Advances in the Discourse of Indigenization 299

body of knowledge about the world by building its own discourse on

other nations. Under the Pansila project, the goal is to develop a
Filipino discourse on other cultures and civilizations in ways that
collectively benefit the Filipino people –– a taken-for-granted project in
the case of every other nation with its own kabuuan or a
comprehensive sense of who they are as a people. Areas of expertise
currently being developed in this regard are on the neighboring Asian
countries, especially those of Southeast Asia, and on countries that
have strategic on-going relations with the Philippines, in particular,
those hosting large Filipino populations (mostly Filipino overseas
contract workers), notably, the Marianas Islands, Micronesia, Papua
New Guinea, Guam, and West Asia. Ferdinand C. Llanes (1994)
explains in this regard,

Where, before, historians were generally limited to

Philippine relations with the United States or Spain,
now we could see a reorienting of this perspective.
Not only would such a step pull us away from the old
school of Philippine diplomatic relations (that is,
limited to the United States) but also bring us to the
Austronesian context of our civilization in Southeast
Asia. The Malayo-Polynesian foundation of our
language, for example, which we share with our closest
neighbors, is one strand of that context that we are
also seeking to bring into focus (page 8).

With Filipino interest serving as the controlling principle in the study of

the “other,” the resulting area expertise hopes to cease to be a mere
mirror-image of its U.S. counterpart (as has been the norm in the past).
The aim is to produce a body of knowledge directly accessed from a
distinctively Filipino perspective and rendered useful/usable to the
Filipino people.

In a way then, having one’s own strong sense of kabuuan

(totality) now allows for appropriation (pag-aangkin) of foreign
knowledge without being unduly overwhelmed or impressed by such
and without reinscribing psychic domination. This is now possible
because the spirit and direction of appropriation is clear (that is, it is
clear as to whose organizing principle is employed in the act of
appropriating). Pantayo scholars insist that appropriation is useful only
when made with the end in view of benefiting Filipinos at all times.
While this self-oriented bias is merely a given in other nation’s
relations with, and study of, others (Japan, for example, is cited as
300 Mga Babasahin sa Agham Panlipunang Pilipino

having a well-developed store of knowledge on the Philippines encoded

in its own language and interpreted from a distinctively Japanese
perspective; likewise, France, Germany, United States, and many other
countries), the Philippines has yet to constitute its own ethno-centered
point of view or kabuuan both in regard to its own understanding of
itself and its understanding of others.

It is this that makes three decades of Pantayong Pananaw and

more than a decade of Bagong Kasaysayan seem like barely scratching
the surface, so to speak. The task is no longer just one of revision
(which still implies reaction only to what exists) but of totally new
attempts at (re-)construction, at “‘tracing’ or ‘revealing’ that which
has never been written about because we were following leads set for
us by another foreign discourse” (Salazar, personal communication,
July 1999). It appears then that the work of Pantayo scholars has
barely just begun, but the momentum having thus started, the thrust
toward historical revival and recovery seems to be well on its way and
today vibrantly continues.

One offshoot of that dynamic is the formation of a nationwide

movement which extends beyond the walls of the academy called
ADHIKA ng Pilipinas, Inc., (roughly meaning, Aspiration/Vision for the
Philippines) or Asosasyon ng mga Dalubhasa, may Hilig, at Interes sa
Kasaysayan (Association of Specialists and those with Inclination
Toward and Interest in History). Founded in 1989, its membership
extends to elementary school teachers and local community leaders,
along with scholars in the university. The goal of ADHIKA is “to foster
transformation in the social sciences and philosophy in general, and in
historiography, in particular” (ADHIKA brochure, as translated from the
Filipino original). According to its statement of purpose:

Pinahahalagahan ng ADHIKA ang bagong metodolohiya

na isinasaalang-alang ang katutubong kultura at
kaalaman upang maunawaan ang mga kaganapan at
masilip ang pagpapakahulugang Pilipino. Hindi na
mula sa mata ng banyaga ang pag-unawa, kundi batay
sa sariling panamdam at pananaw. Ang pananaliksik ay
hindi lamang batay sa dokumento kundi sa kabuuan ng
lipunan (ADHIKA brochure).

(ADHIKA values the new methodology that takes into

consideration the indigenous cultures and knowledges
so that these may be understood and their meanings
 Theoretical Advances in the Discourse of Indigenization 301

apprehended from the Filipino point of view.

Understanding is no longer from the perspective of
foreigners. And research is no longer just based on
documents but on the whole of society.)

Part of the group’s staple activities are annual conferences that

feature educational trips to historic places in the provinces where the
history and culture of the locality is studied and promoted. A sample
of its convention themes since its inauguration in 1989 shows a focus on
formerly neglected issues and their relevance and implications for the
contemporary period. It has dealt with topics such as “Filipino
Historiography,” “Commemorating the Centennial of Fili [one of
Filipino nationalist Jose Rizal’s anti-Spanish novels],” “Commemorating
the Women and the Minorities in the Revolution,” “Mindanao
[southernmost region of the Philippines] and the Muslims in the 1896
Revolution,” and “Bonifacio 100, the Making of a Filipino
Consciousness: The Revolution in the Formation of the Nation” (as
translated from the Filipino original).

From Pantayong Pananaw’s original conceptualization in the

early 1970s to its elaboration by subsequent generations of scholars,
the discourse appears to have succeeded not only in effectively
evolving its own disciplinary tradition of historiography in the nation’s
leading state university. More importantly, it has demonstrated the
possibility of producing a whole new body of knowledge in the native
language that has potential for transforming knowledge production in
the academy in general. Notably, its core theoretical perspective,
together with its methodological rigor, once adopted by any other
discipline, has the potential of producing a whole new discourse on
Filipino culture and civilization.

In the last decade or so, the discourse of Pantayong

Pananaw/Bagong Kasaysayan appears to have reached a level of
maturity and sophistication beyond its initial articulation by Salazar.
What has helped in this regard is the confidence of second- and third-
generation of Pantayong Pananaw scholars to take the discourse onto
other levels and other arenas of engagement not necessarily sanctioned
by the movement pioneer, Salazar, albeit inspired by the latter’s
original thought. Another is the engagement of scholars who, while
appreciative of the discourse’s basic perspective, have likewise offered
critical feedback with regard some of its perceived weaknesses and
(intended or unintended) foreclosures. A helpful critique in particular
is Guillermo’s critical essay, “Exposition, Critique, and New Directions
302 Mga Babasahin sa Agham Panlipunang Pilipino

for Pantayong Pananaw” which appeared in the 2003 issue of the online
Kyoto Review of Southeast Asia. Here, Guillermo raises important
theoretical and methodological concerns that Pantayong Pananaw
adherents would do well to wrestle with and take seriously. Some of
these concerns have to do with tensions between “understanding” and
“explanation,” the “problem of ideology” and the power relations that
characterize the gulf between scientific discourse and popular
practice, and the plural (non-unitary) interpretation/conceptualization
of social phenomena that precludes the unproblematic assumption of a
nativist position in defining a singular “Filipino” historiographic
perspective as normative.40 Guillermo’s critique, as well as Pantayong
Pananaw proponents’ response to such (e.g. Navarro, 2005), may yet
model a type of productive engagement that can push theorizing in the
tradition of Pantayong Pananaw towards new and even more exciting
directions.

Endnotes
1
For decades, long after direct American rule ended in the Philippines in
1946, English served as the official language of state bureaucracy and education
in the Philippines. As Enriquez (1992) notes, “The English language and the
American system of education proved to be the most efficient instruments for
the noble purpose” of realizing U.S. President William McKinley’s mission to
“civilize and Christianize the islanders” (page 9). Only with the ratification of
the new Philippine Constitution of 1987 did the Filipino language gain adoption
as the official Philippine language, but still alongside English. Not until May
29, 1989 did the UP System vote to adopt Filipino for use in its classrooms, thus
ending English’s near century-old linguistic hegemony in the premier state
educational institution (cf. Abueva, 1995).
2
Now Protacio-De Castro.
3
A version of this personality test is said to still be in use and found
“effective” for testing potential hires in the industry (Cipres-Ortega, personal
communication, July 1999).
4
These three -- Enriquez, Covar, and Salazar -- would constitute the
triumvirate in the indigenization movement, each making strategic contributions
to the common endeavor of constructing a national discourse on civilization.
5
At the time of his death in 1994, he had a pending contract to teach at the
University of Michigan as Visiting Professor.
6
A term taken ambivalently. Sikolohiyang Pilipino distinguishes
“nationalism from below” (grounded in people’s discourse) versus “official state
nationalism” (premised on the elitist discourse) aligning itself with the former
and repudiating the latter.
 Theoretical Advances in the Discourse of Indigenization 303

7
Literally, wooden shoes -- the usual footwear of ordinary folk.
8
An intentional corruption of the local name “Pedro” or “Peter” in English,
giving it a distinctly Filipino accent.
9
Note this characteristic expression (reminiscent of Fanonian discourse)
from one advocate:
Ang “kultura” ng mga mapagsamantalang uri ay hiram, artipisyal, at
di magiging sarili kailanman, sapagkat kumakatas lamang ng
sustansya sa banyaga, nakikingatngat lamang sa ibang kalamnan.
Linta sa paghuhuthot ng dugong bayan sa larangan ng kabuhayan, ang
mapagsamantalang “lipunan” ay linta pa rin sa paggaya, pagsunod, at
pagpakita ng napulot lamang sa larangan ng kalinangan (Salazar,
1997a, 15).
(The “culture” of the ruling class is borrowed, artificial, and, till
kingdom come, will never be its own. This is because it only sucks
nourishment from the colonizer, parasitically feeding upon a rotting
carcass. Like leeches sucking the nation dry of its wealth, such
exploiters of society are pathetic in their utter mimicry, subservience,
and display of nothing more than the crumbs of sophistication they
happen to have picked up from other cultures.)
10
For other examples of this massive attempt to execute a reversal on the
negative system of stereotypes on Filipino values, see Jocano (1997) and the
monograph publication series of an interdisciplinary group of Filipino scholars,
Mamamathala (Seekers of the Divine), on Filipino spiritual culture and Filipino
leadership (too numerous to list here, published in pamphlet format without any
publication information).
11
From the saying, “Ang kapwa ay sarili rin” (the “other” is also oneself). It
connotes the shared being of all humanity. De Leon clarifies in this regard,
“Thus, pakikipagkapwa (the act of sharing one’s being) is always for the good,
always for a positive purpose. It is in essence a sacred act. There is never an
instance in pakikipagkapwa for something negative or evil” (personal
communication, June 1999).
12
From one of my conversations with Maggay in this regard, she expressed
her belief that every culture has its own “inherent giftings.” These unique
inherent giftings in her view may undergo formalistic transformations in the
course of time and in engagement with various exogenous influences, but that
they are nonetheless “enduring.” When I questioned what a multicultural
society such as the United States might have by way of such an “inherent
cultural gifting,” she replied unequivocally, “the art of mass production” -- an
observation I found quite interesting (personal communication, June 1999).
13
See Fanon’s (1963) eloquent depiction of the effects of colonialism:
Colonialism is not satisfied merely with holding a people in its grip and
emptying the native’s brain of all form and content. By a kind of
304 Mga Babasahin sa Agham Panlipunang Pilipino

perverted logic, it turns to the past of the people, and distorts, disfigures
and destroys (page 210).
14
See Cipres-Ortega, 1980; De Leon, 1981, 1990; Sevilla, 1982; Samson,
1982; Mataragnon, 1982; Pe-Pua, 1982, 1990; Salazar, 1983a; Alejo, 1990;
Avila-Sta. Maria, 1996; Pe-Pua and Protacio-Marcelino, 1998, among others.
15
The normal semestral teaching load for UP faculty is 4/4 a year.
16
The fact that most Sikolohiyang Pilipino faculty have already secured their
tenure and are now in the phase of moving on to other midlife priorities than
career seems to afford them the choice of slowing down on publications, unlike
the younger untenured group of Western-trained and oriented faculty who are left
with no coice but to “publish or perish.”
17
The controversy as to whether diasporic Filipinos are to be considered
“foreigners,” or -- within the scope of what is broadly defined as “Filipino
identity” -- still part of the Filipino national community, is one of the contentious
points in the theorizing of Filipino identities.
18
Cf. Protacio-Marcelino, Dela Cruz, Balanon, Camacho, and Yacat, 2000;
Protacio-Marcelino, Dela Cruz, Camacho, and Balanon, 2000; Dela Cruz,
Protacio, Balanon, Francisco, and Yacat, 2001; Dela Cruz, Protacio-De Castro,
Balanon, Yacat, and Francisco, 2002; Protacio-De Castro, Balanon, Camacho,
Ong, Verba, and Yacat, 2002; Protacio-De Castro, Camacho, Balanon, Yacat,
Galang, and Ong, 2003; Balanon, Puzon, and Camacho, 2003; Trinidad, Cloma,
Ong, and Bunyi, 2003; and Cloma, Ong, Bunyi, Balanon, and Yacat, 2003.
19
Cf. Aguiling-Dalisay, Mendoza, Santos, and Echevaria, 1995; Aguiling-
Dalisay, Mendoza, Mirafelix, Yacat, Sto. Domingo, and Bambico, 2000; and
Aguiling-Dalisay and Jagmis-Socrates, 2000.
20
Cf. Javier, 2000; Maggay, 2002; Antonio and Tiamson-Rubin, 2003; and
Torres-Yu and Aguirre, 2004.
21
Cf. Obusan and Enriquez, 1994; Orteza, 1997; Aquino, 1999; Protacio-
Marcelino and Pe-Pua, 1999; Pe-Pua and Protacio-Marcelino, 2002; Salazar,
2004; Javier, 2005; and Pe-Pua, 2005.
22
Despite his fluency in other languages, upon coming back from his studies
abroad, Salazar began teaching in Filipino. This was as early as 1968.
23
It must be noted that within the general framework of indigenization,
difference as such need not spell a barrier to national unity (cf. Azurin, 1993). For
that matter, even the Muslim separatist challenge in Southern Philippines needs to
be put in perspective. When understood complexly as constituted not merely by
an internal dynamic of self-determination by a people claiming inherently separate
histories and exclusive domains from the Philippine nation but as much a product
of insidious manipulations of ethnic loyalties by the American colonial policy of
divide-and-rule at the turn of the century, one begins to gain appreciation for the
kind of meticulous historical recuperation enabled by more indigenous,
decolonized perspectives that give access to a very different kind of reading (see
Azurin, 1996, for a compelling account of the suppressed story behind the
 Theoretical Advances in the Discourse of Indigenization 305

dominant narrative of Moro history as being one long continuous resistance to

colonial rule).
24
Again, not to presume a pre-constituted internal homogeneity, but rather a
consensus built (or in the process of being built) from the ground up, that is, out of
the plural cultures and traditions of the various ethnolinguistic communities
speaking together and undertaking responsibility for their own knowledge
production.
25
Compelling evidence of this is his recent annotated translation into Filipino of
Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto from the German original (cf. Marx and
Engels, 2000).
26
A colloquial term for “Filipino.”
27
More will be said later on the particular theorization of this notion of the
divide between the elite and the majority of the Filipino masses.
28
In Gramsci’s (1971) terms, as “organic intellectuals.”
29
Ironically, Constantino (1997) himself, while a consistent writer in English,
similarly affirms in this regard:
Certain directions can help in the assertion of unique Asian ways of
thinking and living. One is for intellectuals to insist on the use of the
national language. As Jose Rizal once declared, “Whoever does not
love his or her own language is worse than rotten fish.” For language is
the expression of culture and the embodiment of national power. The
first thing that colonizers did to quell resistance and erase racial
memory was to impose their own language on the colonized.
Invariably, anti-colonial struggles were carried forward by the use of
the national language to assert a distinct identity and a clear sense of
nationhood” (page 7).
30
Currently, a Tri-College Faculty set-up with a rotating Chair and Committee
has been approved in principle by the participating units in UP Diliman, namely,
the Asian Center, KAL, and DAPP. This arrangement is meant to service the
Philippine Studies Program and accommodate faculty not housed in a particular
department (such as Covar who is now retired); however, to this writing, the
plan has yet to be implemented.
31
Cf. Kellner’s (1989) clarification of Critical Theorists’ notion of “totality”
for a similar notion of the term (pages 47-48).
32
Salazar and I at one point debated on whether or not the pronouns kami and
tayo corresponded to the “we-exclusive” and “we-inclusive” distinction in
English. He believes they do, but I begged to differ in that my own thought is
that they are in fact inversely correspondent. And this is because if tayo means
“we-inclusive,” it would in effect be including outsiders, whereas in the context
of kami or “we-exclusive,” one excludes them. In the end, he did straighten out
my confusion by clarifying that in the context of pantayo, “outsiders don’t exist,
whereas in pangkami, they exist and they are central to our thought although
you’re excluding them” (personal communication, June 1999). In other words,
306 Mga Babasahin sa Agham Panlipunang Pilipino

in Pantayong Pananaw, both the speakers and the addressees belong to the same
discursive community sharing the same codes, interests, context, and meaning,
i.e., a situation prevailing in a closed circuit of interaction.
33
Rimonte (1997) notes, “The other is the colonizer, representative of
everything one regards as superior and therefore longs for” (page 42). She
quotes W.E.B. DuBois on the phenomenon of the internalized other:
It is a peculiar sensation, this double consciousness, this sense of
always looking at one’s self through the eyes of others, of measuring
one’s soul by the tape of a world that looks on in amused contempt and
pity. One ever feels this twoness… two souls, two unreconciled
strivings, two warring ideals in one dark body whose dogged strength
alone keeps it from being torn asunder (page 42).
34
Cf. Salazar’s (1997b) diagram on the parallel but distinct tracks of the
ladino/creole/ilustrado-led agitations for reforms from the 1700s onwards, on
the one hand, and the barangay-led ethnic uprisings that culminated in the 1896
nationwide revolutionary uprising of the Katipunan mass movement fighting for
no less than total independence, on the other. The former movement, inspired
by the ideals of the French and Latin American revolutions, is deemed to have
led to the formation of the “official” nacion. The latter, on the other hand, is
seen as constituting the birth pangs of a “cultural” nation or bayan rooted more
in the people’s indigenous cultures and traditions (page 11).
35
For example, the likes of Ileto, 1979, 1998; Agoncillo, 1956, 1960;
Agoncillo and Guerrero, 1977; Constantino, 1975a, 1975b.
36
Such scholars’ consternation is further aggravated by tauntings from
Pantayong Pananaw proponents openly labeling English-speakers as
“Ingliseros,” a derogatory term connoting a bunch of “wannabes.”
37
That is, the movement that launched the 1896 nationwide uprising against
Spain.
38
A system of classification used by media practitioners to segment audiences
based on economic status; A, B, and C, referring to upper, upper middle, and
middle classes, and D and E to the lower income brackets.
39
Cf. Navarro et al., 1997, 187-192 for a comprehensive listing of
representative publications including master’s theses and doctoral dissertations
covering the last three decades. Some of the more recent publications include
Santillan and Conde (1998), Salazar (1999), and Marx and Engels (2000).
40
At most, Guillermo advocates only a “broadly nationalist and critical
viewpoint towards the development of an autonomous dynamic for the
development of Philippine social sciences closely articulated with the
aspirations of the Filipino people.”
 Theoretical Advances in the Discourse of Indigenization 307

References

Abueva, J.V. (1995). Filipino sa Siglo 21. Quezon City: Sentro ng

Wikang Filipino, University of the Philippines.

Agoncillo, T.A. (1956). Revolt of the Masses: The Story of Bonifacio

and the Katipunan. Quezon City: University of the Philippines
Press.

Agoncillo, T.A. (1960). Malolos: The Crisis of the Republic. Quezon

City: University of the Philippines Press.

Agoncillo, T.A. and Guerrero, M.C. (1977). History of the Filipino

People. 5th Edition. Quezon City: R.P. Garcia Publishing.

Aguiling-Dalisay, G. and Jagmis-Socrates, N. (2000). Usapang Lalake;

Paglalahad ng mga Lalaking Cuyonon. Quezon City:
Pambansang Samahan sa Sikolohiyang Pilipino.

Aguiling-Dalisay, G.; Mendoza, R.M.; Mirafelix, E.J.L.; Yacat, J.A.; Sto.

Domingo, M.R.; and Bambico, F.R. (2000). Pagkalalake; Men in
Control? Filipino Male Views on Love, Sex & Women. Quezon
City: Pambansang Samahan sa Sikolohiyang Pilipino.

Aguiling-Dalisay, G.; Mendoza, R.M.; Santos, J.B.; and Echevaria, A.

(1995). Luto ng Diyos; Mga Kuwento ng Buhay Mag-asawa.
Quezon City: Akademya ng Sikolohiyang Pilipino Publishing
House. Revised edition, Manila: De La Salle University Press.

Aguiling-Dalisay, G.; Yacat, J.A.; and Navarro, A.M. (2004). Extending

the Self: Volunteering as Pakikipagkapwa. Quezon City: Center
for Leadership, Citizenship and Democracy, National College of
Public Administration and Governance, University of the
Philippines.

Alejo, A.E. (1990). Tao po! Tuloy! Isang Landas ng Pag-unawa sa Loob
ng Tao. Quezon City: Office of Research and Publications,
Ateneo de Manila University.

Aquino, C.C. (1999). Mula sa Kinaroroonan: Kapwa, Kapatiran at Bayan

sa Agham Panlipunan. Professorial Chair Paper.
308 Mga Babasahin sa Agham Panlipunang Pilipino

Antonio, L.F. and Tiamson-Rubin, L. (editors) (2003). Sikolohiya ng

Wikang Filipino (Mga Simulain, Pamamaraan at Nilalaman).
Quezon City: C & E Publising, Inc.

Avila-Sta. Maria, M. (1996, December). Is the Indigenization Crisis in

Philippine Social Sciences Resolved in Sikolohiyang Pilipino?
Layag, 1 (1).

Azurin, A.M. (1993). Reinventing the Filipino Sense of Being and

Becoming. Quezon City: CSSP Publications and University of
the Philippines Press.

Azurin, A.M. (1996). Beyond the Cult of Dissidence in Southern

Philippines and Wartorn Zones in the Global Village. Quezon
City: University of the Philippines Press and Center for
Integrative and Development Studies, University of the
Philippines.

Balanon, T.; Puzon, M.; and Camacho, A.Z.V. (editors) (2003).

Emerging Good Practices: A Documentation of the Experiences
and Learning of Save the Children UK’s Programme for Abused
and Exploited Children. Quezon City: Center for Integrative
and Development Studies Program on Psychosocial Trauma and
Human Rights, University of the Philippines.

Bhabha, H.K. (1994). The Location of Culture. London: Routledge.

Cipres-Ortega, S. (1980, May 6). Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Mga Implikasyon

sa Pagtuturo at Pag-aaral. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the Linguistic Society of the Philippines. Philippine
Normal College, Manila.

Cloma, E.; Ong, M.G.; Bunyi, P.; Balanon, F.A.G., and Yacat, J.A.
(2003). Training Manual: Teaching Peace, Human Rights and
Conflict Resolution. Quezon City: Center for Integrative and
Development Studies Program on Psychosocial Trauma and
Human Rights, University of the Philippines.

Constantino, R. (1975a). The Philippines: A Past Revisited. Quezon

City: Tala Publishing Services.
Constantino, R. (1975b). A History of the Philippines: From the
Spanish Colonization to the Second World War. New York:
Monthly Review Press.
 Theoretical Advances in the Discourse of Indigenization 309

Constantino, R. (1997). Globalization and Intellectual Tradition.

Diliman Review, 45 (1).

Covar, P.R. (1991). Pilipinolohiya. In V.V. Bautista and R. Pe-Pua

(editors), Pilipinolohiya: Kasaysayan, Pilosopiya at
Pananaliksik. Manila: Kalikasan Press.

Dela Cruz, M.T.; Protacio, E.; Balanon, F.A.G.; Francisco, C.; and
Yacat, J.A. (2001). Trust and Power: Child Abuse in the Eyes
of the Child and the Parent. Quezon City: Center for
Integrative and Development Studies Program on Psychosocial
Trauma and Human Rights, University of the Philippines.

Dela Cruz, M.T.; Protacio-De Castro, E.; Balanon, F.A.G.; Yacat, J.A.;
and Francisco, C. (2002). Small Steps, Great Strides: Doing
Participatory Action Research with Children. Quezon City:
Center for Integrative and Development Studies Program on
Psychosocial Trauma and Human Rights, University of the
Philippines.

De Leon, Jr., F.M. (1981). Towards a People’s Art. Lipunan, 3.

De Leon, Jr., F.M. (1990). The Roots of a People’s Art in Indigenous

Psychology. In V.G. Enriquez (editor), Indigenous Psychology: A
Book of Readings. Quezon City: Akademya ng Sikolohiyang
Pilipino.

Diokno, M.S.I. (1997). Philippine Nationalist Historiography and the

Challenge of New Paradigms. Diliman Review, 45 (1-2), 8-13.

Enriquez, V.G. (1976). Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Perspektibo at Direksyon.

In L.F. Antonio, E.S. Reyes, R.E. Pe, and N.R. Almonte
(editors), Ulat ng Unang Pambansang Kumperensya sa
Sikolohiyang Pilipino. Quezon City: Pambansang Samahan sa
Sikolohiyang Pilipino.

Enriquez, V.G. (1978, January-December). 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 at M. David (editors),
Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Isyu, Pananaw at Kaalaman (New
310 Mga Babasahin sa Agham Panlipunang Pilipino

Directions in Indigenous Psychology). Manila: National Book

Store.

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. (1990). Indigenous Psychology: A Book of Readings.

Quezon City: Akademya ng Sikolohiyang Pilipino.

Enriquez, V.G. (1991). Ang Sikolohiyang Malaya sa Panahon ng Krisis.

Quezon City: Akademya ng Sikolohiyang Pilipino.

Enriquez, V.G. (1992). From Colonial Liberation to Liberation

Psychology: The Philippine Experience. Quezon City: University
of the Philippines Press.

Enriquez, V.G. (1994). Pagbabangong-Dangal: Indigenous Psychology

and Cultural Empowerment. Quezon City: Akademya ng
Kultura at Sikolohiyang Pilipino.

Enriquez, V.G. (1997). Filipino Psychology: Concepts and Method. In

H.S.R. Kao and D. Sinha (editors), Asian Perspectives on
Psychology. New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Fallows, J. (1987, November). A Damaged Culture: A New Philippines?

Atlantic Monthly.

Fanon, F.O. (1963). The Wretched of the Earth. New York: Grove
Press, Inc.

Gerlach, L.P. and Hine, V.H. (1970). People, Power, Change:

Movements of Social Transformation. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-
Merrill Co., Inc.

Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks. Q. Hoare

and G.N. Smith (editors and translators). New York:
International Publishers.

Guillermo, R.G. (2003, March). Exposition, Critique, and New

Directions for Pantayong Pananaw. Kyoto Review of Southeast
Asia, 3.
 Theoretical Advances in the Discourse of Indigenization 311

Ileto, R.C. (1979). Pasyon and Revolution: Popular Movements in the

Philippines, 1840-1910. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila
University Press.

Ileto, R.C. (1998). Filipinos and Their Revolution: Event, Discourse,

and Historiography. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University
Press.

Javier, R.E. (editor) (2000). Filipino ang Wika; Pilipino ang Diwa,
Quezon City: Pambansang Samahan sa Sikolohiyang Pilipino.

Javier, R.E. (2005). Pangpamamaraang Kaangkinan ng

Pakikipagkuwentuhan. Binhi, 2005-2.

Jocano, F.L. (1997). Filipino Value System. Metro Manila: Punlad

Research House, Inc.

Kellner, D. (1989). Critical Theory, Marxism, and Modernity.

Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Licuanan, P. (1988, April 27). A Moral Recovery Program: Building a

People-Building Nation. Study submitted to Senator Leticia
Ramos-Shahani. Senate of the Philippines, Manila.

Llanes, F.C. (1994, September 18-22). A New National Perspective in

Filipino Historiography. Paper presented at the International
Workshop on Historiography and National History. Universiti
Brunei Darussalam, Negara Brunei Darussalam.

Maggay, M.P. (1993). Pagbabalik-loob: A Second Look at the Moral

Recovery Program. Quezon City: Akademya ng Kultura at
Sikolohiyang Pilipino.

Maggay, M.P. (1995). Pahiwatig: Di-Tuwirang Pagpapahayag sa

Konteksto ng Kulturang Pilipino. Doctoral Dissertation in
Philippine Studies. University of the Philippines.

Maggay, M.P. (2002). Pahiwatig: Kagawiang Pangkomunikasyon ng

Filipino. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.
Marx, K and Engels, F. (2000). Manifesto ng Partido Komunista. Z.A.
Salazar (editor and translator). Quezon City: Palimbagan ng
Lahi.
312 Mga Babasahin sa Agham Panlipunang Pilipino

Mataragnon, R.H. (1982). The Case for an Indigenous Psychology. In R.

Pe-Pua (editor), Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Teorya, Metodo at
Gamit (Filipino Psychology: Theory, Method and Application).
Quezon City: Surian ng Sikolohiyang Pilipino.

May, G.A. (1997). Inventing a Hero: The Posthumous Recreation of

Andres Bonifacio. Quezon City: New Day Publishers.

Mignolo, W.D. (1999). Globalization, Civilization Processes, and the

Relocation of Languages and Cultures. In F. Jameson and M.
Miyoshi (editors), The Cultures of Globalization. Durham and
London: Duke University Press.

Mulder, N. (1996). Inside Southeast Asia. Amsterdam: The Pepin

Press.

Navarro, A.M. (2000). Ang Bagong Kasaysayan sa Wikang Filipino:

Kalikasan, Kaparaanan, Pagsasakasaysayan. Bagong
Kasaysayan, 11.

Navarro, A.M. (2005, March). Externalizing Pantayo or Localizing

Pantayo: A Review of Pook at Paninindigan: Mga Ugat ng
Talastasang Sosyalista sa Rebolusyong Pilipino by Ramon
Guillermo. Kyoto Review of Southeast Asia, 6.

Navarro, A.M.; Rodriguez, M.J.B.; and Villan, V.C. (editors) (1997).

Pantayong Pananaw: Ugat at Kabuluhan; Pambungad sa Pag-
aaral ng Bagong Kasaysayan. Mandaluyong City: Palimbagang
Kalawakan. Revised edition, Quezon City: Palimbagan ng Lahi,
2000.

Obusan, T.B. and Enriquez, A.R. (editors) (1994). Pamamaraan:

Indigenous Knowledge and Evolving Research Paradigms.
Quezon City: Asian Center, University of the Philippines.

Orteza, G.O. (1997). Pakikipagkuwentuhan: Isang Pamamaraan ng

Sama-samang Pananaliksik, Pagpapatotoo, at Pagtulong sa
Sikolohiyang Pilipino. PPRTH Occasional Papers Series No. 1.
Quezon City: Philippine Psychology Research and Training
House.
 Theoretical Advances in the Discourse of Indigenization 313

Pe-Pua, R. (editor) (1982). Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Teorya, Metodo at

Gamit (Filipino Psychology: Theory, Method and Application).
Quezon City: Surian ng Sikolohiyang Pilipino.

Pe-Pua, R. (1990). Pagtatanong-tanong: A Method for Cross-Cultural

Research. In V.G. Enriquez (editor), Indigenous Psychology: A
Book of Readings, Quezon City: Akademya ng Sikolohiyang
Pilipino.

Pe-Pua, R. (1991). UP Pioneers in Indigenous Psychology. In B.A.

Aquino (editor), The University Experience: Essays on the 82nd
Anniversary of the University of the Philippines. Quezon City:
University of the Philippines Press.

Pe-Pua, R. (2005). Kros-Katutubong Perspektibo sa Metodolohiya: Ang

Karanasan ng Pilipinas. Binhi, 2005-1.

Pe-Pua, R. and Protacio-Marcelino, E. (1998, August). Sikolohiyang

Pilipino (Filipino Psychology): A Legacy of Virgilio G. Enriquez.
Paper presented at the IACCP Conference on Forty Years of
Cross-Cultural and Indigenous Research in the Philippines.
Bellingham, Washington State, USA.

Pe-Pua, R. and Protacio-Marcelino, E. (2002). Sikolohiyang Pilipino:

Pamana ni Virgilio G. Enriquez. Binhi, 2002-1.

Pletsch, C.E. (1981). The Three Worlds, or the Division of Social

Scientific Labor, circa 1950-1975. Comparative Study of
Society and History, 23 (4).

Protacio-De Castro, E.; Balanon, F.A.G.; Camacho, A.Z.V.; Ong, M.G.;

Verba, A.G.; and Yacat, J.A. (2002). Integrating Child-
Centered Approaches in Children’s Work. Quezon City: Center
for Integrative and Development Studies Program on
Psychosocial Trauma and Human Rights, University of the
Philippines.

Protacio-De Castro, E.; Camacho, A.Z.V.; Balanon, F.A.G.; Yacat, J.A.;

Galang, M.T.; and Ong, M.G. (2003). Handbook for Social
Workers on Basic Bio-Psychosocial Help for Children in Need of
Special Protection. Quezon City: Center for Integrative and
Development Studies Program on Psychosocial Trauma and
Human Rights, University of the Philippines.
314 Mga Babasahin sa Agham Panlipunang Pilipino

Protacio-Marcelino, E.; Dela Cruz, M.T.; Balanon, F.A.G.; Camacho,

A.Z.V.; and Yacat, J.A. (2000). Child Abuse in the Philippines:
An Integrated Literature Review and Annotated Bibliography.
Quezon City: Center for Integrative and Development Studies
Program on Psychosocial Trauma and Human Rights, University
of the Philippines.

Protacio-Marcelino, E.; Dela Cruz, M.T.; Camacho, A.Z.V.; and Balanon,

F.A.G. (2000). Torture of Children in Situations of Armed
Conflict: The Philippine Experience. Quezon City: Center for
Integrative and Development Studies Program on Psychosocial
Trauma and Human Rights, University of the Philippines.

Protacio-Marcelino, E. and Pe-Pua, R. (editors) (1999). Unang Dekada

ng Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Kaalaman, Gamit at Etika. Quezon
City: Pambansang Samahan sa Sikolohiyang Pilipino.

Rimonte, N. (1997). Colonialism’s Legacy: The Inferiorizing of the

Filipino. In M.P.P. Root (editor), Filipino Americans:
Transformation and Identity. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Salazar, Z.A. (1983a). Ethnic Psychology and History: The Study of

Faith Healing in the Philippines. In Z.A. Salazar (editor), The
Ethnic Dimension: Papers on Philippine Culture, History and
Psychology. Cologne: Counselling Center for Filipinos, Caritas
Association for the City of Cologne.

Salazar, Z.A. (1983b). The Legacy of the Propaganda: The Tripartite

View of Philippine History. In Z.A. Salazar (editor), The Ethnic
Dimension: Papers on Philippine Culture, History and
Psychology. Cologne: Counselling Center for Filipinos, Caritas
Association for the City of Cologne.

Salazar, Z.A. (1991). Ang Pantayong Pananaw bilang Diskursong

Pangkabihasnan. In V.V. Bautista and R. Pe-Pua (editors),
Pilipinolohiya: Kasaysayan, Pilosopiya at Pananaliksik. Manila:
Kalikasan Press.

Salazar, Z.A. (1997a). Ang Pagtuturo ng Kasaysayan sa Pilipino. In

A.M. Navarro, M.J.B. Rodriguez, and V.C. Villan (editors),
Pantayong Pananaw: Ugat at Kabuluhan; Pambungad sa Pag-
 Theoretical Advances in the Discourse of Indigenization 315

aaral ng Bagong Kasaysayan. Mandaluyong City: Palimbagang

Kalawakan.

Salazar, Z.A. (1997b). Si Bonifacio at ang Kabayanihang Pilipino.

Bagong Kasaysayan, 2.

Salazar, Z.A. (1998a). Introduksyon. In Z.A. Salazar, The Malayan

Connection: Ang Pilipinas sa Dunia Melayu. Quezon City:
Palimbagan ng Lahi.

Salazar, Z.A. (1998b). Konklusyon: Bagong Historiograpiya:

Kapilipinuhan at Kamalayang Malayo. In Z.A. Salazar, The
Malayan Connection: Ang Pilipinas sa Dunia Melayu. Quezon
City: Palimbagan ng Lahi.

Salazar, Z.A. (1998c). “Philippine Studies” and Pilipinolohiya: Past,

Present, and Future of Two Heuristic Views in the Study of the
Philippines. In Z.A. Salazar, The Malayan Connection: Ang
Pilipinas sa Dunia Melayu. Quezon City: Palimbagan ng Lahi.

Salazar, Z.A. (1998d). Pilipinolohiya: Pagtatakda at Pagpapaibayo. In

Z.A. Salazar, The Malayan Connection: Ang Pilipinas sa Dunia
Melayu. Quezon City: Palimbagan ng Lahi.

Salazar, Z.A. (1998e). The Malay World: Bahasa Melayu in the

Philippines. In Z.A. Salazar, The Malayan Connection: Ang
Pilipinas sa Dunia Melayu. Quezon City: Palimbagan ng Lahi.

Salazar, Z.A. (1999). Ang Kartilya ni Emilio Jacinto at ang Diwang

Pilipino sa Agos ng Kasaysayan. Bagong Kasaysayan, 6.

Salazar, Z.A. (editor) (2004). Sikolohiyang Panlipunan-at-Kalinangan:

Panimulang Pagbabalangkas ng Isang Larangan. Quezon City:
Palimbagan ng Lahi.

Samson, J.A. (1982). Is there a Filipino Psychology. In R. Pe-Pua

(editor), Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Teorya, Metodo at Gamit
(Filipino Psychology: Theory, Method and Application). Quezon
City: Surian ng Sikolohiyang Pilipino.

Santillan, N.M.R. and Conde, M.B.P. (editors) (1998). Kasaysayan at

Kamalayan; Mga Piling Akda Ukol sa Diskursong
Pangkasaysayan. Quezon City: Limbagang Pangkasaysayan.
316 Mga Babasahin sa Agham Panlipunang Pilipino

Sevilla, J.C.C. (1982). Indigenous Research Methods: Evaluating First

Returns. In R. Pe-Pua (editor), Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Teorya,
Metodo at Gamit (Filipino Psychology: Theory, Method and
Application). Quezon City: Surian ng Sikolohiyang Pilipino.

Trinidad, A.; Cloma, E.; Ong, M.G.; and Bunyi, P. (2003). Teaching
Manual: Teaching Peace, Human Rights and Conflict
Resolution. Quezon City: Center for Integrative and
Development Studies Program on Psychosocial Trauma and
Human Rights, University of the Philippines.

Torres-Yu, R. and Aguirre, A.C. (2004). Sarilaysay: Danas at Dalumat

ng Lalaking Manunulat sa Filipino. Quezon City: University of
the Philippines Press.

Werbner, P. and Modood, T. (editors) (1997). Debating Cultural

Hybridity: Multi-Cultural Identities and the Politics of Anti-
Racism. London: Zed Books.