Identifying “Filipino Identity”

Had it been published on a broadsheet in the Philippines, Niels Mulder’s essay on Filipino identity would probably spark criticisms from the larger populace as do foreigners’ commentaries on Filipino society and culture that, rather than glorify the Filipino, beset him/her with criticisms that are axiomatic but are nevertheless received with a defensive outburst rather than a critical eye. However, Mulder’s essay may resonate with a lot of middle-class, educated Filipinos who still grapple with the question of a “Filipino identity” – that in the process of problematizing, or rather coming to terms with one’s identity, only ends up in concluding that a Filipino identity is a “bastardized” identity and that we do not have an identity to call our “own” (i.e., “authentic”). Nevertheless, essays from “outsiders” such as Mulder’s serve as wake-up calls to think about what Filipino identity is and whether a Filipino identity truly exists after centuries of colonization that made the country seem to be an “anomaly” among the Asian countries. Indeed, as Zygmunt Bauman puts it, “one thinks of identity whenever one is not sure of where one belongs” (Bauman #).

For this commentary, I would like to bring up the following points:

To talk about identity is to also talk of inclusion and exclusion – a “we” vs. “they”, “sameness” vs. “difference”;
While the issue of identity has been constructed and de-constructed in much academic discourse, an attempt to talk about this much-exhausted concept should also take into consideration the intersection of class/status, ethnicity, and gender (among others) into the whole problematic; and lastly,
Is there a need to define a Filipino identity within the context of authenticity (that is more often than not conflated with the “exotic”, especially when looking at cultures in Asia)?

Defining what Filipino identity is, is to also consider what makes something “not” Filipino. In this case, we talk about the collective sense of who we are as opposed to who we are not. However, the collective sense (of educated Filipinos, in this case) seems, if we follow Mulder’s arguments, that there is a loss or a confusion regarding Filipinos’ sense of belonging amid centuries of colonization (Mulder emphasizes American colonization) and the use of a colonial language that has pervaded every aspect of our lives. Filipinos, so to speak, have been “cut off” from the past. Mulder also states that one has to ask the question, “identity vis-a-vis whom?” Indeed, it is only in relation to the Other that I/We/Us is able to differentiate him/herself/themselves from an Other, thereby constructing one’s own identity. The sense of belongingness embedded in identity discourses tends to be associated with place-centric notions of “roots”; that a shared locality and/or birthplace delineates the “us” from the “them”, as in the case of regional reunions of Filipinos in the United States that bring together several generations of people not known to each other but who trace their roots to a common place of origin (or ancestral origin). Then again, in this globalized world, it is more apt to re-think this and rather situate the discourse of identity in the context not only of “roots” but also of “routes” (Clifford #). I say this in consideration as to how being Filipino, or a Filipino identity, is being defined by Filipinos in diaspora, or perhaps by the Overseas Filipino Worker (OFW) – itself an identity imbued with contradictions: wherein tales of victimhood are juxtaposed with nation-state constructions of the modern-day hero – who continuously negotiates between “roots” and “routes”.

This problem of a Filipino identity – or the “vagueness” of it – has oftentimes been regarded as linked to postcolonial legacies and predicaments following American rule of the islands. The use of English as the main medium of instruction in schools, which implies a certain degree of linguistic imperialism, in effect creates and maintains social inequality. In contrast, the elite and the middle-classes have the upper-hand in education and academic achievement, leaving the rest of the populace in a state of confusion regarding their national imagining and sense of belonging, which Mulder says contributes to the underdevelopment of the Filipino’s self-confidence and sense of responsibility as citizens of the Republic.

If one were to ask the marginalized others (i.e., less educated, lower-class individuals, as well as women, indigenous groups, etc.) what and who a Filipino is, is there any chance that they will reproduce what middle-class, elite, and educated Filipinos define as a Filipino identity? The interpretation of what a nation is and what a national identity is (i.e., Filipino identity) has been within the purview of those in power, mostly male, and in the case of the Philippines, colonial elites. This discourse then leaves out a great majority of the population. While people in modern societies now have the benefit of defining and choosing their identity (in this case, I can say to choose and define a Filipino identity) based on reflexive understandings of one’s biography (which is related to the outside world) (Giddens #), many are still left out of this whole project. The fictive construction and non-fictive imagining of a Filipino identity oftentimes is reduced to a myopic class consciousness that is also very much gendered. It is my sincere hope that Neils Mulder would address this issue further in his essay.

Now, is there a need then to define a Filipino identity within the context of authenticity? With this, we need to emphasize that authenticity is not to be conflated with exoticism, and that while Filipino culture and identity may lack what is defined to be “Asian” and rather is seen as disconnected from its past (i.e., the pre-colonial past), it is indeed as Zialcita (Authentic Though Not Exotic) says, “authentic”. The Filipino who celebrates in his/her being the Chinese and the Malay, the Christian tradition and the Spanish legacy, as well as the “longing” for an America that is in the minds and hearts of many, is indeed a mix – “we are all mestizos” (Zialcita #). While this historical production and reproduction has led to an “ignorance” and “lack of knowledge” about one’s Malay and Austronesian roots, as Mulder says, to judge that Filipinos suffer from “helpless insularity” may thus be an extreme form of self-doubt, which leads to a loss of one’s sense of identity. While this “lack” of affinity with one’s South East Asian neighbors may be traced to a lapse in historical education and an overemphasis and overconsumption of American culture, contemporary mobilities are changing all these.

I have lost count of the times when colleagues and other non-academics approach me with the following comments/questions: “Do Filipinos consider themselves as part of the West?”, “Filipinos are too Westernized”, “Filipinos are too American and too Christian”. Likewise, the times I invoke the legacies of the colonial past to address their queries have escaped my memory. “Filipinos do not have a (unique) identity because of colonization and what they have now are borrowings from Spanish and American influence” – sums up how most educated Filipinos describe their own identity. Travelogues and museum exhibits often gloss over the Philippines and its “culture”, oftentimes relegating it to a small page or corner, thus enforcing its peripheral position vis-a-vis the “rich” cultures of Asia. Zialcita talks about how much emphasis is given to Philippine indigenous cultures and artifacts (i.e., non-colonized) in these kinds of expositions, while reception towards Philippine lowland culture (i.e., Hispanized, Christian, Americanized – in other words, colonized) has been elusive. The English-speaking Filipino with a Spanish name/surname seems misplaced in an Asia constructed by the West and continues to be defined and redefined by both Asians themselves and others. Is there a need to be exotic? Is there a need to be authentic? Identities are in flux, and with this, Filipino identity itself.

WORKS CITED

Bauman, Zygmunt. “From Pilgrim to Tourist – or a Short History of Identity.” Questions of Cultural Identity. By Stuart Hall and Paul Du Gay. London: Sage, 1996. N. pag. Print.
Clifford, James. Routes: Travel and Translation in the Late Twentieth Century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997. Print.
Giddens, Anthony. Modernity and Self-identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Cambridge: Polity, 1991. Print.
Zialcita, Fernando N. Authentic Though Not Exotic: Essays on Filipino Identity. Quezon City: Ateneo De Manila University Press, 2005. Print.

9.2 KiB Raw Blame History Unescape Escape

Identifying “Filipino Identity”

9.2 KiB

Raw Blame History