The status of efforts to indigenize psychology in the Philippines is reviewed. We address progress in four aspects of indigenization: theoretical/conceptual, methodological, topical, and institutional.
Much, but not all, of this progress is the result of efforts associated with the indigenous Sikolohiyang Pilipino (Filipino psychology) movement, which emphasizes (a) the development of a Filipino psychology that reflects the unique experiences and orientations of Filipinos, (b) Filipino identity and national consciousness, (c) explicit socio-political considerations, (d) application of psychology to societal problems, (e) the study of less elite Filipinos, (f) interdisciplinary efforts, and (g) the use of indigenous languages in the development and dissemination of indigenous psychology.
We note considerable progress, but also controversy, in the selection and interpretation of indigenous concepts and less progress in the formulation of indigenous theories. Existing theories are narrow in scope, only partially specified, and have uncertain heuristic value in generating verifiable predictions. Filipino psychologists have also adapted or further specified Western theoretical frameworks to make them more sensitive to Philippine contextual factors.
Many indigenous measures have been developed, but more information is needed on their psychometric properties.
Several indigenous research methods have been described and these methods typically emphasize the importance of the researcher-participant relationship. There remain questions about the objectivity and cultural uniqueness of these methods, however, many of which involve (a) unstructured conversations and discussions in lieu of structured interviews, (b) varying degrees of participant observation, or (c) qualitative phenomenological methods. Extensive topical indigenization is evident in studies that focus on everyday Filipinos and Philippine societal concerns.
Institutional indigenization is reflected in courses, theses and dissertations, journals, books, conferences, and professional organizations with an indigenous focus. Potential limitations or risks to the indigenous movement include insularity and the limited research culture. Implications of the Philippine case for indigenization efforts in other cultures are discussed. L’etat des efforts pour indigeniser la psychologie aux Philippines a ete etudie. Nous avons enregistre des progres dans quatre aspects de l’indigenisation: theorique/conceptuel, methodologique, thematique et institutionnel.
Ce progres est en grande partie, mais pas totalement, le resultat des efforts associes avec le mouvement indigene Sikolohiyang Pilipino (psychologie philippine), qui mettent l’accent sur le developpement de la psychologie philippine (a) refletant les experiences et orientations uniques de Philippins, (b) l’identite philippine et la conscience nationale, (c) mettant en evidence des considerations sociopolitiques, (d) sur l’application de la psychologie aux problemes de societe, (e) l’etude de Philippins qui n’appartiennent pas a une elite, (f) sur des efforts interdisciplinaires et (g) l’utilisation des langues indigenes dans le developpement et la vulgarisation de la psychologie indigene.
Nous notons un progres considerable, mais aussi des controverses dans le choix et l’interpretation des concepts indigenes et moins de progres dans la formulation des theories indigenes. Les theories existantes offre une courte perspective, elles ne sont que partiellement specifiees et possedent une valeur heuristique incertaine dans la realisation de predictions verifiables. Les psychologues philippins ont egalement adapte ou specifie d’avantage les cadres theoriques occidentaux afin de les rendre plus sensibles aux facteurs contextuels philippins. Beaucoup de mesures indigenes ont ete developpees, mais plus d’informations sur leurs proprietes psychometriques sont necessaires.
Plusieurs methodes de recherche indigene ont ete decrites et en general ces methodes mettent en relief l’importance de la relation chercheur – participant. Cependant, il reste encore des questions ouvertes a propos de l’objectivite et l’unicite culturelle de ces methodes. Beaucoup d’entre elles sont composees de (a) conversations et discussions destructurees au lieu d’entretiens structures, (b) des differents niveaux d’observation des participants ou (c) de methodes phenomenologiques qualitatives. Une large indigenisation thematique est evidente dans des etudes focalisees sur les affaires relatives au quotidien des Philippins et a la societe philippine.
L’indigenisation constitutionnelle se reflete dans les cours, les theses et les dissertations, les journaux, les livres, les conferences, et les organisations professionnelles centrees sur les themes indigenes. Les deficiences ou risques eventuels du mouvement indigene resident sur son isolation et l’etat actuel de la culture de recherche. Les implications de l’exemple philippin sur les efforts d’indigenisation dans d’autres cultures sont discutees. Se examino el estado de los esfuerzos para ‘indigenizar’ a la psicologia en las Filipinas. Tratamos del progreso en cuatro aspectos de la ‘indigenizacion’: teoretico/conceptual, metodologico, tematico, e institucional.
En gran parte, pero no del todo, el progreso es el resultado de los esfuerzos asociados con el movimiento indigena Sikolohiyang Pilipino (Psicologia filipina), el cual enfatiza (a) el desarrollo de una psicologia filipina que refleje las experiencias y orientaciones unicas de los filipinos, (b) la identidad filipina y la conciencia nacional; (c) las consideracionessocio-politicas explicitas, (d) la aplicacion de la psicologia a los problemas de la sociedad, (e) el estudio de los filipinos que no pertenecen a una elite, (f) los esfuerzos interdisciplinarios, y (g) el uso del lenguaje indigena en el desarrollo y la divulgacion de la psicologia indigena.
Observamos un progreso considerable, asi como controversia, en la seleccion e interpretacion de los conceptos indigenas y menos progreso en la formulacion de las teorias indigenas. Las teorias existentes son de alcance limitado, y especificadas solamente de manera incompleta. Y tienen un valor heuristico incierto para generar predicciones comprobables.
Los psicologos filipinos tambien han adaptado o especificado aun mas los marcos teoricos occidentales para convertirlos en algo mas sensible hacia los factores contextuales filipinos. Se han construido muchas medidas indigenas, pero se necesita mas informacion acerca de sus propiedades psicometricas. Se han descrito varios metodos de investigacion indigena y estos metodos, por lo general, enfatizan la importancia de la relacion entre el investigador y el sujeto participante. Sin embargo, hay cuestiones que continuan sin respuesta acerca de la objetividad y la unicidad cultural de estos metodos. Muchos de estos estan compuestos por (a) conversaciones y discusiones sin estructura en lugar de las entrevistas estructuradas, (b) varios niveles de observacion participante, o (c) los metodos fenomenologicos cuantitativos.
Se manifiesta en forma evidente una ‘indigenizacion’ tematica en los estudios que se enfocan en los asuntos cotidianos de los filipinos y su sociedad filipina. La ‘indigenizacion’ institucional se refleja en materias academicas, proyectos de tesis, revistas cientificas, libros, conferencias, y organizaciones profesionales con un enfoque indigena. Las posibles deficiencias o riesgos del movimiento indigena incluyen el aislamiento y el estado actual de la limitada cultura de investigacion. Se discuten las consecuencias del caso filipino sobre los esfuerzos de la ‘indigenizacion’ para otras culturas. | The Philippines Of the countries in Asia, the trend to indigenizing psychology is strongest and most articulate in the Philippines. (Sinha, 1997, p. 153).
Sikolohiyang Pilipino seeks to explain Philippine realities from the Filipino perspective, taking into account the peculiarities and distinct values and characteristics of the Filipino which the Western models invariably fail to explain or consider. (Enriquez, 1994a, p. 27). Sinha (1997) noted the scepticism or outright opposition in many countries to Western psychology.
In the Philippines, Western theories, concepts, and methods still permeate psychological science and practice, but Filipino scholars have long questioned their applicability1. Criticisms have ranged from calls for local adaptation to charges of intellectual dependence and academic and political imperialism (David, 1977; Enriquez, 1976b, 1977, 1994a, b; Espiritu, 1982; A. V. Lagmay, 1984; Salazar, 1991).
In the 1970s, dissatisfaction with Western psychology, an emergence of cultural pride and identity, cogent scientific reasons, and parallel movements elsewhere contributed to the emergence of an indigenous Sikolohiyang Pilipino movement (SP; Filipino Psychology; Enriquez, 1976b; Mataragnon, 1979; Salazar, 1982b). SP proponents advocate a Filipino psychology rooted in its Malayo-Polynesian and Asian heritage and the experience, ideas, and orientation of Filipinos (Enriquez, 1994a). In the writings of prominent advocates such as Virgilio G. Enriquez, one finds ideas that parallel and helped mould the terminology and thinking of indigenous psychologists elsewhere.
For example, Enriquez (1979) coined the terms indigenization from within (culture-as-source) versus indigenization from without(culture-as-target) in referring to the distinction between indigenous psychology—native psychology that is not transplanted from other cultures—and indigenization—adaptation of psychology originating in other cultures (Adair, 1992).
Enriquez (1994a) distinguished between cultural validation of imported concepts and methods to determine their relevance for the Philippines and cultural revalidation of indigenous concepts and methods. In lieu of the combined emic-etic approach, which seeks a comprehensive psychology through a blending of the indigenous and imported (Adair, 1992; Sinha, 1997, p. 133), Enriquez (1979) advocated a cross-indigenous approach in which multiple indigenous psychologies are developed independently prior to cross-cultural comparisons.
In reviewing the status of efforts to indigenize psychology in the Philippines it is useful to distinguish four aspects of indigenization (Kumar, 1979; Sinha, 1997): (1) theoretical and conceptual indigenization—development of indigenous concepts and theoretical frameworks; (2) methodological indigenization—adaptation or development of instruments and methods that are culturally appropriate; (3) topical indigenization—the extent to which the topics under study are relevant to the concerns of the society and people; and (4) institutional indigenization— the extent to which institutional and organizational structures and processes support the creation and diffusion of indigenous psychological knowledge2. In the Philippines substantial progress has been made in all four aspects of indigenization.
Although the SP movement has been at the forefront in efforts to develop indigenous psychology in the Philippines, contributions to indigenization were also made prior to the full emergence of the SP movement and by researchers who are not clearly associated with the SP movement. In assessing progress toward the development of an indigenous or “indigenized” Philippine psychology, it seems unwise to ignore these other efforts, although the extent to which they are consistent with the philosop hy and methods of the SP movement has sometimes been controversial.
Thus, we also refer to contributions that are not purely emic or indigenous in nature, reflecting the fact that the distinction between emic and etic, or indigenous and imported, is often not a clear dichotomy, but rather a continuum representing different levels of indigenization (Church, 2001).
A number of authors have noted that indigenous elements can come from both internal sources (indigenization from within; internal indigenization) and the adaptation of elements from external sources (indigenization from without; indigenization of the exogenous) (Adair, 1992; Enriquez, 1979; Sinha, 1997). In short, our review might best be viewed as an analysis of the broader progress toward the indigenization of various aspects of Philippine psychology, which clearly includes but is not limited to the contributions of SP proponents.
Nonetheless, we begin with an overview of general characteristics of the SP movement because of its centrality in the development of indigenous elements in Philippine psychology. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SIKOLOHIYANG PILIPINO (SP) Enriquez (1994b, p. 3) defined Sikolohiyang Pilipino (SP; Filipino psychology) as a “psychology based on the experience, ideas and orientation of the Filipino.
” Enriquez (1994a) outlined major characteristics of SP, which included: (1) principal emphases on identity and national consciousness, social awareness and involvement, psychology of language and culture, and applications and bases in such fields as health practices, agriculture, art, mass media, and religion; (2) principal methods of investigation that include the cross-indigenous method; indigenous field methods; and multi-method, multi-language application of traditional experimental and psychometric methods; (3) primary areas of protest against a psychology that perpetuates the colonial status of the Filipino mind, the exploitation of the masses, and the imposition of psychologies developed in industrialized countries; and (4) a focus on psychological practice as applicable in the Philippine context (for additional characteristics, see Enriquez, 1994a, Table 2).
Others who have discussed the historical or philosophical bases and goals of the indigenous SP movement include Salazar (1982b; 1985a), San Buenaventura (1985), Enriquez (1976b), and Pe-Pua and Protacio-Marcelino (2000). As these characteristics suggest, there is a strong and explicit sociopolitical thrust in many SP writings (e. g. , Enriquez, 1994a,b; L. Samson, 1985).
This thrust is seen, for example, in Enriquez’s (1994b) description of six phases of cultural domination to which he believes Filipino psychology and culture have been subjected, followed by his discussion of how decolonization, counterdomination, and empowerment of Filipino psychology can be achieved through (1) indigenous theorizing, (2) the development of indigenous methods, and (3) resistance to sociopolitical, class, and gender oppression and academic dependency. Enriquez (1994a, p. 2) called for a psychology that is both liberated (malaya) and liberating (mapagpalaya), that is, both free of American influence and responsive to Philippine social problems that are rooted in the inequitable distribution of wealth between Westernized Filipinos and the masses. Not surprisingly, then, another characteristic of SP has been its preferential focus on less elite Filipinos.
Salazar (1991)referred to the Great Cultural Divide in Philippine society between educated, Westernized Filipinos and the Filipino masses, andEnriquez (1994a) argued that Western-oriented psychology in the Philippines caters to the upper classes. This is particularly true, he opined, in industrial psychology—for example, in the use of selection tests that favour those who are more fluent in English—and he proposed focusing instead on “livelihood psychology” among the Filipino masses (Enriquez, 1994b, pp. 66-67). The real psychology of Filipinos, he argued, will be found not in academic psychology, which is largely Western, but on street corners, in public markets, in rural barrios, and so forth.
Historically, there has also been a strong interdisciplinary thrust in SP, with SP finding applications in, and being enriched by, art and literature (Antonio, 1999; Rivera-Mirano, 1999), religion and philosophy (Bautista, 1999; Mercado, 1977; Obusan & Enriquez, 1994a; Sevilla, 1982a), history (Salazar, 1985a, 1991), linguistics (Enriquez, 1976a), law and politics (M. E. Samson, 1999), education (Mendez, 1982; Morales, 1999), and agriculture and rural sociology (Bonifacio, 1999; Velasco, 1982). For example, researchers have drawn on indigenous music, folklore, literature, and linguistic features in the language in a search for clues about Filipino worldviews, values, and personality (Antonio, 1999; Timbreza, 1999). Illustrative of this interdisciplinary focus is a recently edited book on SP, which contains several chapters on applications in education, religion, politics, and the arts (Protacio-Marcelino & Pe-Pua, 1999)3.
From the beginning, a defining characteristic of SP has been the use and development of the Filipino language for psychological research and writing. Proponents noted that (1) use of native languages is consistent with an indigenization-from-within approach; (2) native languages are an important source of indigenous constructs; (3) the development and communication of an indigenous psychological science may benefit from the use of native languages; and (4) reports written in native languages can reach a wider audience and contribute toward the development of national identity (Enriquez, 1994b; Enriquez & Marcelino, 1984; Javier, 1996; Rood, 1985; Salazar, 1982b, 1991; Sibayan, 1994).
In addition, research indicates that the nature and quality of the data obtained with Filipinos may depend on the language of data collection (Church, Katigbak, & Castaneda, 1988; see Church, 1986, pp. 106-113, for a review). In the view of Enriquez (1977, 1994a), reliance on the English language (a language of instruction) and token use of Filipino can result in a distortion of Philippine social realities, the miseducation of the Filipino, and “an irrelevant Anglocentric psychology which fails to answer the needs of the Filipino people” (Enriquez, 1994b, p. 10)4. We turn now to a discussion of the status of theoretical and conceptual, methodological, topical, and institutional indigenization efforts in Philippine psychology. THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL INDIGENIZATION Indigenous concepts
Considerable progress has been made in the identification and elaboration of indigenous concepts, particularly in the area of personality and values. Prior to the emergence of the SP movement, many researchers had already elicited traits and values using free-response descriptions of various persons or roles (e. g. , “a real friend,” “the best priest,” “the ideal boss,” “a healthy Filipino”); analyses of Filipino proverbs, folklore, and other literature; responses to projective stories; and ethnographic and survey methods with children and their parents (see Church, 1986, for a review). Others have identified indigenous personality concepts while developing indigenous tests (e. g. , Carlota, 1985; Church et al, 1988; Enriquez & Guanzon, 1985) or taxonomies of person-descriptive terms (Church, Katigbak, & Reyes, 1996).
In student papers and theses conducted from an SP perspective, descriptive studies of single indigenous concepts have been extremely popular. In these studies, respondents typically are asked to define the concept, associate to related terms, and describe the antecedents, manifestations, or consequences of the concept, with responses being summarized qualitatively or with frequency counts (Cipres-Ortega, 1985)5. Detailed anthropological, linguistic, philosophical, or conceptual analyses have been conducted on a number of Filipino concepts, including utang na loob (Hollnsteiner, 1973; Kaut, 1961; Kiefer,
1968; Lawless, 1966), hiya (Bulatao, 1964, 1966;Salazar, 1985b), bahala na (Bostrom, 1968; Jocano, 1974; A. V. Lagmay, 1993), pakikiramdam (Enriquez, 1994a; Mataragnon, 1987), sumpong(Mataragnon, 1977), kapwa (Enriquez, 1978), kaluluwa (Salazar, 1982a), pakikisama (Lynch, 1973), and amor propio (Bonifacio, 1977; Lynch, 1973).
Many purported Filipino traits and values have been critiqued in the context of discussions of national identity and development (e. g. , Andres, 1989; Domingo-Tapales & Alfiler, 1991; Morales, Talisayon, & Roxas, 1991). Although such analyses are consistent with the SP focus on the elaboration of native language constructs, SP proponents have expressed ambivalent or negative attitudes towards some of these studies.
They argue that concept interpretations have sometimes reflected colonial perspectives and that discussions of the role of purported traits and values in national development can draw attention away from “compelling social realities” such as poverty and social injustice (Bartolome, 1985, p. 534) or serve to blame the victim for these social realities (Enriquez, 1994a, p. 58).
In addition, the importance and interpretation of some concepts continues to be controversial. For example, the frequent mention of the concept pakikisama (getting along with or making concessions to others) in a number of studies was cited byLynch (1973) as supportive of his theory of smooth interpersonal relations (SIR) among Filipinos. The theory was influential during the 1960s and 1970s, but not without its critics (Enriquez, 1977; Jocano, 1966; Sechrest, 1969).
Pakikisama was viewed by Lynch as an important means, along with euphemism and the use of gobetweens, by which Filipinos achieve smooth interpersonal relations, which in turn is an important means of maintaining social acceptance, a basic aim of lowland Filipinos according to Lynch (1973). Enriquez (1977, 1978) criticized the singling out of pakikisama and other Filipino language terms, however.
Enriquez attributed the focus on pakikisama to the token use of Filipino by Western-oriented social scientists, who were not immersed in the culture or language. Nonetheless, numerous Filipino writers continue to cite pakikisama as a salient value or trait of Filipinos (e. g., Andres, 1989; Bulatao, 1992; Domingo-Tapales & Alfiler, 1991).
Enriquez (1977, 1978, 1994a) has championed instead kapwa as the core concept underlying Filipino interpersonal behaviour. Kapwa, he argued, refers to the recognition of shared identity with others, a deeper concept than SIR, which refers to merely avoiding conflict. Further, Enriquez argued that pakikisama refers to only one of many levels of interaction in Philippine culture, ranging from the uninvolved civility of pakikitungo to the total identification of pakikiisa. In contrast, pakikipagkapwa, Enriquez argued, is a superordinate concept that embraces all levels of interaction.
Pakikipagkapwa means accepting and dealing with others as equals, treating them as fellow human beings (kapwa tao), and having regard for the dignity and being of others (Enriquez, 1977, 1978). Here too, however, different authors have presented different interpretations of kapwa. For example, Enriquez (1994a) viewedkapwaas encompassing interactions with both ingroup and outgroup members. Ramirez (1997), however, associated kapwawith behaviours towards ingroup members only, although she advocated a broadening of kapwa to include the outgroup. Uncertainties regarding the interpretation of kapwa and other indigenous concepts may be due to limited empirical data. AsSta.
Maria (1996) has noted, conceptions of kapwa have relied heavily on “speculations” and “unsystematic interpretations of the concept rather than on research regarding how the concept is used in everyday language and observed in everyday experience” (p. 110). Controversy has also surrounded the interpretation of other salient concepts. For example, does bahala na refer to submissive fatalism or to determination in the face of uncertainty? Does utang na loob refer to contract-like debts of gratitude or to a commitment to human solidarity? Does hiya refer to social shame and embarrassment or to moral propriety and dignity? Doesamor propio refer to oversensitivity or personal dignity and honour? Of some concern is the apparent role of sociopolitical influences on the interpretation and selection of concepts.
Many of the values and traits attributed to Filipinos have been criticized as presenting colonial images of Filipinos, which reflect ideological considerations and implicit comparisons against Western values and behaviour (David, 1977; Enriquez, 1994a; Salazar, 1991). In attempting to move from a “colonial psychology” to a “liberation psychology,” Enriquez (1994a) countered purported colonial or “accommodative” values such as utang na loob, pakikisama, and hiya, with more “confrontative” values such as lakas ng loob (inner strength) and pakikibaka(cooperative resistance), and a more assertive interpretation of bahala na(determination). At the societal level, the values of karangalan (dignity), katarungan (justice), and kalayaan (freedom) are now emphasized in Enriquez’s (1994a) value model.
However, these values seem to be emphasized as much for sociopolitical reasons—that is, their role and salience during such sociopolitical events as the People Power Revolution of 1986—as for scientific or empirical reasons (e. g. , see Enriquez, 1994a, p. 79). Tan (1997b) has noted that recent reinterpretations of indigenous concepts such as pakikisama, bahala na, utang na loob, andhiyamay be equally vulnerable to the criticism made of earlier value research—an overreliance on ideological impressions and intuitions. He notes that while earlier writers seemed to emphasize “What is wrong with us? ” (e. g. , “Why are we an underdeveloped country? “), SP seems to take the position that “nothing can be wrong with us” (pp. 564-567).
Sta. Maria (1996) has also questioned the empirical basis of those concepts that comprise Enriquez’s (1994a) structure of values.
She portrays Enriquez’s efforts as symptomatic of pangkaming (Salazar, 1991) or reactive syndrome, in which selected concepts are elevated to the status of key values because they contrast with those highlighted by foreign social scientists. As Sta. Maria(1996, p. 102) noted: what [Enriquez] essentially did was to ‘scan’ the entire range of indigenous terms and to ‘pluck’ out the ones that contrast with foreign interpretations and to elevate these concepts to the level of ‘values’.
With this approach, any term in Filipino becomes a potential value as long as it satisfies the contrast criterion and his idea about the confrontative Filipino. Pertierra (1992, p. 41) has also raised concerns about a politically motivated indigenous social science, in which “the task becomes one of discovering or inventing national characteristics which forward the ‘national interest’.
” A final limitation of these concepts is that they have generally been considered in isolation, with little consideration of their structure or organization (i. e. , how they interrelate theoretically or empirically). A few efforts have been made to structure the value domain, using rational considerations rather than empirical data (Enriquez, 1994a; Hennig, 1983; Talisayon, 1997). Montiel (1991) used factor analysis to derive higher-order value dimensions, but the values analyzed were those assessed by Rokeach’s Value Survey, not indigenous values. The limited data available on the structure of Filipino personality concepts motivated Church et al.
(1996) to develop a comprehensive taxonomy of Filipino trait and emotion terms and to investigate the dimensional structure of these domains in self-report data (Church, Katigbak, & Reyes, 1998a; Church, Katigbak, Reyes, & Jensen, 1998b, 1999; Church, Reyes, Katigbak, & Grimm, 1997; Katigbak, Church, Guanzon-Lapena, Carlota, & Del Pilar, 2002). Indigenous theories Filipino psychologists have made much more progress in elaborating indigenous concepts than in formulating indigenous theories.
We can define a theory as including (1) a set of assumptions and constructs that are systematically related to each other; (2) operational definitions of the constructs that enable them to be related to empirical data; and (3) an evolving set of empirical propositions (e. g. , hypotheses and predictions), which follow from the theory and facilitate understanding, explanation, and prediction of phenomena in the domain of interest (Hall & Lindzey, 1978, pp. 9-15).
A theory could be viewed as an indigenous theory to the extent that the assumptions, constructs, operational definitions (e. g. , measures), and predicted phenomena of the theory are themselves indigenous, or have a culturally relevant conceptual and empirical basis. By this definition, we would have to conclude that theory development in Philippine psychology has been minimal. Existing “theories” are narrow in scope, only partially specified, and their heuristic value in generating verifiable predictions is unclear. Theoretical development has proceeded only to the point of specifying constructs and their interrelationships, and these efforts have been largely conceptual rather than linked to empirical data.
For example, Enriquez (1994a) provided a conceptual structure of indigenous values made up of three tiers: (1) a top tier comprised of surface values, both colonial/accommodative (hiya, utang na loob, pakikisama) and confrontative (bahala na, sama/lakas ng loob, pakikibaka ); (2) a middle tier comprised of the pivotal interpersonal value of pakiramdam (shared inner perception), which underlies the surface values; the core value of kapwa (shared identity); and a socio-cultural value ofkagandahangloob (shared humanity) linking the core value of kapwa to the bottom tier; and (3) a bottom tier comprised of the associated societal values of karangalan(dignity), katarungan (justice), and kalayaan (freedom).
Enriquez (1994a) argued that the conceptual relations depicted in this model were “recognized links. ” It is not clear, however, how universally recognized or obvious these links are, and most of the indigenous values discussed in the literature are not encompassed by the hypothesized structure.
Enriquez (1994b, pp.51-54) described the levels and modes of social interaction delineated by Santiago and Enriquez (1982)as an “indigenous social interaction theory. ” Santiago and Enriquez (1982) described eight levels of social interaction ranging from more superficial levels applied with outgroup members to the deeper levels obtained with ingroup members. One of the most thoroughly specified and empirically tested theories was Lynch’s (1973) theory of SIR (smooth interpersonal relations). However, proponents of SP and others have tended to reject the theory as based on stereotypes, colonial interpretations, limited understanding of the Filipino language, and limited data (see Church, 1986, pp. 29-35, for a review). More recently,Sta.
Maria (1999) proposed an indigenous person typology for Filipinos, which was derived from content analyses of relatively open-ended descriptions of self and others. Carandang (1981) described a conceptual framework, termed the Rubic’s Cube approach, which is less a formal theory than a framework for holistic and multidimensional analyses in studies with Filipino children. The four dimensions of analysis included: (1) the child as a total person, including intellectual, emotional, physical, social, and moral/spiritual development; (2) the child’s developmental level; (3) the context of family, community, and culture; and (4) the child’s inner world or subjective perceptions.
The approach has been cited as the conceptual framework for a number of phenomenological studies of children (Araneta-de Leon, 2000; Gonzalez-Fernando, 2000; Lee-Chua, 1999; Puente, 2000). When theoretical frameworks have been referred to they have often been Western frameworks. However, a number of Filipino psychologists have adapted or further specified these frameworks to make them more sensitive to Philippine contextual factors.
For example, Montiel (1997, 2000a) and Briones (2000) applied ideas from an imported model of personality and politics in constructing conceptual models for Filipino political and peace psychology; the authors provided indigenous specification by incorporating context-specific elements such as the history of colonization, the Marcos dictatorship, and the role of the Catholic Church.
In a series of political psychology studies, Montiel has questioned the assumptions underlying Western theory and research on political trauma and recovery (Montiel, 2000b), discussed Filipino cultural characteristics that may need to be incorporated in imported models of conflict resolution (Montiel, 1995), and suggested that political psychology theories in the Philippines may need to incorporate stronger affective, religious, and collective processes than is typical of political psychology in the United States, where the focus, she argues, tends to be more cognitive, secular, and individual istic (Montiel & Macapagal, 2000).