KAPWA KO, KAPAMILYA KO!

THE FILIPINO SELF AND THE FAMILY

Prepared by: Gerald M. Llanes, RPm, LPT
THE SELF AND CULTURE
The Self- Concept
 The Self- Concept
 The set or collection of ideas, images, beliefs or schemas a
person has about the self comprises the multidimensional and
multifaceted self-concept (Markus and Wurf, 1987).
 The working self-concept, or the self-concept of the moment, is
best understood as self-knowledge that is active and changing.
This means that our self-concept is not fixed.
 Self-concept depends on what we are thinking of at a particular
moment.
 Self-concept depends on the current situation we are in. It
depends on our social experiences.
 Determinants of the Self
 Some of the social influences that develop our self-concept are
the roles we play in everyday life, the social identities we form as
members of a group, and the social comparisons we make when
we compare ourselves with others.
 As members of different groups, we develop social identities like
that of being Catholic, Ilonggo, or being a Psychology major.
 We also compare ourselves to others to decide if we are really
smart, if we are really good in sports, or if we can really sing.
 Looking Glass Self- our tendency to use others as a mirror for
perceiving our selves (Cooley, 1902).
Determinants of the Self
Culture Defines the Self
 Culture Defines the Self
 In cultural psychology, the self and culture are seen as
mutually constitutive.
 The individual self develops within a particular culture that
structures how the self is to think, feel, and act.
 In turn, the interaction of many individual selves transforms
the cultural system.
 Though the self is a basic psychological concept that is
commonly assumed to have a universal nature, the meaning of
the self varies across different cultural contexts.
 Culture Defines the Self
 How do we define the self in Filipino culture?
 Is the meaning of the self for Filipinos the same as the meaning
of the self for Americans?
 For the Japanese?
 For the Europeans?
 For Asians?
Individualist and Collectivist Culture
 Individualist and Collectivist Culture
 There are culture that emphasize individuality and cultures that
emphasize sociality.
 Triandis is widely acknowledged as the leading proponent of the
individualism and collectivism construct in social psychology.
 Indivualist Cultures emphasize that people are independent of
their groups.
 Collectivist Cultures emphasize the interdependence among
people.
 One way by which these two cultures differ is in the importance
given to personal goals vis-à-vis group goals.
 Individualist and Collectivist Culture
 In Individualist cultures, a person must clearly articulate one’s
goals. Personal goals are seen as more important that the goals of
the ingroup.
 In Collectivist cultures, a person’s goals are defined according to
one’s social roles, with the goals of the ingroup more important
than one’s own goals.
 Much then is expected of the person by one’s ingroup like one’s
family with self-sacrifice for the group seen as natural.
 In the study, Americans scored highest on individualism,
followed by Canada and western countries.
 On the other hand, Asian, Latin American, and African countries
scored high on collectivism, among them the Philippines.
 Individualist and Collectivist Culture
 According to Hofstede, individualistic societies stress “I”
consciousness, autonomy, emotional independence, individual
initiative, and the right to privacy.
 Collectivist societies on the other hand, emphasize “We”
consciousness, collective identity, emotional dependence, group
solidarity and sharing, and duties and obligations.

 Do you see yourself as an individual “I” or as a part of a group of

“We”?
 Individualist and Collectivist Culture
 Chinese culture is one example of a collectivist society.
 Chinese social life is ruled by a strong orientation to the family.
 The Chinese are expected to prioritize their family’s interests
over their personal goals.
 Yang (1997) refers this phenomenon as the Chinese Social
orientation.

 Do you think Filipinos possess similar social orientation?

 Do you think Filipinos are collectivist?
 Are you more of a collectivist or more of an individualist?
 Independent/Separated and
Interdependent/Relational Selves
 Independent/Separated and
Interdependent/Relational Selves
 Markus and Kiyama developed the independent and
interdependent self.
 They focus on how people in different cultures see the self in
relation to others, particularly whenever the self is separate from
others or connected with others.
 For many western cultures, there is a belief that persons are
distinct and separate from each other.
 For many non-western cultures like the Philippines, the belief is
in connectedness of human beings to each other
Independent Self
 Independent Self
 Independent self is defined by unique internal attributes, such as
traits and dispositions, that are independent of one’s context.
 The goal in these cultures is to become independent from others
and to discover and express one’s unique qualities.
Interdependent Self
 Interdependent Self
 Sees the self-in-relation-to-others as the focus of individual
experience rather than the independent self.
 The interdependent view of self is exemplified by Japanese
culture as well as many other Asian cultures, African cultures,
Latin American Cultures, and Eastern European cultures.
 The goal is to maintain interdependence among individuals
and requires seeing oneself as part of social relationships or a
larger social unit.
 The interdependent self finds ways to fit in with significant
others, to fulfill obligations, and to belong to groups.
Independent vs. Interdependent Selves
(Adapted from Markus & Kitayama, 1991)
 Independent vs. Interdependent Selves
 In the independent self, the representation of the self is clearly
separate from the representations of others.
 And it is these representations (“I am artistic”, “I love music”)
that are most significant in regulating or controlling behavior.
 In interdependent self, the representation of the self interacts with
that of others.
 And it is these representations that are in relation to specific
others (“I am a good son”, “I am a loyal friend”) that are most
important in regulating behavior.
THE FILIPINO SELF AS
INTERDEPENDENT OR
RELATIONAL
Kapwa Self with Others
 Kapwa Self with Others
 Kapwa as the core concept of Filipino interpersonal relations
emphasizes the self as fundamentally related with others, and
not separate as conceptualized in the west (Enriquez, 1992)
 Kapwa is the unity of the self and others.
 Kapwa is the a recognition of self with others.
 Kapwa is the Filipino equivalent of the interdependent or
relational view of the self
 Kapwa Self with Others
 Kapwa, or shared inner self, corresponds to pakikipagkapwa,
or relating to others as fellow human beings (kapwa tao).
 As such, Filipinos are socially expected to regard others with
dignity and respect.
 Because of the importance given to relating well with others,
Filipinos make use of pakikiramdam , or the active process of
being aware of and being sensitive to others’ thoughts,
feelings, and actions (Enriquez, 1990).
 The process of sensing and feeling, or pakikiramdam, allows
one to relate well with others- an important goal in Philippine
culture.
Self as Embedded in the Culture
 Self as Embedded in the Culture
 Bulatao used the hard-boiled egg to represent the self, or ego,
that is clearly individuated or separate from others.
 At the other extreme are scrambled eggs with completely
mixed selves.
 In between is a batch of fried eggs where each yolk remains
distinct and separate from other yolks. The whites, however
are now joined to one another that one cannot tell where one
egg ends and another begins.
 According to Bulatao, Filipinos are like fried eggs or
unindividuated selves or egos.
 Self as Embedded in the Culture
 The Filipino self will not assert itself independently, rather it
will seek to maintain group norms.
Self as Embedded in the Culture
Filipino Youth as Interdependent
 Filipino Youth as Interdependent
 Filipino youth emphasized a conception of the self as part of
relationships rather than a conception of self as comprised
from internal attributes.
 Though the Filipino Youth value interpersonal relationships,
collective goals, and social norms, they also value self-
assertion, achievement, and autonomy.
 It seems that the Filipino youth today can assert their
individuality while maintaining group goals.
 Filipino Youth as Interdependent
 Do you value being unique?
 Do you play a particular role with your friends or family?
 If you were to describe who you are, would you also describe
yourself more in terms of your roles?
THE FAMILY AS CENTRAL TO
FILIPINOS
 THE FAMILY AS CENTRAL TO
FILIPINOS
 In collectivist culture like the Philippines, the family is the
prototype of all social relationships (Triandis, 1994).
 People are linked to the family through strong and long-term
emotional bonds as well as shared goals.
 Children are raised to fulfill their familial duty, to self-
sacrifice for the family, and to obey parental authority.
 The family is basic to the life of Filipinos. It is the center of
their universe. Most of what they do, what they think, and
what they idealize, among others, are first learned within the
narrow confines of the family (Jocano, 1998).
Filipino Kinship Structure
 Filipino Kinship Structure
 Filipinos are grouped together and identified as kin, or
magkakamag-anak, by birth, marriage, adoption, and ritual
kinship (magkumpare/magkumare) (Jocano, 1998).
 Kinship relations include the parents and siblings of both the
father and the mother, and the children of their siblings.
 Relations are then extended through religious rituals, such as
marriage, baptism, and confirmation, expanding the kinship
structure to godfathers (mga ninong) and godmothers (mga
ninang).
 One can conceive of the Filipino kinship structure as concentric
circles, moving from family (mag-anak), to close relatives
(kamag-anak), to distant relatives (kamag-anakan), to the
kingroup (angkan).
 Filipino Kinship Structure
 The nuclear family (mag-anak) is comprised of the father (ama),
the mother (ina), and the child (anak) or children (mga anak).
 From the point of view of the child in the nuclear family, close
relatives (kamag-anak) may include the grandfather (lolo), uncle
(tiyo), aunt (tiya), and firs-degree cousins (pinsang-buo)
 Distant relatives include the second-degree cousins (pinsang-
pangalawa) and great grandparents (ninuno).
Filipino Kinship Structure (adapted from Jocano, 1998
The Family as an Agent of Socialization
 The Family as an Agent of Socialization
 Kinship determines one’s status and designate one’s role as a
member of the group setting the rules and expectations of
personal and interpersonal behavior.
 One is born into a position, such as being a daughter; or is
assigned to a position, such as husband or in-law.
 For instance, older siblings are assigned the right to command
obedience from younger siblings with the corresponding duty to
take care of them.
 Our actions are determined by rules of conduct or social norms.
 The Family as an Agent of Socialization
 Philippine social organization is further characterized as familial.
 Businesses are often owned by families.
 Finding a job or money often involves family connections.
 In politics, kin are expected to support a family member running
for office.
 Even religious activities are generally family-based.
Family as Important to Filipino Youth
 Family as Important to Filipino Youth
 The mother remains the primary role model for female
youth while the father continues to be the model for
males.
 If not their parents, the youth idolize other family
members.
 The family remains central to the youth; that with their
greater freedom, the youth still finds the family and the
home important (Abrera,2002).
 The psychology that developed form Euro-American
cultural values emphasizes individualism; hence, the focus
on the independent self.
Background on Social Influence
1. Sherif’s norm formation experiments
 1. Sherif’s norm formation experiments
 In Sherif’s classic experiments, participants were seated in a dark
room. Participants were asked to estimate the distance by which
the light seems to move in the dark (in reality, the light did not
move and the perception of movement was an optical illusion
called the autokinetic phenomenon.)
 Sheriff (1935) found that upon repeated trials, participants who
were asked to do the task in groups would converge in their
response.
 Individual judgments in a group move toward a group norm. And
even when tested alone, individual participants still retained the
group norm.
 Sherif’s experiment showed the importance of group norms and
how these exist separate from the individual.
1. Sherif’s norm formation experiments
2. Asch’s Conformity Experiments
 2. Asch’s Conformity Experiments
 Ash (1956) conducted a series of experiment wherein participants
were asked to judge which of three ccomparisons lines matched a
standard line.
 Unlike Sherif’s experiment, the correct answer in this case is
clear.
 Placed in a group of seven people, the participant will hear five
confederates give the wrong answer.
 In 37% percent of the trials, people conformed to the majority
who unanimously gave the wrong answer.
2. Asch’s Conformity Experiments
2. Asch’s Conformity Experiments
3. Milgram’s Obedience Experiments
 3. Milgram’s Obedience Experiments
 Milgram’s experimental studies in the 1960s were a response to
the killing of millions of Jews during the Second World War.
 Milgram thought that only if a large number of people obeyed
authority was the massive killing of Jews possible.
 Milgram (1963) staged an experiment wherein participants were
made to believe they were participating in a study on the effect of
punishment on learning.
 Each participant was asked to play a role of teacher while a
confederate played the role of learner.
 An experiment then asked the participant to administer electric
shocks in increasing voltage form 15 volts up to 450 volts to the
confederate each time he gave a wrong answer.
 3. Milgram’s Obedience Experiments
 The confederate pretended to be in pain even though no actual
shock was administered.
 The participant was made to believe he was really administering
painful electric shocks with the confederate acting out the pain.
 At each level of shock, the experimenter prodded the participant
to continue.
 Milgram found 26 out of 40 men, or 65%, continued up to 450
volts.
 Milgram’s study had a profound impact on social psychology,
showing that ordinary people would obey an authority even if
they knew they were harming another person.
3. Milgram’s Obedience Experiments
 Background on Social Influence
 In summary, Social influence from this body of research refers to
the ways in which one person affects another person, particularly
in the context of groups (Martin & Hewstone, 2007)
 Martin & Hewstone distinguish between two forms of social
influence within groups– that of maintaining group norms (social
control) and changing group norms (social change).
 Conformity is the dominant form of maintaining group norms
wherein an individual accepts or complies within the group. This
often referred to as majority influence.
 Another form of social control is by virtue of obedience wherein
individuals obey an authority figure, even if this is against their
free will.
 Background on Social Influence
 Changing group norms has been studied from the point of view of
minority influence, or innovation.
Social Influence in the Context of the family
 Social Influence in the Context of the family

 In looking at the Filipino self in the context of the family, we will

apply the concepts as defined in Western social psychology to
refer to the social influence process in our everyday lives.
 First, we will look at the social norms that govern Filipino family
life.
 Norms are ideas about what is correct behavior for members of a
group.
 Norms then can be conceived of as rules about what is considered
acceptable and proper in a particular culture.
 Social Influence in the Context of the family

 Second, we will look at conformity and obedience within the

Filipino family.
 We will look at how Filipino children conform to parental
expectations or obey their parents and elders.
 We will see how conformity and obedience to family expectations
influence our individual decisions and actions.
 Finally, we will examine a form of social influence that has not
been heavily investigated in traditional social psychology, that of
role-taking and role-playing.
 Social Influence in the Context of the family

 We will look at how roles define who we are as exemplified by

traditional gender roles in the family.
 We will see how role-taking becomes self-presentation and how
the enactment of the role is the self. This phenomenon will be
illustrated using unique role in the Filipino family– the tagasalo
Social Expectations and Norms
 Social Expectations and Norms

 In our own families, we may be expected to do chores like

cooking, cleaning, or taking care of younger siblings.
 We are expected to be present during family occasions like family
reunions.
 Our goals in life like doing well in school or finding a good job
may be for our family. We can even be expected to make personal
sacrifices for the good of the family.
 Social Expectations and Norms
(Cross-Cultural Studies)
 Familism is defined as norms of collective support, allegiance,
and obligation to the family (Cooper, Baker, Polichar &Welsh,
1993).
 In their study, they found that Mexican, Chinese, Vietnamese, and
Filipino American adolescents endorsed familistic values more
than their European descent counterparts.
 These Latin American and Asian adolescents believed that older
siblings should help directly to support other family members
economically.
 Asian and Latin American adolescents placed greater importance
to treating their elders with respect, following their parents’
advice, and helping their families.
 Social Expectations and Norms
(Cross-Cultural Studies)
 Among the sample of Filipino, Chinese, Mexican, Central and
South American, and European adolescents, Filipino youth placed
the greatest importance on respect for family. Filipino adolescents
had higher academic aspirations and expections.
 Social Expectations and Norms
(Local Studies)
 Bulatao (1963, 1992, 1998) found four values share by Filipinos:
the value of family, the value of authority, the value of economic
and social betterment, and the value of patience, suffering, and
endurance.
 Parents are expected to strive even at a cost to themselves to give
their children an education.
 Older children must take care of younger children. Even marriage
may be put off to help the family.
 Jocano (1998) notes how relatives are expected to support and
assist each other in times of crisis and need.
 Social Expectations and Norms
(Utang na Loob)
 Utang na Loob or norm of reciprocity is most evident in the
Filipino family as seen in the belief that all children should
recognize their debts of gratitude toward their parents (marunong
tumanaw ng utang na loob).
 According to Jacono, children are expected to take care of their
parents who raised them and gave them life.
 Most adult children are expected to live with their elderly parents
to take care of their needs as they grow old. Not doing so is seen
as a sign of walang utang na loob.
Conformity and Obedience to Authority
 Conformity and Obedience to Authority

 Asian parenting is shaped by a cultural emphasis on

interdependence among family members and its underlying sets of
principles that has been referred to as filial piety.
 Filial Piety is traditionally a system that governs how children are
to behave toward their parents and ancestors.
 Parents and elders have authority and must be treated with respect
and obedience.
 Conformity and Obedience to Authority
(Cross-Cultural Studies)
 The Cross-National Value of Children Study was conducted in
eight countries : Indonesia, Korea, the Philippines, Singapore,
Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, and the United States.
 It showed that Filipino parents emphasized the economic-utility
value of their children more than primary ties and affection and
other values. This was shared by Turkish, Indonesian, and Thai
parents.
 This finding supported the idea that parents who saw children as
satisfying economic-utility needs more likely to want their
children to be obedient.
 Conformity and Obedience to Authority
(Cross-Cultural Studies)
 In a more recent study, Darling, Cumsille, and Pena-Alampay
(2005) compared adolescents’ obedience to parental rules in
Chile, the Philippines, and United States.
 They found out that Filipino parents were more likely to set rules
than parents in the United States.
 Filipino parents set more rules for girls than boys.
 Filipino youth were more likely to believe it was okay for parents
to set rules and felt more obliged to obey parental rules more than
Chilean youth.
 Conformity and Obedience to Authority
(Local Studies)
 Filipino children are traditionally taught to respect and obey
authority, particularly parents and elders (Medina, 2001).
 An example of a traditional sign of respect is to greet the elder
through the mano (kissing the back of the hand of the elder, or
reaching for elder’s hand and pressing it to one’s forehead).
 Another sign of respect is the use of po and opo in ending a
sentence.
 Peña (2001) found that higher levels of conformity correlated
with higher self-worth among Filipino adolescents.
 The Filipino adolescent’s self-worth appears to be based on the
perception that one is meeting the expectations of others,
particularly that one’s parents.
Role-Taking and Role Playing
 Role-Taking and Role Playing
 Role refers to the norms and expectations attached to a particular
position or status in the society.
 The roles we take on and consequently the roles of behaviors we
perform depend on the social situation we are in.

 What roles do you play? What expectations accompany these

roles?
 Role-Taking and Role Playing
(Gender Roles in the Family)
 The Filipino mother’s role is to be the primary caretaker of the
children and the home. She is expected to be the main source of
emotional support for the children, the nurturer.
 The Filipino father’s role is to be the primary provider of the
family. He is also expected to involved in disciplining the
children, instilling obedience as figure of authority.
 Liwag and Collegues found that boys and girls are raised
differently according to appropriate masculine and feminine roles.
 Girls play house (bahay-bahayan) whereas boys play with toy
guns (baril-barilan)
 Role-Taking and Role Playing
(Gender Roles in the Family)
 The girl child is given more tasks and chores inside the home,
such as cooking, doing the laundry, and ironing the clothes.
 The boy child may be asked to do odd jobs that require physical
strength or to assist in farming or fishing.
Role-Taking and Role Playing
(The Role of Tagasalo )
 Role-Taking and Role Playing
(The Role of Tagasalo )
 Tagasalo literally means one who catches and refers to one who
takes care of the family, or always comes to its rescue.
 The tagasalo feels responsible for other people’s feelings.
 His/her feeling of self-worth is tied to his/her ability to please
others and make people happy.
 His/her need to care for others is unconscious, indiscriminate, and
can become a compulsion.
 Udarde (2001) investigated Carandang’s theory of tagasalo and
found that the tagasalo is a responsible, caring, and dependable
child who takes charge in relieving tension and resolving conflict
in the family.
 Role-Taking and Role Playing
(The Role of Tagasalo )
 The tagasalo is taking the role of mediator and regulator.
 The tagasalo takes control of the situation to create harmony and
order in the family.
 Role-Taking and Role Playing
(Role-taking as Self-Presentation)
 Erving Goffman (1959) argued that in all our social encounters,
we are fundamentally concerned with self-presentation.
 At times, we may feel that we are just playing a role, such as
when we are trying to make a good impression (e.g. on a first
date), when we feel uncomfortable with the role we have to play
(e.g. as boyfriend or girlfriend), or when we are first taking on a
role (e.g. as a new parent).
 For him, how we play a role is how we present the self. Hence,
we can say that “we become the roles we play”.
THE TRANSNATIONAL FAMILY:
THE FAMILIES OF OVERSEAS
WORKERS
 THE TRANSNATIONAL FAMILY:
THE FAMILIES OF OVERSEAS
WORKERS
 Unlike in 1970s when the typical OFWSs were males, women
now comprise the majority.
 Majority of migrant workers are parents, making the
transnational family- where at least one parent is not physically
present.
 Filipino migrants refer to the family as a source of emotional
support despite the physical distance.
 Migration itself is seen as a family project, with the migrant
enduring the physical distance in order to put their children or
siblings through school or help the family financially.
 THE TRANSNATIONAL FAMILY:
THE FAMILIES OF OVERSEAS
WORKERS
 From the interviews with the young adults who grew up in
transnational migrant household, it was found that gender roles
persist even if these aggravate the problems that come with
transnational families.
 Family remains central to Filipinos even in the context of
transnational migration.
 The Filipin identity continues to be defined by collective identity
where the family is the center.
 Transforming gender roles through a mutual expansion of men and
women’s gender responsibilities will help transnational families
maintain the Filipino family they value the most (Parreñas, 2008).