The Philippines and the United States
A Brief Comparison of their Culture and Psychology
I googled myself. We all do, just to find what the interwebs say about us. This one is weird. I found an old term paper I wrote for my psychology class 6-7 years ago or so at a local community college here in Southern California (I attempted to go back to school for another degree — yes, attempted). The stats might not be accurate now. Without further ado, here it is…
As with any other typical country, the Philippines has gone through various societal processes— either political or economical in nature or the combination thereof — that define the current structure of its society. But unlike most of its neighboring countries, the Philippines is not “purely” oriental in a sense.
If the West-East Divide ever exists somewhere else in Asia, it is not evident that this country can be somewhere proximate to this demarcation.
For more than three centuries the Philippines had undergone the colonization of the Spaniards (the first Spanish contingents came to the Philippines in 1521). By virtue of the Treaty of Paris of 1898, the Philippines came under American jurisdiction as a result of Spain’s loss to America in the Spanish-America War in 1898. From 1941 to 1944, during the Second World War, the Philippines had to put up with the atrocities of the Japanese.
If the West-East Divide ever exists somewhere else in Asia, it is not evident that this country can be somewhere proximate to this demarcation.
The years of the Americans’ political settlement before and after the Second World War saw the emergence of a Democratic society (the Philippines is the first country in Asia to have adopted Democracy as a political system). Many other democratic institutions have been established as a result of the American-Philippine relation.
One of the salient impacts of the Americans to the Philippines is the education system which was structured and fashioned after American models. The current education system is an off-shoot of the system developed and exercised by a widely recognized group of American teachers in the early 1950’s called “Thomasites” (so-called after the ship “Thomas” with which they came to the country).
Up to these times, English is the main medium of instruction used in all levels in school. Whether this medium is effective for Filipino students or not have been a question extensively debated in many parts of the country. The efficacy of education relies on different aspects, and one of them is the language being used. But all had to come down to one thing: Globalization has become the decisive factor in asserting English as the primary medium to be used in schools.
The implication of this is multifold. An average tagalog-speaking first grader could have a trouble understanding, say, a mathematics subject taught in English while he, the student, in the first place is not yet basically familiar with that language (English) through which he is expected to learn that mathematics subject.
The inevitability of Globalization has “forced” the system to embrace an approach to education that at times contrary to the conservative tendencies of Filipinos. Could the Philippines’ literacy rate of 95%, a national average and one of the highest literacy rates in Asia, attest to the fact that environment-imposed (or globalization-imposed) system is really effective? Another interesting thing to note is that the Philippines is one of the largest English-speaking nations in the world.
These statistics speak for the ability of the Filipino people to adapt or adjust to an element foreign to their native environment. The Philippines’ education system basically conforms to the demands of Globalization.
Yet despite the modern trend in the Philippines’ educational process, the popularity of superstitions in most areas of the country is still pervasive. The belief in the Albularyo or quack-doctor still persists when it comes to treating diseases and some types of mental illnesses. “Sanib” or spirit-possession, belief to supernatural phenomena and to the existence of supernatural characters or spirits (such as “manananggal” which is a version of Dracula but only this is half-bodied, has a wing like that of a bat and has the ability to transform to different kinds of animals) and other superstitions are still incorporated into the culture of the Filipinos. There have been cases of mental disorder caused by drug abuse and depression being interpreted as punishment by a “white lady” (a wandering spirit of a dead lady) or “nuno sa punso” (literally, elf living in the mound of soil).
The only explanation to these kinds of belief is the principle of Repetition or Assertion, or the Validity Effect, as these beliefs have been passed on from one generation to the other. No scientific evidence seems to prove these kinds of superstitions, or any superstitions at that.
On social life, the Filipinos are generally “moralistic” in terms of dealing with social issues. Living in together without the prerogatives of marriage is not accepted in the society. Same-sex marriage is as much a taboo to the eye of a typical Filipino as is pre-marital sex. If there are relationships of such kinds (live-in and same-sex) that thrive in the society, they are only “allowed” by virtue of either tolerance or being consented to; but, still, never accepted morally. Filipinos are not open to these types of “situations” sometimes common or “normal” to the perception of some Western countries such as the United States. Divorce and abortion are two issues Filipinos consider as both illegal and immoral.
The moralistic attitude of Filipinos demonstrated towards their social life is ultimately determined and influenced by Catholicism which is the major religion in the country (about 85% or more of the population are Catholics).
Almost peculiar to Filipinos is their expression of personal freedom. Freedom, for Filipinos, is not an “exclusive” attribute but a communal one.
The world witnessed when the Filipino people united in arms and prayers to stage “People Power Revolution of 1986”. The word “revolt” in that case was actually a misnomer due to the fact that the said “revolution” was just a big rally joined about by huge numbers of people (which instigated the withdrawal of support by the Armed Forces from the Seat of Power of the Republic) calling for the resignation of the despot President Ferdinand Marcos.
The mass action (or revolution) had proven its worth. It succeeded to achieve its ultimate goal — to restore Democracy to the country by ousting the despot president. It was an action symbolic of the Filipinos’ collective pursuit of Freedom and the quest for the opportunities to enjoy it.
Almost peculiar to Filipinos is their expression of personal freedom. Freedom, for Filipinos, is not an “exclusive” attribute but a communal one.
Rallies and other forms of collective mobilization are instruments for Filipinos to express their choice or opinion. From the point of view of an individualistic culture (e.g., the United States) collective actions for the purpose of affecting social change could be taken as “mob rule” or construed as anarchy. But for the collectivist Filipinos this is the only way in which they can fully and totally express their own selves.
Deindividuation (the loss of awareness of one’s individuality) is the nearest concept that can characterize this behavior. A Filipino philosopher by the name Leonardo Mercado, a priest, best explained this characteristic. He argued that Filipinos have the concept of “sakop” (which literally means “jurisdiction” in English). Sakop is basically the extension of one’s self — it is the individual being extended to, but not diffused in, the company of others.
The Filipinos feel a sense of “closeness” to anyone or anything— a person or an event— they can identify themselves with. So the justification of resorting to mass actions when called for is not for the individual Filipino to opt for anonymity but rather for the affirmation of his identity.
If we do a comparative evaluation on culture and psychology of the Philippines vis-à-vis the United States, we must stress the fact that the two countries differ not only in the entirety of the content of their culture but also in many other aspects— from beliefs and customs down to public opinion, attitude and economic attributes.
We can find “parallelism” in the Education system of both countries—the Philippines’ education system being an off-shoot of an American model. But then peripheral issues such as resources and limited access to information can readily accentuate the gap between the two countries.
Globalization, despite its promotion and propaganda on the mass media, is still an alien concept to the majority of Filipinos. If globalization is an inevitable path of progress, most Filipinos don’t look at it as a conceptual framework of national economic progress but as a foreign element.
The sense of “otherness” that Filipinos feel about globalization is one thing they need to “unlearn”. Why is this so? Progress brought about by globalization could alienate people who do not have the capacity and tools to work with it.
Access to information and technological advancements are the main liabilities of any Third World Country such as the Philippines.
The most apparent disparity between the United States and the Philippines is not of the economic aspects but that of cultural ones— the former as characterized by an Individualistic culture, the latter by Collectivistic or Communal culture. Hence, Privacy Rights and its issues are highly important to Americans; and, it is inappropriate and impolite to “mind somebody’s business”.
The individual’s right is placed at the top rung of values Americans uphold. For Filipinos, family values are more important than those of the individual’s.
Close family ties characterize the Filipino family. Extended family settings are “natural” for Filipinos; while Americans would feel “crowded” when a number of family members occupy a house.
All discrepancies on social issues and opinions are to be expected considering the fact that culture comes into play when we talk about norms or social standards, beliefs, and customs.
More important than the differences between the United States and the Philippines is the ability of their people to interact and coexist in a given environment. Views and opinions on social issues may contrast in all aspects as a result of their differences in dispositional and situational perspectives.
Understanding each other’s culture and way of life leads to appreciating them. The receptive attitude of both cultures is a key factor in shaping any relationship that has existed, that exists and will exist between them.
Acceptance and tolerance also play a key role in determining the compatibility of the two cultures.
REFERENCES
Carol Wade & Carol Tavris. Psychology (Seventh Edition). Chapter 8 “Behavior in Social and Cultural Context”
Gladys Zabilka. Customs and Culture of the Philippines. Charles E. Tuttle Co (Publisher)
Internet. http://philippineupdate.com/Books4Jolo.pdf (site)
Notes:
Most of the discussion about the Filipino’s concept of Freedom and other related concepts are drawn from my memory from various lectures in my Philosophy classes in St. Paul Collegiate Seminary in the Philippines. I remember the main reference for these Filipino concepts was Fr. Leonardo Mercado’s (SVD) “Elements of Filipino Philosophy” —-Marlon Ribunal
