Module 2 (B) Flashcards
the first psychologist to analyze this value by comparing it with American fatalism.
Bostrom (1968)
published the Dictionary of Filipino Culture and Values
Thomas Andres
the Filipino attitude that makes him accept sufferings and problems, leaving everything to God; no direct translation
This attitude is a fatalistic resignation or withdrawal from an engagement or crisis or a shirking from personal responsibility
Bahala na
Lagmay (1977) explained that bahala na is not ‘‘fatalism’’ but
determination and risk- taking
When Filipinos utter the expression ‘‘Bahala na!’’ they are not leaving their fate to God and remaining passive. Rather
they are telling themselves that they are ready to face the difficult situation before them, and will do their best to achieve their objectives; the expression is a way of pumping courage into their system
an American scholar, translated hiya as ‘‘shame’’.
Sibley (1965)
saw hiya as ‘‘the uncomfortable feeling that accompanies awareness of being in a socially unacceptable position, or performing a socially unacceptable action.’
Lynch (1961)
described hiya as ‘‘an ingredient in why Filipinos overspend during fiestas in order to please their visitors, even to the extent of going into debt
Andres (1994)
alerted us to the different meanings of the word hiya depending on its form – nakakahiya (embarrassing), napahiya (placed in an awkward position), ikinahiya (be embarrassed with someone)
Bonifacio (1976)
expounded on affixation and hiya and showed the internal and external aspects of hiya.
Salazar (1981, 1985b)
the more appropriate translation of hiya in English is not ‘‘shame’’ but
Sense of propriety
Utang na loob was translated by this person as debt of gratitude’’
Kaut (1961)
Andres (1994, pp. 190–191) defined it, following Kaut’s logic, as
the principle of reciprocity incurred when an individual helps another
took this interpretation further by claiming that the recipient of the favor is forced ‘‘to show his (sic) gratitude properly by returning the favor with interest.
Hollnsteiner (1961)
Actually means gratitude/solidarity’’. It is not necessarily a burden as the word ‘‘debt’’ connotes
Utang na loob
was identified by Lynch (1961, 1973) as a Filipino value, giving it the English translation of maintaining ‘‘smooth interpersonal relations’’ by going along with the group or the majority decision, i.e., conformity
Pakikisama
started unfolding the concept of kapwa (shared identity), which is at the core of Filipino social psychology, and which is at the heart of the structure of Filipino values.
Enriquez (1978, 1994)
pakikipagkapwa which means
treating the other person as kapwa or fellow human being.
a request to feel or to be sensitive to. It is a shared feeling, a kind of ‘‘emotional a priori’’; shared inner perception
Pakikiramdam
Lagmay asked the staff who would like to teach psychology in Filipino.
U.P. Psychology faculty meeting in 1970
responded to Lagmay’s call. Lagmay had always been supportive of a Filipino orientation in psychology.
Professors Fredegusto David and Amaryllis Torres
Sikolohiyang Pilipino as a subject was instituted and offered at the undergraduate level for the first time. The U.P. was the first university to offer it.
1978
The first faculty member to teach the course was
Jose Ma. Bartolome (Psychology 108)
The first M.A. Psychology thesis in Filipino was written in 1972 by
Amelia Alfonso
The first two dissertations, defended in May 1990, were by
Danilo Tuazon (on brain lateralization) and Grace Aguiling-Dalisay (on the concept of peace among children).
the first to teach Philippine Psychology as a ‘‘special topics’’ course at the graduate level before it was formally instituted as a separate graduate course in 1978.
Alfredo Lagmay
the first graduates to receive their Ph.D. with Philippine Psychology as the area of concentration.
1994 and 1996 respectively, Elizabeth Protacio-Marcelino and Sylvia Estrada Claudio
Filipino Americans are not ‘‘Filipinos’’ since they are not legitimate culture bearers – they were born in the United States, do not share the Philippine cultural experience, and hardly speak any Philippine language;
Sikolohiyang Pilipino, according to him, should focus on the lived experiences of people immersed in Philippine life and culture.
Salazar (1991)
labeled Salazar’s position as ‘‘reactionary ethnocentrism’’ which limits his views to the confines of national boundaries’’. He maintained that Filipino-Americans are Filipinos because some aspects of their identity and cultural experiences are still Filipino
Enriquez (1994)
responded to these points in her Ph.D. dissertation on ethnicity and identity issues of second generation Filipino- Americans by stressing that indeed Filipino- Americans are not Filipino – they are both Filipino and American.
Protacio-Marcelino (1996)
Sikolohiyang Pilipino is contributing to a truly universal psychology which is based on a new set of principles
Diversity and Equality
