SOCIAL SCIENCES

Module 2
Cultural Identity
MOTIVATION
1. When do we say that a particular person or culture is unique? What are our parameters?

BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE
Cultural identity is an important contributor to people’s well-being. Identifying with a
particular culture helps people feel they belong and gives them a sense of security. An
established cultural identity has also been linked with positive outcomes in areas such as health
and education. It provides access to social networks, which provide support and shared values
and aspirations. Social networks can help to break down barriers and build a sense of trust
between people, a phenomenon sometimes referred to as social capital.
However, strong cultural identity expressed in the wrong way can contribute to barriers
between groups. And members of smaller cultural groups can feel excluded from society if
others obstruct, or are intolerant of, their cultural practices.

Identifying “Filipino Identity”

by Johanna Zulueta

Had it been published on a broadsheet in the Philippines, Niels Mulder’s essay on

Filipino identity would probably spark criticisms from the larger populace as do foreigners’
commentaries on Filipino society and culture that, rather than glorify the Filipino, beset him/her
with criticisms that are axiomatic but are nevertheless received with a defensive outburst rather
than a critical eye. However, Mulder’s essay may resonate with a lot of middle-class, educated
Filipinos who still grapple with the question of a “Filipino identity” – that in the process of
problematizing, or rather coming to terms with one’s identity, only ends up in concluding that a
Filipino identity is a “bastardized” identity and that we do not have an identity to call our “own”
(i.e., “authentic”). Nevertheless, essays from “outsiders” such as Mulder’s serve as wake-up calls
to think about what Filipino identity is and whether a Filipino identity truly exists after centuries
of colonization that made the country seem to be an “anomaly” among the Asian countries.
Indeed, as Zygmunt Bauman puts it, “one thinks of identity whenever one is not sure of where
one belongs” (Bauman #).

For this commentary, I would like to bring up the following points:

 To talk about identity is to also talk of inclusion and exclusion – a “we” vs. “they”,
“sameness” vs. “difference”; while the issue of identity has been constructed and de-constructed
in much academic discourse, an attempt to talk about this much-exhausted concept should also
take into consideration the intersection of class/status, ethnicity, and gender (among others) into
the whole problematic; and lastly, is there a need to define a Filipino identity within the context
of authenticity (that is more often than not conflated with the “exotic”, especially when looking
at cultures in Asia)?
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, in this case) 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 vis-a-vis
whom?” Indeed, it is only in relation to the Other that I/We/Us is able to differentiate
him/herself/themselves from an Other, thereby constructing one’s own identity. 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” (Clifford
#). 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”.
This problem of a Filipino identity – or the “vagueness” of it – has oftentimes been
regarded as linked to postcolonial legacies and predicaments following American rule of the
islands. The use of English as the main medium of instruction in schools, which implies a certain
degree of linguistic imperialism, in effect creates and maintains social inequality. In contrast, the
elite and the middle-classes have the upper-hand in education and academic achievement,
leaving the rest of the populace in a state of confusion regarding their national imagining and
sense of belonging, which Mulder says contributes to the underdevelopment of the Filipino’s
self-confidence and sense of responsibility as citizens of the Republic.
If one were to ask the marginalized others (i.e., less educated, lower-class individuals, as
well as women, indigenous groups, etc.) what and who a Filipino is, is there any chance that they
will reproduce what middle-class, elite, and educated Filipinos define as a Filipino identity? The
interpretation of what a nation is and what a national identity is (i.e., Filipino identity) has been
within the purview of those in power, mostly male, and in the case of the Philippines, colonial
elites. This discourse then leaves out a great majority of the population. While people in modern
societies now have the benefit of defining and choosing their identity (in this case, I can say to
choose and define a Filipino identity) based on reflexive understandings of one’s biography
(which is related to the outside world) (Giddens #), many are still left out of this whole project.
The fictive construction and non-fictive imagining of a Filipino identity oftentimes is reduced to
a myopic class consciousness that is also very much gendered. It is my sincere hope that Neils
Mulder would address this issue further in his essay.
Now, is there a need then to define a Filipino identity within the context of authenticity?
With this, we need to emphasize that authenticity is not to be conflated with exoticism, and that
while Filipino culture and identity may lack what is defined to be “Asian” and rather is seen as
disconnected from its past (i.e., the pre-colonial past), it is indeed as Zialcita (Authentic Though
Not Exotic) says, “authentic”. 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” (Zialcita #).
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 thus 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.
I have lost count of the times when colleagues and other non-academics approach me
with the following comments/questions: “Do Filipinos consider themselves as part of the
West?”, “Filipinos are too Westernized”, “Filipinos are too American and too Christian”.
Likewise, the times I invoke the legacies of the colonial past to address their queries have
escaped my memory. “Filipinos do not have a (unique) identity because of colonization and what
they have now are borrowings from Spanish and American influence” – sums up how most
educated Filipinos describe their own identity. Travelogues and museum exhibits often gloss
over the Philippines and its “culture”, oftentimes relegating it to a small page or corner, thus
enforcing its peripheral position vis-a-vis the “rich” cultures of Asia. Zialcita talks about how
much emphasis is given to Philippine indigenous cultures and artifacts (i.e., non-colonized) in
these kinds of expositions, while reception towards Philippine lowland culture (i.e., 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.

GUIDE QUESTIONS (minimum of 1-page long bond paper; single space)

1. Identify which ingroups do you belong to and your ingroups’ prejudice with your
outgroup.
 2. Reflect and list down three (3) things about your life (your culture) that you disagree
most, and yet you can’t avoid. Why? Suggest an alternative that you wish to happen.

REFERENCES
cliffnote.com/study-guides/sociology/culture and societies
http://www.filipiknow.net/life-in-pre-colonial-philippines/
http://rizalcontraryessays.blogspot.com/2005/03/philippines-century-hence.html
http://socialreport.msd.govt.nz/cultural-identity/
sabanganpwu.wordpress.com/2014/11/24/johanna-zulueta-identifying-filipino-identity