Carlos Miguel Louis Boado 21st Lit

Grade 12 St. Faustina (STEM)

No Identity in Filipino Identity

In my opinion about this is, some of Filipinos already identified their identity, some Filipinos are
still identifying and some have no identity. According to my research about Filipino Identity is defining
what Filipino identity is, is to also consider what makes something “not” Filipino. In this case, we talk
about the collective sense of who we are as opposed to who we are not. However, the collective sense
(of educated Filipinos) seems, if we follow Mulder’s arguments, that there is a loss or a confusion
regarding Filipinos sense of belonging amid centuries of colonization (Mulder emphasizes American
colonization) and the use of a colonial language that has pervaded every aspect of our lives. Filipinos, so
to speak, have been “Cut off” from the past. Mulder also states that one has to ask the question, “Identity
in related to whom?” Indeed, it is only in relation to the other that I/We/Us is able to differentiate
him/herself/themselves from another, thereby constructing one’s own identity. According to Clifford (1997)
The sense of belongingness embedded in identity discourses tends to be associated with place-centric
notions of “roots”; that a shared locality and/or birthplace delineates the “us” from the “them”, as in the
case of regional reunions of Filipinos in the United States that bring together several generations of
people not known to each other but who trace their roots to a common place of origin (or ancestral origin).
Then again, in this globalized world, it is more apt to re-think this and rather situate the discourse of
identity in the context not only of “Roots” but also of “Routes”. I say this in consideration as to how being
Filipino, or a Filipino identity, is being defined by Filipinos in diaspora, or perhaps by the Overseas Filipino
Worker (OFW) itself an identity imbued with contradictions, wherein tales of victimhood are juxtaposed
with nation-state constructions of the modern-day hero who continuously negotiates between “Roots” and
“Routes”. According to Zialcita (2005) The Filipino who celebrates in his/her being the Chinese and the
Malay, the Christian tradition and the Spanish legacy, as well as the “Longing” for an America that is in
the minds and hearts of many, is indeed a mix “We are all Mestizos meaning, a man of mixed race,
especially one having Spanish and indigenous descent. While this historical production and reproduction
has led to an “Ignorance” and “Lack of Knowledge” about one’s Malay and Austronesian roots, as Mulder
says, to judge that Filipinos suffer from “Helpless Insularity” may be an extreme form of self-doubt, which
leads to a loss of one’s sense of identity. While this “Lack” of Affinity with one’s South East Asian
neighbors may be traced to a lapse in historical education and an overemphasis and overconsumption of
American culture, contemporary mobilities are changing all these. Lastly, “Filipinos do not have a unique
identity because of colonization and what they have now are borrowings from Spanish and American
influence” to sum up how most educated Filipinos describe their own identity. Travelogues and museum
exhibit often gloss over the Philippines and it’s “Culture”, oftentimes relegating it to a small page or
corner, thus enforcing its peripheral position in relation to the “rich” cultures of Asia. Also, Zialcita talks
about how much emphasis is given to Philippine indigenous cultures and artifacts (Non-Colonized) in
these kinds of expositions, while reception towards Philippine lowland culture (Hispanized, Christian,
Americanized, in other words, colonized) has been elusive. The English-speaking Filipino with a Spanish
name/surname seems misplaced in an Asia constructed by the West and continues to be defined and
redefined by both Asians themselves and others. Is there a need to be exotic? Is there a need to be
authentic? Identities are in flux, and with this, Filipino identity itself.