Chapter 3

HISTORY AND CULTURAL IDENTITY: THE PHILIPPINE

CASE Rolando M. Gripaldo, Ph.D.
De La Salle University, Manila

Cultural identity evolves with historical development. Sometimes the

evolution is so slow that the cultural identity of a community is identified as
virtually the same as that of centuries ago. This is usually the case for primitive
ethnic or tribal identities. In another case, the evolution is fast compared with
the first case such that the cultural identity of a community contains many
foreign cultural elements although it is still identified with many important
ethnic cultural traits. In the third scenario, the evolution is much faster than the
second case such that the cultural identity of the group assumes most of the
foreign cultural traits, usually those brought about by Westernization. In the last
scenario, the evolution is fastest such that the cultural identity of the community
is very similar to the Western cultural identity although slight vestiges of its
ethnic or racial origin may still be noticeable. The Philippine case belongs to the
fourth scenario and the purpose of the paper is to philosophically explain how
such a scenario comes about.

Certainly, the current usage of the term “cultural identity” is contextual

and will have different meanings in different contexts. This is especially true
when one migrates to another country and, depending upon the context, he or
she will be culturally identified as of ethnic, racial, national, etc., identity.

This paper will argue that Filipino cultural identity is still something in
the making within the greater purview of the Western culture—a positive
cultural identity which Filipinos can be proud of and which foreigners can
affirm in a favorable light.
Introduction

History, on one hand, is defined as the study of the records of the past.
This includes written records, archeological artifacts, ruins, and even traditions
and literature orally transmitted from generation to generation. Cultural identity,
on the other hand, is that aspect or aspects of a culture that a people are proud to
identify themselves with and which foreigners usually mention with awe or
admiration. “Cultural identity” connotes something positive, admirable, and
enduring. It also connotes an ethnic or a racial underpinning. The Ibanag culture
is ethnic while the Ibanag as a Filipino (Malay race) is racial. In ordinary
everyday speech, however, “ethnic” and “racial” are sometimes used
interchangeably.
A nation generally consists of different tribes, and so there is a tribal
cultural identity and a national cultural identity. It is possible in a war-torn
country, as in a civil war, or in a postcolonial nation that there are only tribal
cultural identities without a national cultural identity. And each tribe may want
secession or complete independence. They would not want to avail themselves of
a national citizenship. Cultural traits are aspects of culture and, at least, one or a
group of these may serve as a benchmark for cultural identity for as long as the
people can positively identify themselves with that benchmark and generally
foreigners recognize it. The Japanese sumo wrestling is one example. A negative
cultural trait or tradition, as in a tradition of corruption, could not serve as the
identifying mark for cultural identity acceptable by the people concerned even if
foreigners would keep on mentioning it.
This paper will examine the role that history plays in the molding of a
people’s cultural identity. In particular it will sketchily trace the evolution of the
Filipino national culture and identify aspects of culture that would explain the
present state of the Filipino culture.

History and Culture

The term culture may be defined broadly as the sum total of what a tribe
or group of people produced (material or nonmaterial), is producing, and will
probably be producing in the future. What they produce—consciously or
unconsciously— could be tools, clothing, cooking utensils, weaponry,
technologies, unexpected outcomes, mores, or codes as in religion, and the like.
And they will continue producing these things, probably with more improved
efficiency, design or style, and finesse. The “make” can be distinctly identified—
generally speaking—with their tribe or their period in history. If they discontinue
producing, (e.g., a particular tool), it is probably because it is replaced with tools
of much improved efficiency. The criterion of utility is one consideration here.
The former tool has outlived its usefulness.
Edward Tylor (1974) looks at culture as “that complex whole which
includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any capabilities and
habits acquired by man as a member of society” (italics supplied). My emphasis
is on the human production or creation of culture. Production connotes an
interiority, (i.e., coming from within the subject himself or herself), that reflects a
lived experience. Albert Dondeyne (1964) talks of historicity as emanating from
humans, and—to my mind—so is culturicity. Aspects of culture can be acquired,
but once acquired they are adapted, reconstituted to fit the existing cultural
terrain (either of the individual or the group), or reproduced. Cultural outcomes
as in habits, norms plus sanctions, and customs are sometimes unexpectedly,
unintentionally, or unconsciously produced. They are noticed as patterns or ways
of thinking or behaving much later in life. From time to time they are evaluated,
reevaluated, reproduced, reinforced, discarded, modified, or replaced. In other
cases, when these outcomes are determined by some goals or purposes, they are
consciously produced. Charles Taylor thinks of culture as a “public place” or a
“common [social] space” by which an individual is situated or born into, and by
which he or she grows in political association with others through a shared
communication vocabulary. While the person grows with culture, culture
likewise grows with him or her. A national culture is one that towers over and
above the minority cultures (multiculturalism) that aspire to become a part of the
national culture by first availing their members of “cultural citizenship” by
gradually assimilating their individual cultures to the culture-at-large.

If we reflect on the life of our ancient ancestors, it is unimaginable to

think that their collective memory is not essentially or virtually the same as their
cultural history, although much of these may have been forgotten or buried deep
in the unconscious. Their culture is distinctively the collective repository of all
things: political, social, artistic, linguistic, educational, economic, religious,
mythical, legal, moral, and so on. UNESCO (2002) stresses this collectivity of
culture as a “set of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual, and emotional
features of society.” It includes “art and literature, lifestyles, ways of living
together, value systems, traditions and beliefs.” It is only very much later that
these divisions of culture are given individual emphasis by social scientists and
by humanists. And more often we forget that they are parts or features of a
people’s culture. Nothing goes beyond culture, as culture over time is history.

Culture and Civilization

We all know that civilization grows out of culture. That is why we can
say that while we can have culture without civilization, we cannot have
civilization without culture. The word culture etymologically means “to
cultivate” while civilization originally means “citizen” (from civitas), which
suggests urbanization or city life with a strong political organization and
bureaucracy. The former reflects the process of refinement while the latter
reflects the partial or completed process of organized refinement. The refined
person is a civilized person. He or she is usually referred to as a “cultured
person.” Culture in this regard, that is, “high culture” is usually taken as
equivalent to civilization. Below the civilized culture is mass culture, or what is
sometimes referred to as “primitive culture,” “barbaric culture,” “low culture,”
“uncultured,” “without culture,” or the like.

No doubt social scientists think in terms of their specializations. Even

among anthropologists they tend to focus on their respective fields. Leslie White
(1949) invented the word “symbolate” to refer to a cultural object that comes
about from the act of symbolization, such as a work of art, a tool, a moral code,
etc. It is argued that culture comes about simultaneously with symbols, for
humans have the capacity to use symbols (a type of sign), the capacity to invent
or acquire a type of language. Noam Chomsky (1975) argues that every human
being has an innate “language acquisition device.” Julian Huxley (1957)
classified the social world into “mentifacts” (ideological or belief subsystem),
“socifacts” (social relationships and practices, or the sociological subsystem),
and “artifacts” (material objects and their use, or the technological subsystem).
Archaeologists are diggers of past cultures and can only generally uncover the
material remains of a culture while cultural anthropologists focus on the
nonmaterial or symbolic aspect of culture.
 Quite recently, an attempt is made in postmodernism to level off high and
low cultures. The pragmatist John Dewey (1960) started it all by arguing that we
should not limit art and its appreciation to art museums and art galleries. We can
find art in everyday life; in the quality of experience we enjoy. There is art when
we see a person with a beautiful face walking by, or one who is exquisitely
dressed up, or the elegant clothes in tribal festivals. We find art in a basketball
player who gracefully shoots a ball at the ring, or in a nicely decorated cooked
food, or in a superb workmanship by a car technician. Mike Featherstone (1991)
describes the leveling off process—the elevation of mass, tribal, and popular
(“pop”) culture to an equal footing with high culture—as a postmodernist feature
of our present civilization.

Cultural Identity

There is a political or an ideological underpinning in the notion of

“cultural identity.” An ideology is a set of values and beliefs that propels an
individual or a group of people into action. An identity, ideologically speaking,
connotes a feeling of oneness, an emotional acceptance of a totality or, at least,
of features within a given totality that one is proud of, an internal or
psychological desire to project this totality or its features to others with
exuberance, and the anticipation that others will recognize and accept it (totality)
or them (features) with respect.

Cultural identity is an evolving thing—sometimes slow, sometimes fast.

Usually the dominant tribe of a nation will assume the national cultural identity.
In other cases, if there are two or more tribes whose cultures are congruous, then
they assume an identity using a national name other than the names of their
individual tribes, a name that is historically influenced or determined.

It is possible that a civilized nation will evolve into a post-nation.

Postcolonial nations of Asia are toying with the idea of a regional identity while
the nations of Europe are gradually being transformed into post-nations, or they
are evolving into a newly emerging regional identity called the European Union
(EU). The European Union has a common monetary exchange and has generally
transcended national boundaries in terms of commercial and labor concerns. Its
corporations are transnational: they do business everywhere. An EU citizen can
travel, purchase items, and work anywhere in the Union without a passport or a
working permit. Eventually, the EU will assume a regional cultural identity.

Unfortunately, some nations—usually postcolonial ones or those

nationstates that were once colonies—are still struggling to evolve a cultural
identity which they can be proud of, an identity that is not just racial or ethnic but
one that lies above ethnicity.

The Philippine Situation

Four Groups of Filipinos

In the Philippine situation, there are many tribes and in the hinterlands we
can still find tribal identities—small groups of people wearing their tribal clothes
and doing their tribal ways. They are Filipinos in the “cultural citizenship” sense,
that is, their national identity is defined in terms of the provisions of the
constitution: namely, they are native inhabitants (born here with indigenous
parents) of the country. For many of them, their cultural citizenship does not
mean anything at all (the Aetas, for example). They know that their ancestors
have been living in this country several centuries ago.

We can also find a second group of tribes in the Philippines whose

cultural identities have been touched by modernization (which in this context is
the same as Westernization) in a minimal way. Some of them sent their children
to school and they are generally aware of their cultural citizenship. They go to
urban areas in either tribal or modern clothes but when they go home, they wear
their tribal attire. They identify themselves more as a tribe rather than as a
Filipino.

A third group of tribes are those that are more modernized compared to
the second group. They send their children to school and when they visit the
urban areas, especially the big cities, they wear modern clothes and adapt to the
ways of modernity. Their identity is defined in terms of their religious
persuasion. Some of the educated attend parties and dance in disco houses. They
generally identify themselves as Filipinos. But when they go home to their native
places, they adjust themselves again to their native or religious ways. There are
sectors in this group that spurn being called Filipinos and prefer a different label
such as “Moro” or something else.

The last group of tribes is the highly modernized (Westernized). They are
the largest group consisting of various tribes such as the Tagalog, Bisayan,
Ilokano, Kapampangan, and others. Their common perspective is outward or
global rather than inward or national. The nationalists or the inward-looking
Filipinos in this group are a minority. Renato Constantino (1966) identified them
in the article, “The Filipinos in the Philippines,” as the genuine Filipinos. The
nationalists are proud of their cultural citizenship and their cultural heritage.
They want the country to become a first world in the coming centuries. They
want the country to be industrialized and later super-industrialized. They want to
see light and heavy industries churning out cars, tractors, airplanes, ships,
rockets, and the like. They want political parties with broad programs of
government on how to make the country industrialized or super-industrialized
and not a crop of political parties and leaders whose main concern is to be in
power or to grab power to serve their own selfish interests or pretend to work for
the national interests where their idea of “national interests” is vague or
misdirected. They reject any group whose economic perspective is provincial
despite the advent of the Third Wave civilization, whose outlook is limited to
only agricultural and small and-mediumscale industrial development and
modernization, and whose labor scenario is to train the workforce into global
“hewers of wood and water,” into a “nation of nannies,” or into a nation of
second- or third-class workers. They want to build institutions that run into
decades but whose fruits are of great significance to nation building. But they are
a minority.

The Making of a Cultural Identity

“Damaged Culture”

The present cultural situation has been described as the result of a

“damaged culture” (Fallows 1987) where there is lack of nationalism and where
what is public is viewed in low esteem, without much national pride. The
argument is that the indigenous cultures of the mainstream tribes have been
supplanted with Christian and Western values brought about by Spanish and
American colonialism. Spain fostered docility and inferiority among the natives
while America introduced consumerism and the global educational outlook. Both
Spain and America supplanted the native cultures with the combined cultures of
Christianity, capitalism, and liberal democracy. Christianity was imposed among
the natives and accepted with reluctance, that is, it was blended with native
religious and superstitious beliefs such that the resulting Catholic religious
version is theandric ontonomy (Mercado 2004), a blend of the sacred and the
profane, a compromise between acculturation and inculturation.

The Chinese and Spanish mestizos (together with foreign transnational

corporations) whose Philippine nationalistic sentiment is generally suspect,
basically control capitalism in the Philippines. It is said, for example, that the
brochures one read at the planes of the Philippine Airlines (controlled by the
Chinese Filipino Lucio Tan) do not promote the many Philippine tourist spots
and products while other Asian airlines promote theirs. A Philippine Airlines
brochure, for example, had the Malaysian Petronas Twin Towers at its cover.

The native political system, the barangay, was of different ideological

persuasions, two of which were fully documented: the autocratic and the
democratic. The autocratic, of course, was authoritarian or despotic while the
democratic had a jury judicial system and a consultative legislative system. The
datu or chieftain always consulted the elders. Spanish colonialism practiced the
autocratic system while American colonialism trained the Filipinos in the
democratic system. However, the liberal democracy that developed was the
presidential—not the parliamentary—system, and the Filipino version of it
always became a clash, instead of a partnership, between the executive and
legislative branches of government. The consequences were inefficiency in the
passage of vital laws, delays in the approval of the annual budget that likewise
delay the needed financial increases in the delivery of basic services,
nontransparent accountability of executive officials through the legislative
system in terms of financial expenditures on certain projects (thereby fostering
accusations of alleged corruption), and the apparent political opposition’s
penchant attitude for legislative inquiries not in aid of legislation but in aid of
government destabilization (during the time of the Arroyo administration). The
net result of all these is the slow pace of national development.
 Right now, a number of people appear to favor the shift from the
presidential to the parliamentary system. In fact, many of them believe that the
main culprit why the Philippines lag behind its Asian neighbors in economic
development is the slow-responsive presidential political system. They want
distinct political programs such as a labor party that fights for labor rights as
against a party that favors the rich or other sectors of society.

CONCLUSION

While culture develops in history and history feeds on culture for its
development, some individuals and groups move faster in cultural and historical
development while others lag behind in various stages of growth. This is not only
true among persons and tribes but also among nations or states. Filipino
nationalists and patriots describe the Philippines as a nation without a soul, a
cultural shipwreck that does not know where it is going. It is said to be a
“damaged culture,” with nothing much to be proud of historically as a nation. Its
Christianity is sacrilegiously adulterated (see Gripaldo 2005c), its declaration of
independence shortlived, its political leaders apparently directionless (their goals
are at crosspurposes with each other such that the net effect was to cancel out),
and its culture largely draped with colonial and crab mentalities. At this point in
time, the Filipino people should not think of what the Filipino nation or its
political leaders can do for them, but of what they as ordinary citizens can do for
their nation. Some ordinary citizens are better situated than others, and while
their political leaders may still be wondering what is wrong with them, these
better-situated citizens can take the lead in pursuing a grand vision for their
country through civil societies. The task of these societies should be to restore
hope among the hopeless, provide the means for them to develop a sense of
human dignity, and to take pride in their own produce, on their own effort toward
cultural development and nation-building.