HISTORY AND CULTURAL IDENTITY: THE PHILIPPINE CASE

Rolando M. Gripaldo, Ph.D.

De La Salle University, Manila

Cultural identity evolves with historical development. Sometimes the evolution is so slow
that the cultural identity of a community is identified as virtually the same as that of centuries ago.
This is usually the case for primitive ethnic or tribal identities. In another case, the evolution is fast
compared with the first case such that the cultural identity of a community contains many foreign
cultural elements although it is still identified with many important ethnic cultural traits. In the third
scenario, the evolution is much faster than the second case such that the cultural identity of the
group assumes most of the foreign cultural traits, usually those brought about by Westernization.
In the last scenario, the evolution is fastest such that the cultural identity of the community is very
similar to the Western cultural identity although slight vestiges of its ethnic or racial origin may still
be noticeable. The Philippine case belongs to the fourth scenario and the purpose of the paper is
to philosophically explain how such a scenario comes about.

Certainly, the current usage of the term “cultural identity” is contextual and will have
different meanings in different contexts. This is especially true when one migrates to another
country and, depending upon the context, he or she will be culturally identified as of ethnic, racial,
national, etc., identity.

This paper will argue that Filipino cultural identity is still something in the making within
the greater purview of the Western culture—a positive cultural identity which Filipinos can be
proud of and which foreigners can affirm in a favorable light.

Introduction

History, on one hand, is defined as the study of the records of the past. This includes
written records, archeological artifacts, ruins, and even traditions and literature orally transmitted
from generation to generation. Cultural identity, on the other hand, is that aspect or aspects of a
culture that a people are proud to identify themselves with and which foreigners usually mention
with awe or admiration. “Cultural identity” connotes something positive, admirable, and enduring.
It also connotes an ethnic or a racial underpinning. The Ibanag culture is ethnic while the Ibanag
as a Filipino (Malay race) is racial. In ordinary everyday speech, however, “ethnic” and “racial”
are sometimes used interchangeably.
A nation generally consists of different tribes, and so there is a tribal cultural identity and
a national cultural identity. It is possible in a war-torn country, as in a civil war, or in a postcolonial
nation that there are only tribal cultural identities without a national cultural identity. And each tribe
may want secession or complete independence. They would not want to avail themselves of a
national citizenship. Cultural traits are aspects of culture and, at least, one or a group of these
may serve as a benchmark for cultural identity for as long as the people can positively identify
themselves with that benchmark and generally foreigners recognize it. The Japanese sumo
wrestling is one example. A negative cultural trait or tradition, as in a tradition of corruption, could
not serve as the identifying mark for cultural identity acceptable by the people concerned even if
foreigners would keep on mentioning it.

1
 This paper will examine the role that history plays in the molding of a people’s cultural
identity. In particular it will sketchily trace the evolution of the Filipino national culture and identify
aspects of culture that would explain the present state of the Filipino culture.

History and Culture

The term culture may be defined broadly as the sum total of what a tribe or group of people
produced (material or nonmaterial), is producing, and will probably be producing in the future.
What they produce—consciously or unconsciously—could be tools, clothing, cooking utensils,
weaponry, technologies, unexpected outcomes, mores, or codes as in religion, and the like. And
they will continue producing these things, probably with more improved efficiency, design or style,
and finesse. The “make” can be distinctly identified—generally speaking—with their tribe or their
period in history. If they discontinue producing, (e.g., a particular tool), it is probably because it is
replaced with tools of much improved efficiency. The criterion of utility is one consideration here.
The former tool has outlived its usefulness.

Edward Tylor (1974) looks at culture as “that complex whole which includes knowledge,
belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of
society” (italics supplied). My emphasis is on the human production or creation of culture.
Production connotes an interiority, (i.e., coming from within the subject himself or herself), that
reflects a lived experience. Albert Dondeyne (1964) talks of historicity as emanating from humans,
and—to my mind—so is culturicity. Aspects of culture can be acquired, but once acquired they
are adapted, reconstituted to fit the existing cultural terrain (either of the individual or the group),
or reproduced. Cultural outcomes as in habits, norms plus sanctions, and customs are sometimes
unexpectedly, unintentionally, or unconsciously produced. They are noticed as patterns or ways
of thinking or behaving much later in life. From time to time they are evaluated, reevaluated,
reproduced, reinforced, discarded, modified, or replaced. In other cases, when these outcomes
are determined by some goals or purposes, they are consciously produced. Charles Taylor thinks
of culture as a “public place” or a “common [social] space” by which an individual is situated or
born into, and by which he or she grows in political association with others through a shared
communication vocabulary. While the person grows with culture, culture likewise grows with him
or her. A national culture is one that towers over and above the minority cultures (multiculturalism)
that aspire to become a part of the national culture by first availing their members of “cultural
citizenship” by gradually assimilating their individual cultures to the culture-at-large.

If we reflect on the life of our ancient ancestors, it is unimaginable to think that their
collective memory is not essentially or virtually the same as their cultural history, although much
of these may have been forgotten or buried deep in the unconscious. Their culture is distinctively
the collective repository of all things: political, social, artistic, linguistic, educational, economic,
religious, mythical, legal, moral, and so on. UNESCO (2002) stresses this collectivity of culture
as a “set of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual, and emotional features of society.” It includes
“art and literature, lifestyles, ways of living together, value systems, traditions and beliefs.” It is
only very much later that these divisions of culture are given individual emphasis by social
scientists and by humanists. And more often we forget that they are parts or features of a people’s
culture. Nothing goes beyond culture, as culture over time is history.

2
Culture and Civilization

We all know that civilization grows out of culture. That is why we can say that while we
can have culture without civilization, we cannot have civilization without culture. The word culture
etymologically means “to cultivate” while civilization originally means “citizen” (from civitas), which
suggests urbanization or city life with a strong political organization and bureaucracy. The former
reflects the process of refinement while the latter reflects the partial or completed process of
organized refinement. The refined person is a civilized person. He or she is usually referred to as
a “cultured person.” Culture in this regard, that is, “high culture” is usually taken as equivalent to
civilization. Below the civilized culture is mass culture, or what is sometimes referred to as
“primitive culture,” “barbaric culture,” “low culture,” “uncultured,” “without culture,” or the like.

No doubt social scientists think in terms of their specializations. Even among

anthropologists they tend to focus on their respective fields. Leslie White (1949) invented the word
“symbolate” to refer to a cultural object that comes about from the act of symbolization, such as
a work of art, a tool, a moral code, etc. It is argued that culture comes about simultaneously with
symbols, for humans have the capacity to use symbols (a type of sign), the capacity to invent or
acquire a type of language. Noam Chomsky (1975) argues that every human being has an innate
“language acquisition device.” Julian Huxley (1957) classified the social world into “mentifacts”
(ideological or belief subsystem), “socifacts” (social relationships and practices, or the sociological
subsystem), and “artifacts” (material objects and their use, or the technological subsystem).
Archaeologists are diggers of past cultures and can only generally uncover the material remains
of a culture while cultural anthropologists focus on the nonmaterial or symbolic aspect of culture.
Quite recently, an attempt is made in postmodernism to level off high and low cultures.
The pragmatist John Dewey (1960) started it all by arguing that we should not limit art and its
appreciation to art museums and art galleries. We can find art in everyday life; in the quality of
experience we enjoy. There is art when we see a person with a beautiful face walking by, or one
who is exquisitely dressed up, or the elegant clothes in tribal festivals. We find art in a basketball
player who gracefully shoots a ball at the ring, or in a nicely decorated cooked food, or in a superb
workmanship by a car technician. Mike Featherstone (1991) describes the leveling off process—
the elevation of mass, tribal, and popular (“pop”) culture to an equal footing with high culture—as
a postmodernist feature of our present civilization.

Cultural Identity

There is a political or an ideological underpinning in the notion of “cultural identity.” An

ideology is a set of values and beliefs that propels an individual or a group of people into action.
An identity, ideologically speaking, connotes a feeling of oneness, an emotional acceptance of a
totality or, at least, of features within a given totality that one is proud of, an internal or
psychological desire to project this totality or its features to others with exuberance, and the
anticipation that others will recognize and accept it (totality) or them (features) with respect.

Cultural identity is an evolving thing—sometimes slow, sometimes fast. Usually the

dominant tribe of a nation will assume the national cultural identity. In other cases, if there are two

3
or more tribes whose cultures are congruous, then they assume an identity using a national name
other than the names of their individual tribes, a name that is historically influenced or determined.

It is possible that a civilized nation will evolve into a post-nation. Postcolonial nations of
Asia are toying with the idea of a regional identity while the nations of Europe are gradually being
transformed into post-nations, or they are evolving into a newly emerging regional identity called
the European Union (EU). The European Union has a common monetary exchange and has
generally transcended national boundaries in terms of commercial and labor concerns. Its
corporations are transnational: they do business everywhere. An EU citizen can travel, purchase
items, and work anywhere in the Union without a passport or a working permit. Eventually, the
EU will assume a regional cultural identity.

Unfortunately, some nations—usually postcolonial ones or those nation-states that were

once colonies—are still struggling to evolve a cultural identity which they can be proud of, an
identity that is not just racial or ethnic but one that lies above ethnicity.

The Philippine Situation

Four Groups of Filipinos

In the Philippine situation, there are many tribes and in the hinterlands we can still find
tribal identities—small groups of people wearing their tribal clothes and doing their tribal ways.
They are Filipinos in the “cultural citizenship” sense, that is, their national identity is defined in
terms of the provisions of the constitution: namely, they are native inhabitants (born here with
indigenous parents) of the country. For many of them, their cultural citizenship does not mean
anything at all (the Aetas, for example). They know that their ancestors have been living in this
country several centuries ago.

We can also find a second group of tribes in the Philippines whose cultural identities have
been touched by modernization (which in this context is the same as Westernization) in a minimal
way. Some of them sent their children to school and they are generally aware of their cultural
citizenship. They go to urban areas in either tribal or modern clothes but when they go home, they
wear their tribal attire. They identify themselves more as a tribe rather than as a Filipino.

A third group of tribes are those that are more modernized compared to the second group.
They send their children to school and when they visit the urban areas, especially the big cities,
they wear modern clothes and adapt to the ways of modernity. Their identity is defined in terms
of their religious persuasion. Some of the educated attend parties and dance in disco houses.
They generally identify themselves as Filipinos. But when they go home to their native places,
they adjust themselves again to their native or religious ways. There are sectors in this group that
spurn being called Filipinos and prefer a different label such as “Moro” or something else.

The last group of tribes is the highly modernized (Westernized). They are the largest group
consisting of various tribes such as the Tagalog, Bisayan, Ilokano, Kapampangan, and others.
Their common perspective is outward or global rather than inward or national. The nationalists or
the inward-looking Filipinos in this group are a minority. Renato Constantino (1966) identified

4
them in the article, “The Filipinos in the Philippines,” as the genuine Filipinos. The nationalists are
proud of their cultural citizenship and their cultural heritage. They want the country to become a
first world in the coming centuries. They want the country to be industrialized and later super-
industrialized. They want to see light and heavy industries churning out cars, tractors, airplanes,
ships, rockets, and the like. They want political parties with broad programs of government on
how to make the country industrialized or super-industrialized and not a crop of political parties
and leaders whose main concern is to be in power or to grab power to serve their own selfish
interests or pretend to work for the national interests where their idea of “national interests” is
vague or misdirected. They reject any group whose economic perspective is provincial despite
the advent of the Third Wave civilization, whose outlook is limited to only agricultural and small
and-medium-scale industrial development and modernization, and whose labor scenario is to train
the workforce into global “hewers of wood and water,” into a “nation of nannies,” or into a nation
of second- or third-class workers. They want to build institutions that run into decades but whose
fruits are of great significance to nation building. But they are a minority.

The Making of a Cultural Identity

“Damaged Culture”

The present cultural situation has been described as the result of a “damaged culture”
(Fallows 1987) where there is lack of nationalism and where what is public is viewed in low
esteem, without much national pride. The argument is that the indigenous cultures of the
mainstream tribes have been supplanted with Christian and Western values brought about by
Spanish and American colonialism. Spain fostered docility and inferiority among the natives while
America introduced consumerism and the global educational outlook. Both Spain and America
supplanted the native cultures with the combined cultures of Christianity, capitalism, and liberal
democracy. Christianity was imposed among the natives and accepted with reluctance, that is, it
was blended with native religious and superstitious beliefs such that the resulting Catholic
religious version is theandric ontonomy (Mercado 2004), a blend of the sacred and the profane,
a compromise between acculturation and inculturation.

The Chinese and Spanish mestizos (together with foreign transnational corporations)
whose Philippine nationalistic sentiment is generally suspect, basically control capitalism in the
Philippines. It is said, for example, that the brochures one read at the planes of the Philippine
Airlines (controlled by the Chinese Filipino Lucio Tan) do not promote the many Philippine tourist
spots and products while other Asian airlines promote theirs. A Philippine Airlines brochure, for
example, had the Malaysian Petronas Twin Towers at its cover.