Filipino Social Thinkers

Objectives:
• To educate and inform the people behind the Filipino social thinkers.
• To imitate, when ever possible their deeds.
• To be the model in the future.
 
 
1.Isabelo de los Reyes

The social ideas of Isabelo de los Reyes, like Rizal, criticized the friars’ ownership of large tracts of
haciendas and demanded for agrarian reform for the Filipinos. As an unionist, he helped establish:
the labor movement. This movement emphasized the right of workers in the society. This social idea is
maintained until now by the human resource groups.
 
As the first president of the Union, de los Reyes also initiated the celebration of the first Labor Day on
May 1, 1902. De los Reyes’s inspiration to establish a labor union in the Philippines was based from his
readings of the works of European thinkers.

Isabelo de los Reyes contribution in the Philippines was so significant to the Filipino citizens because it
opened the eyes and minds of the people regarding the past Spanish colonization. Until now, we
Filipinos, enjoying this privilege.

2. José Rizal

José Rizal as a Social Thinker, was the Filipino national hero, can be considered as one of the
greatest Filipino social thinkers during the nineteenth century. He was the first systematic social thinker
in Southeast Asia because his writings can be used as basis of sociological theories and concepts. His
works explained the nature and conditions of Filipino colonial society during the Spanish period.
 
Rizal’s social ideas focused on the necessity to promote a genuine propaganda campaign that will
provide information about the Philippines and their people, their capabilities and achievements,
aspirations and moral rights. These social ideas were consistently discussed by Rizal in his two novels,
namely, the Noli Me Tangere (1887) and El Filibusterismo (1891). Rizal criticized the corrupt system of
the Spanish colonial government including its abusive officials. He attributed the lack of progress and
backwardness of the Philippines to Spanish colonialism. Filipinos made significant advancements in
agriculture and industry during the pre-colonial times.
During his time, he advocated of human rights, particularly on women’s rights in Philippine colonial
society. He provided number of important ideas on the rights of women and gender issues in the
Philippines during the nineteenth century.

He enumerated:
1. Filipinos must be educated.
2. Filipino women must be courageous, strong-willed, and educated.
3. Tyranny happens if people remain coward and negligent.
4. Ignorance is tantamount to servitude.
5. A person who loves his independence must first aid his fellowmen.
6. If Filipino women will remain ignorant, complacent, weak, and passive, they should not bear children.
7. All men are born equal, naked, and without bonds.
8. Filipinos should examine the kind of religion the friars are teaching them.

 
3. Claro Mayo Recto

Claro Mayo Recto was a famous Filipino nationalist. He served as majority floor leader and president
pro-tempore of the Senate. He was known as the "living legend in his lifetime” because of his brilliance
and patriotism.

Recto declared that the salvation of the country’s nationalism can only be achieved if Filipinos will learn
to assert the nationalistic virtues practiced by the our heroes and implement policies on nationalist
industrialization. According to him, the prosperity of a country depends on its Industries. He believes,
companies must be placed under the complete control of the Filipinos and not in the hands of foreign
companies. For him, “as long as foreigners control the production, manufacturing, and distribution of
the country’s main products, Filipinos will remain poor and subservient.
Recto believes that the Filipinos must be responsible for the economic condition of the country. There
are what we call forces of history, but it is for the people . . . to channel them toward the realization of
national objectives. We must accept, therefore full responsibility for the backward condition of our
economy, our political immaturity, our predilection for dramatizing minor issues to the neglect of long-
rage basic questions, and for our confusions and indecisions that have delayed for decades the progress
of the nation.”
Institute of Philippine Culture’s study on Philippine values

Objectives:
•To give importance to our Philippine values as our ancestors had started.
•The Philippine values should be continually done until now.
•Concepts, Ideas, Perceptions, motivations among others are the main factors to be considered to apply
the Philippine values.

 
Values are innate and important human concepts. An object of a positive attitude or a goal or vision of
which motivates him to action. Filipino values are considered as desirable conceptions. Acceptance by
one’s fellow for what one is, thinks oneself to be, or would like to be, and be given the treatment due to
one’s station.

Filipinos are known for pleasantness in communicating with other people. These values can be seen in
our smooth interpersonal relations or SIR. means being agreeable, even under difficult circumstances, it
is very important in Filipino society. It is easily observed and practiced in almost all human encounters of
Filipinos.
Sikolohiyang Pilipino

Objectives:
•To demonstrate and show the positive attitudes of individual to carry out a given situation thru
perception.
•To emphasize that we Filipinos have great relationship to God and fellowmen.

Filipino psychology, or Sikolohiyang Pilipino, in Filipino, is defined as the psychology rooted on the
experience, ideas, and cultural orientation of the Filipinos. It was formalized in 1975 by the Pambansang
Samahan sa Sikolohiyang Pilipino (National Association for Filipino Psychology) under the leadership of
Virgilio Enriquez, who is regarded by many as the father of Filipino Psychology.

In Sikolohiyang Pilipino, we have core values.

1. Kapwa (shared inner self/identity) as Core Value. –Kapwa is the core construct of Filipino Psychology.
Kapwa has two categories, Ibang Tao and Hindi Ibang Tao.

–Ibang Tao ("outsider") There are five interaction levels under this category:
•Pakikitungo–civility
•Pakikisalamuha–act of mixing
•Pakikilahok–act of joing
•Pakikibagay–conformity
•Pakikisama–being united with the group

–Hindi Ibang Tao ("one-of-us") There are three interaction levels under this category:
•Pakikipagpalagayang-loob: it is the act of mutual trust
•Pakikisangkot: act of joining others
•Pakikipagkaisa: being one with others

2. Pakiramdam (shared inner perceptions) as Pivotal Interpersonal Value. – Filipinos use damdam, or the
inner perception of others' emotions, as a basic tool to guide their dealings with other people.

3. Kagandahang-Loob (shared humanity) as Linking Socio-Personal. –This refers to being able to help
other people in dire need due to a perception of being together as a part of one Filipino humanity.

4. Accommodative Surface Values.

–Hiya: Loosely translated as 'shyness' by most Western psychologists, Hiya is actually 'sense of
propriety'.
–Utang na Loob: Norm of reciprocity. Filipinos are expected by their neighbors to return favors—
whether these were asked for or not—when it is needed or wanted.
–Pakikisama and Pakikipagkapwa: Smooth Interpersonal Relationship, or SIR, as coined by Lynch (1961
and 1973). This attitude is primarily guided by conformity with the majority.
5. Confrontative Surface Values.
–Bahala na: it is translated as "determination in the face of uncertainty" and is used as an expression,
almost universally, in Filipino culture.
–Lakas ng loob: This attitude is characterized by being courageous in the midst of problems and
uncertainties.
–Pakikibaka: Literally in English, it means concurrent clashes. It refers to the ability of the Filipino to
undertake revolutions and uprisings against a common enemy.

6. Societal Values.
–Karangalan: Loosely translated to dignity, this actually refers to what other people see in a person and
how they use that information to make a stand or judge about his/her worth.
•Puri: the external aspect of dignity. May refer to how other people judge a person of his/her worth.
This compels a common Filipino to conform to social norms, regardless how obsolete they are.
•Dangal: the internal aspect of dignity. May refer to how a person judges his own worth.
–Katarungan: Loosely translated to justice, this actually refers to equity in giving rewards to a person.
–Kalayaan: Freedom and mobility. Ironically, this may clash with the less important value of pakikisama
or pakikibagay (conformity).
 

 
Pantayong Pananaw

Objectives:
•To depend out point of views in a humanitarian manner in such a way of expressing our ideas and
concepts regarding the subject matter.
•To explain clearly to our listeners the topic we want to discuss on.

 
The pantayong pananaw (also called Bagong Kasaysayan, or New History) is currently the most
theoretically elaborate articulation of an indigenized social science perspective that offers a viable
alternative to (Western) positivist social science.

Pantayong Pananaw came from the words pantayo and pananaw. The term pantayo was derived from
the root word “tayo” which means “we,” the plural form of the first person pronoun and the prefix
“pan-” which means “for.” While “pananaw” means “perspective” in English. Understood as a single
term, Pantayong Pananaw means “A For-Us Perspective.” In 2003, Ramon Guillermo translated
Pantayong Pananaw as “a from-us-for-us perspective.” In this new translation, the perspective
emphasizes that the “cultural notion is not only the subject and goal of discourse but it is also the source
of it” Salazar used tayo as basis for the theoretical base of the perspective and not the pronoun kami
because according to Salazar, the latter refers to “we-speaking to others” as opposed to the former
which means “we-speaking among ourselves.” The Pantayong Pananaw introduces a “closed circuit of
interaction,” a context where discourse is carried on by and among Filipinos, without the inclusion or
interference of outside participants or dominant perspectives who are unwelcoming to Filipino interests.
Through this perspective, Filipinos can communicate freely through the use of their own concepts,
language, thought patterns, manner of relating, and interests.

1) “Pantayong Pananaw” as a descriptive concept can pertain to any social collectivity which possesses a
relatively unified and internally articulated linguistic-cultural structure of communication and interaction
and/or a sense of oneness of purpose and existence (ex., “The Japanese have a strong Pantayong
Pananaw”). Ethnic and social collectivities (including class or gender aligned aggrupations) within a
single nation can thus be said to possess PP.
2) Works and authors categorized as PP or having affinities with PP exhibit a certain style of thought and
way of speaking based largely on a critique of colonial discursive strategies which up to now still
proliferate in textbooks and more scholarly works. Some of these are: “Discourses of influence” which
attributes the origins of both the distinguishing elements and the motive forces of Philippine history and
culture to “external” influences. The point of reference of discourses of influence is usually the
originating culture while the receiving culture is merely analyzed in relation to its adequacy to or
divergence from the original (ex., “Maria is beautiful because her father was half-Spanish”; “The Filipino
is a jumble of traits from India, China, Europe, and America”). Discourses which focus on the purported
“lack of identity” of Filipinos is an auxiliary discourse which accomplishes the preliminary act of
emptying Filipino identity the better to fill it to the brim with influences. “First Filipino” discourses which
reduced Philippine history to a delayed repetition of western history (ex., “Juan dela Cruz was the first
Filipino pilot”). Similar to this type of discourse is the constant Toynbee-like parallel-mongering between
the Philippines and the West which presupposes that the western comparison would render the topic
more intelligible to the reader than if it were just left to itself (ex., “Gabriela Silang was the Joan of Arc of
the Philippines”). Once again, the point of reference is still “the West.”
Discourses of the “Discovery” (ex., “There is no more significant event in Philippine history than the
discovery of the islands by the great Magellan”). “Reactive” discourses which merely correct colonial
misconceptions about Filipinos and Philippine history, thereby remaining trapped in a discursive
dependency with colonial discourse (ex., “Filipinos are not like you say. We are also intelligent and
civilized”). Expressions of condemnation or idealization of Philippine culture as contrasted with colonial
and western values can be related to this type of discourse.
 
Pantayong Pananaw is a discourse within the indigenous tradition that was developed by Dr. Zeus
Salazar, a History professor from the History Department of University of the Philippines Diliman and
considered as the “Father of the Pantayong Pananaw.” He developed the Pantayong Pananaw discourse
as a response to the westernized perspective of the study of Philippine history and historiography.
“Considered as the most theoretically advanced and productive in terms of the number of research
outputs on the indigenization of the social sciences,” the Pantayong Pananaw introduces a
communication-based theoretical innovation on the study of Philippine Historiography. This new model
in historiography refers to the “normative speaking context within which scholars in the movement seek
to help forge a “national discourse on civilization