kinship and Social Relations in

Filipino Culture
Amaryllis T. Torres**
Inilalarawan ng artikulong ito ang kultura at pagkataong Phpino batay sa mga anyo ng pakikipag-ugnayang makikita sa ilang
pamayanang Pilipino. Ipinalalagay na ang mga pangkabuhayan at
panlipunang karanasan ng mga Piipino ay nagbunsod ng iba'tibang anyo ng tungkulin, kugnisyon at mithiin. Ang kaayusan ng
mga ugaling Piipino ay inilarawan sa parnamagitan ng pagsuri sa
pakikipag-ugnayang panlipunan. Inilalarawan ang pakikipag-ugnayan
sa agkrikulturang paraan ng pamumuhay at sa umuunlad na ekonomiyang pang-industriya. Gayun din, ang tungkulin ng sosyalisasyon
sa pagpapanatili ng mga pagpapahalagang pangkalinangan ay binigyan ng pansin.

Interest in examining the influences on behavior of the prevalent 'Fiipiho culture has been an inevitable offshoot of research
efforts to amplify the configurations of Filipino psychology.
Enriquez (1978) points to the importance of history, language
and ethnography as bases for acquiring insights on behavior. The
need to enhance the internal validity of psychological data has
been presented as the methodological argument for doing extensive work within this perspective (Mataragnon, 1980).
Kinship in Philippine Society
Value orientations and the peculiar behavior adaptations
characteristic of a people are most fully viewed against the back-

*Ba+y sa artikulong "A Portrait of Filipino Culture", Philippine Social Sciences

and Humanities Review, 47 (1-4); 243-264.
**Associate Propesor, Institute of Social Work and Community Development,
Umbersidad ng Pilipinas at Professorial Lecturer din sa Departamento ng Sikolohiya,
U. P.
487

drop of key social structures (jocano, 1966). These structures

provide the guidelines for ideal forms of interpersonal relations
and prescribe behaviors among the members of the social unit.
A. The Kinship Structure
The kinship structure has been consistently identified as
the, primary socialization unit in Philippine society (Kaut,
1965; Jocano, 1969; Nurge, 1965, among others). Extensive
documentations reveal that -the family is the earliest and most
continuously functioning agency of socialization. Jocano
avers:
Through this structural unit . . . local authority, rights
and obligations and modes of relationships are expressed,
defined, ordered and systematized. Interpersonal and intergroup movement of people or groups of people are largely
determined and controlled by kinship. Group alliances
are likewise formed on this basis.'9

The primacy of the family and the kinship structure in an

agricultural socioeconomic formation is best. understood in
terms of the nature of agricultural production. First, land use
of farmlands is such that farming is "a nuclear-family affair,
with the members as, the basic working unit" (Jocano, 1969).
The whole family, both old and young members, men and
women, help in farm work (Chi-Wen-Chang, 1974; Mangahas,
et. al, 1976; Bernett, 1975). As such labor is unpaid, and each
progenitor. The latter instance occurs in cases of adoption,
because adopted children are given the same duties and privileges as biological offsprings. Thus, it is the social nature of
the relationship which largely determines the family as unit
(Jocano, 1966, 1969; KaUt, 1966; Murray, 1972).
The nuclear family, as such,. includes the 'father and
mother, and unmarried children - both biological offspring

19 Jocano, Felipe Landa. The Tradiiona1 World of Malitbog. Q.C.: CDRC, 1969,
p. 153.

488

and adoptees. In its extended form the Filipino family includes bilaterally positioned relatives who may reside in the
same neighborhood or live elsewhere (Mendez & Jocano,
1974). Kinship relations extend on both sides to include
grandparents, siblings of parents, and their own offsprings.
Distinct terms are available, in the language to denote such
relationships, point to the primacy of this structural unit in
the lives of the people. Marriage and other rituals expand
the kinship structure. Gdfathers and godmothers at marriages'
and confirmations for example, are considered as kinsmen.
Four principles form the bases of the 'reciprocal behavior
patterns expected between kinsmen; bilaterally, generation,
seniority and sex. Bilateral relations, as mentioned, describe
the inclusion of relatives extending from maternal or paternal
roots. Generation refers to one's position in the structure,
lineally or collaterally. It refers to being either in the position
of aunt, or uncle, niece or nephew or son and father. As a
relational principle, it emphasizes the importance of "sociological" rather than biological age. Seniority categorizes
generations into younger and older members. For example,
it defines the reciprocal rights and obligations between older
and younger siblings. Sex also defines relationships, as illustrated by the use of specific terms denoting older brothers
and sisters, aunts and uncles.
B. Neighbors and NeighborhoOds ("Magkapitbahay")
Residence is another factor which contributes to the
understanding of kindred relations. In many rural places, it
is usually the case that households within neighborhoods
contain nuclear families related by kinship to members in
adjacent dwellings. Thus, the norms of reciprocal obligations
existing between neighbors follow those prescribed for kinsmen (Mendez & Jocano, 1974; Murphy, 1972;.Jocano, 1969).
Interestingly, no fixed physical boundaries define a neighborho6d. Rather, it is the quality and intensity of social
relationships that apparently sets off a household or a pers6n
489

as kapitbahay or kaingod. Taken in this context, the neighborhood represents "the most effective segment of the rural
society where collective responsibility and social member
gains from his labor in kind - by sharing in the harvest of rice,
for example. During planting and harvesting, members of the
kin come to assist in the activities. Non-kin labor is also used
but usually for pay. While normative reciprocal obligations
for production are implicitly between kinsmen, no such expectations are drawn with "outsiders".
The second factor which accounts for the centrality of
the family in agriculture is the fact that land use is passed on
to the succeeding generations, whether the property is owned
by the family or not. Even while parents are alive, parts of the
land used in cultivation may already be apportioned among
the offsprings. Thus, despite the evident exchange of labor and
cooperative farm practices, each member of the family is given
responsiblity over particular fields of his own (Jocano, 1969;
Lewis, 1975).
The system of agricultural production in Philippine society
is built on family labor and relations. Thus, this social unit is
central to the survival of the individual.
Kinship system in the traditional Philippine social order is
seen to be bilateral: individuals reckon kinship equally,
whether on the mother's side or the father's side. The parents
in a family may either be the individual's biological or sociological control are best carried out 20 . This means that violations of norms governing consanguinity in neighborhoods
may result in ostracism of the violator. Given the web of
sanctions existing in society, a disgruntled kinsman-neighbor
may choose to uproot himself-and relocate to other places
where he can form new attachments. The new neighborhood
will still likely include kinsmen, nevertheless, inasmuch as

Ibid

490

available property for houselots usually remain within the

family.
The Dynamics of Social Expectations
A. The Contingency Principle

The typology of kinship relations in various rural villages

has been found to be unbounded by strict lines of consanguinity. It is often emphasized that ongoing social relations, rather
than structural relations per se, define succinctly the probability of continued interpersonal attachments. Kaut, in
studying Tagalog society, postulates that needs - economic,a
political, or social in nature - rather than prescriptive rules
of structure, provide the criteria for social interaction. Grouping, he states, results from a contingency principle.
"The contingency principle . . . stems from specific definitions of social goals on the one hand and the rules of social
interaction on the other hand which allow individuals to create
among themselves, bonds of obligation, negate these and define
21
areas in which there is a lack of obligatory responsibility.
As an illustration of the principle, townspeople may
choose to ignore the rulings of an officially elcted barangay
captain, whocarries with him impersonal-legal authority, and
seek counsel from persons viewed as personalitic- traditional
leaders (e.g. town elders, babaylans or medicine men), because
the latter behave in consonance with the accepted values of
the group.' 22
Thus, the dynamics of interaction are such that individuals
continue to establish alliances insofar as they behave "properly" within the prevailing culture. Every dyadic encounter is

Asian Studies.
2 'Kau t, Charles, "The Principle of Contingency in Tagalog Society"
III(1)., p. 4.
22Jocano, Op. at.

491

assessed in this manner and it predicts the probability of

continuation or termination of such a relationship.
B. Patterns of Behavior: Pakikipagkapwa

The centrality of social interaction to Filipinos is well

respresented in the vocabulary of the languages in this society.
Kinship principles, for example are represented by specific terms, such as tiya (aunt) or lob (grandfather) to denote
generational differences, or kuya and diko (eldest and second
brther, respectively) to refer to seniority positions.
Similarly, one finds that levels and differing modes of
interaction find lexical representation (Enriquez, 1976). These
include the following concepts. 23
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

pakikitungo (civility)
pakikisalamuha (interacting with...)
pakikilahok (participating with...)
pakikibagay (in conformity with...)
pakikisama (being-along-with...)
pakikipagpalagayang-loob (being in rapport...)
pakikisangkot (getting involved. ..)
pakikiisa (being-one-with)

These concepts, quite interestingly, correspond in each

level to interactions which apparently become more intimate,
and. seem to conform to a contingency principle. The outcome
of interaction at the first level, for instance, would determine
whether or not the actors will decide to deepen the relationship or to keep it at the same level. Presumably, each person's
assessment of how well the other behaves according to cultural
expectations determines the decisions taken.
Santiago (in Enriquez, 1978) states further that the first
5 categories of interaction apply to dealings with persons
deemed as "outsiders" while the last 3 levels pertain to relationships maintained with "insiders". Since 'we have identi492

fied the family and the kinship structure as the basic social
unit, the first levels of interaction are apparently those maintained with persons outside of this social group, while the
latter types of relationships are typical of familiar interactkn s.
At the same time, the existence of interaction levels point
to the other fact that even an outsider may eventually be treated
as "one of the family", provi ded the individual finds his beha
vi or. to be socially acceptable. Again, this points to the relative flexibility of social relations in Philippine society. Kinship and kindred (angkan) do not shut off any' person from
interaction with others, regardless of socioeconomic standing,
provided that reciprocal obligations are known to both parties,
and are used as the bases of behaviors. Such developments in
social relation usually terminate in ritual kinship ties (as
compadres, for example), by which mechanism the "outsider"
formally becomes "one-of-us". Jocano, 1969).
The value commitment which emerges from the interpersonal context of the kinship structure is that of KAPWA.
Pakikipag-kapwa incorporates these prescribed rules of reciprocal privileges and . ,obligations between kindred members.
'Kapwa is the cbgniive image of these relationships, and becomes generalized in experience to include all acceptable
forms of social relationships (Enriquez, 1981).
Thus, Enriquez (1979) observes that a person recognizes
kapwa in a relationship insofar as he himself becomes aware

of a "shared identity" with another. The identity process

is facilitated by the outsome of interactions which, in this
case, apparently moves in a 'direction of mutual aceptance.
It is in such a manner that "outsiders" eventually become
considered "insiders" or hindi ibang-tao in the kapwa network.
Contrariwise, when a person fails to enact the behaviors
and values expected by the social network, he is labelled
walang kapwa-tao ("not one of us"). Such persons may be
kin or nonkin who fail to live up to the cultural expectations
of the social group.
493

The Interpersonal Framework of Social Acceptance

We have repeatedly stated that a shared set of reciprocal
expectations govern relationships within the social structure. It
has also been demonstrated that the social acceptance, of an
individual hinges on the quality of his interpersonal relations.
In this section, the concepts which underlie interpersonal behavior
are to be discussed and related to the Filipinos' value commitment of kapwa.
A. Principles of Reciprocal Obligation
The fundamental basis determining obligations and privileges in a dyadic situation is in the relative positions of two
individuals in the kinship structure. As earlier mentioned,
relations are pegged on bilaterality, generation, seniOrity'and
sex positions. Pakikipagkapwa, therefore, is normatively
dictated by these kinship principles. For example, younger
members of the family are expected to show overt and implicit
respect (paggalang) for older relatives. Public signs of disrespect are frowned upon and would be illustrative of pagkawalan kap Wa- tao.

The value of respect in relation to generation and age is

also evidenced by the use of addresses particular to relations
with either sex. Such addresses include words like lob (grandfather, tiyo (uncle) or ate (dflest sister). Meanwhile, members
of the same generation address one another by their nicknames. These observations are true in different communities
which have been studied and indicate widespread commitment
to the value rather than a peculiarity to separate societies
Ucxano, 1966; 1969, Mendez & Jcc ano, 1974 and others).
Consonant to the primacy of respect as a value, we find
that dominance and aggressive expressions are frowned upon
in interactions involving persons on different rungs of the
kinship hierarchy (Domingo, 1977; Nurge, 1965; Nydegger,
1969, Guthrie, 1966). Children are not supposed to answer
back their elders when in disagreement with them; sharing and
494

giving way (pzgbibigayan) to others is encouraged and nurtured. Even in interpersonal dealings with others on the same
level, such traits are reinforced and cultivated.
Safeguarding the mutuality of interests appears to be the
underlying mechanism in the nexus of reciprocal obligations.
Respect for elders is tantamount to recognizing them as the
authority figures in society. As such, dominance and aggression against their persons are out of place and denigrates
their social power. Authority is vested in elders by virtue of
their longer experience and also because they have the power
to withhold rewards, both material and non-material. Although these norms spring from the family structure, individuals eventually come to have the same expectations of
society's members at large. Behavior reinforced within the
primary social unit beome generalized to other social rela
tionships. For example, in a small-rural community studied
by Mendez and Jocano (1974), all those individuals in the
neighborhood whose assistance could be relied on in time of
need were considdred kapwa- tao. Thus, kapwa as the value
commitment underlying all forms of Filipino social interaction, springs from the individual's socialization within the
family netvork.
The interdependency of people in a subsistence agricultural economy benefits each one. The system of reciprocal
obligations which prescribes the exchange of labor and other
goods,. assistance during emergencies, at times of distress (pgdamay) and significant affairs, functions to enable each person,
to cope with his personal needs without the necessity for
money. It is not surprising, therefore, that utang-na-loob is
one of the key concepts for social acceptance.
Utang-na-boob, also called "contractual reciprocal . obliga-

tion" (Kaut, 1966) is supposedly characterized by the voluntary offering of material or non-material gifts, given without
any prior, agreement, accepted without any reservation, and
repaid in some' culturally determined fashion (Kaut, 1966;
Holinsteiner, 1973). Unlike reciprocal expectations emanating
495

from structural consanguinity, ulang na bob springs from

interpersonal relations. Various observers of Philippine society
disagree on the relative weight of this orientation in interpersonal relations. There remains a general agreement, nevertheless, that such a concept does function among Filipinos
in a' critical fashion. While reciprocity in Tagalog-speaking
areas is termed utang na bob, the people of Malitbog call
it utang nga kabaraslan and U tang nga kabubut'on (Jocano,
1969). Undoubtedly, equivalent words may be found in other
Philippine language as well.
In analyzing the dynamics of utang na bob, Kaut notes
that it underlies three types of social relationships possible
within and outside of the neighborhood. These relationships
include:
a. positive relationships based on actual or ritual kinship and reinforced by positive performance of utang
naloob,
b. negative relationships resulting from lack of genealogical or, ritual ties, or from .the failure of the others to
honor utang-na-boob, and
c. potential relationships still untested through lack of
contact. (Kaut, 1966).
These dynamics point to three things. First, the supposedly "volitional" gift is in fact expected because it is only among
such individuals that reciprocal obligations exist: An outsider
contracts no moral indebtedness inasmuch as he is not a
participant to the set of mutual exchanges within the hindi
ibang tao group. Thus, he may choose to reject the gift. A
member of the kin cannot reject a volitional gift and still be
considered as pakikipagkap wa-tao. It is part of his obligation
to accept, since he will later be called upon to render such
services or assistance.

kapwa group. He becomes, through repeated failure to honor

his moral indebtedness, walang pakikipagkapwa- tao, parang
hindi kapwa tao, or walazg kapwa.

Third, the seemingly "voluntary" offering of "gifts" is

compulsory to some degree. Such behaviors are, in fact,
prescribed in the social structure. What is not fixed is the
timing of the expression of the behavior. The prescriptions
for such actions may again be traced to the principles of
kinship. Newly married women are expected to be assisted
'at childbirth by older, more experienced relatives. 'During
wedding feasts, relations in all rungs of the structure come to
assist and to partake of the festivities. At deaths, or even
during illness, food and other services are "voluntarily"
offered. When one relative achieves wealth or fame, he is
expected to. assist his kin become socially mobile, too. In
Malitbog, Jocano (1969) observed that 'repayment expectations for utang na bob differentiates kin from nonkin, thus
explaining the existence of two terms for this indebtedness u tang, ngakabaraslan and utang mga kabubut'on.
B. Hiya: The Emotional Accompaniment of Kapwa

Thus far, the pattern of socially accepted interpersonal

relations has been portrayed cognitively in terms of both
Kapwa and utang na bob as value-orientations. It would be
unrealistic to believe, however, that fulfillment or violation
of reciprocal :obligations excludes the expression of feelings.,
This is especially because we have premised such cultural
norms to be individual strivings for survival, which is undoubtedly an intensely personal motive.
Setting aside methodological differences in data gathering,
again we find a general consensus that breaches or non-enactment of reciprocal obligations result in the emotional expression of hiya (also ulao in Cebuano, huya in Hiligaynon,

Second, structural relations become secondary in social

process. One labelled walang-utang-na-loob because of failure
to repay his obligation negates his relationships within the
496

497

bain in Ilocano dine in Pampango, baeng in Pangasinan)

24

Bulatao (1964) calls hiya a "painful emotion" which is expressed iii interpersonal situations perceived as "dangerous to
one's ego." However, instead of alerting the individual to
reprisal or agression, hiya results in withdrawal behavior or the
avoidance of conflict.
Jocano, in his highly insightful documentation of Malitbog
as a social group (1969) observed that hiya is felt by a person
when outcomes of relationships infringe upon the ftllowing:
a. the dignity or honor of the individual;
b. the status of the actor relative to others;
c. the internal cohesion of the family as a unit; and,
d. the reputation of the kin-group with respect to the
outside world.
The expression of hiya, as earlier stated, is introspective
rather than confrontative. The following behaviors typify this
emotion:
a. pangingimi, or the inability to express feelings openly;
b. pag-aatubiii, or hesitation to proceed with an intended
act even if the other is known to the actor, and
c. alapaap ng kaloo ban, which means "inner uncertainty
of feelings" resulting in a reluctance to interact more
fully and to proceed with intended actions because the
other is not yet fully known (Jocano, 1975).
These discussions seemingly point to hiya as a "reticenc"
felt in continuing interactions with persons who are not yet
adjudged as one of kapwa-orientation, or with those already
evaluated as walang.pa,kikipagkapwa. For instance, Santiago
(19, 78) vividly describes how eating habits and the quality of
food distinguishes between "outsiders" and "insiders" to
Bulacan society, such that formality and grandiose meals
24

FOX, Robert. "The Fiipiito Concept of Self-Esteem" Area Handbook of the

Philippines (cited by Bulatao, Jaime. "Hiya", Philippine Studies: 1964, (January)

498

characterize dinners with the former while informality and

routine meals are shared with hindi-ibang tao. Salazar (1981)
also illustrates how various modes of affixation of hiya result
in varying descriptions of social experience.. For instance, in
relation to "others", one my be hiyang-hiya or nahihiya.
Social situations may be nakakahiya or kahiya-hiya.
The reticence with which a Filipino approaches new
relationships may be reflective of initial attempts to assess
whether interactions will fall within culturally acceptable
norms. At the same time, he is careful' that his own assessments in the eyes of the other actor will be socially acceptable.
- Violations of mutual expectations also result in nonconfrontative behaviors, perhaps because of socially integrated
norms barring dominance and aggression. This would be most
characteristic of situations where the offender is of higher
status either sociologically or economically..
Besides these two reasons, threats to personal dignity,
while painful to the person, may be set aside in anticipation
of future needs. Hiya, therefore, becomes introspective so as
not to imperil prospective interactions where the person may
have great need of the assistance of the other. The avoidance
of conflict in the present, therefore, merely insures the possibility of renewed mutuality at some future date.
In this sense, hiya and utang-na-loob, as concepts related
to kapwa, reflect anticipatory coping mechanisms of the
Filipino.
Pakikipagkapwa, therefore, typifies the behavioral adaptations manifested by Filipinos within a network of reciprocal
obligations. Inasmuch as the traditional society is interpersonnally-oriented, the nuances of pakikipagkapwa depend largely'
on ongoing social processes rather then on stable structural
relations. Values and expectations are intensely important
to individuals. Wayward outcomes thus in the expression of
emotions. Hiya is but one of these feelings. Pagkagalit (anger)

499

or pagkainis (irritation) may be others. Cognitions are. likewise

rooted in kapwa, such as amor propio, pakikisama, pakikibaka,
and other saloobing (see Enrquez, 1977). Their releases in
behavioral concommitants depend again on whether out-2
comes are adjudged favorally or unfavorably. The kapwa
orientation thus conforms to the contingency principle underlying social relations.
Kapwa in Contemporary Society

We have stressed the dynamism of social development, especially in terms of socioeconomic life. The question which arises
in this context is thus: How much of pakikipagkapwa remains
in a society besieged internally and externally by pressures for
social change? Are these norms, rooted in traditiai al agriculture,
still operational principles in farm relations centered on new
technologies, or in urban centers drawn around a new productibn
system?
A.

Farm Relations

Castillo (1975) examined separate studies of farmers'

reactions to new farm technologies. Tlese investigations in
her analysis generally indicate that considerable changes are
evident in the life ways of agricultural producers.
This development has just about ended the era of the
traditionally self-sufficient farmer who grew his rice crop on his
own, using his farm labor, his seeds, his carabo, his plow, etc.
Now he has to establish links with the outside world for his
seeds, inputs, credit, market, farm equipment, irrigation services, technical advice and other elements considered essential
or incidental to modern agriculture.. 25

In other words, farming innovations have removed the

boundaries of interdependence from the kinship structure to
government and other service delivery institutions in society.
Whereas family labor sufficed in the past, use of HYVs dictate

a reliance on credit institutions, fertilizer producers and the

like. Such groups are Obviously outside of the traditional
circle of hindi ibang-tao.
Coincident to these changes, the farmer has lately reoriented himself to being in constant indebtedness. Loans for
purchase of inputs and machinery are common, since the new
methods for fertilization, weeding and pest eradication require considerable capital outlay. 26 Whereas, traditional
agriculture merely required contractual indebtedness through
utangna-bob, fanners now find themselves financially indebted to institutions which can never be placed within a
matrix of reciprocity. Some observers interpret this situation
as a liability to the banking system. Lacking expectations of
reciprocal obligations, farmers choose not to pay their bank
loans. Besides, the bank is an impersonal entity and kapwarelations are absent between the farmer and the institution.
Thus, there is no moral indebtedness implicit to the transactiOn.
Despite the "modernizing" outlook of farmers exposed
to new rice technologies, vestiges of traditional agricultural
values remain. Castillo singls out an apparent fatalism and
sense of helplessness in the face of drought, pestilence and
other disasters. As such, a large majority of respondents in
one study endorsed the statement "a man's fortune is in the
hands of God ,, ,27 conforming to what Jocano terms as the
theological imperatives in social Iife(1969).
*
The Filipino farmer's enthusiastic .adoption of the new
rice technology is noted to be "dramatic but unanticipated"
(Castillo, 1969) conforming to the usual outlook that tradition-bound peasants are rigid in their thinking. Yet, the
interpersonal framework of social interaction in the. pre-

25 Castillo, Gelia. All in a (irain of Rice Los Banos; SEARCA, 1975.

500

501

vaiing value system of the Filipino negates this notion, inasmuch as his decision-making has repeatedly been observed to
rest on personal assessments of outcomes.
Castillo's interpretation of why farmers held positive
reactions to new cropping patterns in the late sixties bear
out this view. She states:
Change orientation is not only related to the social pressure
to conform to the new behavioral pattern but also to the
demonstration effect in the sense that modern practices have
actually contributed to a higher level of achievement in rice
production. 28

Farmers chose to adopt the innovation because they had

directly witnessed its impact on productivity. This cognitive
orientation is still in consonance with a contingency principle.
While the social context of behavior has been altered by
technology, the underlying rationale for .behavior and value
orientations has remained unchanged. So have other aspects
of social relations.
In an ethnographic study of the town of Baras, a village
of Rizal just 50 kilometers from Manila, the patterns of social
relationships in 1970 to 1972 were found to be essentially
those described in earlier works. Mendez and Jocano (1974)
describe the continued prominence of the kinship structure
and the values attendant to it. Thus, respect, non-aggression
and nondominance were values that continued to be transmitted through socialization. Reciprocity in economic and social
relations persisted,. and were premised on kapwa as the guiding
orientation. All these were observed simultaneous to the other
fact that new planting technologies were also being introduced in the community.

- 28Thid, P. 133

502

B. Urban Patterns

The persistence of kapwa and the orientation related to

it continue to be found in families within the city. Guthrie
(1968) used the Philippine Sentence Completion Test to
measure interpersonal 'behavior patterns in 4 towns scaled
according to distance from Manila. (This study was conducted
during the same period as the ones cited by Castillo). Granting
the cultural validity of. this measure, Guthrie claims to have
obtained the -following results: a. deference - orientations with respect to higher status persons,
b. expression of utang-na-loob and paggalang in relation to
--
parents of the subjects,
C. inhibited expressions of emotions such as disappointment,
anger and anxiety - -
-concern
for
maintaining
good
interpersonal
relations
with
d.
others, especially friends;
e. fear of loneliness and rejection and financial constraints
E desire for money, prominence, success and power 29 . Differences in.orienttions are described between samples
differing in socioeconomic status (SES). For example, those
from the lower . SES communities expressed greater dependence on the opinions of others than those from the higher
SES towns Likewise, samples in low SES areas tended to be
more "moralistic" and less open in expressing hostility. Thus,
it is not the urban setting per se which seems to determine
the continued operation of values in the prevailing culture.
Rather, socioeconomic class appears to be the more crucial
factor. This observation is in - accord with the findings Guthrie
obtained in another study measuring "modernity". -(1970).

29 Guthrie, George & Azores, F. "Philippine Interpersonal Behavior Patterns". IPC

Papers Nb. 6: Modernization: Its Impact in the Philippines. Q.C.: IPC, 1968.

503

An extensive study was also done of a low-income community in the heart of Quezon City (Mendez & Jocano, 1974).
Project 2 in the Quirino District originally started out in the
early 1950s as a residential subdivision to accommodate low
salaried employees of government and private institutions. In
'1970, it was a melting pot of first and second generation
migrants with diverse provincial origins, and many' of the
residents had few or no relatives in their neighborhoods.
.
Nevertheless, at leasf one-third of .the households interviewed
were extended families, usually including grandparents from
either parent, or the nuclear family and married children.
While subscription to traditional views of kinship and
family relations were expressed by family members, in reality
conflicts were experienced by spouses and by parents and
children with regard to role definitions. Ideals of respect , and
reciprocity were still taught to offsprings and were generally
maintained. However, strict enforcement of generational or
seniority principles of kinship was no longer the rule, and
parents felt a greater need to justify punishments meted out
to their children for alleged misbehaviors. Undoubtedly, such
qualms have been influenced by Western-type standards for
the discipline 6f children.
The concept of neighbor remained essentially traditional.
Respondents considere&l as neighbors only those in proximate
dwellings who could be , trusted in times of need (kadamay
at kapanalig bob). Food exchange and giftgiving were practiced with U tang na bob as the underlying guide. Ritual
kinship ties were extended to those deemed worthy of kapwa
status. However, it was also observed that reciprocal obligations tended to be expressed more often in terms of monetary
assistance. This was particularly true in activities requiring
community participation, such as religious events. Rather than
provide services, as is true in rural areas, working spouses
preferred to contribute money for the Santacruzan (May
procession) and the Block Rosary rituals.

504

Within the same years of 1970 to 1972, we thus find that

while residents in a neighborhood within the metropolis
continued to conform to the basic orientations of kapwa with
varying, levels of commitment, those in 'a village near Manila
adhered almost religiously to these norms of interpersonal
relations. Clearly, there must be some differentiating factor
between the two communities.
C. Socialization
Jocano emphatically states that Filipino behavior patterns
will remain unchanged so long as Filipino kinship and family
ties continue to be solid and encompassing (1966). This
pronouncement is premised 'on the observation that the
family is the primary .agent for socialization in traditional
society, and so long' as it retains this role, its value system will
continue to be transmitted and will prevail.
Two studies conducted within a span of 13 years on the
same community provide an empirical perspective related to
value transmission and socialization patterns.
In 1958,, when Domingo chose to do her master's thesis
by documenting socialization practices in Cruz-na-Ligas, the
community was characterized as "semi-rural" (Domingo,
1977). This despite the fact that it nestled only three kilo-,
meters away from the central area of the campus of the
University of the Philippines. At that time,. the main occupations of the residents were in farming or in the shoe industry. Only 517 persons lived in the community, although
the place had a long history as a settlement. There was only
one main road in the community and hardly any means of
transportation to leave the premises.
Within such a setting, the value orientations transmitted
through socialization by mothers to their offsprings conformed essentially to kapwa orientations. The authority roles
were shared by the child's parents and by older relatives and
siblings., thus exemplifying kinship principles in rural Philip505

pines. Exchange of food, assistance and services typified

relationships between kinsmen and neighbors. Dominance
and aggression tendencies were discouraged or punished, while
a premium was set on socialibity with others. Achievement
training was minimal and no rigid standards for excellence in
task accomplishment were imposed. Nurturance and succorance behaviors were encouraged, especially since these
actions complemented the value system of reciprocal obligations. Similarly, obedience and respect toward parents and
elders were inculcated to ensure the smooth operation of
kinship norms.
In 1971, Lagmay returned to the community to observe
socialization practices within an area already sucked in by
urbanization. In this year, Cruz-na-Ligas had more than 4,000
residents, many of whom were immigrants from provinces
who came to stay with relatives or settled there while working
in the University and other proximate enterprises (Lagmay,
1974). The majority of the residents no longer depended
greatly on farming but were engaged in professional, technical
and manual occupations outside the community. Transportation was no longer a problem either, and the main road had
been asphalted.
Despite these physical and socioeconomic changes, Lagmay found similar socialization practices still in evidence,
although nonscientific rituals associated with childbirth were
no longer subscribed to. Some change in self-reliance training was also found, and children were generally allowed at
earlier ages to feud for themselves. Similar to what Mendez
and Jocano observed in Project 2, strict sanctions were no
longer attached to disobedience and dominance expressions.
In fact, Lagmay reports that more children tended to disobey
their parents than was found a decade earlier.
These studies tend to confirm the position that kinship
continues to reinforce the values it creates for its members.
It must be remembered, however, that these observations have
been taken- in urban communities orincinallv eniud in
506.

pursuing non-industrial occupations. As such, the pressures

for re-examining the usefulness of prevailing customs may
not have been too great. The question of whether engaging
in industrial labor affects these factors, therefore, remains an
unresolved issue and deserves further examination.
The Prevailing Image

The studies reviewed portray the following features of the

prevailing culture:
First, Filipino social psychology is best understood in the
context of the kinship structure which is the primary building
block of society.
Second, the value commitment underlying the pattern of
reciprocal privileges and obligations is kapwa, an orientation which
is manifestly related to dealing with biological and ritual kin
while being generalized to include transactions with outsiders.
Third, there are evidences that both the introduction of
technology and urban exposure result in new foci of interest of
social life, thus leading to a variety in forms of .kapwa behavior.
Fourth, despite the gleanings of new behayioral adaptations,
the underlying principles of interpersonal behavior remain essentially tied to the traditional features of reciprocal expectations.
Fifth, values transmitted in socialization continue to give
primacy to family relations while infused with discrete changes
emanating from the advent of technology , and exposure to urban
lifeways.
Studies in the past twenty-five years portray the Filipino.
kinship structure as the foundation of social expectations and
interpersonal relationships. The rootedness of behavior -in kinship
relations has been seen to spring primarily from the role of family
in agricultural production.
507

Despite the centrality of kinship, however, behavior is flexible

to the extent that ongoing social interactions are based on con.
tingency principle. Using this as a guide. to social expectations,
structural relations may be loosened, modified or even changed
as a result of the outcomes of interpersonal relations. This value
is epitomized by the set of expectations inpakikipagkapwa.
Behavior in the agriculturally dominated society, therefore,
is based on both kinship and kpwa values. However, the nation
in the .current decade is being pushed into the spiralling influence
of ah industrial socioeconomic formation. Against this backdrop,
the question of whether the features , of Filipino personality will
remain the same, or alter in some respects, larises. Foster (1962)
would say that the 'old' adaptations will remainto the extent that
these continue to effectuate the adaptations of the individual
in the 'new' setting.
Undoubtedly, continuing investigations concerning the dynamics and patterns of influence over Filipino 'psychology will
provide answers to these critical questions in the context of
ongoing social change.

SANGGUNIAN

Barnett, Milton
1975 "Substitute and Transition of Agricultural Development
among the Ibaloi." In M. Hollnsteiner Society, Culture
and the Filipino, Vol. 3, 338-346.

Bulatao, J . "Hiya". Philippine Studies

1964 12 (Jais) 424-438
Castillo, Gelia T.
1975 All in a Grain of Rice, Los Banos, Laguna: SEARCA
Chi-When Chang
1974 A Strategy for Agricultural & Rural Development in
Asian Countries. Laguna: SEARCA

508

Domingo, Maria Fe
1977 "Child Rearing Practices in Barrio Cruz-naLigas".
Phil. Journal of Psychology. 10 (2)'

Enriquez, V.G.
]977 "Filipino Psychology in the Third World." Phil.
Journal of Psychology 12 (5), 3-18..
1978 Readings in Filipino Personality. Manila CEU Graduate
Sch.
1979 "Kapwa: A Core Concept in Filipino Social Psycho-

logy " Mimeographed.

1981 "Towards a profile of the Filipino Disposition. Some
Notes on the Cultural Climate of the Philippines."

Xeroxed Abstract of Paper Presented at 8th ASIAN

ROUNDTABLE, Tokyo, Japan
Foster, George
1962 Traditional Cultures and the Impact of Technological
Change. N.Y. Harper & Brothers.

Gutrie, G. & Azores, F

1968 "Philippine Impersonal Behavior Pattern." In W.

Bello, W'and A. de Guzman II Modernization: Its

Impact of the Philippines III. IPC Papers No. 6 Q.C.
Hollnsteiner, Mary (ed.)

1975 Society, Culture and the Filipino (Vol. 1-3) Q.C.:

Ateneo de Manila Press

Jocano, Felipe Landa
1966 "Filipino Social Structure and Value System." In
Filipino Cultural Heritage. Lecture .Series No. 2.
Manila PWU.
1969. The Traditional World of' Malitbog. Q.C. CDRC, 1969.
1975 Slum as a Way of Life. Q.C. University of the Phils.
Press.

509

Kaut Charles
1965 "The Principle of Contingency in Tagalog Society."
Asian Studies. III (2 .), 1-15.

Lagmay, Leticia

Salazr, Z
1981 "Wika at Diwa": Isang Pansikololinggwistikang Analisis
sa Halimbawa , ng Konsepto ng "Hiya". In Ortega,
S. (ed). Ulat ng Ika-labindalawang Seminar sa Sikolohiya ng Wika Ika-7 ng Pebrero, 1981, 38-43.

1974 Early. Socialization in an Urbanizing Community.

Q.Q: University of the Philippines (unpublished

Masters Thesis)
Lewis, H.
1975 "The Ilocano Rice Farmer" In . Mary Hoinsteiner,
Society, Culture and the Filipino (Vol 3),356-66.
Mangahas, Miralao
1976 Tenants Lessees, Owners, Q.C.: Ateneo de Manila,
Press. Mataragnon, Rita H.
1970 "The Case for an Indigenous Psychology." Phil.
'Journal of Psychology. 12 (1), 3..8
Mendez, P.P. & F. L Jocano'
1974 The Filipino Family in Its Rural and Urban Orientation: Two Case Studies. 'Manila: CEU Research and
Development Center.
Murray, Jr. Francis
1973 Lowland Social Organization I: Local Kin Groups in
a Central Luzon Barrio." 'Phil. Sociological Review.
21.

Nurge, Ethel
1965 Life in a Leyte Village. Seattle: University of Washington.
Nydegger, W. Tarong
1969 An Ilocos barrio. In B. Whiting, ed. Six Cultures:
A Study of Child-Rearing Practices

510

511