Philippine Studies and

Pilipinolohiya:
Two Heuristic Views in the
Study of Matters Filipino
Zeus A. Salazar. 1991.
European Conference on Philippine
Studies
Introduction
This article aims to present the overarching themes of what Zeus Salazar calls as
two methods of studying “matters Filipino”, namely “Philippine Studies” and
“Pilipinolohiya”. In his paper, Salazar defined Philippine Studies as “the study of
the Philippines from the external point of view (mula sa labas na)” of Philippine
civilization and culture. And, Pilipinolohiya is defined as “the study of the
Philippines from within (mula sa loob ng) Philippine civilization and its cultures”
(Salazar, 1991:1).

Article Review
For a very long time, the Philippines had been viewed from the eyes and lens of
the foreigner: Chinese, Spaniards, and Americans. The study of the Philippines by
the foreigners is not only written in foreign tongues but also placed us under a
“foreign view” that alienated us from our true collective national Self.
Our foremost national hero Jose Rizal spearheaded the clamor for the study of
the “Vaterland” or “Patria” by annotating Antonio de Morga’s Sucessos de las
Islas Filipinas and organizing a group of scholars “Les Philippiniste” to articulate
the task of “national self-understanding and self-definition”.
Salazar (1991:14) in his paper pointed out that Pilipinolohiya “aims at
understanding Pilipinas from within – i.e. it has a singular focus and a single
vantage point, that of the Filipino nationality. Ultimately, the author argues that
Pilipinolohiya “works toward unity and homogeneity (pantayong pananaw) of
Pilipinas” while Philippine Studies may lead towards division and differences.
A rally point in Salazar’s discourse is the assertion that the Philippines as an area
of study came about as a result of the “intellectual encounter” between and
among the scholars of the Philippines and Europe. Subsequently, he posited that
the study of the Philippines was a result of the exchange of scholarly views and
insights between Rizal and his fellow Propagandist and Ferdinand Blumentritt
and other Europeans, interested at that time in the Philippines.
In the course of the author’s article, he characterized Rizal as favoring the
“…founding of Pilipinolohiya and leaving Philippine studies to his European
friends.” The agenda of Rizal here was to espouse the study of Filipinas by the
Filipinos in accordance with their national unity and identity while encouraging
the European scholars to write about the Philippines as a support to the
Propaganda campaign. Ultimately, the aim of Pilipinolohiya “…is to report and
explain about Pilipinas to Filipinos in their own terms and with a view to
strengthening Filipino nationality.”
 Conclusion
An important aspect of Salazar’s article is his contrast between Pilipinolohiya
and Philippine Studies. He juxtaposed key points and importance of both areas of
scholarship and the problematic dichotomy of both. However, considering the
arguments presented by the author, it is clear that his leaning is towards
Pilipinolohiya. The push for Pilipinolohiya is apparent due to the following
reasons: 1. focus on Filipinas 2. indigenous methods and approaches 3. it edifies
and reinforces the Filipino nationality 4. use (or, preference?) of the Filipino
language, and 5. its effect on the unity of the Philippines (pantayong pananaw).

Finally, Salazar warned and/or reminded the reader that due to our colonial
experience, the Filipino scholar has become subservient to the scholarship of the
foreign Other echoing the colonial viewpoint on the Filipino. Thus, scholarship
that does not align with the unity and nationalist viewpoint of the Filipino is
deemed as a “national-disruptive ‘research’ ideology.”