The Need for Theoretical Engagement; the Case of Psychology in the Philippines

Theory can be defined in many ways but what I believe a true understanding of theory can only
constitute from the ability to discern how it works. During the few occasions that I was able to bring
theoretical engagement into conversations with psychology students and psychometricians alike, I am
was often met with questions of cluelessness if not defensive accusations that passes off the topic Commented [JA1]: Is it possible to have a concrete example of
the issue you’ll be tackling here? Maybe the actual conversation?
conversation as being an opinion or too convoluted for conversationtoo convoluted opinion. And so I Or a situation that shows a manifestation of this cluelessness.
would like to start of this essay by attempting to explain first how theory functions. Though this essay will
be exploring the case of psychology specifically, it would be much easier to understand theory with the
use of science as there are issues in psychological theory that will make it more complicated. which These
issues I will raise later.

Let us look, for the purpose of explanation, at electricity. During the time when it was not fully
understood, electricity was considered a force of nature, there are even those who considered it as magic.
It was believed, for a time in European history, that when lightning struck tall houses, they had invoked
the wrath of God for challenging his place as the Supreme Being that belongs to in heaven. It iwas not
until significant studies were made on electricity that scientists were able to analyse electricity. Their ideas
tested by the use of experimentations. One specific example is that of Benjamin Franklin’s well-known
Kite experiment where he hypothesized that lightning is electricity and will behaved in such a way that,
when striking an object, will travel along the shortest possible path into the ground. With a kite attached
to a key in a jar, he attempteds to prove just that in a dark stormy night. When lightning struck the kite,
electricity travelled along the kite’s string to the attached house key inside the leyden jar so that electricity
can be stored. With this experiment, he found out that lightning is indeed electrical. It was through this Commented [JA2]: Unclear and awkwardly placed.
discovery that lightning rods were invented, and eventually ended brought the belief of that lightning as Shouldn’t this be in the previous sentence? To explain why that was
is divine punishment into the realm of myths. I would claim that this is how theory functions in shaping Franklin’s experimental design. 

society. To put it formally, theory is a set of organized ideas used to understand, explain, and predict a Commented [JA3]: From?

particular subject matter. And once that particular subject matter is understood to the point of
predictability, it is now possible to harness it—to put it into practice. Through this praxis, it brings changes Commented [JA4]: Ditto.
into the world that is in accordance to theory. To be able to utilize electricity, scientists must first study
electricity, be able to predict it and control it in ways that it can be utilized—it’s not hard to imagine
anyone who seriously attempted to research electricity in the past believes that electricity should be used
in the future—. iIn fact there is a story recounted that in 1850 a government official had asked Michael Commented [JA5]: Why couldn’t this have been a sentence?
Faraday, a famous physicist, of the value of electricity, in this story, he retorts “One day sir, you may tax
it” (Jackson, 2013) and indeed we have come to live in a society that taxes and utilizes electricity. The
same goes for other scientific knowledge—to utilize gravity, gravitational forces must first be understood
and thus any technological innovation made possible by its understanding had also brought changes on
the world. It is so easy to forget that the technology we use in our everyday lives was only made possible
by understanding the forces behind them. It was through understanding of these forces that opened up
a way for people to utilize them. In this sense, theory contains with it a direction, along with it, its own Commented [JA6]: Did I read it right?
perspective.

The direction and perspective of theory becomes trickier in social and political sciences, albeit not
at face value. A very well-known and controversial example (and perhaps the most misunderstood) would
be Marxism. As it had been explained to me by a friend and professor, most of Marx’s writings are actually
his analysis about capitalism and why it is bad for us. Putting things into context on what have been
established so far; Marx sought to understand capitalism, he explained it in his writings, and has made
predictions on how it will affect society should it be allowed to continue. He, in turn, put forward
communism as an answer to this situation. There is a point to be made that theory contains within itself
a direction and perspective hidden to most that will inevitably manifest in practice. As such, a Marxist who Commented [JA7]: Wasn’t this point already made in the 2nd
paragraph?
happens to be a policy maker will make policies that would reflect Marxist insights as would a
psychoanalyst will utilize psychoanalytic theory, an economist could utilize Keynesian economics in
making economic policies, a historian with a conservative traditional education may reflect on history
from a Euro-centric perspective, etc. That is to say, these theoretical frameworks will largely determine
the way certain professions will be practiced.

It must be noted that in this essay I will not argue whether or not Marxism or any other subsequent
theoretical perspective is discussed as good or bad since that topic is deserves a separate paper
altogether. What I will be arguing in this paper is that the current practices of mainstream psychologists
are suffering from the lack of any theoretical engagement.

Reservations on Theoretical Perspectives

The reason for my reluctance in using psychological theory in making the point above is two-fold;
(1) social sciences whose fields specifically involves the society and people in which those who study it
belongs in to presents itselfposit complications more problematic than those from the natural sciences,
and (2) that mainstream psychological practice had shown a huge disconnect with psychological theory.

I will divide the theories within social sciences into two categories in terms of subjectivity; (1)
theories that presents itself as entirely ‘objective’, and (2) theories aware and acknowledging of its own Commented [JA8]: Themselves? Check for subject-verb
agreement.
subjectivity. In the first category, psychology and economics are by far the worst offenders. With oneThe
former, pushing for universalized mental health care practice while the other latter continues to promote
flawed concepts and practices such aslike GDP as reliable standards measurement of wealth when in fact
it that does not take into account the disparity of wealth in a given nation. and tThus, in readings of
wealth, in GDP automatically excludes those who are, ‘objectively speaking’, unproductive and unable to
contribute to the nation’s ‘wealth while favoring those that do. Anthropology, which hasd often been
dubbed as a handmaiden of colonialism for its history of providing justification and moral legitimacy of to
cultural dominance of imperialist nations on ‘barbaric’ and ‘primitive’ civilizations. Most, if not all, theories
dealing with people and society that refuses to acknowledge its inherent subjectivity can only ever be
situated and fabricated knowledge that actually fails to make an actual impression of reality. Insistence of
what is ‘purely objective’ in this case can only result in a practice that imposes upon people the subjectivity
of the intellectual elite in the guise of enlightenment or education that brings with it a shield that is against
subjectiveness subjectivity itself—what’s problematic here is that its rejection of its own subjectiveness
subjectivity enables it to act with a ‘holier than thou’ attitude much like a colonizing missionary intent on
‘educating’ a ‘primitive’ race.
 Many psychologists fall into this, with claims of being ‘scientific’ and ‘objective’, what many do not
realize is that many psychologists unwittingly spread and apply knowledge out of touch with reality that
even the most well-intentioned psychologists—due to the limited scope of the nature of their treatment
of data, knowledge, and psychological vocabulary—could not fully express psychology’s failings. One
could go even further in criticizing normalization, by the very nature setting a certain quality as ‘normal’
for a population; it automatically , marginalizes those who are ‘abnormal’—effectively contributing to the
stigma in which many psychologists sought to stop. Commented [JA9]: Rephrase.
Commented [JA10R9]:
In the second category, fields under critical theory remains to be a good example. Likewise, many
counter-culture movements within scientific fields of study also belong here. Within psychology, critical
psychology attempts to put psychologists into the spotlight by acknowledging its subjectivity, it attempts
to recognize the politics of psychology that often remain unquestioned under the guise of objectivity. ,
lLikewise, Filipino Psychology (a local variant of indigenous psychology) attempts to decolonize psychology
in the Philippines and change the dominating American colonial psychology dominating of the time in
favour of the Filipino-oriented psychology that is sensitive to the experience of the Filipino people as
opposed to the impressionistic view of Western psychology. Similar movements also arose from other
fields such as history and anthropology. What complicates social science theories is the fact that how we
think about ourselves—as an individual, collective, and the ways in which we make our choices—affects
how we act on the world around us. It also isn’t unheard of for psychological, sociological, and economic
theories to be the basis of policy making. By acknowledging its own subjectivity, theories are able to
transparently present its their direction and perspective and consequently which in turn, be subjected
more readily to scrutiny and criticism. This enables—enabling it progress and innovation s that are absent
in those that do not. It is therefore necessary when studying and engaging in theory for that it not to be Commented [JA11]: Do not what?
taken as an isolated knowledge to be impressed upon the world but as knowledge of the world framed in
a certain manner. Theoretical knowledge must be taken within its context, historicized, and the broader
implications of its direction and perspective be taken into consideration. It cannot be separated from its
practice for theory alone can only result to useless isolated knowledge. Likewise, practice without theory
is also useless as it is blind—to practice without any understanding of theory can only ever be the result
of dogmatic or reactive learning.

Mental Health and Other Psychological Issues

Psychology had been criticized by many scholars, including those within the field itself. A short and
critical look into mainstream psychology can easily reveal a multitude of issues, many of which critical
psychologists had already begun to address—albeit still largely ignored in mainstream psychology. I will
not attempt to list these issues down as that is not the purpose of this paper, however, I will be addressing
mental health more specifically due to it being one of the more relevant issues being put forward by
mainstream psychologists today as itfor it had been able to gain enough traction to be of consideration in
talks of social policy within government and corporations all the while being picked up as conversational
topics among certain demographics. Much like the way theory is explored, it is not enough to inspect
mental health merely through its definitions but rather one must discern how it works not only from how
it fits into the wider image that is its larger context and history but also of its perspective and its direction.
Looking at mental health with this in mind, we can see that the advocacy of mental health carries with it
unquestioned assumptions that are typically held as truth by psychologists. Please note I will primarily be
using the umbrella term psychologists without differentiating it from specific terms such as therapist,
clinicians, industrial psychologists, etc.

The practice of mental health constitutes the maintenance of psychological well-being. It posits the
idea that a person must be psychologically healthy—the World Health Organization, for instance, defines
mental health as follows:

Mental health is defined as a state of well-being in which every individual realizes his
or her own potential, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively
and fruitfully, and is able to make a contribution to her or his community. (2014)

It explicitly states that mental health is attained by ‘realizing one’s potential’ through which it
promotes the ability to cope, productivity in work, and ability to contribute to one’s community. It sounds
simple enough in words but we must look and ask the question, who does this definition marginalizes? If
you are born into poverty, never having the opportunity to be educated, work in horrible working
conditions, working with the threat of endo or whatever you probably cannot relate to being mentally Commented [JA12]: Whatever? Really? 
healthy. With the way psychologists approach mental health, that which that does not take economical,
physical considerations heavily, mental health service is a service available and only making sense to the
privileged individual. In this sense, it privileges the privileged.

This setting of a standard normality, regardless of whether or not one finds it desirable, is precisely
the how psychology’s politics reveals itself in its instruments, unbeknownst to many psychologists who
genuinely wants to help. By allowing psychologists to define what is normal, abnormal, and what should
be normal behaviour, psychologists are practically given license to make judgments on what a person
should and should not do/be. The rise of positive psychology, for instance, had also made impact on the
current direction psychology is taking. It had undoubtedly contributed to the reason why so many people
face the expectation that one must act happy despite feeling otherwise which is problematic if looked at
deeper. Left unquestioned, the practice of psychology is essentially a pervasive and subtle means of
control in accordance of the dominant trends in psychology.

What’s worse than the unquestioned beliefs on mental health are the unquestioned beliefs on
mental illness. To investigate this, we must first ask how exactly does one determine mental illness? The
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) is widely considered by many psychologists
in countries deeply influenced by American psychology to be the go-to material as it is often informally
dubbed as the “psychology bible,” while there are many psychologists who strive to clarify that it is more
of a ‘guide’ than a manual set in stone, its actual influence and usage should take precedence in analysing
its function. Psychologists today rely on DSM to be able to diagnose mental disorders, a list of symptoms
is presented under a specific disorder and once a criterion is met, then the person experiencing the
symptoms is recognized as having a mental disorder. What, then, can we infer from a sickness diagnostic
criterion based on symptomology? First, that it is more important to appear normal since deviance from
the norm is made a sign of illness—so long as a person acts and looks normal, he cannot be mentally ill.
This ties in well with what is discussed about mental health, that certain characteristics and qualities could
be sponsored as ‘normal’ and ‘healthy’ while others ‘abnormal’ and ‘unhealthy’. Unquestioned,
psychology tends to lean on preserving the status quo. One should not forget that it is not only until
recently that homosexualityly had been a sickness that is needed to be treated, . Oone can, at times,
imagine psychologists to be overcompensating with the amount of studies and privileging they give to the
lgbtq community they have produced in recent times. Second, that the matter of the cause of the Commented [JA13]: At times… in recent times. Daming times.
symptoms is secondary, the alleviation of these symptoms takes precedence. For example—following the
logic of symptomal healing—the rise of cases of depression must be followed by the propagation of
treatment for those who experiences depression instead of addressing why there was a rise of cases of
depression in the first place and how to curtail it on a wide scale. In this sense, psychologists would rather
widen their influence by declaring that their services are needed more than ever than attempt to prevent
the need for their treatment in the first place. Is it any wonder then that many, including a handful of
psychologists themselves, accuse of psychology as a business?

Theoretical Implications of Eclectic Practice

If you ask practicing psychologists today how is theory practiced, the prominent answer would be
something akin to ‘using therapy which is best suited for the case’ or simply ‘whatever works’ (of course,
you may find answers that sounds better but be similar in logic); there is undeniable bias toward
pragmatism in these statements—I will explain why this is also problematic later on. Though many would
not associate themselves with the word, the practice itself cannot be anything other than eclecticism.

Psychological practice wasn’t always like this. During 1940’s and 1950’s, psychologists often identify
themselves to a particular school of thought; one can be Freudian, Rogerian, Skinnerian, etc. Psychologists
of the time endorse a particular school of thought instead of relying on pragmatic use of theoretical
innovations from every school of thought (Dewey, 2017). For instance, to be truly Rogerian, one should
not believe in diagnosis but rather rely on the person’s ability to judge for one’s self what must be
improved and what needs to be done. Likewise, a Freudian believes that individuals are determined by
unconscious drives while a traditional Skinnerian would rely primarily on rewards and punishments to
shape behaviour all the while disregarding cognition. It must be stated that I am not advocating the use
of these theories as it was traditionally during their conception, but it must be emphasized what these
theories have that no eclectic psychologists have is a consistent line of thought; a psychologist who
believes that unconscious drives govern one’s actions and a psychologists who believes that behaviour is
the only thing that matters in psychology will advocate for very different things and will act on problems
in issues very differently. The influence psychology has on other fields and even policy-making must not
be understated. It’s no secret that there are some companies employing Skinnerian modes of learning
while Rogerian person-centered approach had already been utilized at least once in the policies of United
Nations during its time. One must always remember that these different approaches carry with them their
very own perspectives and directions. For instance, Skinner wrote the controversial ‘utopian’ novel
Walden Two (1948) which presents humans as entirely determined by environmental factors, it is a
depiction of how Skinner imagines a perfect society, a society devoid of freewill—if psychologists were to
be consistent with the line of thought of traditional operant conditioning, then any mode of application
that it is utilized in would bring our society closer to Skinner’s envisioned utopia.

With eclecticism, there is no direction. No consistent line of thought. To pragmatically use only
‘what works’ means that it does not matter what theory says. With eclecticism, psychology can only ever
be reactive and thus its advocacies can only be reactionary. In eclecticism, the fruits of psychological
theory are reduced to mere tools to be utilized when convenient; this can be seen in psychological practice
including that of research, particularly in the rise of evidence-based research (EBP). This is how, I would
claim, psychological practice hasd effectively bastardized psychological theory. If one where to inspect
the theoretical foundations of DSM one will soon find its theoretical foundations lacking, if not missing
entirely. Even at its conception, diagnosis of mental disorders only came to being as a reactive response
to the controversy surrounding the findings of David Rosenhan’s experiments of sending pseudopatients
in the mental asylum—the results of these experiment showed the many inadequacies and malpractice
of mental health treatment of the time. It wasn’t long after that the earliest stages of the DSM were made
to address the question of ‘how does one determine mental sickness?’ The large amount of criticisms and
revisions over the years can only ever be indicative of its lack of any solid theoretical foundation. as iIt
could only ever be a classification scheme of a set of symptoms backed by statistics based on convenient
taxonomic labelling.

Philippine Mainstream Psychological Research

If one where to flip through the (digital) pages of psychology journals, one would find that a majority
of psychological research to beis quantitative with only a handful with mixed methodologies and
qualitative researches. In a survey on Philippine psychological research publications the following wais
observed:

In general, most researches published were not directed towards developing new or
more advanced explanations of psychological phenomena. Indeed, most of researches
surveyed do not go beyond reporting the data- gathering process and the data obtained. In
most of these researches there was no attempt to relate the data to even the simplest
conceptual or theoretical frame. Most of those that attempt to explain or make sense of data
patterns do so by appeal to existing theoretical models developed by foreign psychologists.
It would not be inaccurate to say that most of the researches published were atheoretical.
Only in very few cases was data used to advance theory even in the slightest way. Psychology
research in the Philippines seems to be largely viewed by many researchers as involving only
data-gathering and data description. Theory seems to play no major role in the research
enterprise; researches do not lead to theory, and theoretical considerations do not motivate
the choice of research variables, method, design, or data explanations. (Bernando, 1997)

Though the paper is somewhat dated, as one could easily surmise that the increasing trend of
mainstream psychology research today are leaning into statistical methods, I would argue that most of
the issues tackled are still very relevant today. In the Philippines, there is a lack of psychology research
culture. Not only are relevant literature are hidden away and only available to those who knows
specifically what they need, but also that most research communities—including those within well-known
academic institutions—are geared primarily toward being able to present their researches in foreign soil
as a supplement to their status and salary in what could possibly considered as an unironic attempt of
emulating the publish or perish situation of academia in foreign soil, this attempt of pursuing global
competitiveness and relevance had made psychology in the Philippines far more out of touch with the
grounded social realities., it It also disables psychological research from being anything other than
random, isolated pieces of knowledge due to the nature of its implementation and its own scope and
methodologies. One can easily assume that practitioners of psychology often starts research and ends
with their requirements in academia, suffering from both academia’s inability to create an environment
supportive of a research culture and the pressures of an alienating workplace that is so often geared
towards ‘practical’, evidence-based solutions to problems that even those that do believe in research find
only shallow, reactionary, and atheoretical solutions that and does not really address the problems faced
by psychologists on a deeper level.

Transitional Demands: Revitalizing Theoretical Discourse

The only one instance of psychology within the history of the Philippines wherein I have come to
observe active theoretical discourse would be during the rise of Filipino Psychology (otherwise known as
Sikolohiyang Pilipino). Spearheaded by the late Virgilio Enriquez, Filipino Psychology had questioned the
Western Colonial Psychology that is dominating at the time in favour of a liberated and liberating
psychology. Conferences weare held, the status quo wais questioned, and there was active debate and
theoretical innovations in the discourse on Filipino Psychology. Among these innovations are but not
limited to (1) usage of the Filipino language as a primary mode of discourse, (2) Filipino Psychology as both
a science and a movement, (3) Indigenous Psychology as part of a universal psychology, (4) inclusion of
the use of indigenous methodologies, and (5) recognition of the need for an interdisciplinary psychology.
Though it is not without flaws, it was during the height of Filipino Psychology had undoubtedly been the
most salient period in the history of psychology in the Philippines. It is unfortunate that after the death of Commented [JA14]: I’m confused. What are you saying?
Enriquez the same fervour in the discourse had never beenwas never seen again, even those who had Commented [JA15]: And who are these? Can you give actual
names or an organization?
supposedly inherited the torch of Filipino Psychology look as if these theoretical innovations seems to
have been lost on them—opting to take a few steps back into either a tokenistic use of indigenous
concepts and rehashing Western colonial methods under the name of competitive globalization or as a
blind reactive attempt of inclusivity.

I have (admittedly) painted a disturbing and horrifying picture of psychology. However, it is as it

must be. We can never hope to rectify or change for the better the things we avert our eyes from. If we
wish to develop a psychology that is both emancipatory and progressive, changes must be made not in
individualized isolated sectors of the field but systemically. Parker (2007) had discussed in much more
detail than I could ever have how explanations from different fields within psychology compete against
one another instead of supplementing one another. The psychologist’s role in society must be put into a
spotlight in order for us to see what is wrong and how we are we going to make it right. From the necessary
changes of the institutions (academia included), to the effort required of psychologists. If there is any
hope for psychology to be progressive or emancipatory, psychologists must learn to interact with theory:
to engage in it, to predict its directions, to add to it, to discuss with other scholars, draw from other fields,
debate, write, synthesize, and maybe one day change the course of the field. Psychologists must recognize
the political commitment necessary to avoid blindly following the status quo.

References
Bernando, A. B. (1997). Psychology Research in the Philippines. Philippine Journal of Psychology, 38-57.

Dewey, R. A. (2017). Eclecticism in Therapy. Retrieved from intropsych:

http://www.intropsych.com/ch13-therapies/eclecticism-in-therapy.html

Jackson, M. (2013, November 4). Theoretical physics – like sex, but with no need to experiment.
Retrieved from The Conversation: https://theconversation.com/theoretical-physics-like-sex-but-
with-no-need-to-experiment-19409

Parker, I. (2007). Revolution in Psychology: Alienation to Emancipation. London: Chase Publishing

Services Ltd.

World Health Organization. (2014, August). Mental health: a state of well-being. Retrieved from WHO:
http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/mental_health/en/

Isang Pagtingin sa Teorya ayon sa punksyon nito

 Tignan ang teorya ayon sa punksyon nito sa kasaysayan

 Isang halimbawa ng teoryang pang-agham
 Halimbawa ng Marxismo

Direksyon ng teorya

 Maaaring hatiin sa dalawa ang teorya ng agham panglipunan

o Teoryang nagkukunwari na ang kabuuan ng teorya ay obhetibo
o Ang teorya ay kinikilala ang sariling pagka-subhetibo
 Ang teorya ay may direksyon na patutunguhan sapagkat katambal nito ay ang praktika

Mainstream na Sikolohiya

 Unquestioned assumptions
o Normal is good
 o Abnormal is bad
o Mental sickness exist and is diagnosed by symptoms
 Eclectic practice
o The theory is chosen to fit the case
o Depends on the institution
o Is very different from the practices in the 50’s and 60’s
o Is actually telling of their blindness to the domination of empirico-positivist
psychological tradition
o Psychological practice today had effectively bastardized psychological theory and so
long as the unspoken belief that the culmination of psychological theory is it’s
practicability in psychological settings, it’s bastardization of theory will continue.
 Problems with Mainstream Psychology Methodologies
o ‘Objective’ and ‘scientific’
o Based on Statistics
o Empiro-Positivistic Traditions
 Notable efforts
o Of course, there have been efforts before to call out psychology for its failings and even
to historicize it within the field itself
o Indigenous anti-colonial psychologies is one such effort, it had sought to reject the
impressionistic psychology imposed by a colonial power through the validation of the
realities experienced by the subjugated people. Whether or not it was successful in its
efforts to keep the political commitment to be anti-colonial is another matter.
o One other effort is the rise of critical psychology, a psychology heavily influenced by
critical theory. A psychology often misunderstood as making everything political. On the
contrary, it shows that psychology is already political, only that psychologists refuse to
acknowledge it. Which I brings us to my main point.