DIALOGUE AS A RESPONSE

TO THE HUMILIATION IN
PANAGUYAW
FELIPE VELASCO NANTES, JR.
BACKGROUND
• Globalization together with modernity have made human societies more
diverse and complex.
• The concept of globalization refers us to the increasing multi-directional
economic, social, cultural and political connections that are forming across
the world and our awareness of them (Barker, 2004).
• As a consequence of globalization, on the one hand, people live closer
together, opportunities to meet other people are opened, travel has become
easier, exchange of ideas has become more efficient and cultures are
discovered and rediscovered. But on the other hand, globalization posed
certain challenges such as intolerance, prejudice, misunderstanding,
misrecognition, social fragmentation, social exclusion, violent extremism and
humiliation (Mansouri, 2017).
OBJECTIVES

• This paper aims to present the phenomenon of

humiliation and situate it in the Ilocanos’ experience of
panaguyaw.
• Also, it seeks to assess the viability of intercultural
dialogue in addressing discrimination and humiliation in
the Ilocano experience of being the culprit or victim of
panaguyaw.
THE PHENOMENON OF HUMILIATION
• The phenomenon of humiliation is historically embedded in the story of
human societies.
HUMILIATION
• There is the failure to recognize and to justly address the
dignity and rights of persons or groups. The new concept
of realpolitik has really taken place.
• Lindner (2007) said that the new concept of realpolitik has
gained mainstream acceptance in a globalizing world where
the normative system of human rights replaced fear with
feelings of humiliation. These and other experiences of
humiliation create rifts in human relationships.
HUMILIATION
• According to Lindner (2017), domination and humiliation are
intimately interlinked. Humiliation is the enforced lowering of a
group, a process of subjugation that harms or removes the dignity,
pride and honor of an individual. Consequences of humiliation
and the demanding negative emotional experience from it are far-
reaching both for individuals and groups even to the extent of
inspiring and engendering an atmosphere of terrorism.
• The subjugation, deformation and crippling of human nature is
what Lukacs (1967) said as alienation or objectification or what
Kaufmann (2011) termed as instrumentalization.
 PANAGUYAW
• identified with the act of humiliating a person because of his physical
characteristics like his color, height, size, or looks; attitudes, practices;
beliefs; language and even intellectual capabilities.
• “Panaguyaw” is thus culturally rooted inasmuch as the targets of are
shaped by a person’s cultural affiliation. The “managuyaw” emphasizes
what he thinks are the flaws or the negative traits of the person by telling
it to others in a derogatory manner.
• “Panaguyaw” is indirect since the ridicule is often said to another person
and not directed to the person who is actually the object of
“panaguyaw”.
 PANAGUYAW
• The objects of “panaguyaw” usually manifest
silence. The dark, small, ugly, etc. are the
minoritized. They do not have voice. They
remain silent and do not retaliate or even defend
themselves in the face of being objects of
“panaguyaw”, of being ridiculed. When their
flaws or limitations are being talked about and
laughed at, they are helpless and silently consent
to the ridicule. They (the victims of
“panaguyaw”) just show tolerance and
submission.
PANAGUYAW
• “Panaguyaw” is also linked to a misunderstanding of
joke and humor taken together as an expression of
the Ilocano proverb: awan ti ragragsak nu awan ti
rabrabak. The ragragsak (joy, enjoyment) is caused
by rabrabak (jokes). In “panaguyaw” however, the
jokes usually constitute the emphasis of the
weakness, misfortune, failure, “negative” traits,
beliefs, practices or characteristics of the other. The
“negative” is negative based from the perception of
the “managuyaw”. The “negatives” in the object of
“panaguyaw” are thus degrading, taken ridiculously
and can cause laughter or enjoyment. “Panaguyaw”
is making fun of the other’s “negatives”.
 PANAGUYAW AS HUMILIATION
A. in “panaguyaw”, the “managuyaw” indicates a power play or
dominace behavior. This power play manifests hegemony just like the
hegemony of the bourgeoisie (Lukacs, 1967) represented by the
“managuyaw”. The “managuyaw” thinks and feels superior over the
target or object of “panaguyaw”. “Panaguyaw” is therefore about
domination. And to dominate presupposes humiliation.
• E.G. CLASSROOM SETTING
- “anya ta lablabidem? nagdambel ka la kitdin agtugaw kan wenno
agawid kan ta inka lattan agmula ti kamote, bagay mo ta
napugot/nangisit ka met!”
- Teacher in Aglipay, Quirino humiliating and slapping 4 students
• The humiliation received because of
cultural factors like intellectual capacity
and because of color is real. Being put
down in these cases means that the
society sets standards for what is
considered worthy of respect and
recognition. The dichotomy such as
intelligent/unintelligent, fair
skinned/dark skinned, rich/poor presents
the dominance of the numerator over the
denominator.
PANAGUYAW AS HUMILIATION

B. In“panaguyaw”, the “managuyaw” there is

misrecognition and disrespect. Lindner (2017) said that
humiliation happens when recognition and respect are
withdrawn. The Ilocano who is “managuyaw” has the
intention of putting a person down so he will be lifted up, of
humiliating so that he will feel proud and of embarrassing so
that he will feel good. Hegel (1977) called this the “struggle
for recognition.”
• The Ilocano “managuyaw” targets “the ugly” person, the “fat
woman”, the short, black girl, etc.
• E.G. - “anyan ti lukmeg na dayta ga babai, kasla elepante wenno
lumba-lumba! Ha! Ha!”
- “Ney, isem nga isem kasla napintas, nakalalaad met,
rukkapi la garud ti ngipennan, nakadikdikki pay!”
- Some Ilocanos say “nadugyot” ti ag-momma
PANAGUYAW AS HUMILIATION
• in “panaguyaw”, the “managuyaw” uses/humiliates the victim to advance his
own interests.
• There is also the failure to acknowledge or appreciate the good
characteristics of a person since in “panaguyaw” these are overshadowed by
the unpleasant characteristics which are attributed or often fabricated by the
“managuyaw”.
OFFICIAL DISCOURSE ON
INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE
• Charles Taylor (1994) claimed that there is an
increasing demand for recognition both by
groups and individuals based on the notion of
dignity and for the equal status of cultures and
genders. But this can take place in dialogue
with or in struggle against the significant other.
Taylor maintained that our identity is partly
shaped by recognition or its absence, often by
the misrecognition of others.
• The White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue (2008) then responded
to these by proposing intercultural dialogue. Intercultural
dialogue is a major tool to be used in managing multiple cultural
affiliations in a multicultural environment.
• Parekh (2000) claimed that cultural diversity creates a climate in
which different cultures can engage in a mutually beneficial
dialogue.
• Intercultural dialogue as described in the White Paper (2008) is an
open and respectful exchange of views between individuals and
groups from varied cultural backgrounds and the willingness and
capacity to listen to each other. While it may serve other
purposes, intercultural dialogue’s overriding objective is to
promote full respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of
law for us to live together peacefully and constructively in a
multicultural world, to develop a sense of community and
belonging and to prevent and resolve conflicts.
ENGAGING THE MANAGUYAW IN
DIALOGUE
• A potential way to address the issues created by the Ilocano trait of
“panaguyaw” and to at least mitigate also its potentially damaging effects is
through dialogue. “Panaguyaw” is a misrecognition (Taylor, 1994) of the
dignity and identity of the other. The “managuyaw” criticizes negatively the
“outsiders” of his culture, of his own perceived standards of what is
beautiful, worthy or acceptable. Insofar as we live in a diverse society, there
are ethnic, religious, linguistic, behavioral, and cultural divides. These
differences are opportunities for “panaguyaw”. The tendency to do
“panaguyaw”, to misrecognize and humiliate, objectify and instrumentalize
others is made easier by modernity (like the use of electronic gadgets and
social media).
• In the multicultural society, we cannot simply be subsumed to
cultural uniformity and cultural standards (Rathje, 2009) or live
with homogeneity and the collective understanding of culture
(Allwood, 2011), there is a need to uphold human rights, human
dignity and identity. The shaping and forming of identity,
however, does not only take place in the mind of individuals,
separated from the outside world, but is, as “the crucial feature of
human life is its fundamentally dialogical character”( Taylor,
1994, 77). To prevent the propensity for “panaguyaw” and
alleviate their devastating effects, there is a need for dialogue
across people and across cultures.
• Through dialogue, specifically between the
“managuyaw” and its victims, the spheres of recognition
namely love, equal treatment in law and self-esteem
would be achieved (Honneth, 2004).
• Just like in the global context, with dialogue, there will be
cooperation to save our sinking ship, dignity transition
toward a decent global village for all people and to co-
exist peacefully (Lindner, 2017).
• In the case of “panaguyaw”, the victims are considered as the
minoritized or marginalized group. They are humiliated of the basis of
their physical appearances, belief systems, educational background, or
socio-economic standing which are commonly culturally influenced.
To break the silence and tolerance of the victims of “panaguyaw”,
there is a need for dialogue. Dialogue alerts both the “managuyaw”
and its minoritized victim of their biases and enables them to expand
their horizon of thought. And dialogue is possible only if each accepts
the other as equal conversational partner. This would lead to equality
of self-esteem, economic, political power and access to public space
(Parekh, 2000) which would mean the recognition and inclusion of the
other.
 AGYAMANAK UNAY!

NARAGSAK A PASKUA KEN

NARANG-AY A BARO NGA TAWEN
TAYO AMIN!!!!