KAPWA: A CORE CONCEPT IN FILIPINO SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY*

VIRGILIO G. ENRIQUEZ

The task of identifying key concepts for understanding a people's

way of life, social psychology, mind, personality or behaviour is
a most difficult one. To begin with, it is merely assumed that
such concepts already exist or can be made to exist through a
process of concept formulation. The present paper does not aim
to formulate a theoretical construct which might be useful for
understanding the Fi 1 i pi no mind but instead proposes to identify
an existing, meaningful, and lexicalized concept in the Filipino
national language which might provide a key to understanding
Filipino psychology.

The Local Language as a Source of Concept

Language is not merely a too 1 for communication. One need not

agree with the Sa pi r-Whorf hypothesis to be con vi need of the
clear connection between language and culture. Given this, one

*Paper read at "Key Concepts of Soc I a I Psycho I ogy in As I a" - The 20th Annua I
Conference of the Japanese Society of Social Psychology, September 1979,
International Christian University, Tokyo, Japan; also appeared In Philippine
Social Sciences and Humanities Review KLII (1-4), January-December 1978.

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

Authenticated
Download Date | 2/8/20 8:27 AM
is understandab 1y 1ed to be 1 i eve that mean i ngfu 1 concepts for
understanding a society can most probably be identified in its
indigenous language. While this belief is admittedly wrought
with uncertainties, it is quite reasonable to infer that the
language of the Philippines is as good a starting point as any,
if not better than most, for understanding Fi 1 i pi no behaviour.
In any case, I would find it logical to look for a key concept
for understanding Filipino behaviour in the Filipino language
without discounting the possibility that such a key concept might
be found in a non-Philippine language or that it may not even
exist in any other language. In a sense, science is faced with
the task of creating a 1anguage for understanding the behaviour
of man; as such, we need not assume that the key concepts needed
to understand a people's world-view are lexicalized in their
native language.

In any case, the native language is a rich source of

concepts meaningful for and significant to the local culture. My
attempt to identify in the Filipino language some concepts
important to the understanding of the Filipino personality,
world-view, and behaviour, initially turned out to be a rather
difficult one. At one point, I almost gave up, until I reassured
myself that, surely, if there is such a concept, it can be
identified. Besides, the literature abounds in concepts such as
hiya, utang na loob, pakikisama, bahala na and amor propio, among
others, which have already been identified by American and
American-oriented Filipino social scientists as important in
understanding the Filipino character.

In spite of the American orientation in the Philippine

social sciences, and the minimal use of the Filipino language in
research, teaching, and publication, some supposedly important
concepts in the understanding of Filipino behaviour have already
been identified in a number of Philippine languages.

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

Authenticated
Download Date | 2/8/20 8:27 AM
 The token use of Filipino concepts and the local
1 anguage has 1 ed to the i dent i fi cation of some
supposedly Filipino national values. Among the more
frequently mentioned values are hiya (sense of
propriety), pakikisama (yielding to the will of the
1 eader or the majority) , utang na 1 oob (gratitude) ,
amor propio (sensitivity to personal affront) and
bayanihan (togetherness in common effort). Some
regional values which have been recognized include
maratabat (a complex combination of pride, honour and
shame), balatu {sharing one's fortune), ilus {sharing
surp 1 us food), kakugi (meticulousness and attention to
detail), patugsiling (compassion), kalulu (empathy),
hataggusto or pagbibigay (generosity), paghiliupod
(faithful ness in need or in p1 enty) , and pags i nabtanay
(fidelity to one's promises). [See Elequin 1974; cited
in Enriquez 1977.]

However, the majority of such concepts eventua 11 y turn out to b,

"surface" concepts consistent with the wester.n orientation a ime•
to perpetuate the co 1 oni a 1 status of the Filipino. As I observe•
later:

The problems with the token use of Filipino

psychological concepts in the context of a western
analysis that relies on the English language and
English categories of analysis are many, It no doubt
can lead to the distortion of Philippine social reality
and the furtherance of the mi s-educat ion of the
Filipinos. It is no coincidence that Kaut {1961) hit
upon utang na loob {debt of gratitude) as a key concept
for the analysis of Tagalog interpersonal relations
considering that utang na 1oob is just one among many
psycho-soci a 1 concepts that re 1ate to the theoretically
fertile concept of loob. We have sama ng loob

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

Authenticated
Download Date | 2/8/20 8:27 AM
 (resentment), kusang loob (initiative), lakas ng loob
(guts), and many many others. Samonte [1973] needed no
1ess than three pages just to 1 i st down such concepts.
In addition, Kaut admitted that "debt of gratitude" is
not altogether unknown in Washington, DC. Even
Americans recognize utang na loob, they just happen to
prefer kaliwaan or immediate pay-offs whenever
possible. To argue that utang na loob is a Filipino
value is therefore misleading to say the least and
dangerous at best. Utang na 1oob would be convenient
in perpetuating the colonial status of the Filipino
mind. For example, the Filipino should be grateful for
"American aid" regardless of how much it is shown to be
a form of imperialism [Hayter, 1971]. It is interest-
ing to contrast the socio-psychological implications of
sama ng loob or kusang loob or lakas ng loob to that of
utang na loob [Enriquez 1977].

Instead of lifting a Filipino concept from the network of

concepts to which it belongs, it is far preferable to make full
use of the language as the main resource.

The Concept of Kapwa

The bases of interaction among people is clearly an important

aspect of social life. Without doubt, an analysis of social
interaction in the Philippine environment as codified in the
1 anguage revea 1 s a 1 ot about our wor 1d-v i ew and character. For
this reason, social interaction should be the meaningful focus of
analysis in the process of identifying the concept of kapwa.

The Filipino 1 anguage, on this score, provides conceptua 1

distinctions among several levels and modes of social inter-

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

Authenticated
Download Date | 2/8/20 8:27 AM
action. Santiago and Enriquez [1976] identified eight such
levels:

(1) pakikitungo (transaction/civility with)

(2) pakikisalimuha (interaction with)
(3) pakikilahok (joining/participating with)
(4) pakikibagay (in conformity with/in accord with)
(5) pakikisama (being along with)
(6) pakikipagpalagayan/pakikipagpalagayang-loob
(being in rapport/understanding/acceptance of)
(7) pakikisangkot (getting involved)
(8) pakikiisa (being one with)

The distinctions among these eight modes of interaction have

significance beyond the conceptual and theoretical. More
importantly than just interrelated modes of interpersonal
relations, these eight levels represent interactions which range
from the relatively uninvolved civility of pakikitungo to the
total sense of identification of pakikiisa.

The different levels of interpersonal relations are not just

conceptually but also behaviourally different. As an example,
Santiago [1976] looks at the language of food -- which is really
the language of interpersonal relationship in food-sharing --
among the Filipino Bulacan middle class. She discusses five
behaviourally recognizable levels under two general categories:

!bang-tao or "Outsider" Category

Levels: Pakikitungo (level of amenities)
Pakikibagay (level of conforming)
Pakikisama (level of adjusting)
Hindi ibang-tao or "One of us" Category
Levels: Pakikipagpalagayang-loob (level
of mutual trust)
Pakikiisa (level of fusion,
oneness and full trust)
10

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

Authenticated
Download Date | 2/8/20 8:27 AM
 The foregoing is evidence for the claim that the domain of
interpersonal relations is theoretically fertile and lexically
elaborate in Filipino. Moreover, anyone looking for a core
concept that would help explain Filipino interpersonal behaviour
cannot help but be struck by the superordinate concept of kapwa.
It is the only concept which embraces both the categories of
"outsider" (ibang-tao) and "one of us" (hindi ibang-tao).
Similarly, pakikipagkapwa embraces all the levels in both
categories.

The Meaning of Kapwa

Filipino-English dictionaries generally give the words "both" and

"fellow-being" as translations of kapwa [Panganiban 1972,
Enriquez 1979, de Guzman 1968, Calderon 1957].

However, when asked for the closest English equivalent of

kapwa, one word that generally comes to mind is the English word
"others". In meaning, the Filipino word kapwa is very different
from this: kapwa is the unity of the "self" and "others". In
English the word "others" is actually used in opposition to the
"self", and implies the recognition of the self as a separate
identity. In contrast, kapwa is a recognition of shared
identity.

The concept of pakikipagkapwa turns out to be very important

psychologically as well as philosophically. While pagtutunguhan
is another term which can be used to refer to all levels of
interaction, only the term pakikipagkapwa can be used for 'this
same purpose and at the same time indicate an ide a, va 1 ue or
paninindigan (conviction) which Filipinos consider most
important. Besides, pagtutunguhan a 1 so connotes the most
"superficial" level of interaction: the level of amenities,

11

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

Authenticated
Download Date | 2/8/20 8:27 AM
while pakikipagkapwa refers to "humanness to its highest level",
as Santiago [1976] puts it.

A person starts having a kapwa not so much because of a

recognition of status given him by others but more so because of
his awareness of shared identity. The ako (ego) and the
iba-sa-akin (others) are one and the same in kapwa psychology:
Hindi ako iba sa aking kapwa (I am no different from others).
Once ako starts thinking of himself as different from kapwa, the
self, in effect, denies the status of kapwa to the other.

Brislin [1977] notes that all cultures distinguish between

the in-group and the out-group; the member and the non-member;
the inside!' and the outsider. He surmises that this might be an
example of an etic or "universal" distinction. Yet, there seems
to be at least one culture that does not fit this mould
perfectly: that of the middle class Filipino from the Philippine
province of Bulacan. For the Bulakeno the ibang-tao (outsider)
is kapwa in the same manner that the hindi i bang-tao (one of us)
is also kapwa (the unity of the one of us and the other).

Presumably because of the importance of kapwa, the Filipino

language has two pronouns for the English "we": tayo, an
inclusive "we", and kami, an exclusive "we". As found in the
national languages of Indonesia and Malaysia, kita includes the
listener; kami excludes him.

Concepts indigenous to Filipinos are not necessarily

peculiar only to the Philippines, but they have specific meanings
which are closer to the Filipino experience [cf. Enriquez 1976].
An example of this is Jocano's comment [1975] that perhaps he was
saling-pusa (literally, left-over food for cats) c\t the First
National Conference on Filipino Psychology. The term sal i ng-pusa
(figuratively, informal member), which has no exact equivalent in
the English language, is s i gni fi cant. It indicates the value

12

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

Authenticated
Download Date | 2/8/20 8:27 AM
attached to the feelings of one another so that hypocrisy in
pakikipagkapwa is avoided. For example, if a young girl invited
to an important gathering discovers afterwards that she is not
the first choice she natura 11 y wi 11 fee 1 hurt for it wou 1 d appear
that she is merely a panakip-butas {literally "filling a gap").

Pakikisama or Pakikipagkapwa?

Previous work on Philippine values point to three "evil"

characters in Philippine interpersonal relations. These are:
(1) the walang pakikisama (one inept at the level of adjustment);
(2) the walang hiya (one who lacks a sense of propriety); and (3)
the wa 1ang utang na 1oob (one who 1acks adeptness in
reciprocating by way of gratitude).

Lynch [1964] proposes the construct of "smooth i nterpersona 1

relations" as acquired and perceived through pakikisama,
euphemism, and the use of a go-between. Perhaps, he was
successful in penetrating and reaching the highest level of
i nterpersona 1 re 1 at ions in the i bang-tao category, thus making
him believe that pakikisama is a value. However he did not take
cognizance of the importance of the other levels of interpersonal
relations beyond pakikisama, making his observation valid to a
point but definitely inadequate.

Kaut [1961] singles out utang na loob as a key concept for

the analysis of interpersonal relations in Tagalog while hiya has
been interpreted by Fox [1956] as "self-esteem" and by Bulatao
[1964] as "a painful emotion arising from a relationship with an
authority figure or with society, inhibiting self-assertion in a
situation which is perceived as dangerous to one's ego. It is a
kind of anxiety, a fear of being left exposed".

13

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

Authenticated
Download Date | 2/8/20 8:27 AM
 The attention given to pak i k i sam a has been interpreted as
consistent with the mis-education of the Filipino:

In Dissent and Counter-consciousness, Constantino

argued how the academician as recipient of mi s-
education can very well be the Philippine society's
mis-educator instead of professing the new
consciousness. Social scientists who unwittingly yank
out the concept of pakikisama from pakikitungo,
pakikibagay, pakikisalimuha, pakikipagpalagayang-loob
and paikiisa and then elevate it to a status of value
are at the same time reinforcing (intentionally or
unintentionally) skills and talents ••• sold to the
highest bidder -- usually the elite and vested interest
groups. Without question they reward docility,
conformity and western orientation. The logical
consequence is that they are negative on social protest
(Navarro, 1974). More accurately it is not pakikisama
as value which is important but pakikipagkapwa as a
Filipino paninindigan. Take the supposed social value
of pakikisama. It is not even clear if one should
accept and identify pakikisama as a Filipino value. If
it is truly a value, how do we explain the fact that
many insist on their pagkatao {dignity) and karapatan
(rights) and say outright ayaw kong mak i sama ("I don't
want to conform"). Supposing one does not want to have
a part in corruption he is identified as hindi marunong
makisama. If he does not care for docility, conformity
and the western orientation, he is walang pakisama.
What kind of value is that? What self-image does that
create for the Filipino should social scientists
perpetuate such an idea? It is probably understandable
for a westerner interested in Philippine society to
jump to the conclusion that pakikisama is a Filipino
value. After all he is not immersed in the culture,

14

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

Authenticated
Download Date | 2/8/20 8:27 AM
 his interests and goals are different, and he does not
even understand the 1 anguage~ However, the Fi 1 i pi no
should marshal his knowledge as a culture bearer and as
a speaker of the language to heighten his awareness of
Philippine social reality [Enriquez, 1977].

In another article it was argued that pakikipagkapwa, not

pakikisama, is what Filipinos value:

In spite of the fact that western psychology looms

large in psychological work in the Philippines,
especially in western-oriented universities, the full
use of Filipino has led to the identification of the
value pakikipagkapwa which is surely more important
than pakikisama. The barkada (peer group) would not be
happy with the walang pakisama but the Philipine
society at 1arge cannot accept the wa 1ang kapwa tao.
Pakikipagkapwa is both a paninindigan (conviction) and
a value. It includes all the other mentioned modes and
levels of inter-action. Pakikisama is a form of
pakikipagkapwa but not the other way around. In fact,
pakikisalimuha is even closer than pakikisama in
meaning to pakikipagkapwa [Enriquez, 1977].

One argument for the greater importance of kapwa in Filipino

thought and behaviour is the shock or disbelief that the Filipino
registers when confronted with one who is supposedly walang kapwa
(-tao) [without respect for another human being]. If one is
walang pakisama, others might still say "He will eventually
learn" or "Let him be; that's his prerogative". If one is walang
hiya {shameless), others say "His parents should teach him a
thing or two". If one is wa 1ang utang na 1oob others might
advise "Avoid him". But if one is walang kapwa tao, people say
"He must have reached rock-bottom"; napakasama na niya, "He is
the worst".
15

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

Authenticated
Download Date | 2/8/20 8:27 AM
 Pakikipagkapwa as a conviction does not simply imply either
paki kitungo (amenities) or paki ki sama {adjusting) or any of the
other modes and levels of inter-action.

Pakikipagkapwa is much deeper and profound in its

implications. It also means accepting and dealing with
the other person as an equal. The company president
and the clerk in an office may not have an equivalent
role, status, or income but the Filipino way demands
and implements the idea that they treat one another as
fe 11 ow human beings ( kapwa-tao). This means a regard
for the dignity and being of others.

Aside from the socio-psychological dimension,

pakikipagkapwa has a moral and normative aspect as a
value and paninindigan (conviction). Situations change
and relations vary according to environment. For
example, pakikipagkapwa is definitely inconsistent with
exploitative human transactions. Giving the Filipino a
bad deal is a challenge to kapwa (-tao) [Enriquez,
1977 J.

If on 1y to correct the impression that pak i ki pagkapwa is

other-oriented 1 ike pak i ki sam a, one must note that the Fi 1 i pi no
does not always concede. He knows how to resist even when he
seems utterly powerless. He knows the meaning of co-operation
and concerted action. He knows that pakikibaka (joining a
struggle) is a valid aspect of pakikipagkapwa in the face of
injustice and adversity.

Let me cone 1ude with a Tag a 1og proverb: Mad a 1 i ang magi ng
tao, mahirap ang magpakatao (It is easy to be born a tao [human],
but it is not as easy to act 1 ike one). The Pampangos de 1 i ver
essentially the same idea with: Malagua ing maguing tao,
masaguit ing magpacatau. But the Tagalogs add: Kung mahirap ang
16

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

Authenticated
Download Date | 2/8/20 8:27 AM
maging tao, lalong mahirap ang makipagkapwa-tao (If it is
d i ffi cult to be tao, it is even more difficult to mak i pagkapwa-
tao) [Eugenio, 1967].

l7

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

Authenticated
Download Date | 2/8/20 8:27 AM
Boston, Lynn C. 11 FIIlplno Bahala Na and American Fatalism". In Silliman Journal
51 ( 1968).

Brlsl In, Richard. Personal Communication. Culture Learning Institute. East-

West Centre, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, 1977.

Bulatao, Jaime C. "Hiya". Philippine Studies 12 no. 3 ( 1964).

Calderon, Sotronlo G. Talasalltaan ng lnang Wlka. Manila: lnang Wlka Pub. Co.,
1957.

de Guzman, Marla Odullo. Bagong Dlkslyonaryo Plllplno-lngles/lngles-PIIlpino.

Manila: National Bookstore, 1968.

Elequln, Eleanor. "Educational Goals, Alms and Objectives". Report of a study

by a workIng group In As I a. UNESCXJ NI ER Reg ion a I Programme tor Educat lena I
Research In Asia. Tokyo: National Institute tor Educational Research,
1974.

Enriquez, P. Jocobo, et al. Engllsh-Tagalog Vlsayan (Cebuano-llongo) Vocabulary.

Manila: Phil lpplne Book Co., 1949.

Enriquez, VIrgilio G. "PIIIplno In Psychology". Development of Scientific

Terminology as Part of the Elaboration and Intel lectuallzatlon of PII lplno.
Informal roundtable conferences on the Development of the Phil lpplne
National Language. Manila, 7 December 1976.

"Filipino Psychology In the Third World". In Philippine Journal of

Psychology 10 no. 1 (1977>.

Eugenio, Damlana L. "Philippine Proverb Lore". In Philippine Social Sciences

and Humanities Review 31 nos. 3-4 (September-December 1966).

Feliciano, Gloria. "The Limits of Western Social Research Methods In Rural

Philippines: the Need tor InnovatIon". In L1 punan no. I ( 1965 l.

Fox, Robert. ~T~h~e~~F~I~I~I~p~ln~o~~C~o~n~c~e~p~t~~o~t--~S~e~l~t--=E~s~t~e~em~. Area Handbook ot the

Philippines. Vol. I Pt. 2. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1956.

Hayter, Teresa. Aid as Imperialism. Middlesex, England: Penguin, 1971.

Jocano, F. Landa. Ang mga Babaylan at Katalonan sa klnaglsnang slkolohlya. Ulat

ng Unang Pambansang Kumperensya sa Slkolohlyng Plllplno. Lungsod Quezon:
Unlbersldad, 1976.

Kaut, Charles R. "Utang-na-loob: A system ot contractual obligation among

Tagalogs". In Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 17 (1961).

18

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

Authenticated
Download Date | 2/8/20 8:27 AM
Lynch, Frank. Social Acceptance. Four Readings on Philippine Values. Edited by
F. Lynch. 2nd rev. ed. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University, 1964.

Panganlban, Jose VIlla. Dlksyunaryo-Tesauro Plllplno-lngles. Quezon City:

Manlapaz Publishing Co., 1972.

Samonte, Elena. "Kabuuan ng mga kahulugan ng mga sallta sa larangang lekslkal ng

'loob"'• Unpublished paper. Dillman, Quezon City: University of the
Philippines, 1973.

Santiago, Carmen. "The language of food". Culinary Culture of the Philippines.

Edited by Cordero, Gilda F. Bancom, Philippines: Audlovlslon Corporation,
1976.

Santiago, Carmen and VIrgilio G. Enriquez. "Tungo sa makaplll plnong

pan ana II ks I k". Slkolohlyang Plllplno: Mga Ulat at Ballta no. 4 ( 1976l.
Also published In Panday I no. I (January 1973).

19

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

Authenticated
Download Date | 2/8/20 8:27 AM