ABSTRACT

Thanks to bloggers, Maginhawa Street is now known

as a food street by food enthusiasts. But is that the
only identity that is known to have? Although the
residents of Maginhawa Street, and the surrounding
streets can identify to it as such, they have a slightly
different view of what the Maginhawa Area is,
compared to that of people who frequently (in this
case, Students of the University of the Philippines,
Diliman, and customers of the different establishments
A SYNCHRONIC within the area). Their boundaries for the area,
identifications and meaning they attach to it, and
foresight of the area differ only in how they see as well
STUDY ON THE as identify the area. This study aims to see how
individuals perceive Maginhawa, by trying to see
recreate mental maps of their through their association
PERCEPTIONS OF as well as how they identify with the area.

Jeri Maia Loresco, Gabriela Kara Dioquino,

Caitlin Jaycen Cruz, Maria Matsushita, Zito
MAGINHAWA Relova
Linguistics 125
Keywords: Identity, Meaning, Perception,
Maginhawa
INTRODUCTION

Maginhawa Street is a two-kilometre street that spans across Sikatuna and Teacher’s

Village, and also known as the Maginhawa Food Street by bloggers on the internet

(Homegrown.ph, 2013). Maginhawa offers a variety of food and beverages ranging from simple

rice meals to complex coffee concoctions. Due to its proximity to three campuses of the country’s

biggest universities, namely Miriam College, Ateneo De Manila University and University of the

Philippines, Diliman, it has become the hub of students looking for good and affordable food,

refreshments, as well as a place to meet and relax after a stressful week.

Maginhawa started as a residential street, part of Teacher’s Village, and acted as the main

passageway for both Sikatuna and Teacher’s Village, to Commonwealth Avenue and the Quezon

City Memorial Circle. Slowly, it developed into a small commercial street, with start-up businesses

cluttering Maginhawa Street, as well as the side streets of Teacher’s Village that are adjacent or

run parallel to Maginhawa. The Cool Beans Library Café, The Coffeeway and Hillcrest Wellness

Café are a few of the cafes that are located on and near Maginhawa itself.

Maginhawa gained a reputation as a food street thanks to bloggers, as well as food critics

online. The reviews of cafes and restaurants inside and around Maginhawa Street created a certain

image of the location. This paper aims to examine how Maginhawa has changed over the years

(from being a residential area to what is now as a small commercial area), as well as explore how

Maginhawa is now viewed by people who frequent it.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Cohen’s Communities of Meaning

1|Page
 One of the theories to be used for the study of the perceptions of Maginhawa would be

Anthony Cohen’s The Symbolic Construction of Community (1985). In his book, he argues that

communities are best approached and studied as “communities of meaning”. A 'community' in this

framework is studied as a symbolic construction consisting of a system of values, norms and codes

which provide a sense of belongingness for the members of the community. With this definition

in mind, Cohen proposes that the objective of a community is mainly to create meaning and

identity.

“People construct community symbolically, making it a resource and repository of meaning, and

a referent of their identity” (Cohen 1985, p. 118 as cited in Smith, 2001).

In the study of a community, then, it should be vital to detail what variables will be

considered to understand the meaning and identity contained in the community.

Identity was mainly tackled in Cohen's work as something that can be found in the

boundaries of a community. He argues that a 'community' involves a group that have something in

common and this common something is what distinguishes them from other communities. These

boundaries which mark the identities of a group are mainly found by interacting with other entities

or communities from which they are or wish to be distinguished from.

By taking this definition of identity, it can be said that boundaries or identities can exist in

the minds of the people. A boundary or an identity may be perceived differently by different people

not only those from other communities as well as by the people within the community itself.

2|Page
 The other important factor for Cohen in his proposed method of studying communities is

the meaning that can be found in a community. As can be seen in the previous part of the section,

Cohen sees community as a resource and repository of meaning. This means that aside from a

shared identity, a shared meaning or symbol would be necessary to establish a group as a

community. This can be likened to neighbours who have the same identity by living in the same

area but they do not interact very often and thus they cannot be fully established as members of a

community.

In the study of meaning, Cohen pointed out that symbols were the primary variables which

were to be studied to extract meaning from a community. These symbols are not only

representations as is the usual definition of the term but the symbols in a community allow its

members to supply a part of the meaning. This means a community may share a symbol but give

different meanings to it due to each individual's differences.

After pinpointing these variables, Cohen advocates the study of a community where one

would look for the commonality of forms whose content or meaning would then vary from

members. By doing this, a study should be able to describe community by showing what it is like

from the point of view of its members instead of detailing how it appears to outsiders or non-

members.

Image Schemata

In cognitive anthropology, a Schema is a “conceptual abstraction that mediate between

Stimuli received by the sense organ and behavioural responses…” (Casson, 1983). ‘Packaged

data’, as it is often referred to, schemata are cognitive representations of how people understand

3|Page
the environment and how they interact with it. These representations could define how people see

objects, to how they understand language. It is information that is compressed or packaged to allow

for easy retrieval.

Claudia Strauss, a cognitive anthropologist, suggested that schemas can help motivate

people’s action, based on how deep a meaning is embedded into that schema. In her article, “What

Makes Tony Run? Schema as Cultural Motivation Reconsidered”, Strauss suggests that depending

on how a schema is packaged, as a Bound Package or as an Unbound Network, they can have

different motivational effects on an individual’s action (1992). In her study, she found that schema

packed as Unbound Networks have a greater motivational effect (compared to schema packed as

a Bound Package) because individuals can connect different meanings to the network. These

meanings create a deeper identification to the mentality or thought process that follows the schema

because of its possible connection to other schemata, bound or unbound (Strauss, 1992). Schemata

such as the American Dream or the assumptions of a breadwinner, could affect how a person

creates decisions about how they want to move up in life. Similarly, what meanings a person can

give to something, or how they identify with an object can also affect how they create or modify a

certain type of schema.

In the study of semantics for cognitive linguists, however, an Image Schema is a mental

pattern that recurrently provides structured understanding of various experiences which can also

be used in a metaphor to become the source domain to help understand other experiences (Johnson,

1987, p. 2).

4|Page
 To further understand the concept of image schemas, four basic concepts in cognitive

linguistics must first be understood (Clausner & Croft, 1999, p.2). This would include “concepts”,

“domains”, “construal” and “category structure”. The “concept” is considered the basic unit of

mental representation and may be as general as fruit or park, or may be as specific as names of

people or places like Jose Rizal. “Domain” can be said to go side by side with the previously

discussed “concepts” as they serve as the background knowledge which we use to understand

concepts. So for the concept, Jose Rizal, we may say that it would need to be understood by using

a domain that relates to heroes or Philippine heroes. “Construals” are a cover term used by

Clausner & Croft (1999, p.3) to define the relationship between the semantic representations in the

mind and the world in which the speakers uses them, as the mind is considered an active participant

of the environment or world in which it uses these representations. Thus it also plays a big part in

conceptualizing or construing new semantic representations. Lastly, after determining the

representations, background and their relationship, these categories are then classified or grouped

together in our minds to enable our brains to access them more easily and to build further

relationships which would then constitute the “category structure”. Furthermore, according to

Clausner & Croft (1999, p.3), these “category structures” are structured internally by prototype-

extension relations among its members and externally by taxonomic relations between categories.

These four concepts in cognitive semantics help in the understanding of the storage and

acquisition of new concepts in the human brain. In relation to the topic of image schemas to these

concepts, Clausner & Croft (1999, p.4) propose that image schemas are a special type of domain

which may be called image schematic domains. A detailed explanation of image schemas, in

general, would prove to be too long for this section of the paper and thus the focus would instead

5|Page
be on certain image schemas which are very useful in the study of Maginhawa. This would include

the centre-periphery schema, containment schema and the end-of-path schema.

The centre-periphery schemas basically involve the physical or perceived core and edges

of a certain object and the distances of these edges from the core (Johnson, 1987, p.124-125). This

may be easily understood by using examples like that of the structure of an apple from its seed

outwards but the schema is also used in other less physical concepts like the concept of an

individual’s social sphere with less involved people being farther away from the core. This schema

may be applied to the study of Maginhawa’s mental maps as some interviewees determine some

restaurants or areas the core and edges of Maginhawa (Sikatuna Village area as an ‘edge’).

Another schema introduced in Johnson’s study (1987, p. 21-22) is the containment schema.

This schema involves physical or metaphorical boundaries, enclosed areas and excluded areas. A

simple example may be that CSSP is within the boundaries of UP Diliman. It would, then, also be

right to say that PH 424, which is a part of CSSP, is also within UP Diliman. On the other hand,

KNL despite its proximity to UP Diliman compared to UP Technohub is an excluded area which

is not part of the area identified as UP Diliman while the UP Technohub may be classified as part

of this area. This schema may be used to further understand the boundaries of the concept of

‘Maginhawa’ which was found to exceed its physical boundaries to include the other streets

provided that they meet certain conditions (e.g. having food establishments).

6|Page
 The last schema used in the study was first introduced in Bennett’s work (1975, p.50) which

was cited in Lakoff’s study on image schemas (1987, p.440-441), the end-of-path schema. This

schema involves the understanding of one place’s location as the termination of a prescribed path.

For example, if you go past Ministop then you will reach Moonleaf, details the arrival at Moonleaf

after passing through Ministop. This schema is particularly useful when trying to locate areas using

landmarks which you have to pass through. This schema can be used to analyse the use of certain

areas in Maginhawa as landmarks as compared to other establishments and the reason for their use

as landmarks (physical, frequency of visit) can also be determined.

Cognitive Maps

Cognitive maps, a term coined by psychologist E.C. Tolman, is a mental representation of

physical locations. Tolman used this to explain how rats learned to navigate mazes to get to the

reward (1948). The difference between the mental representation and the physical location may

reveal what individuals consider as important. Similarly, cognitive maps can also be used to

identify how individuals create boundaries for that area. Salient locations are key factors to

creating cognitive maps. As such, cognitive maps differ from person to person. What cognitive

maps have in common, however, is their purpose.

Cognitive maps not only help a person encode, store, recall and decode information easily,

but it also helps them physically navigate through familiar areas, such as homes, malls, cities, etc.

Environmental psychologists, urban planners and even law enforcement use the cognitive maps of

people who live in a certain area to identify key locations, as well as see how people remember or

understand certain locations (e.g. bad place in town, lively hotspots, memorable locations, etc.).

7|Page
 Similar to how Tolman’s cognitive maps are formed, is how Kevin Lynch described the

formation of environmental images. An urban planner and former professor in the Massachusetts

Institute of Technology, Lynch described the formation that environmental images are a result of

a two-way interaction between an environment and an observer. In his book, he wrote that “the

environment suggests distinction and relations, and the observer - with great adaptability and in

the light of his own purposes - selects, organizes and endows with meaning, what he sees.” (1960,

p. 6). Aside from this, he states that a working image (i.e. one that is useful to the observer) needs

to have an identity, a structure and a meaning.

The identity of a working image refers to the identification of an object (e.g. a cafe, or a

restaurant). It’s called an identity not because the object shares a common characteristic with

another object, but because it has a unique feature that identifies the object (e.g. you identify a red

car because it is red, not because it is a car). Next, for an image to be considered as a working

image, the object needs to have a physical relation to the observer, as well as other objects in the

image. Lastly, an image needs to have a meaning to the observer that could be either an emotional

meaning or a practical meaning.

For this study, the idea behind Tolman and Lynch’s mental representations of their

environment would be used to see if people’s representation of Maginhawa creates a shared

meaning for Maginhawa. This shared meaning would then be used to see if the people who

frequent Maginhawa are part of a community. Cohen uses shared meanings and identities as his

basis for defining a community, rather than using geographical locations and or boundaries.

Likewise, Tolman and Lynch suggests that the use of meanings and identities to create individual

mind maps of a given area allow for easier navigations of one’s surroundings.

8|Page
 In connection to Maginhawa, people give different definitions and meanings to different

locations. These meanings could in turn categorize certain parts of the location as salient while

others insignificant (e.g. A restaurant as opposed to a salon). These meanings could be attached to

different locations that an individual could identify, suggesting that these meanings could be

linked, to create a network. To a mind map, where these networks of meaning begin or end, could

identify how a person creates the boundaries for certain locations.

METHODOLOGY

The data gathered for this study were obtained through short structured interviews of ten

(10) students on campus of The University of the Philippines, Diliman, as well as six (6) customers

from various cafés and eateries in Maginhawa Street, along with two (2) semi-structured interview

from a resident living near Maginhawa Street, and a long time professor of the University of the

Philippines. Online blogs and vlogs were also used as secondary data.

The sixteen (16) people that the researchers conducted the short structured interviews on

consisted of six (6) males and ten (10) females in their early to mid-twenties. The interviewees on

campus were chosen at random, but the six (6) customers that were interviewed were chosen

because they were present at the time that the researchers were present in specific establishments.

The two (2) key informants that were interviewed for the study, however, were chosen because of

their association to Maginhawa Street.

The first key informant, Donna1, is a sixty-eight year old, female local artist, currently

residing in Mayaman Street, one of the streets that connects to Maginhawa Street. She has been a

1
This name is not the actual name of the informant

9|Page
resident of the area for almost ten years, and prior to living there, she lived in Matiyaga Street,

which is a few kilometres away in the same subdivision.

The second key informant, Langdon2, is a fifty-four year old male, former instructor of the

University of the Philippines, Diliman. Although Langdon does not live in or around Maginhawa

Street, he has frequented Maginhawa Street since he was an undergraduate student of the

University, and has seen its development, not just as a commercial street, but as key location to

campus. Langdon was an undergraduate student of the University of the Philippines in the late

‘70s.

For the short interviews, the researchers asked a series of questions that help determine

how the general public view the Maginhawa area and what association people have with the place.

Different sets of questions were asked for each group of people although several questions were

similar to one another. The customers in Maginhawa were mainly asked what specific places in

Maginhawa they frequently visit, why they go to specific places in the area and what they think

the term “Maginhawa” is associated with. Aside from this they were asked about what streets and

places they consider to be part of the Maginhawa area. This set of questions was similarly asked

to the students on campus. For the researchers, these two groups of people, the customers and the

students on campus, belong to the same community - the community of customers. Asking these

questions to the customers and the students will allow the researchers to get the necessary

information and see how this particular ‘community’ perceives the area. By knowing what places

they consider as part of the Maginhawa area, the researchers will be able to create a cognitive map

2
This name is not the actual name of the informant

10 | P a g e
of the area through the customers’ point of view. To be able to get a different point of view, the

researchers then went to the key informants to gather a new set of information.

The set of questions used for the key informants was not as simple as the previous set. The

goal of the questions is to obtain information that will explain or describe Maginhawa from a

different light. Donna and Langdon are the key informants that comprise the group that the

researchers consider as the community of residents3. The researchers believe that this community

was able to witness the development of the Maginhawa area and how it has changed from a

residential area to a more commercialized one4. Because of this, the questions that were asked

revolved around the difference between Maginhawa in the past and Maginhawa of the present.

Donna, the first informant, was first asked to answer questions that established her as a

resident of the area. As stated above, Donna has lived on Mayaman Street for a decade and on

Matiyaga Street for a decade prior. She was then asked what her description of Maginhawa was

when she first started living in the area, her answer related Maginhawa as a student area and a

place important to her personally because of close friends who also lived in the area, as well as

defining it as “an adjunct of UP” (Donna, personal communication, May 8, 2014) because of the

several boarding houses and dormitories present in the area. In contrast to the past, Donna was

asked to describe Maginhawa in the present, and she described it using adjectives like “vibrant and

dynamic” and connected it to specific establishments that she is aware of, as well as general

establishments like tea houses and art galleries (since she is an artist). She also stated that the area

3
It should be noted that, although Langdon is considered part of the ‘community of residents’, he does not live in or
around Maginhawa street. He has, however, visited the area frequently, as mentioned before.
4
A detailed explanation on the terms ‘residential area’ and ‘commercial area’ is given in the analysis below.

11 | P a g e
was relatively quiet and did not encounter too much traffic, which she said was a good location for

education.

Donna was then asked a question that regarded her opinion on Maginhawa. Her answer

related to the word ‘Maginhawa’ instead of the street/area and grouped it together with the other

street names like mabait and mahusay, and said that they were altogether, very positive, stating

how names were important and how they could affect the reputation of a certain area. She was

then asked about her view of where Maginhawa Street starts and ends. She then replied that the

street started at the road that connected Philcoa to Maginhawa (Masaya Street), a geographical

reference; she then further added that the street had personal connections to her. Her answer to

where Maginhawa Street ended was answered when asked of her description of Maginhawa when

she had started living in the area, she had responded with ‘Anonas’ (the researchers omitted the

question since it was already previously answered). Donna agreed when she was asked if the streets

around Maginhawa, like Mayaman Street and others, were part of Maginhawa as an area, but stated

that the street was more of a boundary to and part of the UP Village, rather than UP Village as a

part of Maginhawa.

Donna was asked for her opinion on how she sees Maginhawa in the future, and how she

feels about the possible outcomes of the area. She stated that Maginhawa would become a bigger

food area, but did not think it would look like the nearby Katipunan Avenue because Maginhawa

Street is not a main road. As a resident, Donna said, she was torn with how she would feel if the

reputation of Maginhawa as a food street were to become popular. On one hand, she personally

worried over what traffic this may cause her, but on the other, she said that for as long as the

changes were beneficial to the community, it would be okay. When asked if she was aware of

some background as to why the village was called ‘Teacher’s Village’, she responded that she had

12 | P a g e
understood that the area was initially allotted to UP teachers, but she was not absolutely sure as to

why it was called ‘Teacher’s Village’.

The second key informant, Langdon, was asked directly of his opinion of Maginhawa now,

and said that the area is busier and has seen more traffic as compared to the time he was a student

of UP in the late ‘70s, when the population was smaller and less urbanized, going so far as to

stating that there were rice fields and a small farming community then. When asked on the first

thing that comes to mind when Maginhawa is mentioned, he simply replied “food.” When asked

as to what came into mind when Maginhawa was mentioned before, he replied, specifically, the

establishment ‘Nanette’s’, then expounded how Maginhawa was known through its association to

UP Village but also made the distinction that the general area was perceived to be outside UP and

served as an escape. Langdon was then asked if he could remember when the name ‘Maginhawa’

became known, he replied that, back then, it was UP Village to him, but supposed that the people

who resided in the area knew the street name to be ‘Maginhawa’. He further noted that, back then,

Maginhawa was known only to the “knowledgeable drivers” (Langdon, personal communication,

May 8, 2014) and used as a back road to those that did know of its existence. It was here that

Langdon verbally explained the various routes that connected Maginhawa Street to other main

roads, backing up the perception of the street as a shortcut or alternative.

When asked of his opinion of Maginhawa being currently viewed as a ‘food street’,

Langdon said that he personally had no resistance to the development of Maginhawa. He further

noted that, to him, the development of the area grew concentrically from UP. Here, Langdon

presented a small background history of the area as from what he knew, the lots in UP Village

were supposedly for the teachers and the owners of the lots were told to put up a building or lose

the lot. He also stated that those circumstances may have helped in fast-tracking the development

13 | P a g e
of the area. In connection to this, he was then asked when he noticed the establishments begin to

multiply and said that the small eateries, sari-sari stores and carinderia-type establishments came

into prominence during the late ‘80s and the café-type establishments came in during the early

‘90s. Langdon was also asked for his opinion on whether the increase in establishments was

beneficial or a hindrance. He responded that, yes, the establishments were beneficial but also stated

that the development came at a cost, like more traffic and more noise.

Langdon was asked as to how he saw Maginhawa in 10 to 15 years. His reply was a

comparison with the nearby Katipunan Avenue before the high-rise condominiums, stating that he

sees Maginhawa to have buildings of around five to ten storeys tall that would create a sort-of

boundary for the village inside that he views as something that will stay. When asked if he thought

the small, family-owned businesses around the area were to be overrun by the bigger franchises,

he compared what he saw as a type of Morato (Tomas Morato, near Quezon Avenue), saying that,

though Morato is now home to bigger restaurant chains, it still has smaller coffee shops around,

going so far as to saying that Maginhawa could be considered a gourmet avenue. Langdon was

then asked how he saw other people’s image of Maginhawa. He answered that it is considered a

foodie place as compared to his view, which was more utilitarian, referencing again that

Maginhawa was a back road. He was also asked if he thought the businesses would last and he

explained what he defined as Darwin’s Law (Survival of the Fittest). He was then asked if he also

considered the streets around Maginhawa Street as part of the Maginhawa area and he responded

that, yes, people remember the name Maginhawa more than the other street names like Malingap

Street, similar to how people refer to the area around Tomas Morato as either the Scout area or just

‘Morato’, as compared to his view of Maginhawa before, when it was, to him, simply a part of UP

Village. Lastly, Langdon gave a very insightful opinion on how the word ‘Maginhawa’, stating

14 | P a g e
that it was “… too powerful an utterance … that you forget the names of the restaurants and cafés

in it.” (Langdon, personal communication, May 8, 2014)

The students from the University of the Philippines as well as customers from various

establishments in Maginhawa that were interviewed all had different places that they would often

visit when they are in the Maginhawa area. Among the most visited places were Fresh Selections,

Friuli, and Moonleaf; all of which sell some form of food and/or drink. All of those interviewed

said that they have been to the Maginhawa at least a few times prior to the interview and that they

have visited more than one establishment. In fact, most of the informants were those who

frequented Maginhawa and would be in the area at least a few times a week or a month with the

exception of one informant who said that they would only go to the area once a year. This means

that they were updated and informed on what goes on in the area.

There is no question that the area of Maginhawa is closely associated with food and drink.

All of the informants from the community of customers said that the reason they go to the area is

to grab something to eat or drink. Since none of them were actual residents of the area, the topic

of residing in the area was left out completely. The informants were also asked where they thought

the area of Maginhawa started and ended. The answers varied with a few people saying that it

started in Ministop, in the eatery known as Ate Fe’s, right after the Philcoa area, in the Rodic’s

area, and also near the jeepney stop. As for the end of Maginhawa, the informants’ answers also

varied and there was no one place where everyone agreed that the Maginhawa area ended. Answers

to the question included the Savemore store, right before Philcoa, in the Anonas Street, near

Moonleaf, and also near the food place known as the Burger Project.

Although the question of where Maginhawa started and ended varies from person to

person, almost all the informants agreed that the Maginhawa area included not only the actual

15 | P a g e
street but also the surrounding streets and any nearby places that had establishments which sold

food or drink. The term Maginhawa grew from being just another street in a village to a whole

area of several streets that is known as a destination for those looking to grab a bite to eat.

Another question asked to informants was how they would describe how to get to a place

in Maginhawa to someone who was unfamiliar with the area. The best way, according to

informants, would be to ride a tricycle or a taxi and also use the Ministop in Maginhawa as a

landmark. The final question asked to the UP students as well as the customers of the

establishments is how they think Maginhawa would look like 10-15 years into the future. The

answers of the informants all shared a common notion and they all agreed that Maginhawa would

grow not just as a commercial centre but also as a residential area. Informants were all optimistic

about more establishments and businesses most especially restaurants opening up in the area in the

near future. The reputation that Maginhawa has could easily attract many aspiring business people

to set up shop in the area and a lot of them have already started. Informants also noticed that a lot

of people (not just students and teachers) lived in the Maginhawa area. Our key informant Donna

also expressed in her interview that the area was very suitable and convenient for people to live in.

Since it is near some of the best schools in the country, a lot of students would want to live in the

area so they would be close to the school. The area is also very quiet despite the numerous

businesses around. These factors showed that in the near future, the area of Maginhawa would also

thrive as a residential area for everyone.

ANALYSIS

As stated above, the researchers considered the group of UP students and the customers of

the Maginhawa area to be part of a single group, the community of customers, because of their

16 | P a g e
shared identification for the Maginhawa Area, primarily, food. According to Cohen, a community

can be defined by identities or meanings that are held by the same group of individuals. As an

initial observation, we saw that whenever we asked these groups what comes to mind when they

hear someone say “Maginhawa”, their first answer is food. This identification of the Maginhawa

Area as a food strip, the researchers think, came about when bloggers started identifying “eat

strips”. These identifications are then broadcasted on social media, such as Facebook, Twitter, or

their own food websites. These identities become shared as more and more people visit these

websites, as well as the street of Maginhawa itself.

Although people have a sense of identity for the location, these identities develop as they

attach more and more meanings to it. These meanings can be personal meaning, (such emotions

or memories), or practical meanings (a place to eat, a tambayan). Although these meanings alter

and ‘personalize’ each person’s identification of Maginhawa, they still share a common identity.

Based on the answers given by our informants, we found that most of them identify the

Maginhawa area not only by geographical characteristics or physical boundaries (e.g. Street

names, intersection, subdivision boundaries, etc.) but by identifiable objects such as restaurants or

establishments, as well as it’s relation to other locations.

Most of our interviewees, when asked about how they see the Maginhawa area, said that

they consider the small streets around Maginhawa Street as part of the area because of the

establishments that can be found there. A few of our interviewees from the community of

customers said that the streets around Maginhawa, minor street or major thoroughfare, is part of

the Maginhawa area as long as there are establishments present. Likewise, any street that doesn’t

have an establishment built on it, is considered a residential area, some even stating that the

residential area was no longer considered part of the Maginhawa area.

17 | P a g e
 Through landmarks like establishments, or its physical relationship with another area is

how our informants defined the boundaries of Maginhawa. To the members of the community of

customers, the Maginhawa Area is defined by the establishments; “streets without restaurants

aren’t part of Maginhawa,” “Turn left at Establishment-A, and you’re in Maginhawa” are a few of

the general answers that our informants gave us, when asked to describe where Maginhawa ends,

or how to get there:

“Dun sa may Burger Project… Kasi hanggang doon pa lang yung na-explore ko,

eh…” - Male, 20

“Kanan ka sa may Ministop, tapos, yun na…” - Female, 19

“That place where you have Camp Karingal at the back. I think you know that used

to be rice fields. May mga kalabaw pa nga eh. Minsan pinapastolan all the way

inside UP Village. Of course wala na yung farming community doon… So it was

really a back road. Just the way Sucat Paranaque was…” - Langdon

“Actually sila ang boundary, Kalayaan, Maginhawa. They are the boundary.

Actually because I think the other side is still UP Village, I’m not sure…” - Donna

When asked to describe the physical boundaries of the Maginhawa Area, some of our

informants often used the relationship of an object (in most cases, establishments) in relation to

others. Others, however, only used the area around the Maginhawa Area to describe its actual

boundaries. Our informants also told us that aside from the establishment, their knowledge of the

area also played a part in where they think the Maginhawa Area ends. Much like the quote above,

most of our informants said that they only know the Maginhawa Area as far as they have

18 | P a g e
“explored” (some of them, however, acknowledge that it may still be a part of the Maginhawa

Area beyond that they have explored).

This suggest that their boundaries are limited to the places that they can identify. Langdon,

who said he used Maginhawa as a shortcut during his time as a student, says that Maginhawa ends

where it intersects to a highway. He defined the physical boundaries of the Maginhawa Area with

a utilitarian perspective, focusing more on how he area can benefit him (e.g. as a shortcut to and

from specific area). Donna also said this; but in her answer, she knows the end of Maginhawa

Street, but she thinks that the Maginhawa area ends before that, because of the presence of

establishments. Like what Kevin Lynch suggested, people’s mental image of their environment

are defined by their identification of an object in the area, a physical location of an object in relation

to its environment, and meaning put into it. In Langdon’s case, his boundary of the area is defined

by the end of the actual street, because that is how he became familiar with. With Donna, however,

she suggests that the Maginhawa Area before the street does, because her familiarity of the area is

defined by her associations to certain establishments (personal associations from emotions and

memories).

Similarly, we noticed that our interviewees saw the Maginhawa area as a commercial area.

Although a commercial area is defined as an area within a city where commerce (i.e. buying and

selling of products) is practised, the Maginhawa Area is part of U.P. Teacher’s Village which is a

residential area. All the interviewees, when asked about the Area’s near-future, said that it was

likely to become more “Commercialized”. Here are excerpts from interviews, when we asked our

informants about how they see Maginhawa ten to fifteen years from the present:

19 | P a g e
 “I think it should have overrun the residential areas... more commercial…” - Male,

225

“mas maraming places, mas commercialized, more eateries…” - Female, 18

“Mas magdedevelop… marami nang nag-bago since the first time kaming pumunta

dun, eh…” - Male, 20

“Very much like… No, Katipunan is too much. Kasi Katipunan is sprouting na

yung mga 20-floor condominiums. But not like that yet. Katipunan before the

condominiums. (Interviewer: Mawawala na yung pagka-village feel?) No. I think

that it will be out there. The village inside is going to be protected by a wall of tall

buildings…” - Langdon

“It will be crowded as population increases but there will be more I think it’s going

to be a food area… Maginhawa is narrow compared to Katipunan. It’s not a main

artery. It’s a secondary street kasi ang major street ay Kalayaan and then ang exit

mo circle na diba? ” - Donna

Langdon and Donna’s answer for this question looked at the Maginhawa Area’s shift to a

commercial area, as part of the overall shift of the whole area (UP Teacher’s Village). They

suggested that although the Maginhawa Area may shift from being an exclusively residential area

to a commercial area, some of its aspect as a residential area will remain, or hinder it from

completely becoming a commercial area. Their answers suggested that they saw the Maginhawa

5
To keep them anonymous, our interviewees identified by their sex and age, similar to how our key informants are
given pseudonyms

20 | P a g e
as more than just a strip of restaurants and eateries, which contrasted the customer’s perspective,

whom suggested that the Maginhawa Area might completely become a commercial area.

Their difference in view may suggest meanings that our informants have given to the

location, and how those meanings affect how they perceive the area in the future. Donna, as a

resident, sees the Maginhawa Area as a residential area, and might see its development as an

infusion of a commercial area with the existing residential area. In contrast to the perspective of

the customers, who see the Maginhawa Area as a strip of restaurants, suggesting that its

development would completely shift the area into a commercial area, and “overrun” the residential

traits (the houses would be replaced by eating establishments)”. Langdon’s view on this, however,

is a mixture of both.

Having frequented the Maginhawa area long enough to be considered a resident, Langdon

saw the Maginhawa Area with an outsider’s perspective, yet is able to associate with the area like

a long-time resident. Langdon’s view of the development of the Maginhawa area mixes Donna’s

and the others’ answers; He saw that although Maginhawa might develop into a commercial area,

it will still have its identity as residential area. Langdon suggests that rather than develop or shift

its identity (i.e. from residential to commercial) the Maginhawa areas identity would become a

further mix of the two.

21 | P a g e
CONCLUSION

How the informants created boundaries for the Maginhawa Area, as well as how they

imagine the Area would look like in the future gives an insight on how they perceive the

Maginhawa Area. Donna identifies with the Maginhawa Area as a resident, and sees it as a

residential area, that is developing to accommodate the people living in the area, as well as the

people of the surrounding area (i.e. the college students and the employees of the business centres).

Langdon, although not a resident of the Maginhawa Area, shares the same view on Maginhawa;

wherein he sees the whole stretch of road, to be part of a utility that can be used by people living

in the area, as well as the people from the surrounding area. The difference in their perspective,

however, is brought about by their backgrounds.

As an artist, Donna’s perception of the Maginhawa Area is affected by her own output on

life. During her interviews, she often used adjectives or descriptives like “young”, “vibrant”, and

“dynamic” to both describe the location as well as the people in the area, suggesting that she

perceives the Maginhawa Area as a living entity, or as an actual being. Langdon’s interview

suggests that he perceives the Maginhawa Area as a community of services and interaction; that

he perceives the community as an interaction between the people living in the area, and the people

who frequent the area (as patrons or employees of the establishments). Which differs from how

the Community of Customers perceive the Maginhawa Area as a place where they can obtain

services.

These perceptions, though seemingly different, have a common core. The Maginhawa

Area, as all the interviewees answered, is a place that accommodates the needs of the people around

it. Whether you’re a student boarder that needs a place to stay, or tired employee needing a place

to relax, or a lazy resident looking for an easy meal, The Maginhawa Area is perceived as that

22 | P a g e
“one-stop destination” for your basic needs. All our interviewees, residents and customers alike,

see The Maginhawa Area, as a community that is growing as it tries to accommodate to the needs

of the people living within or around the area; through the meanings they assign to objects (good

or bad) as well as their own identification of the area, the residents and the customers of the

Maginhawa Area become a part of a community that interact and grow through the residents

accommodating the students and employees of nearby colleges and businesses, while these

students and employees buying products from the establishments, and these establishments further

supporting the physical community around them.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

During the time this study was conducted, the colleges around the Maginhawa Area were

out for summer break, and only a few students stayed for summer classes. Because of this, most

the establishments we went to interview people weren’t as crowded, or didn’t have as many patrons

as they would have during a regular academic semester. Another problem that was encountered, is

establishing as well as scheduling interviews with key informants. Again, being the summer

season, most of the people that were approached to be interviewed were busy or were occupied

with personal matters. Unfortunately, due to the time constraints and scheduling conflicts, the

researchers were not able to interview more residents as well as the managers and/or owners of the

businesses around Maginhawa for a possible addition in the perception of the area. Similarly, the

researchers were not able interview the officials that oversee the safety and the development of

Maginhawa and the villages around it due to scheduling conflicts, and so there is little factual

history used to associate with the perceptions and the changes these perceptions have gone under

through time.

23 | P a g e
 Kevin Lynch’s study was done by asking residents of a certain area to draw and or describe

their own images of their environment. A suggestion on how to study this topic further is by asking

informants to actually draw how they see the Maginhawa Area. Then using that drawing to try and

compare their description of the area, to see if there is a correlation between their photographic

representation, and their mental description of the area.

To further enhance the study, the researchers would also recommend that other areas like

Katipunan Avenue and Tomas Morato Avenue, which have similar backgrounds as the Maginhawa

area, be studied in a similar fashion to be able to come up with a comparison, as well as to see how

the perceptions change when considering big-name restaurant and cafe franchises.

24 | P a g e
REFERENCES
Bennett, David. 1975. Spatial and temporal uses of English prepositions. London: Longmans.
Casson, R. W. (1983). Schemata in Cognitive Anthropology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 12,
429-462.
Claudia, S. (1992). What Makes Tony Run? Schema as Cultural Motivation Reconsidered. In R.
J. Mcgee, & R. Warms, Anthropological Theory: An Introductory History (4th ed., pp. 384-
405). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Clausner, T. & Croft, W. (1999). Domains and Image Schemas. Cognitive Linguistics, 10 (1), 1-
31.
Cohen, A. (1980). The Symbolic Construction of Community. London: Tavistock
Homegrown.ph. (2013). Trips to Food Strips: Maginhawa [online]. Retrieved on May 19, 2014
from http://homegrown.ph/trips-to-food-strips-maginhawa/.
Johnson, Mark. 1987.The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George. 1987.Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind.
Chicago: University of Chicago.
Lynch, K. (1960). The Image of the City. Cambridge, MA: The M.I.T. Press.
Smith, M. K. (2001). ‘Community’ in the encyclopedia of informal education,
http://www.infed.org/community/community.htm.

Tolman, E. (1948). Cognitive Maps in Rats and Men. Psychological Review, 189-208.

25 | P a g e