The Filipino Personality

Introduction:

 From a long history of Western colonial rule, interspersed with the visits of merchants and
traders, evolved a people of a unique blend of east and west both in appearance and culture.
 The Filipino character is actually a little bit of all the cultures put together. Having been
colonized by various countries, the Philippine culture, in effect, is mixed with Asian and Western
influences. Thus, the Philippine culture is diverse and can be reflected in our traits.
 Filipino personality traits and values vary depending on how they are raised in their respective
homes.

Filipino Personality Traits:

 Magalang (Respectful) – Filipinos are respectful. Filipinos see this in how they address the
elderly people, like with the use of “po” and “opo” when addressing someone older than them.
 Masayahin (Joyful) – Filipinos are known for their smiles that can warm the hearts of anyone.
Filipinos have an innate sense of happiness and they can even find humor in their own
problems.
 May takot sa Diyos (God-fearing) – Though Filipinos belong to various religious groups, they all
essentially have God at the center of their lives.
 Malapit sa Pamilya (Close Family Ties) – Filipinos enjoy the feeling of having and knowing
family members are around them. From cousins, aunts, uncles and grandparents, some families
share their homes, celebrate holidays and lend a hand to relatives when it is needed.
 Marunong tumanaw ng utang na loob (Have strong sense of gratitude) – Just as Filipinos are
readily available for help, they also feel a great sense of gratitude when help is extended to
them and voluntarily reciprocate this help in due time.
 Matulungin (Helpful) – Filipinos readily extend help even in small ways. The value of
“Bayanihan” is a prime example of the concept of helping, where people put together their
strength or resources to help out a person in need.
 Matatag (Resilient) – Filipinos are, by nature, resilient, and triumph through bad situations like
financial setbacks or bad harvest. They hold strongly to the idea that things will improve and
that God will always be there for men.
 Matapang (Brave) – Filipinos are known for bravery especially when family, security, lives are
being threatened by bad circumstances or people. They are willing to risk lives to protect those
who are dear to them.
 Hospitality (Welcoming to visitors) – When Filipinos have people visit their homes, they always
welcome them with smiles, conversation and food.
 Obedient and dutiful – In Filipino culture, they always respect and follow what their parents and
adults advise them to do.
 Diligent and patient – Majority of livelihood in the Philippines is based on agriculture. It takes a
lot of back-breaking work to plant the fields. Then it takes patience to care, water and harvest it.
 Resourceful and creative – During the times when Filipinos don’t have the means to accomplish
something, they find ingenious ways of using what we have to solve their problems.
 Thrifty and frugal – Filipinos don’t like to waste anything since they don’t have a lot. They are
careful of what they have, knowing that it will serve them well for a long time.
Other Filipino Traits:
 Colonial Mentality – It is the referential use of all things foreign and dislike for anything local.
 Relax Lang Mentality – The Filipinos are used to work daily and get things done with little heed
for meeting deadlines or resolving urgent problems and this is so because the country abounds
with resources and climate without winter.
 Crab Mentality – Filipinos sometimes get jealous of other people’s successes that they find a
way to pull the other person down, rather than striving to be better.
 The “Awa” Mentality – Awa is the Filipino value that is much abused, overused, behind which a
lot of in competencies and irregularities are shielded.
 Filipino Time – For the Filipino, time is a succession of moments without neither starting point
nor an ending point.
 Compadre System – Many Filipinos do not exert extraordinary effort in their particular field of
endeavor as they rely so much on the much-abused “padrino system” and influence-peddling to
attain their ends.
 Tungkulin ng Panganay sa Pamilya – In the Filipino family, the oldest child, who is next in rank
to the parents, is expected to act and think like the parents.
 Pagkatitulado or Pagpapahalaga sa may Pinag-aralan – The Filipino feels inadequate if he has
not experienced formal education. The compulsion is that he should be schooled to become
relevant.
 Ningas Cogon – This refers to the rapidity with which a new organization may first gather
enthusiastic support and then be entirely neglected.
 The Go Between – This serves to prevent a direct quarrel between individuals or groups.
 Mañana Habit – The mañana or procrastination is an example of the indolence of the Filipinos
as in the much-abused phrase “saka na lang.”
 Lack of Discipline – Pollution, traffic rules and following the law are things Filipinos tend to
ignore. They like to sell their wares on the streets, beat the red light and throw their garbage in
the wrong places.
 Lack of Sportsmanship – This arises from the feeling of disgrace on the part of the loser.
 “Bahala Na” – This is a kind of fatalistic resignation that really represents withdrawal from
engagement or crisis or a shrinking from personal responsibility.
 Amor propio – means ego defensiveness, dignity or one’s personal pride akin to the traditional
oriental attitude of having ‘face’. In Philippine society, building up one’s self-esteem is essential,
and to this end amor propio in all respect reinforces the Filipino trait “hiya”. Like for example, a
person may hesitate to collect a long overdue financial debt or item borrowed because to raise
the matter face to face may place a person’s amor propio at risk and can cause the latter to flare
up.
It is a finding of all workers that the Filipino exhibits polarities in his
behavior and personality. Of these contrasts, he is mostly unaware.
The inconsistencies escape him; he has learned to live with them
and feels no inner discord over them.

Some of these diametrically opposite states are the following

(Bulatao 1963; Guthrie 1961; Hollnsteiner 1963; Lynch 1964;
Sechresr 1967a):

1. Emphasis on smooth interpersonal relations vs. high levels of

hostility.

2. “Hiya” vs. predilection for status and rank, tendencies to

extravagance and boastfulness.

3. Strong dependency wishes vs. attraction for power.

4. “Bahala na” attitudes vs. avowed desire for economic security

and advancement.

5. Egocentricity vs. other-directedness.

6. In women, “hiya” and modesty vs. strong achievement and

aggression needs.

7. In men, tendency for dominance vs. that for abasement

(Probably related to No. 3).

8. A tendency to view people as superior or inferior vs. social

control mechanism, aimed at equalizing statuses and relationships
in a group.

One could go on and cite similar antithetical observations, perhaps

nor as diametrically opposite to one another as the above, but
enough to point to some incompatibility.

Frank Lynch (1964), in discussing the use of euphemism, says: “the

highest value is placed on the pleasant word except when the
change is between good friends or sworn enemies. Under these
circumstances, however, one may hear forthright speech that is
exceedingly direct, even b standards.”

Pleasantness and friendliness are emphasized along with

guardedness against criticism and ridicule by others. Guthrie (1961)
notes: “Filipinos practice extreme cleanliness with respect to their
bodies, their clothes and their personal environment. This is in
sharp contrast to many streets, sidewalks and the areas around
many buildings.” Sechrest, Flores, and Arellano (1968), in taking
linear measurements of social distance among students noted
various situations wherein great distance was observed. They
remark, however, that these expectations of distance are valid only
when the situation is seen as controllable by the parties involved.

In matters of child-rearing, contradictory attitudes by Filipino

parents cannot but produce confusion in the child. Sechrest (1967a)
comments that the training of children seems oriented toward the
denial or suppression of hostility, and yet there is an incompatible
tendency toward arousal of hostility produced by the certainly
discussion of sex are taboo in families, yet babies arrive of children.
At the risk of being called careless and unscientific, one can stretch
the point even further to include many other observations. Thus,
while famous for their hospitality, Filipinos like to erect may be a
valid rationalization attitudes towards strangers are inconsistent and
unpredictable. “A need to maintain distance from strangers” is the
description of one writer (Bulatao 1.963). Outgoingness towards
them to the point where “even a complete stranger may be a
recipient of Filipino hospitality” is the observation of another
(Gurhrie 1961). For some reason, there has been nothing formally
written to bring out inconsistencies in the Filipino woman’s reputed
modesty an reservedness, One wonders if predicaments she may
get into which would compromise her decorum are blamed on
others or on other factors.

Take the Filipino’s reputed attachment to home and family. One

may indict economic factors as responsible for the Philippine’s
overwhelming contribution to the brain drain to the United States,
but it certainly challenges the Filipino’s claim to unflagging
steadfastness to family ties and loyal attachment to home. The
phenomenon of the Ilocano husband who goes to Hawaii, who is
separated. from his wife and family for decades, content to send a
check faithfully each month, is well known. While it is true that, in
each situation, a complexity of motives and circumstances come to
bear on the resulting decision, there is enough disparity along the
given axis of behavior to raise questions about which is more in
keeping with true Filipino character. Perhaps the on-going economic
revolution in the Filipino’s life style will crystallize which are his core
traits and which are merely defensive; it will not be surprising to
see many myths about his personality finally laid to rest.

Bulaeao (1966) gives an illuminating expose of such inconsistencies

in behavior. He presents as a hypothetical explanation for the
abundance of these contradictions the peculiar historical experience
of Filipinos. Malayan in the marrow of his bones, the Filipino through
exposure and expediency has grafted upon the more superficial
layers of his personality certain Western ideals, notably democracy,
autonomy, and freedom to doubt and investigate, to question
authority. Even the Western influence in the Philippines has to be
“split” further to delineate that which is traceable to Spain and to
America. A newspaperman once remarked that Filipino women have
spent four centuries in a convent (Spanish influence) and forty
years in Hollywood (American influence). This may be an over-
simplified, over-generalized statement but it contains more than an
ounce of truth. Becoming a nun is still a common fantasy among
young girls, whether they go to a nun’s school or not. The leading
box- office Filipino movies at this time still depict this “nunnery”
complex. At the same time mini-skirts, “house of beauty”
establishments, and torrid cinema sex have become very much part
of the scene.

In my opinion, there is a significant correlation between these

contradictory attitudes, as they exist in the culture and the
psychological ambivalence which played a key role in the emotional
disorders in this study. In the patients, illness grew our of
ambivalence in relation to dependency conflicts, guilt over success,
tenuous controls over aggression and, in women, an inability to
accept fully her sexual role. Although the themes are similar and the
possibility of their mutual derivation is strongly suggested, the lines
of correlation are neither clear nor direct.

Cultural studies with more detail and depth dealing with hostility
and aggression in the Filipino male and sexuality in the Filipino
female would be greatly relevant to the kinds of psychological
conflicts encountered in this study. By singling out these areas,

I am neither excluding nor minimizing others, but merely regard

these two as predominating.

Sexuality in the Filipino male, for example, is not always settled

issue, as must be the case whenever there is a constant need to
affirm it. No significant degree of conflict about it was perceived
from this study. Without doubt, the problem of aggression, which he
handles less expertly, is linked in some way to his sexuality so that
instead of the two instincts being fused into a unified, harmonious
whole, what results are the separate primitive and direct
expressions of each one. One wonders how much of his sexuality is
really carried out in a spirit of aggression and how much of his
aggressive acts give him an erotic thrill. When a society becomes
industrialized and manliness is measured in pesos and centavos,
aggression is also usually sublimated into “anal” activities (building,
achieving, preserving, accumulating wealth); one wonders if and
when such a shift occurs in the cultural ideal of virility, from that of
one with the qualities of a stallion to one who can build the biggest
pile, how well equipped is the Filipino male?

Similarly, the problem of sexual fears, distortions, and repressions

in women, which emerges as a predominant area of conflict in the
female patient in this study, may indicate only that it is her most
vulnerable point. Her problems most likely begin much earlier. For
example, her dependency, regardless of social and cultural sanction,
does not seem to be always psychologically edifying. How much of
an inchoate protest against dependency goes into her increasingly
obvious competitive achievement and aggressive drive is an
interesting question. As a result of her aggressive thrusts, is her
relationship with men in her culture undergoing change and if so, in
which direction? Is her pursuit of achievement the sublimation of
masculine strivings, engendered by envy for him who is awarded
more freedom and prerogatives by the culture?

Culture studies, in endeavoring to answer some of the above

questions and others which are related to them, will indicate the
manner in which culture has contributed to psychological disorder.
Using cultural changes as the framework of reference, one might
rephrase the questions and ask: Were the patient’s individual needs
and aspirations out of step with cultural realities? Have cultural
realities and styles of living changed, but not psychological
attitudes? Have changes in the economic scene conspired with
changes in people’s goals to render previously acceptable
inconsistencies and ambivalence no longer tenable? Is there a
cross-generational gap so that the cultural cues, symbols, and
guidelines provided by a past generation of parents are no longer
useful in the culture of today? Certainly many of these patients gave
the impression that they would have been happier in their
grandmother’s time or in the era of caciquess and carruajes. Natives
of this place, they were, however, strangers to this time.