When Respected Ideals Go Bad - The Filipino Twist
Due to the lack of foundational fortitude, we tend to take very noble ideals to the farthest extreme possible. There is nothing inherently wrong about individualism, for example, But as a people, we have taken this to an extreme that is beyond the original scope of the ideal. We do this with democracy, capitalism, politics (including political activism), freedom of speech (where it becomes libertine and rumor-mongering), religion, social responsibility. Filipinos tend to take great, world changing concepts to an extreme where the very application of the ideal becomes adulterated, thus, unhealthy. How do you argue with someone who believes that his/her freedom of speech needs to be tempered with conscience and courtesy and that freedom of speech does not equate with unbridled communication? How do we begin to allow our people to appreciate the fact that individual freedom needs to end when it infringes upon the liberties of another.
Recently I attempted to write my article on this forum in the vernacular. I was surprised to learn that our native vocabulary is limited (or it could be that I am simply ignorant). I tried to translate the word serendipity, and there is no word in Tagalog that even closely resembles its English meaning. I said we lack foundational fortitude because we have adopted constructs down to the language level, attempted to apply this through transliteration rather than through careful interpretation. Our ideas have yet to be expressed completely using the vernacular. This for me is important. Language is the binding agent of every nation. I say this, not because I am an expert in the vernacular (far from it), I say this as a matter of observation and not expert opinion. For those of us who were schooled in Western thought, were made familiar with western concepts and constructs, it becomes such a challenge to try to communicate principles we learned in our native tongue.
What happens is that our thought processes end up as eclectic, buffet-type, were we end up choosing only parts of a definition that we only wish to employ. Democracy, for example, is hardly juxtaposed with personal responsibility. We lose the principle of balanced thinking, we fail to appreciate the importance of causality in the way we think, and ultimately, behave.
This could be one of the reasons why we tend to take learned concepts and ideals to an extreme. You gave a very good example of yet another good concept that is applied in the wrong context. Competition is good. In fact, healthy competition is one of the benefits of a democracy. But competition has been taken to a dangerous, personal level. Instead of looking at ways to collaborate, the institutions you referred to looked at it from the perspective of sharing similar resources to fund their programs--"ako muna, bago sila" type of mentality. Why should I share when I can hoard it all? This mentality is seen in the way corporations and businesses operate. The "andok's" syndrome. Every one simply wants to secure a quick buck (hence the vacillating patterns reflected and manifested in our markets).
When Filipinos hear of a profitable venture, they will try to mimic, disintermediate, our stir up rumors that are designed to destroy the competition. This is what happened with Pan De Manila and Pan De Pugon. It also happens in agricultural communities. When farmers hear that their neighbor profited from their harvest of tomatoes, they will certainly plant tomatoes and try to sell their products to the same buyer. Our concept of equitable enterprises usually means one thing in the Filipino's mind: "I need to make the same amount or more doing the same thing my competitor does." This behavior has resulted in too much supply in some sectors and a glaring gap in other sectors of our economy. The only one that benefited from this scenario is the buyer who did not change his/her market price. He made more because of an abundant supply, and because of over abundance, was able to command a significantly lower buy rate. The farmers ended up losing rather than making, and then will end up discrediting their neighbor and doubt, even question his integrity and truthfulness simply because they did not make the same amount he allegedly made on the sale of his crops.
Filipinos define themselves by the material trappings they amass without thinking in terms of building sustainable opportunities. Farmers will go into debt to plant the very same crop that proved profitable instead of looking to provide services that will allow crop farmers to add value to their harvest (such as fertilizers, equipment, labor, etc.). They are accustomed to imitate rather than innovate. Again, a mindset issue. Because they want to have or covet their neighbors goods, they will opt for the shortest path to material gain without regard for the future. The moment they define what makes their competitor unique, they will proselyte those resources without hesitation.
Most investors are the same. If you told them to invest their profit of 1 peso so that it becomes 100 pesos given a week's period, they will almost certainly get the 1 peso and dismiss the potential of making 100x simply because they had to wait. "Kunin ko na lang ang piso para sigurado na may piso, baka mawala pa yan..." Either this approach, or they will pad the principal with so much interest that the borrower is buried in debt even before they get a chance to use the funds (fact is, the interest and first month payment are already deducted before cash is disbursed). This is not a culture of belief but of opportunism.
So how do we convince a Carabao to drink? We have to create the need. Force it to thirst. Of course, dealing with human "will" is an entirely different matter. You simply can't put a leash on an individual so that it has no alternative but to drink from the source another exclusively provides. In my opinion, if we are to see change, we need to invest heavily into activities that focus on those that want to change and have reason to change--the middle class. We need to invest in strength. It is untenable for us to expect change from the general masses who live below the poverty line. It must first be applied at the level that could make the most impact, at the level that is more achievable. That would be the middle-class. This is the center of any economy where change can be modeled. They are more receptive, are idealists, and are learners by nature since they are incentivized to achieve more, and are less susceptible to sensationalism.
Take the cellphone phenomenon as an example. The shift Doy Vea saw when he structured his service offering to cater to the middle market who were not accustomed to carrying phones at that time (due to the cost), was to make services so affordable. The purchase of phones came as a necessary evil. All of a sudden, the Philippines was branded the texting capital of the world--Nokia, Erricson, Motorola, and all mobile phone manufacturers saw the Philippines as a prime market (even more than the US and Canada combined). They succeeded in conditioning people. Now virtually everyone, in ever layer of society tots a cellphone and can afford to use it.
Focus on the center of our society...not the extremities.
If we were to create, programs that catered to the middle class rather than the masses, we will create opportunities of scale that will extend and become sustainable over a short period of time. The same market penetration strategy used by local and foreign businesses could very well be applied in conditioning behavior and mindsets.
As far as we are concerned, we need to change our focus from providing "free aid" to the masses, and calibrate our minds and hearts to enable the center of our society--the middle class. This means believing enough to invest in them. If we successfully pilot a program, we can use the very characteristics and predictable behavioral patterns of Filipinos to bring about positive change. We can use the "gaya-gaya" mentality to spread constructive behavior throughout the country like wildfire through the center of society--the middle class. As in Aikido, we use the very force that could destroy us to defend us and allow us to overcome an assailant. The stronger the assailant the more powerful the stride. We use the very characteristics that are now destroying Filipino society as the very tools to re-envirogate the people.
If we were to make people aware of the causal implications of their every action, and couple this with an understanding of learned concepts in each proper context, I do believe that we are not so ignorant nor too hard-hearted or conscience-seared, that we will not do the right thing.
Recently I attempted to write my article on this forum in the vernacular. I was surprised to learn that our native vocabulary is limited (or it could be that I am simply ignorant). I tried to translate the word serendipity, and there is no word in Tagalog that even closely resembles its English meaning. I said we lack foundational fortitude because we have adopted constructs down to the language level, attempted to apply this through transliteration rather than through careful interpretation. Our ideas have yet to be expressed completely using the vernacular. This for me is important. Language is the binding agent of every nation. I say this, not because I am an expert in the vernacular (far from it), I say this as a matter of observation and not expert opinion. For those of us who were schooled in Western thought, were made familiar with western concepts and constructs, it becomes such a challenge to try to communicate principles we learned in our native tongue.
What happens is that our thought processes end up as eclectic, buffet-type, were we end up choosing only parts of a definition that we only wish to employ. Democracy, for example, is hardly juxtaposed with personal responsibility. We lose the principle of balanced thinking, we fail to appreciate the importance of causality in the way we think, and ultimately, behave.
This could be one of the reasons why we tend to take learned concepts and ideals to an extreme. You gave a very good example of yet another good concept that is applied in the wrong context. Competition is good. In fact, healthy competition is one of the benefits of a democracy. But competition has been taken to a dangerous, personal level. Instead of looking at ways to collaborate, the institutions you referred to looked at it from the perspective of sharing similar resources to fund their programs--"ako muna, bago sila" type of mentality. Why should I share when I can hoard it all? This mentality is seen in the way corporations and businesses operate. The "andok's" syndrome. Every one simply wants to secure a quick buck (hence the vacillating patterns reflected and manifested in our markets).
When Filipinos hear of a profitable venture, they will try to mimic, disintermediate, our stir up rumors that are designed to destroy the competition. This is what happened with Pan De Manila and Pan De Pugon. It also happens in agricultural communities. When farmers hear that their neighbor profited from their harvest of tomatoes, they will certainly plant tomatoes and try to sell their products to the same buyer. Our concept of equitable enterprises usually means one thing in the Filipino's mind: "I need to make the same amount or more doing the same thing my competitor does." This behavior has resulted in too much supply in some sectors and a glaring gap in other sectors of our economy. The only one that benefited from this scenario is the buyer who did not change his/her market price. He made more because of an abundant supply, and because of over abundance, was able to command a significantly lower buy rate. The farmers ended up losing rather than making, and then will end up discrediting their neighbor and doubt, even question his integrity and truthfulness simply because they did not make the same amount he allegedly made on the sale of his crops.
Filipinos define themselves by the material trappings they amass without thinking in terms of building sustainable opportunities. Farmers will go into debt to plant the very same crop that proved profitable instead of looking to provide services that will allow crop farmers to add value to their harvest (such as fertilizers, equipment, labor, etc.). They are accustomed to imitate rather than innovate. Again, a mindset issue. Because they want to have or covet their neighbors goods, they will opt for the shortest path to material gain without regard for the future. The moment they define what makes their competitor unique, they will proselyte those resources without hesitation.
Most investors are the same. If you told them to invest their profit of 1 peso so that it becomes 100 pesos given a week's period, they will almost certainly get the 1 peso and dismiss the potential of making 100x simply because they had to wait. "Kunin ko na lang ang piso para sigurado na may piso, baka mawala pa yan..." Either this approach, or they will pad the principal with so much interest that the borrower is buried in debt even before they get a chance to use the funds (fact is, the interest and first month payment are already deducted before cash is disbursed). This is not a culture of belief but of opportunism.
So how do we convince a Carabao to drink? We have to create the need. Force it to thirst. Of course, dealing with human "will" is an entirely different matter. You simply can't put a leash on an individual so that it has no alternative but to drink from the source another exclusively provides. In my opinion, if we are to see change, we need to invest heavily into activities that focus on those that want to change and have reason to change--the middle class. We need to invest in strength. It is untenable for us to expect change from the general masses who live below the poverty line. It must first be applied at the level that could make the most impact, at the level that is more achievable. That would be the middle-class. This is the center of any economy where change can be modeled. They are more receptive, are idealists, and are learners by nature since they are incentivized to achieve more, and are less susceptible to sensationalism.
Take the cellphone phenomenon as an example. The shift Doy Vea saw when he structured his service offering to cater to the middle market who were not accustomed to carrying phones at that time (due to the cost), was to make services so affordable. The purchase of phones came as a necessary evil. All of a sudden, the Philippines was branded the texting capital of the world--Nokia, Erricson, Motorola, and all mobile phone manufacturers saw the Philippines as a prime market (even more than the US and Canada combined). They succeeded in conditioning people. Now virtually everyone, in ever layer of society tots a cellphone and can afford to use it.
Focus on the center of our society...not the extremities.
If we were to create, programs that catered to the middle class rather than the masses, we will create opportunities of scale that will extend and become sustainable over a short period of time. The same market penetration strategy used by local and foreign businesses could very well be applied in conditioning behavior and mindsets.
As far as we are concerned, we need to change our focus from providing "free aid" to the masses, and calibrate our minds and hearts to enable the center of our society--the middle class. This means believing enough to invest in them. If we successfully pilot a program, we can use the very characteristics and predictable behavioral patterns of Filipinos to bring about positive change. We can use the "gaya-gaya" mentality to spread constructive behavior throughout the country like wildfire through the center of society--the middle class. As in Aikido, we use the very force that could destroy us to defend us and allow us to overcome an assailant. The stronger the assailant the more powerful the stride. We use the very characteristics that are now destroying Filipino society as the very tools to re-envirogate the people.
If we were to make people aware of the causal implications of their every action, and couple this with an understanding of learned concepts in each proper context, I do believe that we are not so ignorant nor too hard-hearted or conscience-seared, that we will not do the right thing.
Labels: Mindsets
posted by Dennis Reyes, Ph.D. at
12:11 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home