El gran bazar

From the studies developed by Enriquez, Covar, and Salazar, this paper attempts to present and integrate their ideas towards exploring a panlipunang   pagbabanghay, an outline for the analysis of social organization in the context

of Philippine social science (Figure 4). It is also a challenge to those engaged in the analysis of their views to carry on with the further examination and development of the earlier works.

In the context of the notion of  ugnayan (relations) that overarches the preceding discussion, some points regarding the concepts of kapwa and the mag-anak  (family/nuclear family) may be further claried and developed. It is important to focus on and clarify the scope and the signicance of the two concepts. In accordance with social signication, do the members of  a mag-anak  look upon each other as hindi iba  (not others), one of the two dimensions of kapwa according to Enriquez? Is the mag-anak subsumed under hindi ibang tao (not other people)? It is possible that hindi iba  (not others) refers to a close friend, kumare /kumpare (co-godparent), neighbour or house-mate rather than to one’s child, parent, spouse, or sibling. It is possible that the mag-anak  has an identity that is more integral than the entity implied by hindi iba  (not others).

What could be the specic social signication of  hindi iba (not others) and iba  (others)? It may be that the hindi iba  (not others) refers to those who are not members of the mag-anak  but, as has been said, have close relations with one or some of the mag-anak . Is the relative, whether by blood or by ritual, part of the hindi iba  (not others)? Could the malapit na  kamag-anak  (close relative) be hindi iba  (not others) or simply a kamag-anak  (relative)? It is possible that the malayong kamag-anak  (distant relative) is part of  hindi iba  (not others), which also implies the integral di^V erence of the kamag-anak  (relative), not only from the mag-anak  but also from hindi iba  (“not others”). Moreover, the cousins to the second and third degrees, for example, are commonly considered as kamag-anak  (relatives) and not quite part of  hindi iba  (“not others”). The regard for the kamag-anak  (relative) as relative per se or hindi iba  (“not others”) may actually be in accordance with the kind of relations between them (blood or ritual ties) or the inti-macy of the relationship.

 As the rst proposition oV ered for subsequent study, Figure 4, in con-sonance with the prior studies and observations of the author, presents the integral position of the mag-anak  as a social signication that is not within the scope of kapwa (cf. Aquino, 1990, 1999). It is posited that the mag-anak  composed of parents and their children is conceptually diV erent from the hindi iba (not others); that is, the mag-anak  does not fall within the category of  hindi iba (not others).¹⁹

In addition to what has been mentioned earlier as constituting  hindi  iba (not others), for example, kumare/kumpare  (co-godparenthood); neighbour, or friend); depending on the context. For instance, when in another coun-try, all the kababayan (compatriots) there are viewed as hindi ibang tao (not other people). More importantly, and in consonance with what Jacinto had implied, the basis of the bayan’s unity is love for the kapwa , who are regarded as hindi ibang tao (not other people; Salazar, 1999:73).

   F   i  g  u  r  e

On the other hand, strangers or foreigners are commonly viewed as ibang tao (other people), as in Ibang tao sila ; “Those are other people”. Domestic helpers are often cautioned against letting  ibang tao (other people) into the house. Then, according to diV erences in class position, ideology, or the beliefs of an individual, the household help, gardener, or driver may be regarded as either hindi iba  (not others) or ibang tao (other people).

 As a second proposition, the diV erence between mag-anak  and pamilya  is posited here. As discussed previously, the mag-anak  is generally viewed to consist of the father, mother and children, while the  pamilya is generally composed of the mother, the father, their children as well as in-laws, grand-children, great-grandgrand-children, and other relatives. However, since the mag-anak tends to have an exclusive signication, it is usually referred to only in the presence of its members and not in the presence of an extended family or household.²⁰ What is illustrated here also is how the concept of the “fam-ily” is actually used and understood in the Philippine context. [For exam-ple, in comparison with the Western notion of the family, mag-anak  may refer to the nuclear family while the  pamilya  may be more closely associ-ated with the extended family.]

In Figure 4, the sambahayan (household) is considered as a domicile for one or more mag-anak, pamilya , relatives, other household members, or  just one individual. According to diV erences in class position, ideology or beliefs of the members of a household, the regard for the residents of a single household may also be according to mag-anak, pamilya, kamag-anak  (relative), hindi ibang tao (not others) or iba  (others).

The discourse on ugnayan and social integration is complex and dynamic.

That is why Figure 4 uses the dambuhalang pagkakahating pangkalinangan (great cultural divide), which Salazar is developing, as a heuristic device. In con-ceptualizing the divisions that are prevalent in Philippine society, Salazar takes into consideration the integral role, for instance, of the language that is used by the elite, on the one hand, and by the people, on the other;

the varying attitude towards other countries and foreign inuences; and the diV erence between the kulturang nasyunal  (national, that is, elite culture) and the kalinangang bayan (people’s culture) (Salazar, 1998a; 1997b). Yet, in using the concept of  dambuhalang pagkakahating pangkalinangan in Figure 4, it does not imply that there are no relations between the “not others” and the “others”, between nayon and siyudad , and others. The division in Figure 4 is used to primarily illustrate and elucidate the concepts developed by the three scholars. In the context of one’s culture and society, that is, mula  sa kinaroroonan, an attempt was made to show and develop the interrela-tionships among  kapwa, kapatiran, and bayan, and to explore their place in exploring a  panlipunang pagbabanghay — an outline of Philippine social orga-nization.²¹ With regard to the  pamayanan (community), it is apparent that both sides of the divide have bayan. As explained earlier, bayan has deep meanings in Philippine culture. Since the taganayon (people from the nayon )

perceive the tagabayan (people from the bayan ) as those who live in the town centre or the poblacion, it may be said that at this level, there is a diV erence, distance, or divide between the taganayon and the tagabayan (Aquino, 1998;

cf. Ileto, 1998; Rodriguez, 1996:23). For instance, even though a farmer lives in a nayon (village) within the municipality of Pila, he says “I’m going  to the bayan” or “I’m going to Pila,” where bayan or Pila herein refers only to the centre or poblacion of Pila (although administratively, the nayon actu-ally belongs to the bayan of Pila). In the study of people-land relations of  the Mangyan Alangan of Oriental Mindoro, Quiaoit-Bae (1999) illustrated their understanding of their environment and the occasions when the high-landers “go down to the bayan”, referring to the centre (although admin-istratively, their villages also belong to the bayan ).

Especially because the economic standing of the tagabayan is usually high and the centre of formal political power is often based there, a third proposition is oV ered: there is still a need to understand and explore the meanings of the social signication of the more numerous taganayon in rela-tion to their connecrela-tion to the bayan as the centre as well as to those who reside there as tagabayan.

On a general level, the bayan may reveal various kinds of distance and division, as well as bases of relatedness and unity. This suggests that there is a level where there is diV erence or division in the social signication (for instance, between nayon and bayan ); but there is also a level where the nayon (or province, perhaps) and its inhabitants are considered to be part of a larger bayan, thus, signifying a broader form of unity. As has been said, Filipinos overseas regard each other as magkababayan. These social signications conveyed by bayan reect deeper cultural meanings, clearly transcending divisions imposed through administrative and political decisions.

In the context of  panlipunang pagbabanghay and in light of aspirations towards  pagiging isang bansa  (becoming one nation), it is also important to see the relations among and the bases of unity of the various kapatiran that are oriented towards natural belief systems on the one hand, and formal associations such as religious groups and civic organizations on the other.

 According to Covar’s analysis, the kapatiran has an integral ugnayan (rela-tions) to the simulain (cause), samahan (associa(rela-tions) and kilusan (social move-ments) rooted in and focused on one’s resources, culture and needs.

It is, likewise, important to see the role of the state and of formal institutions such as those to do with government, education, media and the military vis-a-vis the aspirations of the larger bayan. It is also at this level that it would be possible to explore the arena of international forces and of the corollary relations of Philippine institutions with other societies and cultures.

On the other hand, do the present militant movements genuinely embody the aspirations of the larger bayan? May it also be said that struggles for the inangbayan are carried out not only by social movements but also by

unorganized people in their everyday lives? From the lessons in history, as shown by the experience of the Katipunan, which aspired for the inangbayan, on the one hand, and of the elite which focused on the goals of the nación, on the other, it is important to further examine the various forces that hinder the unication of the Filipino nation (  pagiging isang bansa  ) (cf. Salazar 1997b).

In connection with the dambuhalang pagkakahating pangkalinangan presented by Salazar, it is also important to examine the dynamic relations of the social classes, ethnic groups, and various kinds of beliefs and/or ideologies such as religion, feminism, social movements, and others, towards aspira-tions for pagiging isang bansa  (building a nation). There may be associaaspira-tions, organizations, or non-government organizations that have genuine aspira-tions for the bayan. There may also be religious groups that are simply pretending to be kapatiran. It also cannot be denied that in the advocacy and practice of a belief or ideology, powerful forces such as those embod-ied by social class or political power may be transcended or overcome.

The theme of  paniniwala (belief ) that both Covar and Salazar developed is evident in the preliminary synthesis of their views. Could  paniniwala  (belief ) be the basis of  pakikipag-ugnay (interacting),  pakikipagkapwa  (relating  with kapwa  ) and pagpapakatao (aspiring for humaneness)? If so, pakikipagkapwa , as based on local belief systems — which are integral to the work of the three scholars — may be considered a shared goal or a social value in the Philippine context. Pakikipagkapwa  may be referred to as embodying a set of cultural standards or an ethical imperative to treat ibang tao (others) as sarili  (self ). It is not only the mag-anak, pamilya, kamag-anak  (relatives), and hindi ibang tao (not others) who are worthy of respect and deserve to be regarded like the sarili  (self ). Pakikipagkapwa  is the cultural standard in the broad arena of social interaction. On the other hand, pakikipagkapwa is also a standard for  pagpapakatao (aspirations for humaneness) in the Philippine context. It is also important to further clarify the distinctions between  pakikipagkapwa  and  pagpapakatao.

In the context of the continuing project of  panlipunang pagbabanghay , part of what still needs to be done is the collection of additional empiri-cal bases that would show the views of the various sectors in Philippine society. For example, it is evident that the works of the three scholars were conned to local or non-formal groups and associations prevalent in Philippine society. In the context of the study of Philippine culture and of  pagiging  bansa (building a nation), it is also important to examine formal institutions such as schools, churces, media, factories, the government, and other more established organizations. How do aspects of Philippine culture relate with the concrete needs and standards of formal institutions?

It is, likewise, important to carry this out using approaches that are comprehensible to the participants and in the context of research topics that are pertinent to their daily lives. Here is where local histories may be used, as well as the study of epics and folklore. The collection of 

kuwen-tong bayan (people’s stories) and kuwenkuwen-tong buhay (life stories) can facilitate the understanding of cultural meanings and signication. Corollary to this is the depositing of research materials in aklatang bayan (people’s libraries) for the benet of the participants in the study and for their own bayan.

It will be observed that although Enriquez, Covar, and Salazar trained in particular disciplines of social science, they did not limit themselves to those disciplinal perspectives. That is why Covar’s words will continue to be an intellectual challenge to social science researchers:

In the beginning, I was convinced that the academic discipline shed light on our culture. But in my reections, I realized that our academic disciplines en-courage us to contribute to theory, method, and content of the disciplines and not to uncover the F/Pilipino thought, culture, and society. Thought, culture, and society in the context of the disciplines is only tinder for the fuller aming  of the discipline but not the development of F/Pilipino thought, culture, and society. In Pilipinolohiya , the academic disciplines are the very tools to liber-ate F/Pilipino thought, culture, and society and not its opposite (1988:30).

In the midst of tremendous changes that Filipinos confront in their every-day lives, it is important to continue recognizing and cultivating our social signications. These provide one of the bases for understanding where we are and where we are rooted; a guide for charting a common future.

Notes

1. This is a translation by Randolf M. Bustamante of  Mula sa Kinaroroonan: Kapwa, Kapatiran at Bayan sa Agham Panlipunan (in Pilipino), Professorial Chair Paper Series of 1999, College of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of the Philippines.

“Mula sa Kinaroroonan” is roughly translated as “From Where We Are”, a way of saying that the key concepts explored here — kapwa, kapatiran and bayan —  are particularly meaningful in the Filipino cultural context.

This paper was undertaken through a grant from the Philippine National Oil Company Professorial Chair in Sociology. The author wishes to thank Professor Prospero R. Covar, Professor Zeus A. Salazar and Professor Grace Aguiling-Dalisay for their comments and suggestions on an earlier version of this paper.

Students of Sociology 102 (Social Organization), First Semester 1999–2000 also participated in the discussion of selected themes explored in the paper.

2. For a review of said paper, see also Enriquez, Virgilio (1992) “Kapwa and the Struggle for Justice, Freedom and Dignity” in From Colonial Liberation to Liberation Psychology: The Philippine Experience . Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press and Obusan, Teresita and Angelina Enriquez (1994) Pamamaraan: Indigenous  Knowledge and Evolving Research Paradigms . Quezon City: Asian Center, University of the Philippines, Quezon City (cf. Enriquez, 1991).

3. The translations used herein are those found in Enriquez, Virgilio, “Kapwa : A Core Concept in Filipino Social Psychology” (1978:102).

4. See also the recent study by Rivera, Ma. Kristina (1996), “Iskala ng Pagtutunguhan ng Mananaliksik at Kalahok: Isang Pagbabalik-aral”, Master’s thesis in Psychology, University of the Philippines, Quezon City.

5. In Rivera’s study (1996), she analyzed each level of relating between researcher and participant (as developed by Enriquez and Santiago) and proposed that it should be seen not only as a scale but also as a dynamic and complicated process of interaction between researcher and participant. From the eight cat-egories or levels of interaction, it is assumed that because the diV erences between some categories are minimal, it will become clearer if  pakikitungo, pakikibagay,  pakikipagpalagayang-loob, and pakikiisa  are seen as the four primary dimensions of 

interaction between researcher and participant.

6. As indicated earlier, Santiago referred to ibang-tao as “outsider”, but “other people”, “others” or “other” will also be used in this paper. Similarly, while she refers to hindi-ibang-tao as “one of us”, the terms “not other people”, “not others” or “not other” will also be used.

7. As Aguiling-Dalisay had shared in her comment on this paper, it may be said that the sarili  (self ) becomes more meaningful or poignant in relation to iba  (others). (Personal communication, November, 1999).

8. In connection with the Outline, see also Covar, Prospero (1998a) “Unburdening  Philippine Society of Colonialism” and “Pilipinolohiya” in Larangan. In sociol-ogy, sambahayan is now commonly translated as “household”, and kamag-anakan as “kinship ties”. It is important to mention that in an earlier study by Covar, he used sodality for samahan (“The Iglesia Watawat ng Lahi — An Anthropological Study of a Social Movement in the Philippines”, doctoral dissertation in anthro-pology, University of Arizona, 1975).

9. The parallelisms between mag-anak and the nuclear family will be posited later in the paper.

10. A brief discussion of the interrelated concepts of aspiration, sodality, kapatiran, and movement follows in the next section.

11. It is important to mention that for this discussion, the following sources were used: Salazar, Zeus, with Castillo-Pimentel, Lapar, Pimentel, Jr. and Rodriguez (1993) Kasaysayan ng Pilipinas: Isang Balangkas ; Navarro, Rodriquez and Villan (1997) Pantayong Pananaw: Ugat at Kabuluhan; Salazar, Zeus (1997a), “Ang ‘Real’

ni Bonifacio Bilang Teknikang Militar sa Kasaysayan ng Pilipinas”; Salazar, Zeus (1998), “Estado, Lipunan at Kultura sa Kasaysayan: Ang Wika sa Pamanang  Pangkalinangan ng Pilipinas”. As Salazar continues to develop these concepts in history and social science, there is a slight change in the presentation of  some concepts. For example, in Kasaysayan ng Pilipinas (1993), the presentation is divided into three periods, Pamayanan (ca. 250,000 BC–1565), Bayan (1565– 

1913), and Bansa (1913–1992) which also became the basis of the summation by Navarro et al., in Pantayong Pananaw  (1997). In “Ang ‘Real’ ni Bonifacio Bilang Teknikang Militar sa Kasaysayan ng Pilipinas” (1997a) and in “Estado, Lipunan at Kultura sa Kasaysayan: Ang Wika sa Pamanang Pangkalinangan ng Pilipinas” (1998), Salazar identied bayan as one of three  pamayanan (com-munity) concepts, the other two being banua and ili . In this paper, an attempt will be made to present Salazar’s views about the concept of  bayan based on his latest works.

12. In recent years, Salazar has also been using the term  Bagong Kasaysayan (new history). For details on this, see “Kasaysayan at Talastasang Bayan sa Wikang 

Filipino: Sa Duyan ng Pagbubuo ng Inang Bayan, Bansa at Sambayanan” by Navarro, Atoy (1999) in  Adhika , Tomo 1. In relation to Kasaysayang Bayan, see also Llanes, Ferdinand “Kasaysayang Bayan: Pagsulat ng Kasaysayan ng Bayan (Isang Panimula Tungo sa Paglilinang)” (1999) in  Adhika , Tomo 1 (cf. Llanes, Ferdinand 1993; Veneracion, Jaime 1986).

13. Also see the paper by Rodriguez, M.J., “Ang Dalumat ng  Bayan sa Kamalayang  Pilipino”, paper submitted for Anthropology 270, Summer, Academic Year, 1995–96.

14. According to Salazar, what unites the three concepts is a common etymology:

bahay or balay (cf. Tagalog balayan, where the intervocalic has disappeared, such as the Tagalog  daan from the Proto-Filipino and even Austronesian dalan; the twin-vowel “e” [=ay] in balen is the phonemic result of the original “-aya-”);

it appears that the “-n-” has disappeared from balei (1997a, p. 4).

15. At this point, it is important to pay attention to the centrality of the use of  the mag-anak as a symbol for the aspirations of the bayan throughout the arch-ipelago. According to Salazar, “within the mag-anak , the child is central as the reason for and purpose of the mag-anak towards the survival of one’s group as

15. At this point, it is important to pay attention to the centrality of the use of  the mag-anak as a symbol for the aspirations of the bayan throughout the arch-ipelago. According to Salazar, “within the mag-anak , the child is central as the reason for and purpose of the mag-anak towards the survival of one’s group as