Patterns of Filipino Life and Thought: The Crisis of Tongue

Those who stand for nothing will fall for everything; those who stand for everything will stand for nothing.

“What do we stand for as a people?” To objectively answer this question, it is important for us to take our history into consideration. We need to understand the foundations of Filipino thought by appreciating our history as a people and as a society if we are to answer the “why’s?” (that in our hearts and minds remains seemingly unanswered), if we are to propose a constructive alternative to popular fatalist mentalities, if we are to avert desensitization toward our national identity, and if we truly desire to become truly credible citizens with the hope of developing a balanced and constructive perception of our society and a balanced perception of the world around us.

We need to understand our foundations of thought through the eyes of history, both recent and past, to objectively frame the patterns that compels us to think and act the way we do and for us to come to an appreciation of the meaning of democracy as a function of inalienable rights and inalienable responsibilities.

The Crisis of Tongue

The crisis of identity among Filipinos is nowhere more clearly demonstrated than in our crisis of tongue. This crisis has been fueled by a longstanding debate on the issue of which language ought to be the national tongue. To most Filipinos, the issue of language is not that important an issue to spend time debating over since their preference would typically be their native dialects. To others, it is simply a function of economic expediency. Those who press the issue of maintaining a national language are branded as being backwards or against the trends of globalization; those that press for the use of foreign language as the primary means of education are often branded as un-Filipino. The proper perspective must be struck between the ability to speak a foreign tongue (such as English) and the issues that circumscribe the identity of a national tongue.

Historians clearly state that differences in language or dialects is an issue pre-dating Spanish colonization. Filipinos were already literate 621 years before the re-discovery of the Philippines by Magellan is established by the recent discovery of the LCI (Laguna Copperplate Instruction) that was written around 900 AD. Filipinos employed their own written language (baybayin or alibata), which prompted Friars to publish a book (Doctrina Christiana) in 1593, forty seven years before the first book was published in the United States!

Due to the geographic setting of the Philippines as an archipelago, and the relative ease by which foreign traders interacted with inhabitants through the various ports throughout the northern, central and southern parts of the early Philippines, local languages or dialects were strongly influenced by various cultures such as those originating from Java, India, China, and Japan.

Why is language so important? For starters, the culture of any people is deeply embedded in their language. Language is contextual. Traditions, history, values, a sense of community, and norms are communicated through the local tongue. The moment a local tongue is replaced by a foreign tongue, the transmission of these same values from one generation to the next would be very difficult. Communicating traditional values using a foreign language removes context from the entire exercise, it would almost always involve an attempt to communicate those values within a context (analogies, metaphors, allusions, etc.) that is familiar and convenient to the foreign tongue. In order for a student of any language to truly absorb and assimilate a new tongue, they would have to first simultaneously immerse themselves in the culture and context embedded in the language.

Language is a powerful unifying force that we, as a people never attained, as our forefathers continued to entertain dialects within the archipelago that were substantially distinct from each other. This could be the reason behind the lack of prominence of oral tradition as a single nation. It seems we never really had a single, universal language to begin with. Thanks to early colonizers who did everything to inhibit local dialects, we are now faced with the crisis of tongue.

Perhaps now is the best time to re-think where we should stand on this subject, and then stick to that decision lest we "fall for everything."

Until next time...

What Makes the Filipino Different?

My objective in these series of posts is not to comprehensively cover (although I will try to be as comprehensive as possible in my selected topics) every minutiae of Filipino Life and Thought, given the fact that I myself am wanting of complete knowledge and understanding, but to present a platform from which we could commence our journey towards positive change.

We begin...

There is no study more compelling than the study of human behavior and nothing more compelling a subject within the study of behavior than to understand the dynamics and constructs that make up the patterns that frame the life and thought of a people. My exposure to various cultures in Africa, Europe, Asia, as well as South and North America has given me an appreciation of the value such an understanding would bring to any culture or society.

“What makes the Filipino different?” This single question by itself warrants a life of study and examination. Perhaps this treatise is my attempt to logically define a corresponding structure, a system, that would allow me frame a tenable answer. My pursuit transcends the common and trivial responses to such a question; it goes beyond the generic and often ambiguous declarations of distinction that are nothing more than shallow and subjective elicitations.

Perception and world view plays a big part in how the average citizen answers this question. While it is justifiable for us to expect a deep nationalistic fervor that proceeds from the mouths of most citizens when answering such a question, the reality is that Filipinos tacitly uphold a negative perception of their national identity and heritage—to wit, most are even ignorant of their heritage. The reality is that most Filipinos have very little appreciation of what it means to be Filipino let alone what makes a Filipino different.

The glory days of the mid-1980’s have been short-lived at best. The fire of democracy through “people power” that stirred and motivated the people to stand up for their desire to be free was immediately replaced by a sense of helplessness and despair within a decade of regaining its new found democracy. To most, the democracy they had hoped for just wasn’t there. The very people that helped condition their minds seem to be the only one who directly benefited from this neo-democracy. While freedom of speech was practiced, it was often exercised without control and temperance. The common perception was that democracy meant unbridled license. Cliques and special interest groups (be it political, religious, economic, or social) began to emerge like potholes on the road after a season of typhoons. The most notable and highly irregular were reformation and quasi-political groups that rose from the ranks of the military. The Filipino society as a whole seemed to encourage the emergence of these groups by their inability to exercise control and temperance within this new found democracy. Any attempt to exercise temperance was construed to be an act of censorship, rather than of diligence and control. To most, democracy meant the ability or right to speak without fear of suffering the consequences, without fear of reprisals, without a high sense of responsibility. Everyone seemed to want to exercise their inalienable rights, but few understood that with these rights came inalienable responsibilities.

Talk, rallies, speeches, opinions were abundant—actions were scarce. Political speeches became the entry point for popularity. Everyone wanted to have the opportunity to be heard, not because they had something of substance to say, but because they knew this would help them pursue their own interests—whatever those interests were. What was most disconcerting is that the speeches always took on a negative and critical tone. It became popular to speak against some one or some institution. Responsible choices seemed to be a distant third in the order of priorities, and was largely unpopular.

It became difficult to gauge which group advocated the real model for democracy. The heightened sense of hope of the mid to late 1980’s was immediately replaced by a growing sense of helplessness and despair. This resulted in a move for emigration not before seen throughout Filipino history. At one point, brain drain referred to the exodus of intellectuals and professionals from the country. But now, the Philippines is experiencing an exodus down to the labor force. Everyone, if given the chance, will not hesitate to leave their fatherland in search for greener pastures, and when possible, go to the extent of taking their entire family with them.

The “spin” was the overseas Filipino worker or OFW movement. Rather than serve as an alarm or indicator of economic collapse, the government successfully launched programs that encouraged rather than mitigated emigration activities. Instead of working to retain a competitive intellectual base and labor force and trying to reverse emigration trends, everyone started popularizing a work abroad mentality.

Ask most students what they would like to do when they finish schooling, and 9 out of 10 students will tell you they want to go abroad. Why are we headed down this path? In business, this trend is called attrition. And attrition is an indicator of danger looming in the horizon. Everything is done to change attrition trends as managers know that increased attrition only means reduced competitive capabilities. Supporting this trend and not doing anything to avert its increase will spell danger for the country in the very near future. Through this supported attrition, Filipinos are systemically losing any sense of nationalism, and worse, they are beginning to adopt a mindset that minimizes their sense of heritage and identity as Filipinos.

There is a growing acceptance of this trend—nationalistic desensitization. The majority sees this in purely economic terms—"personal" economic terms. Everyone is beginning to gain a high level of comfort with this trend. The majority of Filipinos seems to believe that their most important priority is to support the financial and material needs of their family. To most, values and principle are important discussion points over meals or gatherings, but are largely considered unimportant in terms of practicality. By endorsing national attrition, the values that frame our identity as a people and society has now been replaced by opportunism—the ends justifies the means!

To most Filipinos that have had the chance to see the world and experience other cultures, it would not be surprising to hear the same put down their own culture, society, and sometimes on the extreme, even disown their own roots and heritage. To others, the Philippines is seen as a place to play, a place to retire, a place where they could spend the rest of their lives in apathy and indifference but definitely not a conducive place to raise their children, for them to struggle and compete for material gain, nor a place to become involved in a community.

While I had the opportunity to see the world and experience foreign cultures for extended periods of time, and though I have experienced first hand the painful realities of reintegration and the repercussions of belief in my fellow Filipinos, I remain of a different mind.

Instead of riding the popular bandwagon of negative criticism, my desire is to help create a renaissance in Filipino thought, to help my fellows develop a balanced and realistic view of who we are as a people, to help us confront realities with minds filled with an understanding of root causes, an understanding and appreciation of our history, and by so doing attempt to define a place well suited for the modern Filipino in this emerging world. Rather than negatively critique my own heritage, I am now compelled to stir the greatness that sleeps within the Filipino people—my people.

For us to answer the question, “What makes the Filipino different?” we must first examine the positive and negative constructs that makes us who we are in an attempt to postulate how we can improve and how we can become better citizens of a country that is in desperate want for our attention, loyalty, love, and commitment.

I'm proud to be Filipino!

Until next time...

Paradox of Mindsets

The Philippines is one of the most puzzling and interesting economies in the Asia Pacific Region. It is a country that desires economic progress but shuns substantive change. It is a country that never fails to demonstrate the ability to innovate but fails to follow-up or protect such innovation. Moreover, it is a country that is riddled by double-standards, and a culture that does not understand the meaning of absolutes. It is a nation that struggles with its own identity. It is a nation with a weak sense of its own history.

The lack of foundational fortitude allows most Filipinos to assimilate whatever is most popular, trendy, hip, and financially progressive with relative ease. Unlike most Asians, Filipinos have a weak sense of community, inherently possess regional prejudices, and are quick to dismiss connections with the fatherland. Overseas Filipino communities are not as prominent or active when compared to Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Thai, Cambodian, Vietnamese, Indian, or Indonesian communities. In fact, most filipino communities are more casual and highly disorganized.

The roots of the systemic challenges that riddle the country can be traced as far back as the pre-Spanish era. While no empirical data exists to directly link this way of thinking to the geographical and socio-political structures that pre-dated colonizers, one can't help but make conclusions to that effect.

In a recent report (radio) about how local politicians gain a mass following to help fill rallies and political events, reporters interviewed several who admitted that politicians often paid for them to pariticpate in the rallies complete with provisions for food and transportation on top of their fees. One even admitted that the incumbent group paid more that other aspirants. To most, attending political rallies is a way for them to earn a living to feed themselves. A majority of those that were interviewed admitted to participating in rallies for both sides. It all came down to how much they would get for attending, and how well they got fed and transported to and from the rallies. Although there were those that suggested that they still believed in whay the rally stood for despite receiving payment for attending, these were in the micro minority.

Those of us who understand the meaning of principle will find this distressing. A majority of the people that attend rallies do not even understand the issues (let alone the consequences) of supporting a specific position or candidate. The Filipino form of democracy, it seems, is based on how much cash you can give out to support a specific issue for extended periods of time, but not a democracy based on intelligentm informed choices, and conviction.

Media, not substance or due process, becomes the judge on issues. It is a system that cannot distance itself from the populist view. And the view of the population can be changed if you have enough money to change it. Democracy it seems is only a means to an end, and not the objective end. If you have enough money, you can legitimately influence democracy by buying the opinions of the people.

The more things change, the more it does not. Ask an average person about what Democracy means, and all they could answer is that it suggests the "will of the people". But because few really understand how making the right choices will impact their futures, the "will of the people" in reality is what you can pay them to support. While there will be those of my readers who will disagree with me does not change current realities.

Opportunities are scarce because the very people who can create them (everyone and anyone) refuses to create opportunities that will expose them to risk. Most Filipinos are protectionist in attitude. As long as they have a powerful "backer" they feel free to impose or control situations and limit opportunities.

Because of this Pygmalion strategy employed by so many indiscriminate people in public or private powerhouses, the masses believe that their destiny is solely determined by the family or social circles they were born to. Only a few manage to break-away to pursue a better and more progressive life. These few will emigrate to othe countries and become a benefit of their new host country.

Virtually everyone in the Philippines would rather buy American or European brands and products, will hire expatriates over equally qualified local candidates, employ foreign services and study in foreign schools than patronize locally produced goods, locally offered services, or local schools.

Most reason that they are after quality. "Duh...how can quality improve if people don't buy these products and allow the manufacturers to make a decent profit from it?"

The Philippines is in a position to offer the best for the entire world to enjoy and benefit from. But before the world can do so, it must first see the pride that comes from within when we buy products "Made in the Philippines". Before the world can do so, they must first be convinced that we believe in our own people, and are proud to be Filipino.

Substantive change begins with the choice you are about to make...now.

Dilemma of Conscience

The events of the past week in the Middle East has been especially disturbing for me. I've been spending time perusing through every printed article I could get my hands on while switching between CNN and BBC channels all week with mixed emotions and a great deal of uncertainty.

On the one hand, I could appreciate the imperative Israel has chosen to take in attacking militant entities who have taken refuge in Lebanon. But on the other, I kept asking myself if there were another way to deal with this problem in a more surgical way...and somehow avoid the side effects brought about by chemo-therapy?

A dilemma of conscience. That's what I am going through. On one hand, I want to see terrorism eradicated from the planet, but on the other is the realization that people will have to die in this process. I could not help but notice how new developments in this new war of terrorism slowly turn into a scene in Macbeth.

On one end, you have a militant group that wages an all out war against infidels. On the other, you have a group that wages war against the enemies of a democratic system. History repeating itself. From the perspective of each participant on either side of the conflict, each holds a more steadfast and more righteous position--a higher moral ground. Both sides appeal to truth, but only as long as these truths are fundamentally consistent with their specific contexts, and are tenable to them as a people.

In one of my more technical blogs, I had alluded to attacking the mental supply chain, or the supply chain of thought in order to nip this in the bud. Unless we are able to successfully persuade participants into a mental model that promotes co-existence, the only success we can expect is a cessation of hostilities but not a change in mindsets. And as long as contradicting mindsets exist, all the peace we could really expect is nothing more than a facade. There will be compliance, due to exerted political pressures, but substantive change will not occur.

On the one end of the spectrum, you have a group of islamic militants that would accept nothing short of a theocracy. Their sense of citizenship is not bound by geographical or racial borders, but by an extreme interpretation of what they believe to be true, and have held to be true for more than a millenium. Hence their ability to command kindred spirits throughout the known world. This belief system is not conveniently attached to a national boundary, a political system or an economy; it is not about progress, but complete obedience; it is not about variation, but singularity; for their belief has been singular in nature (not necessarily acceptable)--faith must determine the direction and destiny of a nation--not the people (as in a democracy). Those nations that do not comply, have to be considered infidels. This is the extreme view.

For this group to compromise only because it will serve the better interests of an economy is unlikely. Theirs is extreme. You either comply with their system of belief, or you deserve to perish. This degree of extremism is behind the fervor that allowed Turks to overthrow, and almost eliminate traces of Roman or Hellenic cultures. Only those who are progressive in their mental models could be persuaded to look into contexts. Those on the extreme are grounded and motivated by a steadfast conviction that enables them to accomplish, what we in the western world would consider unthinkable. The irony in all of this, is that those in the coalition of the willing, end up resorting to methods, that even extremists conside unthinkable.

Those on the other side of the equation employ the same methods and same degree of conviction in imposing their will because of strong belief in the system of democracy. This movement also transends national boundaries and is packaged as the coalition of the willing. The democratic position is likewise viewed by those within the domains of extreme Islam as extreme.

Both sides are bound by absolutism. There cannot be two truths--only one. Both sides view the welfare of the people as paramount. The difference lies in how "welfare" is understood. On the one end, welfare is meant to be a people with unquestionable dedication to the faith. On the other end, welfare is based on material securities. On the one end, there is singularity, on the other, pluralism.

Sure coexistence is often advocated by both sides, but the terms by which both entities will coexist is a totally different matter altogether. The terms of coexistence, if you will review history, is often dictated by the prevailing group. It is never meant to promote equality of thought, but is biased towards those who are perceived to be in a more advantageous position. History tends to be written by the victors.

When one looks at the issues from this perspective, it all comes down to who has the power to become victorious. It comes down to who among the two can outlast, out gun, out manouver the other.

The current crisis, if allowed to escalate, will divide the world (as we now know it) into two distinct groups: Islamic and Judeo-Christian. This war has been raging for more than 2000 years, preceding even the time of Jesus Christ. There are complexities, layered by years of tradition and circumstance, that is quite difficult to peel away by simply defining a "true promise" (in contrast to what Sec. Rice calls a "false promise).

Absolutism drives both ends of the crisis toward victory...even at the high cost of completely annihilating the other.

Can there ever be (as there has not been) a workable center from where we could establish our moment of equillibrium in the way we think?

Who ever blinks first losses, and, as usual, history will be written by those who prevail.

Your thoughts???