Sikolohiyang Pilipino Essay Sample
Sikolohiyang Pilipino ( Filipino psychological science ) refers to the psychological science born out of the experience. idea and orientation of the Filipinos. based on the full usage of Filipino civilization and linguistic communication. The attack is one of ‘‘indigenization from within’’ whereby the theoretical model and methodological analysis emerge from the experiences of the people from the autochthonal civilization. It is based on measuring historical and socio-cultural worlds. understanding the local linguistic communication. unravelling Filipino features. and explicating them through the eyes of the native Filipino. Among the results are: a organic structure of cognition including autochthonal constructs. development of autochthonal research methods and autochthonal personality proving. new waies in learning psychological science. and an active engagement in administrations among Filipino psychologists and societal scientists. both in the Philippines and overseas.
The beginnings of Sikolohiyang Pilipino ( Filipino psychological science )
From the beginning of the periods when the Philippines was colonized by Spain. and so the USA. academic psychological science. or the psychological science taught in schools. was preponderantly Western in theory and in methodological analysis. Many Filipino intellectuals. notably the two Philippine heroes Jose Rizal and Apolinario Mabini. expressed dissatisfaction at the dyslogistic readings of Filipino behaviour by Western perceivers. This disenchantment continued as Filipinos struggled to asseverate their national and cultural individuality. In the sixtiess. many Filipino intellectuals and bookmans were already sensitive both to the insufficiency every bit good as the unfairness of the Western-oriented attacks to psychology. For case. in the country of personality. the Western attack in research of non being enmeshed and bound by the civilization being studied has resulted in a word picture of the Filipino from the ‘‘judgmental and impressionistic point of position of the colonizers’’ ( Enriquez. 1992. p. 57 ) . For illustration. the sensitivity to indirectness of Filipino communicating was regarded as being dishonest and socially ingratiating and reflecting a delusory verbal description of world ( Lawless. 1969. cited in Enriquez. 1992 ) instead than a concern for the feelings of others. ( There are many other illustrations which are discussed farther in this article. )
Therefore. utilizing American classs and criterions. ‘‘the native Filipino invariably suffers from the comparing in non excessively elusive efforts to set frontward Western behaviour forms as theoretical accounts for the Filipino ( Enriquez. 1992. p. 57 ) . However. there was no conjunct attempt in the sixtiess to reject and rectify the traditional manner of instruction and analyzing psychological science. It was in the early seventiess that this was initiated when Virgilio Gaspar Enriquez returned to the Philippines from Northwestern University. USA with a Ph. D. in Social Psychology and lost no clip in presenting the construct of Sikolohiyang Pilipino ( Filipino Psychology ) .
Together with then-chairman of the Department of Psychology at the University of the Philippines ( U. P. ) . Dr. Alfredo V. Lagmay. Enriquez embarked on a research into the historical and cultural roots of Philippine Psychology. Subsequently. the research included placing autochthonal constructs and attacks in Philippine psychological science and developing creativeness and ingeniousness among Filipinos. From these researches. a two-volume bibliography on Filipino psychological science and a locally developed personality trial. Panukat ng Ugali at Pagkatao ( Measure of Character and Personality ) . were produced. In 1975. Enriquez chaired the Unang Pambansang Kumperensya SA Sikolohiyang Pilipino ( First National Conference on Filipino Psychology ) which was held at the Abelardo Auditorium at U. P. In this conference. the thoughts. constructs. and preparations of Sikolohiyang Pilipino were officially articulated.
What is Sikolohiyang Pilipino?
Sikolohiyang Pilipino is anchored on Filipino idea and experience every bit understood from a Filipino position ( Enriquez. 1975 ) . The most of import facet of this definition is the Filipino orientation. For centuries. Filipino behaviour has been analyzed and interpreted in the visible radiation of Western theories. Since these theories are necessarily culture-bound. the image of the Filipino has been inaccurate. if non distorted. Enriquez ( 1985 ) subsequently defined Sikolohiyang Pilipino as ‘‘the survey of diwa ( ‘psyche’ ) . which in Filipino straight refers to the wealth of thoughts referred to by the philosophical construct of ‘essence’ and an full scope of psychological constructs from consciousness to motivations to behavior’’ ( p. 160 ) . Reservations sing the rightness and pertinence of Western theoretical accounts in the Third World puting have been expressed by a turning figure of societal scientists ( Enriquez. 1987. 1992 ; Diaz-Guerrero. 1977 ; Sinha. 1984 ) . The Filipino experience has proven that nearing psychological science utilizing these theoretical accounts can non embrace the nuances of Asiatic civilizations. Therefore. the move towards understanding the peculiar nature of Filipino psychological science.
It must be stressed at the beginning though that developing a particularistic psychological science such as Filipino psychological science is non anti-universal inasmuch as the ultimate purpose of Sikolohiyang Pilipino is to lend to cosmopolitan psychological science. which can be realized merely if each group of people is adequately understood by themselves and from their ain position. Sikolohiyang Pilipino is a measure towards lending to cosmopolitan psychological science. ( We will return to this of import issue towards the terminal of this article. ) Initial work on developing Sikolohiyang Pilipino concentrated on a type of indigenization which is based mostly on simple interlingual rendition of constructs. methods. theories and steps into Filipino. For illustration. psychological trials were translated into the local linguistic communication. modified in content. so that a Philippine-type version of the originally borrowed trial was produced. On the other manus. another type of indigenization was given more accent after the interlingual rendition efforts failed to capture or show a truly Filipino psychological science.
This is called indigenization from within ( as against indigenization from without ) . which means looking for the autochthonal psychological science from within the civilization itself and non merely dressing a foreign organic structure with a local frock. In fact. the word indigenization is erroneous because how can you indigenize something which is already autochthonal? Cultural revalidation is a better term for it. as Enriquez ( 1992 ) suggested. Much of the scheme for detecting Sikolohiyang Pilipino is based on measuring historical and socio-cultural worlds. understanding the local linguistic communication. unraveling Filipino features and explicating them through the eyes of the native Filipino. These resulted in a organic structure of cognition which includes autochthonal constructs and methods. in short. a psychological science which is appropriate and important to Filipinos. The chief accent of Sikolohiyang Pilipino is to further national individuality and consciousness. societal engagement. and psychological science of linguistic communication and civilization. It is therefore concerned with proper applications to wellness. agribusiness. art. mass media. faith. and other domains of people’s day-to-day life.
Virgilio Enriquez: Pioneer of Sikolohiyang Pilipino
Born in the state of Bulacan. Philippines. Virgilio Gaspar Enriquez was trained by his male parent to talk the native lingua fluently since he was a kid. His male parent would ever happen clip to hold a treatment with him in Filipino. For illustration. he would inquire the immature Virgilio to read the day’s English linguistic communication paper. but read it out loud in Filipino as if it was originally written in that linguistic communication. Even with his Ph. D. thesis which was written in English. he had to explicate it to his male parent in Filipino. Enriquez was officially initiated into psychological science in 1963 when he started learning at the University of the Philippines ( U. P. ) . Equally early as 1965. he was utilizing the Filipino linguistic communication in learning. For illustration. in a Psychology category test. he did non interpret a certain dream to English because this was an existent dream told to him by a occupant of Bulacan. In 1966. he left for the United States to prosecute a Masters. so subsequently a Doctoral grade in Psychology at Northwestern University at Evanston. Illinois. While in this foreign land. amidst foreign theories. he watched the disillusion of immature pupil militants in the Philippines over the deteriorating political and societal conditions of the state.
The watercourse of patriotism was get downing to hold an consequence on the instruction of different classs at U. P. Through his correspondence with Lagmay. Enriquez learned that the affair of learning in the Filipino linguistic communication was being taken up thirstily. He started fixing for the instruction of psychological science in Filipino. and had a figure of treatments ( and statements ) with friends and professors at Northwestern University such as Ernesto Kole. Lee Sechrest and Donald Campbell. Enriquez returned to the Philippines in 1971. conveying with him a wealth of Western cognition which he did non enforce on his Filipino co-workers and pupils. His Western instruction really drove him to be more Filipino-oriented in his instruction and research in psychological science. He established the Philippine Psychology Research House ( PPRH ) which subsequently became the Philippine Psychology Research and Training House ( PPRTH ) . This topographic point became place to stuffs on Sikolohiyang Pilipino. turning to its present size of more than 10. 000 mentions.
It besides became place to research with a Filipino position ; every bit good as an residence to persons inspired by Enriquez’s enthusiasm. who finally made their ain part to the growing of Sikolohiyang Pilipino. Enriquez became Chairman of the Department of Psychology in 1977–1982. He motivated pupils to compose their documents in Filipino to detect of import cultural constructs. therefore lending to the growing of the national linguistic communication. He was advisor and reader of theses and thesiss written in Filipino in psychological science. linguistics. anthropology. doctrine. and Filipino Studies. His influence went beyond the U. P. He taught at other establishments. such as De la Salle University. Pamantasan ng Lungsod nanogram Maynila. University of Santo Tomas. and Centro Escolar University. He was besides Visiting Professor at the University of Hawaii. Tokyo University for Foreign Studies. University of Malaya. and University of Hong Kong. ( Pe-Pua. 1991 ) A fecund bookman. Enriquez authored several publications in autochthonal psychological science. Filipino personality. psychological science of linguistic communication and political relations. doctrine and values. crosscultural psychological science. and Pilipinolohiya ( Philippine Studies ) .
The list includes Indigenous Psychology and National Consciousness ( Enriquez. 1989 ) . From Colonial to Liberation Psychology ( Enriquez. 1992 ) . a chapter part to Blowers and turtle’s ( 1987 ) book Psychology traveling East ( Enriquez. 1987 ) . and his last publication before he passed off in 1994. Pagbabangong-Dangal: Indigenous Psychology & A ; Cultural Empowerment ( Enriquez. 1994 ) . Enriquez received legion awards during his life-time – families. scholarships. acknowledgments and grants – both in the Philippines and internationally. He made important parts to the consciousness of Sikolohiyang Pilipino and Asian psychological science. One of his most important award. the Outstanding Young Scientist of the Philippines from the National Academy of Science and Technology in 1982. was in acknowledgment of his work in Sikolohiyang Pilipino. After his decease. he was given a posthumous award. the National Achievement in the Social Sciences Award ( 1997 ) . by the National Research Council of the Philippines for outstanding part in the societal scientific disciplines on a national degree.
Basic elements and characteristics of Sikolohiyang Pilipino
Specifying Sikolohiyang Pilipino
Enriquez’s most important part to the Sikolohiyang Pilipino motion likely lies in clear uping what Sikolohiyang Pilipino is. Without a clear definition. the way of the motion would non hold been as focussed and solid. In his 1975 article on the bases of Sikolohiyang Pilipino on civilization and history ( Enriquez. 1975 ) and a 1976 article on positions and waies of Sikolohiyang Pilipino ( Enriquez. 1976 ) . he distinguished Sikolohiyang Pilipino ( Filipino psychological science ) from Sikolohiya SA Pilipinas ( psychological science in the Philippines – the general signifier of psychological science in the Philippine context ) and Sikolohiya ng mga Pilipino ( psychological science of the Filipinos – speculating about the psychological nature of the Filipinos. whether from a local or a foreign position ) .
Enriquez searched the Filipino civilization and history for the bases of Sikolohiyang Pilipino alternatively of following these back to Western theories. He even looked beyond the casebook definition of psychological science as the survey of behavior and ideas to analyze what psychological science means for the Filipinos. He came up with a definition of psychological science that takes into history the survey of emotions and experient cognition ( kalooban and kamalayan ) . consciousness of one’s milieus ( ulirat ) . information and apprehension ( isip ) . wonts and behavior ( another significance of diwa ) . and the psyche ( kaluluwa ) which is the manner to larning about people’s scruples. ( Enriquez. 1976 ) Four descents of Sikolohiyang Pilipino
Zeus Salazar ( 1985a ) . a historiographer. subsequently examined the history of Sikolohiyang Pilipino and came up with a description of the four descents of Philippine psychological science: ( a ) The Academic-scientific psychological science: the Western tradition – This coincided with the birth of scientific psychological science ( German tradition ) in 1876. and the entry of Western psychological science ( mainly American tradition ) at Philippine universities.
( B ) Academic-philosophical psychological science: the Western ( chiefly clerical ) tradition – This was pursued by the University of Santo Tomas and subsequently other schools of higher acquisition. under the leading of single monastics and sermonizers and the Jesuits. The survey of psychological science as an facet of doctrine continued in the tradition of Thomistic doctrine and psychological science.
( degree Celsius ) Ethnic psychological science – Major footing of Sikolohiyang Pilipino for incorporating academicscientific and academic-philosophical tradition into a national tradition of Psychology and Philosophy as cosmopolitan subjects. This watercourse includes autochthonal psychological science ( common to the Filipinos. culled from linguistic communication. civilization. literature. etc. . psychological systems worked out by Filipinos with autochthonal elements as footing ) psychological science of Filipinos ( as observed by aliens or as felt and expressed by Filipinos ) . the pattern of psychological science by Filipinos ( normal techniques of enculturation/socialization. and protoclinical pattern ) .
( vitamin D ) Psycho-medical system with faith as cohesive component and account. Major features of Sikolohiyang Pilipino as an autochthonal Asiatic Psychology Enriquez ( 1985. 1992 ) set out to specify the major features of Sikolohiyang Pilipino. Its philosophical ancestors include ( a ) empirical doctrine. academic-scientific psychological science. the thoughts and instructions of Ricardo Pascual. logical analysis of linguistic communication ; ( B ) rational doctrine. the clerical tradition. phenomenology. Thomistic doctrine and psychological science ; and ( degree Celsius ) liberalism. the Filipino propaganda motion. the Hagiographas of Philippine heroes Jacinto. Mabini and del Pilar. cultural psychological science. Sikolohiyang Pilipino’s chief accent in psychological science is on individuality and national consciousness. societal consciousness and engagement. psychological science of linguistic communication and civilization. and applications and bases of Filipino psychological science in wellness patterns. agribusiness. art. mass media. faith. etc.
As chief methods of probe. Sikolohiyang Pilipino encourages crossindigenous method. multi-method multi-language attack. appropriate field methods. entire attack ( triangulation method ) . In footings of countries of protest. Sikolohiyang Pilipino is against a psychological science that perpetuates the colonial position of the Filipino head. It is against a psychological science used for the development of the multitudes. It is besides against the infliction to a Third World state of psychological sciences developed in industrialised states. Sing psychological pattern. it endorses the conceptualisation of psychological pattern in a Filipino context. for illustration. livelihood psychology alternatively of industrial psychological science. wellness psychological science alternatively of clinical psychological science. It is besides concerned with common people patterns or autochthonal techniques of mending. popular religio-political motions. and community or rural psychological science. On the science-humanism issue. Sikolohiyang Pilipino is concerned with both.
Scientific and humanistic attacks are both valid. It develops psychological science as a scientific discipline and psychological science as an art. On the mentalism-behaviorism issue. Sikolohiyang Pilipino admits both but with lesser accent on single experience and with greater accent on the corporate experience of a people with a common bond of history. Greater importance is attached to kamalayan ( mind ) . therefore subordinate importance attached to ulirat ( lower degree of physical consciousness ) . The analysis-wholeness issue is non a large issue in Sikolohiyang Pilipino. It is methodologically on the side of analysis but interprets the consequence of analysis with a prejudice for integrity. Enriquez besides clarified that Sikolohiyang Pilipino is non inconsistent with a cosmopolitan psychological science but is really a measure towards the development of a cosmopolitan psychological science. It is non anti-Western theory and methods either. but against a non-selective usage of infliction of Western cognition.
A liberating. liberated and interdisciplinary psychological science
Adhering to a doctrine of Sikolohiyang Pilipino being liberated and emancipating. he eliminated its bondage to the Western position. non merely in theory and method but in pattern. In topographic point of clinical psychological science and industrial psychological science. he brought in wellness psychological science. support psychological science. rural psychological science. psychological science of the humanistic disciplines. and others. Sikolohiyang Pilipino besides became more ‘‘responsible’’ and antiphonal to the demands of Filipinos due to the doctrine that we need to do psychological science benefit and be of service to the people. Sikolohiyang Pilipino besides became interdisciplinary – enriched by the different subjects to go more solid and closer to Philippine world. Enriquez would be heard stating. ‘‘Psychology is excessively of import to be left to the psychologists entirely. ’’
Development of autochthonal constructs and theories
There is a good trade of literature on the Filipino personality which has become available. The Filipino personality is a popular country of survey of many foreign bookmans who came to the Philippines. Using linguistic communication translators and without truly plunging themselves in the civilization of the people. these foreign ‘‘experts’’ have published their versions of Filipino values. These word pictures filtered into the text edition of the Philippine educational system. which was already greatly influenced by Western thoughts to get down with. These ‘‘Filipino values’’ . together with other colonial readings offered by the foreign bookmans. have been transmitted from one coevals to another. therefore perpetuating a distorted. if non false. image of the Filipino.
Rethinking Filipino values
Enriquez was critical of this attack to the survey of Filipino values. He encouraged Filipino bookmans to take a 2nd expression at these values utilizing a Filipino orientation. Social scientists such as Lagmay. Salazar. and Bonifacio took up the challenge in their ain research. Let us analyze three of these ‘‘Filipino values’’ from the exogenic and autochthonal positions.
Bahala Na. The Filipino cultural value of bahala sodium has no exact English interlingual rendition. Bostrom ( 1968 ) was the first psychologist to analyse this value by comparing it with American fatalism. This is evidently a permeant reading that when Thomas Andres published the Dictionary of Filipino Culture and Values. he still defines bahala na as ‘‘the Filipino attitude that makes him accept agonies and jobs. go forthing everything to God. ‘Bahala na Air National Guard Diyos ( God will take attention of us ) ’ . . . This attitude is a fatalistic surrender or backdown from an battle or crisis or a slacking from personal responsibility’’ ( Andres. 1994. p. 12 ) .
The Sikolohiyang Pilipino perspective interprets bahala na otherwise. Lagmay ( 1977 ) explained that bahala sodium is non ‘‘fatalism’’ but ‘‘determination and risk-taking’’ . When Filipinos utter the look ‘‘Bahala sodium! ’’ they are non go forthing their destiny to God and staying inactive. Rather. they are stating themselves that they are ready to confront the hard state of affairs before them. and will make their best to accomplish their aims. The look is a manner of pumping bravery into their system so that they do non clasp down. In fact. even before they have said ‘‘Bahala sodium! ’’ they have likely done their best to fix for the extroverted state of affairs.
Hiya. Sibley ( 1965 ) . an American bookman. translated hiya as ‘‘shame’’ . Another American. Lynch ( 1961 ) saw hiya as ‘‘the uncomfortable feeling that accompanies consciousness of being in a socially unacceptable place. or executing a socially unacceptable action. ’’ For illustration. when an employee is scolded in forepart of other people. To add to the negativeness of this reading of hiya. Andres ( 1994 ) described hiya as ‘‘an ingredient in why Filipinos overspend during fetes in order to delight their visitants. even to the extent of traveling into debt’’ ( p. 64 ) . This conventional reading of hiya is unequal because it does non take into history the importance of understanding how affixations in Philippine linguistic communications can give a new significance to a word.
Bonifacio ( 1976 ) alerted us to the different significances of the word hiya depending on its signifier – nakakahiya ( abashing ) . napahiya ( placed in an awkward place ) . ikinahiya ( be embarrassed with person ) . etc. With some affixes. it becomes negative. e. g. . napahiya ; with others. positive. e. g. . mahiyain ( diffident ) ; and in still other signifiers. it can either be positive or negative depending on the context. e. g. . kahihiyan ( sense of properness. or embarrassment ) . Salazar ( 1981. 1985b ) expounded on affixation and hiya and showed the internal and external facets of hiya. Obviously. it is the external facet which foreign bookmans have captured. After all is said and done. the more appropriate interlingual rendition of hiya in English is non ‘‘shame’’ but ‘‘sense of propriety’’ .
Utang na loob. Utang na loob was translated by Kaut ( 1961 ) as ‘‘debt of gratitude’’ . Andres ( 1994. pp. 190–191 ) defined it. following Kaut’s logic. as ‘‘the rule of reciprocality incurred when an person helps another. The individual helped so experience an duty to refund the debt in the hereafter when the assistant himself ( sic ) is in demand of assistance. or he ( sic ) may refund his debt by directing gifts. It is frequently non clear when a debt has been to the full paid. so that the relationship becomes an ongoing one. ’’ Hollnsteiner ( 1961 ) took this reading farther by claiming that the receiver of the favour is forced ‘‘to show his ( sic ) gratitude decently by returning the favour with involvement. ’’ Enriquez ( 1977 ) dared to theorize that there is an component of desiring to advance reciprocality which is utile for keeping the image of the coloniser as helper.
But looking at utang na loob more closely in the context of Filipino civilization. it really means ‘‘gratitude/solidarity’’ . It is non needfully a load as the word ‘‘debt’’ connotes. because in the Filipino form of interpersonal dealingss. there is ever an chance to return a favour. It is non perfectly obligatory in the immediate hereafter. for the chance to demo utang na loob might come merely in the following coevals. possibly non in your life-time. Your kids will see to it that it is recognized and respected. It is a beautiful component of Filipino interpersonal relationships that binds a individual to his or her place community or place state. In fact. this is expressed in a popular Filipino stating. ‘‘Ang Hindu lumingon SA pinanggalingan ay Hindi makakarating sa paroroonan. ( Those who do non look back to where they came from will non make their finish ) ’’ . Utang na loob is a naming heard by many Filipinos who go to other lands but who still retain strong ties with their fatherland.
Pakikisama vs. pakikipagkapwa. Pakikisama was identified by Lynch ( 1961. 1973 ) as a Filipino value. giving it the English interlingual rendition of keeping ‘‘smooth interpersonal relations’’ by traveling along with the group or the bulk determination. i. e. . conformance. Enriquez ( 1978. 1994 ) started blossoming the construct of kapwa ( shared individuality ) . which is at the nucleus of Filipino societal psychological science. and which is at the bosom of the construction of Filipino values. He discovered that it is non keeping smooth interpersonal relationships that Filipinos are most concerned with. but pakikipagkapwa which means handling the other individual as kapwa or fellow human being. There are two classs of kapwa: the Ibang-Tao ( foreigner ) and the Hindi-Ibang-Tao ( ‘‘one-of-us’’ ) .
In Filipino societal interaction. one is instantly ‘‘placed’’ into one of these two classs ; and how one is placed determines the degree of interaction one is shown. For illustration. if one is regarded as ibang-tao. the interaction can run from pakikitungo ( transaction/civility with ) . to pakikisalamuha ( interaction with ) . to pakikilahok ( joining/participating ) . to pakikibagay ( in-conformity with/inaccord with ) . and to pakikisama ( being along with ) . If one is categorized as hindi-ibang-tao. so you can anticipate pakikipagpalagayang-loob ( being in-rapport/understanding/ credence with ) . or pakikisangkot ( acquiring involved ) . or the highest degree of pakikiisa ( being one with ) .
Using the Sikolohiyang Pilipino position. Enriquez ( 1992 ) re-conceptualized the Filipino behavior forms and value construction where he designated hiya ( ‘‘propriety/ dignity’’ ) . utang na loob ( ‘‘gratitude/solidarity’’ ) and pakikisama ( ‘‘companionship/ esteem’’ ) as colonial/accommodative surface values ; and bahala sodium ( ‘‘determination’’ ) . sama/lakas ng loob ( ‘‘resentment/guts’’ ) and pakikibaka ( ‘‘resistance’’ ) as confrontative surface values. He emphasized kapwa ( ‘‘shared identity’’ ) as nucleus value ; pakikiramdam ( ‘‘shared inner perception’’ ) as polar interpersonal value ; and kagandahang-loob ( ‘‘shared humanity’’ ) as associating socio-personal value. Associated with the above are social values such as karangalan ( ‘‘dignity’’ ) . katarungan ( ‘‘justice’’ ) . and kalayaan ( ‘‘freedom’’ ) . Therefore. the country of Filipino personality developed as a strong country utilizing the Sikolohiyang Pilipino position. The Filipino is a blend of East and West. The Western influence can be seen more in external ways – dressing. wishing for beefburger and other nutrient. Western music and dance. etc. However. the internal facet. which is at the nucleus of his pagkatao ( personality ) . is Asiatic – respect for authorization. modesty/humility. concern for others. etc.
Another facet of Filipino personality that was given attending by the Sikolohiyang Pilipino position is the leaning for indirect communicating. Part of our socialisation is being sensitive to non-verbal cues. holding concern for the feelings of others. being true but non at the disbursal of aching others’ feelings. This has made the sharpening of pakikiramdam ( shared inner perceptual experience ) a peculiarly desirable accomplishment in many state of affairss affecting Filipino societal interaction. Pakikiramdam is a petition to experience or to be sensitive to. It is a shared feeling. a sort of ‘‘emotional a priori’’ . There is ‘‘hesitation to respond. attending to subtle cues. and non-verbal behaviour in mental role-playing ( if I were in the other’s state of affairs. how would I experience ) ’’ . In other words. it is ‘‘feeling for another’’ . exerting great attention and deliberation ( Mataragnon. 1987 ) . Pakikiramdam is particularly utile in carry oning research in the rural countries. Filipinos find it hard to decline when asked straight to take part in an interview or study. But if you have pakikiramdam. you can state from their organic structure linguistic communication or the tone of their voice that the engagement they will demo is ‘‘half-baked’’ . therefore non valid. If you have taken the clip to understand their cultural ways. you will cognize that it is really of import to pass clip set uping resonance. allowing them ‘‘interview’’ you foremost so they would experience comfy plenty to unwrap their sentiments. cognition and experiences to you.
The indirect form of communicating of Filipinos has therefore resulted in indirectness or euphemisms in verbal exchange. expressive organic structure linguistic communication. voice modulations that say more than the words themselves. and other similar behaviours. Among Filipinos. these are a affair of fact. taken for granted. because they are what they are born into and turn up with. It is merely when these behaviours come in struggle with Western ways that the Filipino gives them a 2nd idea. In world. the alien or the Westernized Filipino is impatient with this manner of communicating. and inquiries the utility of this cultural manner. The indirectness. for illustration. non stating ‘‘no’’ outright. has frequently been misinterpreted to intend untruthfulness. dishonesty or lip service. To the Filipinos. they are being frank about their feelings. but they merely do non show this verbally. It therefore poses as a great challenge for non-Filipinos to ‘‘read’’ these messages communicated indirectly. or instead. nonverbally.
Salazar ( 1985b ) . through his analysis of autochthonal history and civilization of the Filipinos. points out the internality-externality constituent in the Filipino personality. The Filipino linguistic communication has two words for the English word ‘‘honor’’ : puri and dangal. Puri refers to honour which is physical. such as that bestowed through regards or hand clappings for a good public presentation. therefore external. It can besides mention to virginity which is a virtuousness expected of single Filipino adult females. Dangal is honor from within – cognition of one’s true worth. character. accomplishment and success. It can be acknowledged through an award or a testimonial ( parangal. which is really pa-dangal ) but even without such gestures from outside. it is within you. Therefore. a hapless individual who is a sort and honest individual and respects the self-respect of difficult work has a batch of dangal. A adult female who was raped is non stripped of her dangal even though her puri was taken off. Other illustrations of internality-externality includes saya and ligaya for the English word ‘‘happiness’’ ; pigil and timpi for ‘‘control’’ ; and dama and damdam for ‘‘feel’’ . This is non to state that this internal-external dimension is alone to the Filipinos. but this is something research workers should be witting of when seeking to understand the Filipino personality.
The great cultural divide
Enriquez ( 1992 ) besides explored the thought of a ‘‘great cultural divide’’ in the analysis of Filipino personality. On one side of the cultural divide are Filipinos who have maintained a more mass-oriented worldview. civilization. and manner of life. They read the komiks ( popular illustrated magazines in Filipino ) . listen to lather operas on wireless. ticker soap operas on telecasting. and so on. They visit the autochthonal therapists for both physical and mental or emotional complaints. On the other side of the cultural divide are the Filipinos who have adhered to a more elitist point of view. They go to public presentations in cultural Centres and theaters.
They look down on people on the other side of the divide. Not merely do the hapless eat different nutrient. if they eat at all. but they besides have their ain gustatory sensations in leisure and amusement. They are supposed to be bakya or ‘lacking in sophistication’ ( bakya refers to the traditional wooden getas. popular among the multitudes who can non afford expensive places ) . In fact. they have their ain civilization and talk their ain linguistic communication. While the elect speak English and on occasion throw in some Gallic for comfort. the Filipino masses speak Filipino and a regional language’’ ( Enriquez. 1992. p. 22 ) . Therefore. it is non regionalism which divides the Filipinos. ( In fact the writers believe that regionalism is a myth. woven to seed disunity among Filipinos. ) It is in the cultural facet where we witness a disparity. The construct of a great cultural divide is a bequest which Enriquez has left behind. nutrient for serious idea. for both academician and layman alike.
Development of autochthonal personalitymeasures
In the country of Filipino Personality. Enriquez. together with PPRH. developed the Panukat nanogram Ugali at Pagkatao ( PUP ) ( Measure of Character and Personality ) in 1975 which utilised dimensions of personality that are relevant to Filipinos. While psychological testing is of Western beginning. the substance of the PUP originated from an apprehension of the Filipinos. The trial disposal processs were besides adapted to Filipino ways ( Enriquez & A ; Guanzon. 1985 ) . It must be noted that Enriquez’s PUP and three other illustrations of Philippine personality steps may really hold cross-cultural similarities in the dimensions they measure ( Guanzon-Lapen?a. Church. Carlota. & A ; Katigbak. 1998 ) . Filipino personality trial development attempts have in fact come a long manner. as can be seen in the history of psychological measuring in the Philippines. Review on the position of Philippine psychological measuring in the 1970s and 1980s pointed out the twin job of the inapplicability of foreign-made trials and the famine of locally developed trials ( Carlota. 1980 ; Guanzon. 1985 ; Lazo. 1977 ; Lazo. de Jesus & A ; Tiglao. 1976 ; Ramos. 1977 ) .
Carlota ( 1980 ) noted several tendencies in personality measuring. mentioning developments in the countries of personality testing. and the measuring of abilities and aptitudes. and of aberrant behaviour. Guanzon ( 1985 ) besides noted the phenomenon of steps being locally developed peculiarly in the country of personality measuring. Despite this welcome development. nevertheless. she decried the inclination of local trial users to utilize foreign-made trials lock. stock. and barrel. with no effort whatsoever to accommodate these trials through point or trial alteration. trial interlingual rendition. or development of local norms. Cipres-Ortega and Guanzon-Lapen?a ( 1997 ) documented and organized the information on both published and unpublished work in the country of psychological measuring. and saw a recent rush in the development of autochthonal psychological steps. Interest has grown by springs and bounds from the smattering of trials in educational psychological science which were locally developed in the fiftiess. to the involvement in personality testing of the projective type in the sixtiess.
They farther noted that ‘‘the 1970s proverb trials developed in creativeness. selfperception. personality and vocational testing. and the 1980s an increased involvement in personality testing. with a figure of research workers making surveies on the Filipino kid and the Filipino stripling. And in the 1990s. trials were developed to mensurate a broad assortment of Filipino features – katalinuhan [ intelligence ] . pagkarelihiyoso [ religionism ] . kaasalang sekswal [ sexual behaviour ] . kakayahang magdala ng tensyon [ ability to manage emphasis ] . pagkamabahala [ anxiousness ] . kahustuhang emosyonal [ emotional stableness ] . kakayahang berbal SA Filipino [ verbal ability in Filipino ] . Filipino direction manner. dementedness testing. empathy. and trustiness. to call a few’’ ( Cipres-Ortega & A ; Guanzon-Lapen?a. 1997. p. 7 ) . In the history of Philippine psychological measuring. Enriquez’s Panukat ng Ugali at Pagkatao clearly stands out as one of the first. if non the first. instruments that are culturally sensitive in its appraisal of the Filipino personality.
Development of autochthonal researchmethods
The impact of Sikolohiyang Pilipino was greatly felt in the country of societal research methods. In 1975. Carmen Santiago. a postgraduate pupil of psychological science at U. P. . did a survey on pagkalalaki ( no equivalent in English. but about. it means ‘‘masculinity’’ . ‘‘maleness’’ . ‘‘manhood’’ . or all of these ) for a category under Enriquez. This survey was to be the turning point in Philippine societal research for it was in her articles ( Santiago. 1975. 1977 ) that the pakapa-kapa ( ‘‘groping’’ ) attack was foremost introduced. To many traditional research workers. her attack was daring for she believed that it is non necessary to hold a distinct research design nor a reappraisal of related literature before shiping on a research. particularly if bing written stuffs are foreign to the civilization being studied. In a subsequent paper. she and Enriquez discussed the loopholes of Philippine societal research. including the deficiency of relevancy of research subjects to the demands of the people being studied. wrongness of ( Western ) methods to the ways of the people. definitions based on Western theories. and overemphasis on informations instead than on the procedure.
As an option. they proposed ways of doing research more Filipino. which finally became the anchor of autochthonal research methods – methods which are non imported nor invented. but are natural or bing forms of behaviour ( non methods ) . discovered and developed as research methods. ( Santiago & A ; Enriquez. 1976 ) In seeking for appropriate research methods that are autochthonal to Filipino experience. Filipino bookmans have learned to presume the pakapa-kapa position. ‘‘a suppositionless attack to societal scientific probes. As implied by the term itself. pakapa-kapa is an attack characterized by fumbling. seeking and examining into an unsystematized mass of societal and cultural informations to obtain order. significance and waies for research’’ ( Torres. 1982. p. 171 ) .
There are at least five basic steering rules relevant to the usage of autochthonal position in general. and autochthonal research methods in peculiar. First. the degree of interaction or relationship that exists between the research worker and the researched significantly determines the quality of the informations obtained in the research procedure. The degrees of interaction are the same 1s as the kapwa categorizations – Ibang-Tao ( ‘‘Outsider’’ ) and Hindi-Ibang- Tao ( ‘‘One-of-us’’ ) . It is recommended that the first degree under Hindi-Ibang-Tao. which is pakikipagpalagayang-loob ( degree of common trust. apprehension. resonance ) should be reached. at the lower limit. in order to be assured of good quality informations. The duality of the ‘‘One-of-us’’ and the ‘‘Outsider’’ classs reflects a value for specifying rank in a group which determines the boundaries or the extent of allowable behaviour for a individual.
Many a clip. the relationship between the research worker and the research participants continues long after the research is over. Second. research participants should ever be treated by research workers as equal. if non superior – a fellow homo being and non like a ‘‘guinea pig’’ whose exclusive map is to supply informations. From this rule. certain behaviours on the portion of the research worker are prescribed. For illustration. in the method of pagtatanong-tanong ( literally. ‘‘asking questions’’ . marked by familiarity when in fact. the research worker is genuinely determined to acquire replies to his inquiries ) . the research participants are free to inquire the research worker as many inquiries as they want. therefore moving much like a ‘‘researcher’’ themselves. These inquiries should be accorded the same regard and non avoided ( Pe-Pua. 1989 ) . In many of the research methods. research participants really have an input in the research procedure itself – in footings of clip direction. construction of the inquiries. reading – without their being cognizant of it.
Third. the public assistance of the research participants take precedency over the informations obtained from them. The end of research is understanding. but non at the disbursal of the really people from whom this apprehension will jump. The primary ethical duty of research workers should be to the people and non to their establishment or support bureau. For illustration. if the publication of the research study will endanger the state of affairs of the people. so it should non be continued. If the demands of the community are unearthed in the class of making research on a different subject. and it is within the researchers’ capableness to assist. so they should assist. The research. aside from being edifying for the respondents. should besides be authorising. Fourth. the method to be used in a research should be chosen on the footing of rightness to the population ( and non edification of the method ) and it should be made to accommodate to bing cultural norms. For illustration. holding person else but in the center of an interview session is non something to be upset over ; one should travel through the procedure of acquiring to cognize each other first informally earlier inquiring inquiries on subjects that are non that common to people. Research workers can non anticipate people to set to the method ; the method should set to the people.
And here is where pakikiramdam ( sensitiveness ) is most needful – in seeking to calculate out how the research method will work most efficaciously. One indispensable ability that research workers must possess. whatever method they are utilizing. is pakikiramdam. a particular sort of sensitiveness to cues which will steer them in their interaction with group members. particularly with Filipinos who are used to indirect and non-verbal mode of pass oning and showing ideas. attitudes. feelings and emotions. It is through pakikiramdam that a research worker will cognize when to inquire personal inquiries and when non to prosecute them ; when it is clip to go forth ; or how to construe a ‘‘yes’’ or a ‘‘no’’ . Fifth. the linguistic communication of the people should be the linguistic communication of research at all times.
If this is non possible. local research workers should be tapped for aid. It is in their ain female parent lingua that a individual can truly show their innermost sentiments. thoughts. perceptual experiences. and attitudes. Some of the autochthonal research methods that have been identified are pagtatanongtanong ( jury-rigged informal. unstructured interview ) ( Pe-Pua. 1989 ) . pakikipagkuwentuhan ( ‘‘story telling’’ or ‘‘informal conversations’’ ) ( Orteza. 1997 ) . ginabayang talakayan ( corporate autochthonal treatment ) . nakikiugaling pagmamasid ( participant observation ) ( Bennagen. 1985 ) . pakikisama ( ‘‘getting along with’’ ) ( Nery. 1979 ) . pagdalaw-dalaw ( ‘‘visiting’’ ) ( Gepigon & A ; Francisco. 1978 ) . and panunuluyan ( ‘‘residing in the research setting’’ ) ( San Juan & A ; Soriaga. 1985 ) .
Inpact on the instruction of psychological science in the Philippines
In a U. P. Psychology module meeting in 1970. Lagmay asked the staff who would wish to learn psychological science in Filipino. This was the clip of the First Quarter Storm in the Philippines when patriotism was brushing the state. Academe responded to this call by seeking to do the university more relevant to the involvement of the common Taoist ( people or mass ) . Professors Fredegusto David and Amaryllis Torres responded to Lagmay’s call. Lagmay had ever been supportive of a Filipino orientation in psychological science. David taught psychological science in Filipino the twelvemonth before he left to prosecute his Ph. D. at Temple University in Pennsylvania. Torres used and developed the Filipino linguistic communication in psychological science systematically and continuously. animating others to follow. Initially. she used the nomenclatures recommended by the National Science Development Board. After Enriquez arrived from the United States in 1971. he embarked on a all-out attempt interpreting psychological stuffs into Filipino. The primary intent was to fit instructors with stuffs that would ease the usage of Filipino in psychological science topics. Several stuffs in the different countries of psychological science were published.
Enriquez built up a aggregation of pupil documents and put up a library of Philippine psychological science. lodging stuffs written in English and in Filipino. published and unpublished. at the PPRTH. The reaction to the usage of Filipino was varied. Initially. pupils avoided categories which were conducted in Filipino because they were used to talking English inside the schoolroom from grade school to high school. But after a few old ages. they became comfy in Filipino categories. Today. a big per centum of categories at the Department are conducted in Filipino. whether wholly or partly. The benefits are many – more relaxed atmosphere. more assurance on the portion of pupils to show themselves ( without fright of doing grammatical errors and so being ridiculed ) . find of autochthonal constructs. chances for originative treatments. and a realisation that psychological science must associate closely and significantly to the life of the people.
In 1978. Sikolohiyang Pilipino as a topic was instituted and offered at the undergraduate degree for the first clip. The U. P. was the first university to offer it. The first module member to learn the class was Jose Ma. Bartolome. Rogelia Pe-Pua took off where Bartolome left every bit far as learning the topic Sikolohiyang Pilipino ( Psychology 108 ) was concerned. The greatest trouble during the first semester was the deficiency of a text edition. The articles to be read by the pupils were scattered in different topographic points. So. the pupils and Pe-Pua instantly worked at garnering these stuffs. reproducing them and adhering them into one volume ( Enriquez. 1992 ) . The following group of pupils the undermentioned semester helped with indexing and publication work. The concluding printed signifier of the book Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Teorya. Metodo at Gamit was launched towards the terminal of that semester. Since the articles in the book were in both Filipino and English. the book was given an English caption. Filipino Psychology: Theory. Method and Application. Enriquez described this as a contemplation ‘‘of the linguistic communication state of affairs in the Filipino academic scene. English is still dominant in academia but Filipino has emerged as the linguistic communication of the educated Filipino in the seventies’’ ( Enriquez. 1987. p. 281 ) .
Two other digests have been published since 1982 when the first digest on Sikolohiyang Pilipino was published. In 1985. Sikolohiyang Pilipino Isyu. Pananaw at Kaalaman ( New Directions in Indigenous Psychology ) edited by two postgraduate pupils of Enriquez. Allen Aganon ( a priest ) and Ma. Assumpta David ( a nun ) . was published. In 1992. Enriquez came out with Autochthonal Psychology: A Book of Readings. Aside from these major books. proceedings of the conferences on Sikolohiyang Pilipino have been published by the Pambansang Samahan sa Sikolohiyang Pilipino ( PSSP. National Association for Filipino Psychology ) . every bit good as several monographs by the PPRTH. At the alumnus degree. the Filipino linguistic communication has been predominantly used. both in instruction and research. Several theses and doctorial thesiss have been written in Filipino.
The first M. A. Psychology thesis in Filippino was written in 1972 by Amelia Alfonso. The first two thesiss. defended in May 1990. were by Danilo Tuazon ( on encephalon lateralisation ) and Grace Aguiling-Dalisay ( on the construct of peace among kids ) . Lagmay was the first to learn Philippine Psychology as a ‘‘special topics’’ class at the alumnus degree before it was officially instituted as a separate alumnus class in 1978. Since so. it has been offered by Enriquez. Salazar. Pe-Pua and others. Theoretical and scientific issues are discussed. every bit good as societal and political issues. psychological sciences in contact. the etic and emic issue. and the extent to which psychological science in the Third World is international or Western. Philippine Psychology is an country of concentration in the Ph. D. plan of the U. P. Department of Psychology. which makes the subject of Psychology rather distinctive at U. P. In 1994 and 1996 severally. Elizabeth Protacio-Marcelino and Sylvia Estrada- Claudio became the first alumnuss to have their Ph. D. with Philippine Psychology as the country of concentration.
Areas of applications of Sikolohiyang Pilipino
There are several countries where Sikolohiyang Pilipino has been applied. Much of the early work was focused on the usage of the local linguistic communication in learning. research and in the behavior of assorted conferences and symposia in Psychology. This development. in bend. inspired the mass media to utilize the local linguistic communication in wireless plans. talk shows and other official events of local and national importance to Philippine life and civilization. This farther led to the popularity of ask foring Flipino psychologists to speak shows to give some penetration on the relevancy of Sikolohiyang Pilipino to the assorted subjects under treatment.
There were some efforts to explicate appropriate techniques in therapy suited to the Filipino personality. Bulatao ( 1978. cited in Enriquez. 1992 ) . for illustration. made the undermentioned observations sing guidance in the Philippines: Filipinos are freer to be themselves when in a sympathetic group of friends than in a 1 on one state of affairs. When supported by the group. Filipino clients prefer paternalistic counselors to non-directive 1s who are perceived to be detached and non-caring. Filipino topics are more susceptible to hypnotic suggestions and enter into altered provinces of consciousness more readily than American topics.
Another country of application was in supplying psychological aid to kids in particularly hard fortunes such as kids in state of affairss of armed struggle. street kids. prostituted kids. etc. Pioneering attempts were made by Elizabeth Protacio-Marcelino and her co-workers at the Children’s Rehabilitation Center. Their plan focused chiefly on crisis intercession through intervention and rehabilitation of these traumatized kids. It applied the orientation of Sikolohiyang Pilipino by looking at the job of the kids at two degrees. The first degree focused on the specific demands and jobs of the single kid. The 2nd degree underscored the socio-economic and political roots of the job and their effects on the child’s rights and public assistance ( Protacio-Marcelino. 1985 ) . There is besides practical work presently traveling on in the country of feminist psychological science. Using the same rules of Sikolohiyang Pilipino. societal and clinical psychologists have helped battered adult females understand their jobs in the visible radiation of the different socio-cultural conditions impacting adult females in Philippine society.
Sikolohiyang Pilipino has besides been applied in industry peculiarly in the selling of specific merchandises and understanding consumer behaviour. Several multi-national companies have contracted the PPRTH to develop their forces in this field. Companies have besides become more witting of a direction manner that is appropriate and suited to Filipinos.
Non-government organisations involved in community instruction peculiarly in grassroots leading formation have developed a preparation faculty on Sikolohiyang Pilipino that has proven to be rather relevant and utile to their work. The PPRTH is presently making a three-year research undertaking commissioned by the Education for Life Foundation ( ELF ) to look into the Filipino construct of a grassroot leader and the elements of Filipino leading.
Associations. conferences and other professionalmeetings
Further to his function in specifying the features and positions of Sikolohiyang Pilipino and charting its way. Enriquez spearheaded several activities that have continued long after his decease in 1994 such as the retention of one-year national conferences on Filipino psychological science. The first 1 was held in 1975 to discourse the position of psychological science in the Philippines. From this conference. the Pambansang Samahan sa Sikolohiyang Pilipino ( PSSP. National Association for Filipino Psychology ) was born. taking to advance Filipino idea. The one-year conferences are held in different parts of the state to promote greater engagement. to advance a more regional focal point. and to promote a more national position of psychological science. Therefore there were conferences held in Tacloban. Bicol. Marawi and other topographic points ; the 1997 1 was in Puerto Princesa in Palawan. The conferences and seminars he initiated generated a wealth of information and experiences exchanged among bookmans. Enriquez was besides responsible for set uping organisations in specialised countries such as child psychological science. psychological science of the humanistic disciplines. psychological science of linguistic communication. history of psychological science. and so on. The spread of Sikolohiyang Pilipino outside the Philippines
During his life-time. Enriquez traveled a batch and in some instances lived for some clip in assorted states to learn. make research. and take part in conferences. It was during these trips that he was able to act upon bookmans populating abroad ( Filipinos and aliens ) to take a acute involvement in Sikolohiyang Pilipino. This brought them together in assorted occasions and finally led them to put up organisations and associations that supported the ends of Sikolohiyang Pilipino.
In the 1970’s and 1980’s there were rather a figure of these organisations in the United States ( San Francisco and New Haven ) . Japan. Malaysia. Thailand and Hongkong. With the decease of Enriquez. nevertheless. merely one has managed to go on with its activities and this is the association in San Francisco. California. However. there are still a figure of persons in these states who believe in the Sikolohiyang Pilipino orientation and tradition though they may no longer hold the organisational look.
Debateswithin Sikolohiyang Pilipino
Since the origin of Sikolohiyang Pilipino there has been a figure of issues and concerns articulated by its advocates and critics. The most outstanding argument in the country was initiated by Zeus Salazar. a historiographer who did most of his alumnus and graduate student preparation in Europe. He made important parts to Sikolohiyang Pilipino by underlining the demand for a socio-historical position in understanding the psychological science of the Filipino. Salazar was both a friend and critic of Enriquez’s work. While he agrees with Enriquez on the basic rules of Sikolohiyang Pilipino. particularly the importance of civilization. the usage of the local linguistic communications and the development of a national consciousness. there are dissensions or differences on a figure of issues. Significant among these is the issue of Filipino-Americans. Salazar criticized Enriquez for including the survey of Filipino- Americans in the discourse of Sikolohiyang Pilipino. For Salazar ( 1991 ) . Filipino- Americans are non ‘‘Filipinos’’ since they are non legitimate civilization carriers – they were born in the United States. make non portion the Filipino cultural experience. and barely talk any Filipino linguistic communication.
Sikolohiyang Pilipino. harmonizing to him. should concentrate on the lived experiences of people immersed in Philippine life and civilization. Filipino-Americans do non hold what both Salazar and Enriquez calls a ‘‘national consciousness’’ exactly because they are ‘‘outsiders’’ and unable to take part in national discourse that shapes consciousness. On a more personal note. he pointed to the contradiction in Enriquez’s pro-Filipino positions and strong beliefs while at the same clip composing in English for an Western audience. Enriquez. on the other manus. called Salazar’s ( 1991 ) ‘‘pantayong pananaw’’ ( the insider position stand foring ‘‘us’’ – ‘‘tayo’’ and excepting ‘‘them’’ – ‘‘sila’’ ) as ‘‘unabashedly emic’’ . He labeled Salazar’s place as ‘‘reactionary ethnocentrism’’ which limits his positions to the confines of national boundaries’’ . He maintained that Filipino-Americans are Filipinos because some facets of their individuality and cultural experiences are still Filipino ( Enriquez. 1994 ) .
Protacio-Marcelino ( 1996 ) responded to these points in her Ph. D. thesis on ethnicity and individuality issues of 2nd coevals Filipino-Americans by emphasizing that so Filipino-Americans are non Filipino – they are both Filipino and American. They have different cultural experiences turning up in America. However. they can still put claim to Filipino cultural individuality ( differentiated from a national individuality ) because both their parents are Filipino. some of them still talk or at least understand one Philippine linguistic communication. They portion the really same values that Filipinos in the Philippines clasp beloved. such as regard for seniors. sense of household and community. value for instruction. grasp of the linguistic communication. and devotedness to faith. They may be ‘‘outsiders’’ to mundane Philippine experience but they still possess some critical elements of Philippine life and civilization as transmitted by their parents and reinforced by their regular visits to the Philippines. This makes them ‘‘insiders’’ to a important extent.
Madelene Avila-Sta Maria ( 1998 ) went several stairss farther to critically analyse the differences in the thought of both and pointed to several countries of argument. Below are some high spots of the issues she raised in reading Salazar and Enriquez. Psychology and civilization. Psychology. harmonizing to Salazar. is necessarily portion of civilization. First. there should be a psychological tradition in Filipino civilization before one can state that there is such a construct as Sikolohiyang Pilipino. He explains that the subject of Psychology is foreign in beginning and hence. should be given a new significance and reinterpreted in a context relevant to Philippine life and civilization. It is imperative so for psychologists to develop the subject by abstraction. elucidation and articulation of new constructs and theories. therefore. enriching that tradition.
Enriquez. on the other manus. held that civilization is derived from the procedure of detecting single psychological elements and subjects. To him. Sikolohiyang Pilipino exists every bit long as there are Filipinos. This type of psychological science is already found in Philippine life and civilization. One merely has to analyze the attitudes. beliefs. values and patterns of the Filipino and give importance to the Filipino’s personhood and aspirations as a people. Enriquez elaborates by stating that psychological science in the Philippines is both foreign and autochthonal to the civilization. One merely has to acknowledge. appreciate and stress the autochthonal elements and reject the foreign facets and set them in the context of Philippine colonial history. For him. what is of import is the immediate application of psychological science in apprehension and assisting work out the jobs in Philippine society. Universality of psychological science. For Salazar. the history and traditions of a peculiar civilization is sufficient to lend to cosmopolitan psychological science. He believes that cosmopolitan cognition can non be found at the degree of phenomenon or experience but instead in the building and reading of meaningful constructs and theories.
For Enriquez. it is necessary to understand the experiences of many civilizations and traditions before one can lend to cosmopolitan cognition in psychological science. He considers the similarity of observations of phenomena and diverse cultural experiences as indexs of cosmopolitan cognition in psychological science.
While there may be differences in believing between Salazar and Enriquez as discussed by Avila-Sta Maria ( 1998 ) we think that it is more appropriate to look at this in a continuum. Salazar’s more ‘‘emic’’ attack and Enriquez’s more ‘‘etic’’ attack ( without any one of them pretermiting or stressing merely one attack ) when put together finally leads to the formation of cosmopolitan cognition in psychological science.
Enriquez did non halt at hypothesis-generation ( degree of perceptual cognition and experience ) but instead went on to develop nucleus constructs and theories in psychological science ( e. g. . kapwa psychological science ) and linked these to the diverse worlds and experiences of other civilizations and ethnicities. Salazar. on the other manus. continues to pull stuff for his theories from his critical apprehension of civilization and history.
Following this argument closely is Roberto Tangco who teaches Philosophy at the University of the Philippines. He fundamentally questioned Sikolohiyang Pilipino’s place on the issue of catholicity and asserts that Sikolohiyang Pilipino. although it claims to lend to cosmopolitan cognition. has non shown sufficient cogent evidence of its part or even proof that such cognition exists in any given civilization. He argues that the ‘‘valuing’’ of a cosmopolitan psychological science is non reflected in Sikolohiyang Pilipino’s accumulated organic structure of literature and research informations. He hence besides inquiries Sikolohiyang Pilipino’s methodological analysis and pattern and traces the job to Sikolohiyang Pilipino’s underlying doctrine ( Tangco. 1998 ) . Tangco is in the procedure of composing his Ph. D. thesis. concentrating on the metaphors that guide discourse in Sikolohiyang Pilipino eve