Making Sense of Being and Becoming Filipinos:

An Indigenous Psychology Perspective

JAY A. YACAT
University of the Philippines, Diliman

This qualitative study explored how 36 undergraduate students from the

University of the Philippines who were born, raised and currently residing in the
Philippines make sense of their “pagka-Pilipino” (being Filipinos). Using the
method of ginabayang talakayan (indigenous facilitated discussions), it was
found that notions of “being Filipino” were shaped by any of three factors: a
sense of shared origins (pinagmulan); growing up in a similar cultural milieu
(kinalakhan) and a shared consciousness (kamalayan). This may suggest
uniformity in the participants’ definitions of “who the Filipino is” but analysis
reveals that different people and groups tend to place different emphases on the
three factors in their own attempts to come to terms with their identities as
Filipinos. Hence, “Filipino” and “being Filipino” may evoke different meanings
among different people.

National identity may be considered as one of the most complex, even most highly
contested, concepts in this modern era. It may also have brought about the most dramatic
effects, both positive and negative, in world history (Salazar, 1998). National identity
has been the rallying cry of the colonized as they fought for their freedom and
independence from colonizers. But at the same time, it also served as fuel for the
oppression and discrimination of individuals and groups considered as “not one of us”.

Despite these powerful yet opposite effects, interest on national identity within
psychology remains to be rather limited. The individualist focus in mainstream
psychology may account for this lack of interest. National identity and its relative,
nationalism, may be deemed as too “macro” a construct for a psychological lens. Another
reason may be that the concept may be too difficult to manage or operationalize since the
affiliate concept of nation is also fraught with much semantic confusion (Jackson and
Penrose, 1993). I found that if national identity is discussed, it is framed rather
negatively, e.g., as a source of intergroup tensions (Cassidy and Trew, 1998) or in the
reproduction and maintenance of stereotypes.
Yacat
Page 2 of 18

However, the increasing popularity of social categorization approaches may have

provided some initial spark to this fledgling domain. Credit could be given to Tajfel
(1969, 1970) who acknowledged the importance of membership to broader social groups
such as the nation to our social identity. This recognition provided the preliminary basis
for the development of his social identity theory (Salazar, 1998).

In contrast, national identity has been a long standing concern in the Philippines.
However, Conaco (1996) observed that the popular approach is to examine the concept in
its socio-political-historical context. Examples of this approach would be Constantino’s
(1974) treatise on the mis-education of the Filipino and even Enriquez’s (1977) critique
on supposedly Filipino national values. In a series of surveys, Doronila (1982, 1989 and
1992) provided the earliest empirical work on Filipino national identification.

Within Philippine psychology, however, very few empirical studies have been conducted.
Cipres-Ortega (1984) explored the development of social-psychological concepts,
including national identity, among children. Using a social cognitive approach, Conaco
(1996) examined the location of national identity within the matrix of social identities
identified as relevant by Filipino college students.

In general, the dominant discourse on national identity tends to focus only on the political
aspects. Hence, there is a tendency to use national identity and citizenship
interchangeably (Azurin, 1995). In this sense, national identity becomes a purely
political identity and refers only to identification with the state. However, an emerging
view treats national identity also as a cultural identity (Anttila, 1997).

I feel that the role of culture in identity should never be underestimated nor neglected. I
define culture as a system that creates meaning. A model called the circuit of culture
demonstrates a process whereby culture gathers meaning at five different 'moments' -
representation, identity, production, consumption, and regulation (du Gay et al, 1997).
Each of these 'moments' is interlinked with the other 'moments' in an on-going process of
cultural encoding and dissemination. According to this formulation, identities are created,
 Making Sense of Our Being Filipinos
Page 3 of 18
used and regulated within a culture that provides a set of meanings through a symbolic
system of representation that feeds on identity positions.

Following this formulation, it is interesting to see how representations influence identity

positions and vice versa. In particular, it would be fascinating to examine how
representations of what it means to be a Filipino influence and are influenced by our
identity positions as Filipino.

Figure 1. The circuit of culture

This sensitivity to culture as a primary context for meaning (and the subsequent creation
and representation of identities) is one of the arenas of the indigenous psychology
perspective. Enriquez (1976) decried the seemingly uncritical acceptance of Western
theories, models, techniques and methods that dominated Philippine psychology in the
1970s. This lack of sensitivity to Filipino cultural conditions, in his view, led to a
psychology that is alienating and alienated from the very people it was designed to serve.
He envisioned to formalize a psychology that would be sensitive to Filipino realities and
Yacat
Page 4 of 18

context, a psychology he termed as sikolohiyang Pilipino (Filipino psychology), but

without neglecting knowledge derived in Western psychology that was found to be
applicable to the Philippine setting (Enriquez, 1994). Thus, the indigenization of
psychology in the Philippines was started.

Sinha (1997) identified four threads that define indigenous psychological perspectives: a)
arise from within the culture; b) reflect local behaviors; c) interpret data from a local
frame of reference; and d) yield results that are locally relevant. In essence, indigenous
psychology aims to produce knowledge and practice that are culturally meaningful and
relevant.

It is ironic that, despite the emphasis of sikolohiyang Pilipino on identity and

consciousness, no empirical investigation of Filipino national identity from an indigenous
psychological perspective has been done. The present study is an attempt to bridge this
gap. Specifically, the study aimed to: a) surface meanings that participants associate with
the term “Filipino”; b) explore their bases for defining the Filipino; c) examine the
notions of “being Filipino”; and d) identify persons and contexts that shape their ideas
and beliefs about being Filipino.

METHODOLOGY

In this study, I utilized a qualitative approach since I found this approach most consistent
with the indigenous psychology perspective. In qualitative research, the wholeness of
experience is valued and the discovery of meaning and relevance is prioritized. I
employed the ginabayang talakayan (GT) or facilitated discussion, an indigenous
research method that is frequently used in the elaboration of issues or concepts (such as
the concepts of pagkalalake at pagkababae in Pe-Pua et al., 1993), or in the collective
analysis of problems, and decision-making (Galvez, 1988). In this research, I used the
GT mainly to surface the meanings attached by the participants to the concept of being
Filipino. Similar to the focus groups, the collective nature of the GT method also moves
away from psychology’s “essentially individualistic framework” (Puddifoot, 1995).
 Making Sense of Our Being Filipinos
Page 5 of 18

Participants

Thirty-six undergraduate students (18 males and 18 females) from the University of the
Philippines Diliman participated in the study. UP was chosen since it has a diverse
undergraduate student population base, with a number of students coming from
geographic locations outside Metro Manila and Luzon.

The participants represented six cultural groupings: Metro Manila and Batangas (Luzon);
Iloilo and Cebu (Visayas); and Christians and Muslims (Mindanao). I approached
different student organizations in order to identify and recruit potential participants.
Aside from these, they were also recruited based on the following criteria: 1) both parents
were Filipinos; 2) born, raised and currently residing in the Philippines; 3) finished
elementary and secondary education in their home regions or provinces; and 4)
undergraduates at the time of study.

The mean age of the participants is 19.47 years. More than half are products of private
schools: elementary (77.8%) and secondary (63.9%). Majority of the participants (86.1%)
reported using two to five languages, with Filipino as the most used language (97.2%).

Procedure

Each GT is composed of three to five participants. I served as the facilitator for all the
six GTs. I used a guide written in Filipino in facilitating the discussions, which I
presented to every group at the start of the GT for approval. I also asked their permission
to record our discussions. Before we started, I explained to the participants the purpose
of the research and the details of the GT process. I emphasized to each group that they
have the prerogative to steer the discussion in the direction and pace that they desired.

The discussions took place in the participants’ accustomed environments, usually in their
tambayans (student nooks) or in empty classrooms in the campus. The sessions usually
Yacat
Page 6 of 18

lasted from one to one and a half hours. At the end of every discussion, I asked the
participants about the process and thanked each one for their time and contributions.

All the discussions were transcribed and the transcripts were the bases of my analysis. I
coded bits of information that I deemed important. I gave particular attention to
“indigenous concepts,” or terms used by the participants to label their experiences,
feelings or thoughts (Patton, 1990). I then organized the coded information into
categories or themes. I also looked for similarities and differences across cultural
groupings. I also took note of illuminating or exemplary quotes from the participants.

After the analysis, I attempted to present the findings to the participants, but I was not
able to re-convene all the groups for such a purpose. I was only able to gather the Metro
Manila participants for the validation phase.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

I would like to share an interesting observation that I have made as I posed my initial
questions to the groups. While the participants gave immediate replies to the question
“Are you a Filipino?,” an uncertain silence usually prevailed when I asked them: “Why
do you say so?” Some gave me incredulous and confused stares as if telling me that I
should know the answer to that question since all of us were Filipinos. Some stated that
it is easier to answer the question if a foreigner has asked it. This stance revealed to me
what Jackson and Penrose (1993) wrote about the concept of ‘race’ and ‘nation’ as being:

“…so rooted in the way we think about the world that we tend to take the
categories themselves for granted.” [emphasis mine]

The term “taken for granted” does not mean that the notion of being Filipino is
unimportant. On the contrary, the participants found their “Filipino-ness” an important
aspect of their social identity. This was similar to the findings of Conaco’s (1996) study
 Making Sense of Our Being Filipinos
Page 7 of 18
on the social identification and identity of college students. One participant from Manila
remarked:

“Kapag tinanggal sa iyo iyun, hindi mo alam kung saan ka pupunta o

nanggaling.” [If it’s taken away from you, you wouldn’t know where to
go or where you have come from”]

Being taken for granted meant that the idea of being Filipino is usually unexamined,
assumed, naturalized, and beyond inquiry in the context when the people involved in an
interaction are assumed to be all Filipinos. Hence, the question “Are you a Filipino?” is
seen to be more legitimate when it comes from an outsider. But, in the study, the
participants were asked by another Filipino to explain, examine, reflect on and even
challenge their own ideas about Filipino-ness. This was done in order to discover how
and why the meanings about being Filipino is constructed, negotiated, and re-constructed.

Loob at Labas (From within and without):

Filipino as a social category

For the participants, the label “Filipino” is a category that denotes a specific group of
people. Salient in their identification of features were attributes that separated
“Filipinos” from “non-Filipinos.” Thus, it was important for the participants in their
definition of Filipino to delineate members (ingroup) and non-members (outgroup) of the
category. This brings to mind Doronila’s (1989) concepts: boundaries of inclusion (loob)
and boundaries of exclusion (labas). The loob/labas (internatility/externality) dimension
has been found to be important in Filipino indigenous psychology (see Enriquez, 1994;
Alejo, 1990; Miranda, 1989).

Qualitative analysis of these boundaries revealed three important themes: pinagmulan,

(socio-political dimension); kinalakhan, (cultural dimension); and kamalayan,
(psychological dimension). Figure 2 represents these three dimensions.
Yacat
Page 8 of 18

Figure 2. The dimensions of being Filipino

Pinagmulan Kinalakhan

FILIPINO

Kamalayan

The first cluster of responses has something to do with the following: being born in the
Philippines, having parents who are Filipinos, residing in the Philippines, is a Filipino
citizen. Collectively, I referred to this cluster as “pinagmulan” (socio-political origins),
which corresponds to a socio-political dimension. This dimension corresponds to the
narrow definition of citizenship as stated in the 1987 Constitution.

The second theme, which I termed “kinalakhan” (cultural roots), revolves around
participation and being immersed in a cultural milieu acknowledged as Filipino. The
features identified in this cluster relate to ideas that identifies Filipinos from foreigners,
which Moerman (1974) termed as “ethnic identification devices.” The salient features in
this cluster include speaking of a Philippine language, and to a variety of beliefs and
practices the participants termed as diskarte (loosely, approach or strategy). The diskarte
concept is a fascinating one since I have heard the present generation of young Filipinos
use it in a variety of contexts (see Tan, 1997). In this study, Ima, a Manila participant,
defined diskarte as:

“the way we see things, the way we look at things at saka paano natin
pine-face yung bawat sitwasyon na ma-encounter.” [and how we face
every situation that we encounter]
 Making Sense of Our Being Filipinos
Page 9 of 18

Further exploration of the concept revealed two contexts of meanings. The first referred
to cultural behavior, which is reminiscent of Jocano’s (1997) asal. The second indicated
a values component, which Jocano termed as halaga. In this respect, diskarte would refer
to asal and halaga that the participants viewed as identifiably Filipino.

The last cluster is what I called “kamalayan” (consciousness). The responses in this
dimension are associated with awareness of the self as Filipino, acceptance of
membership in the category “Filipino”, and also pride in this membership. I called it the
psychological dimension, following Enriquez (1977):

“Filipino identity is not static; a Filipino’s self-image as a Filipino can be

as varied as his background; it goes without saying that all Filipinos are
alike regardless of all these, his consciousness of being a Filipino
psychologically define him as one no matter how he sees and defines the
Filipino.”

These stated boundaries become significant not only for identifying others who are part
of the loob or labas of the category Filipino, but also for identifying the self as loob or
labas. Interestingly, it was found that adolescents residing in the United States who self-
identified as Filipinos provided bases that could be clustered using the same dimensions
(Protacio-Marcelino, 1996). I considered the similarities as suggestive of a shared
definition of the label “Filipino” among those who are members of the category. Conaco
(1996) also observed the same tendencies in Filipino students in her study. Thus, the
dimensions may be considered as part of the participants’ social representations of being
Filipino. Also, the dimensions reflect the participants’ idea of a prototypical (stereotypic)
Filipino.

While there was a seeming consensus in the content of Filipino identity, I also found that
the salience regarded for each dimension varied across individuals and cultural
Yacat
Page 10 of 18

groupings. The different groups tended to highlight certain dimensions and aspects of the
representations that they considered as integral to being Filipino (see Table 1).

Table 1. Dimensions and aspects of Filipino identity considered as integral

across participant groups
Group Dimension Aspects
Manila Kamalayan Pride in being a Filipino
Batangas Kinalakhan Language
Cebu Kamalayan Awareness and acceptance of self as
Filipino
Iloilo Kinalakhan Cultural practices
Christians from Mindanao Kinalakhan Cultural practices
Muslims from Mindanao Pinagmulan Being a citizen of the Philippines

Participants from Manila and Cebu had a tendency to emphasize the consciousness
dimension while Batangas, Iloilo and Mindanao Christian participants considered the
cultural aspects as most important. Meanwhile, the Muslim participants regarded their
citizenship as the only important criterion for being a Filipino.

I also looked into aspects that the participants considered as non-integral in their
definitions of being Filipinos. The responses were revealing. Manila and Cebu
participants regarded the proficiency in Filipino as non-integral in their idea of a Filipino
while Muslim referred to cultural beliefs, traditions and practices as unimportant in their
classification.

What do these findings suggest? Conaco (1996) interpreted this heterogeneity as identity
confusion among her study participants. However, I am more inclined to favor the
motivational aspect of self-categorization by Abrams and Hogg (1990):

“We are driven to represent the context dependent social world, including
the self, in terms of categories which are most accessible to our cognitive
apparatus and which best fit relevant, i.e., subjectively important, useful,
meaningful, similarities and differences in stimulus domain.”
 Making Sense of Our Being Filipinos
Page 11 of 18

The similarities in the themes or dimensions represent those ideas that are most
accessible to the participants’ cognitive apparatus (the idea of a prototypical Filipino).
However, the differences accorded to the salience of each dimension reflect the attempts
by the participants to select which are subjectively important. In the case of Manila and
Cebu participants, the fact that by their own admission, their language, ideologies and
practices are more American-oriented did not prevent them from categorizing themselves
as loob by highlighting the consciousness dimension (acceptance of and pride in being a
Filipino). Meanwhile, the Muslim participants regarded themselves as loob based only
on their membership in the state. They de-emphasized the cultural dimension largely due
to the difference in religion.

This suggests that the participants were motivated to highlight those dimensions that
made them closer to the prototypical Filipino and to de-emphasize the dimensions that
distance them from this ideal. This could also indicate that the notion of being Filipino is
still a relevant identity among the participants. This finding echoes the results of
Conacco’s (1996) study.

Babaw at Lalim (Surface and Depth):

Filipino-ness as an ethical standard

While Filipino represents the social category, “pagka-Pilipino” (being Filipino or

Filipino-ness) denotes an evaluative aspect of being a member of that social group.
Filipino-ness refer to the quality of being Filipino. From the discussions, two levels of
Filipino-ness (qualities) were identified by the participants. I used the labels that the
participants actually used in the discussions: “Pilipino sa pangalan” (Filipino in name or
nominal Filipino), and “Pilipino sa puso” (Filipino by heart).

When asked to define what they meant by “Pilipino sa pangalan”, the features
enumerated by the participants corresponded to an image of a passive citizen. This
Yacat
Page 12 of 18

individual may accept or recognize that he or she is a Filipino but may not be involved in
activities that highlight the identity.

According to Covar (1995), the kind of puso one has signifies the strength of one’s
personal conviction. In this sense, a “Pilipino sa puso” is someone who considers
Filipino-ness a conviction (pananindigan). Thus, the use of the term “Pilipino sa puso”
suggests that Filipino-ness has become internalized or integrated with the loob. In the
previous section, loob/labas was used in the context of category membership. In this
section, loob refers to those ideas that are deemed important and relevant in relation to
the self, while labas may be considered as irrelevant and unimportant. While it is
appropriate to assume that “Pilipino sa puso” have deemed their Filipino-ness as loob and
thus, an important aspect of their identity, it may be too hasty to say that Filipino-ness is
labas and therefore irrelevant among “Pilipino sa pangalan.”

I would argue that nominal Filipinos, due to a recognition of the self as Filipino, also
makes Filipino-ness a part of their loob. However, there seems to be a qualitative
difference or gradation of this kind of integration into the loob. Again, I turned to Covar
(1995) for some answers. He used a Manuvu jar as a metaphor for Filipino personhood.
According to him, it has three elements: loob, labas and lalim (depth). While Covar used
lalim as a distinct aspect of pagkatao, I used lalim to signify the gradation of integration
into the loob. Thus, Pilipino sa pangalan would imply a superficial (mababaw)
integration and Pilipino sa puso would suggest a deeper (malalim) integration into the
loob.

How would we know if Filipino-ness is superficial or not? Based on Miranda’s (1989)

formulation, loob has galaw:

“Galaw is the person-al and person-alizing category. Man is personal

and personalized in his galaw, as that pagitan between his loob and his
labas, be it realized in kilos or concretized in gawa.”
 Making Sense of Our Being Filipinos
Page 13 of 18
In this sense, the difference in Pilipino sa pangalan and Pilipino sa puso lie in the activity
(galaw) of the loob or the lack of it. Since Filipino-ness is deeply integrated in a Pilipino
sa puso’s loob then it has become personal and personalized, which can only be realized
in kilos (behavior) and concretized in gawa (habit). Thus, the loob’s galaw is recognized
only when it is manifested in the labas since: “Loob can manifest itself only through
some form of externalization” (Miranda, 1989).

Thus, a Pilipino sa puso can only be recognized through his or her actions. Jayson, a
participant from Batangas, expounds:

“Parang hindi lang pina-practice yung pagiging Pilipino, nag-aaral siya sa

mga kultura sa Pilipinas. Inaalam niya yung pamumuhay ng ibang tao,
hindi lang iyong malalapit sa kaniya, parang gumagamit pa siya ng oras
para lang matutunan niya yung kultura ng Pilipinas” […does not only
practice being a Filipino, he also studies the culture. He investigates the
way of life of other people, not only those who are closest to him. This
comes to a point that he devotes a certain amount of time in studying
Filipino culture.]

Table 2 summarizes other responses by the participants as part of the galaw of Pilipino sa
puso.

Table 2. Galaw of Pilipino sa puso

Recognizes and accepts the self as Filipino

Takes pride in being Filipino
Recognizes and accepts fellow Filipinos
Has empathy for fellow Filipinos
Involved in the affairs of fellow Filipinos

The Filipino-ness of Pilipino sa pangalan is also manifested through the galaw of

their loob. Table 3 summarizes the differences between Pilipino sa pangalan and
Pilipino sa puso in terms of galaw.
Yacat
Page 14 of 18

Table 3. Differences between Pilipino sa pangalan and Pilipino sa puso

Kinds of Filipino- Level of integration Manifested
ness into the Loob “galaw”
Pilipino sa pangalan Mababaw Recognition and
(superficial) Acceptance of self
as Filipino
Pilipino sa puso Malalim Conviction in self as
(deep) Filipino

I have noticed that Filipino-ness is not simply a description of behaviors associated with
those who identify as Filipinos. It was very clear in the discussions, especially among
Manila and Cebu participants, that some individuals’ Filipino-ness is better than others.
Thus, the idea of Filipino-ness invokes some sort of an ethical standard of being Filipino.

Filipino-ness is the identity’s performative aspect. The performative is the element that
bring impetus to personhood (Tolentino, 2001). In order for an identity to be validated, it
has to be performed. Through performance, the identity is rehearsed and strengthened.

What is the relationship of Filipino-ness (identity position) to the dimensions of being a

Filipino (representation)? By examining the manifested galaw of both identity positions,
it seems that level of consciousness (kamalayan) serves as the primary criterion of
determining identity position. High level means deeper integration (Pilipino sa puso)
while low level consciousness (Pilipino sa pangalan) may account for superficial
integration.

SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSIONS

The label “Filipino” functions as a social category. And as such, it is important to

identify its boundaries. The meaningful boundaries define the loob/labas of the concept
of Filipino. Identity as Filipino was found to have three relevant components: pinagmulan
(socio-political component); kinalakhan (cultural component); and kamalayan
(psychological component). This supports the position that national identity is more than
 Making Sense of Our Being Filipinos
Page 15 of 18
a political identity. It is possible to think of national identity as three kinds of
relationships: relationship with the state; relationship with culture; and relationship with
self and others. Also, the extensiveness of the three themes across the cultural groups
denotes that these dimensions make up the representation of a prototypical Filipino.

However, the more interesting finding is that individuals and groups place differing
emphases on the three dimensions. One possible explanation would be is that they are
motivated to highlight dimensions that make them similar to this prototype and at the
same time, de-emphasize the characteristics that make them dissimilar from this
prototype. This suggests that the national identity as Filipino is important. However, the
analysis did not provide an explanation for such a motivation. Would the desire to be
similar to the prototypical Filipino imply, as social identity theory would suggest, that the
Filipino as a social category has attained a positive status in the eyes of the participants?
Unfortunately, this is beyond the study’s scope.

Another important implication is that it reveals the constructed-ness of our national

identity. Our notion of being Filipino is negotiated and not fixed. This means that our
definitions of being Filipino have the potential to be changed depending on a variety of
factors: gender, ethnicity, age, political convictions, background, upbringing among
others. True, this flexibility may bring about more confusion about our national identity
but on a more positive note, this could also provide maneuverable spaces for
marginalized groups to participate in a national context: Chinese-Filipinos, Amerasians
and other biracials in the Philippines; naturalized citizens; indigenous peoples; and non-
Christian groups.

Last, the analysis identified two kinds of Filipino-ness. This is based on the level of
identity integration into one’s loob. A more integrated sense of Filipino identity is called
“Pilipino sa puso”. The individual who has not fully integrated this sense of being
Filipino into the self is known as “Pilipino sa pangalan.” Kamalayan (psychological
sense) seems to be the primary determining factor of Filipino-ness. There is a need to
Yacat
Page 16 of 18

explore the function of the other two dimensions in determining identity positions. How
do differing emphases on the dimensions impact on the resulting identity positions?

In this study, the relationship between representation and identity position has been
explored in the context of Filipino as national identity. It was clear that both the social
context and individual subjectivity play significant roles in the direction with which
Filipino identities could take shape.

REFERENCES

Abrams, D. & Hogg, M. (1990). Social Identity Theory: Constructive and Critical
Advances.

Alejo, A. (1990). Tao Po! Tuloy! Isang Landas ng Pag-unawa sa Loob ng Tao.
Quezon City: Atene de Manila University Press.

Anttila, J. (1997). Kansallisen identifioitumisen motiiviperustaa etsimaessae/Motives for

identification with a nation. Psykologia, 32 (2); 84-92.

Azurin, A. (1995). Reinventing the Filipino Sense of Being and Becoming. University
of the Philippines Press.

Cassidy, C. and Trew, K. (1998). Identities in Northern Ireland: A multidimensional

approach. Journal of Social Issues, 54 (4); 725-740.

Cipres-Ortega, S. (1984). The Development of Social-Psychological Concepts Among

Children. Hindi nakalathalang Masteradong Tesis, UP College of Arts and
Science.

Conaco, M.C.G. (1996). Social categorization and identity in the Philippines.

Professorial Chair Paper Series No. 96-12. Quezon City: CSSP Publications.

Constantino, R. (1969). The Making of a Filipino: A Story of Philippine Colonial

Politics. Quezon City: Malaya Books.

Covar, P. (1995). Unburdening Philippine society of colonialism. Diliman Review 43(2);

15-20.

Doronila, M.L. (1982). The Limits of Educational Change. Quezon City: University
of the Philippines Press.
 Making Sense of Our Being Filipinos
Page 17 of 18

Doronila, M.L. (1989). Some preliminary data and analysis of the content and meaning of
Filipino national identity among urban Filipino schoolchildren: Implications to
education and national development. Education Resource Center Occasional
Paper.

Doronila, M.L. (1992). National Identity and Social Change. University of the
Philippines Press and the Center for Integrative and Development Studies.

Du Gay, P.; Hall, S.; Janes, L.; Mackay, H. & Negus, K. (ed.) (1997). Doing Cultural
Studies: The Story of the Sony Walkman. London, Sage/The Open University.

Enriquez, V.G. (1976). Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Perspektibo at direksiyon. Ulat ng Unang

Pambansang Kumperensiya sa Sikolohiyang Pilipino. Quezon City: Pambansang
Samahan sa Sikolohiyang Pilipino, 221-43.

Enriquez, V.G. (1977). Filipino psychology in the Third World. Philippine Journal of
Psychology, 10 (1); 3-18.

Enriquez, V.G. (1994). From Colonial to Liberation Psychology: The Philippine

Experience (International Edition). Manila: De La Salle University Press.

Galvez, R. (1988). Ang ginabayang talakayan: Katutubong pamamaraan ng sama-

samang pananaliksik. Mula sa R. Pe-Pua (pat.), Mga Piling Babasahin sa
Panlarangang Pananaliksik II.

Jackson, P. & Penrose, J. (1993). Introduction: placing “race” and nation. In P. Jackson
& J. Penrose, Constructions of Race, Place and Nation. University of
Minnesota Press; 1-23.

Jocano, F.L. (1997). Filipino Value System. Anthropology of the Filipino People II.
Punlad Research House, Inc.

Miranda, D. (1989). Loob: The Filipino Within. Manila: Divine Word Publications.

Moerman, M. (1974). Accomplishing ethnicity. In R. Turner (ed.), Ethnomethodology.

Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. 2nd Edition. Sage
Publications, Inc.

Pe-Pua, R.; Aguiling-Dalisay, G.; Sto. Domingo, M. (1993). Pagkababae at pagkalalaki:

Tungo sa pag-unawa sa sekswalidad ng mga Pilipino. Diwa, 10 (1-4); p. 1-8.
Protacio-Marcelino, E. (1996). Identidad at Etnisidad: Karanasan at Pananaw ng
mga Estudyanteng Filipino Amerikano sa California. Hindi nakalathalang
disertasyon, CSSP.
Yacat
Page 18 of 18

Puddifoot, J. (1995). Dimensions of community identity. Journal of Community and

Applied Social Psychology, 5; 357-370.

Salazar, J.M. (1998). Social identity and national identity. In S. Worchel, J. F. Morales,
D. Paez & J.C. Deschamps (eds.), Social Identity: International Perspectives.
Sage Publications, Inc.; 114-123.

Sinha, D. (1997). Indigenizing psychology. In J.W. Berry, Y. Poortinga, & J. Pandey

(Eds.), Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology. Vol 1: Theory and Method.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon; pp. 129-169.

Tajfel, H. (1969). The formation of national attitudes: A social psychological perspective.

Sa M. Sherif at C. Sherif (pat.), Interdisciplinary Relationships in the Social
Sciences. Chicago: Aldine.

Tajfel, H. (1970). Aspects of national and ethnic loyalty. Social Science Information, 9;
119-144.

Tan, M. (1997). Love and Desire: Sexual Risk Among Filipino Young Adults. Quezon
City: UP Center for Women’s Studies.

Tolentino, R. (2001). Sa Loob at Labas ng Mall Kong Sawi/ Kaliluha’y Siyang

Nangyayaring Hari: Ang Pagkatuto at Pagtatanghal ng Kulturang Popular.
Lungsod ng Quezon: Unibersidad ng Pilipinas.