Philippine Historians' Dilemma: What is Philippine Culture?
Bourdaine's episode in No Reservations about the Philippines quite adequately describes the reality of the culture.
Culture is described by, quite simply, "how we do things" (and all the existential iterations of the idea). Philippine culture is highly stratified by its economic classes, regions and the way different cultures (western, Chinese, and Muslim) affects each of these classes.
You can even say we are the Asian equivalent of America, where you have the largest variety of race, ethnic cultural variety living in one nation. We were malays, impregnated by the Spanish, the Sepoys (Rape of Manila by the British), the Dutch (dutch colony what now is in River Side Marikina), the Japanese (19th century colony of San Miguel, and the Japanese Occupation), and America.
The same traits that make Filipinos so easy to get along with foreigners are the very traits that make Filipinos cultural versatile, and this is the lack of a strong dominant culture. Although, you can make that leap that our "Meta-culture" is not having a culture at all.
In my opinion of what constitutes a Culture is the influence of its Historical Aspect. Culture is formed over time and practice. It is a method of transmitting values and ways of thinking. Seeing the evidence in our cultural versatility- Philippine Culture is about having No strong commitment to any particular Manner of Living.
Unfortunately this doesn't really count because there is no Active and Conscious effort of such a practice and tradition. Ideally, by tradition, the Philippines is a Western (spanish) Christian Culture derivative. Unfortunately, Spanish culture only affected the Upper Class and the Lower Class was left to develop its own servile culture based on what the Spanish Aristocracy wanted out of them: humble, servile, conscious of saving face and appearance, and with a strong sense of debt to what ever scraps their masters saw fit to give them.
Actively Filipinos try to work within what their parents think tradition should be (based on the Spanish's familial culture) and try to make it work with what Modern Thought and Practicality has optioned to them. This is a very very messy affair, because the line of "cultural evolution" is heavily interrupted by technological innovation and religious/family traditions that cannot grasp or adapt to these barrage of alien ideals.
Personally, I want Philippine culture to actively play the game General Antonio Luna wanted to play: Adapt, Pander, Innovate and Move on in his foreign policy. If Philippine culture would learn its foundation is in its very diversity and disconnected line of progression: its Bastard nature then it will not hold on to tradition merely on merit of sentimentality, instead will hold on to, create and innovate traditions based on their merit of effectiveness in getting things done, communicating ideas, and how effectively it transmits to the next generation.
Such a culture will be empathic on the culture of the past: Dad and Mom's culture was different to Our own culture because of the technology, political structure, and current events that was occurring in their time, and our children culture would be just as strange and distant to our own parents as they meet the same factor in their era.
Culture is described by, quite simply, "how we do things" (and all the existential iterations of the idea). Philippine culture is highly stratified by its economic classes, regions and the way different cultures (western, Chinese, and Muslim) affects each of these classes.
You can even say we are the Asian equivalent of America, where you have the largest variety of race, ethnic cultural variety living in one nation. We were malays, impregnated by the Spanish, the Sepoys (Rape of Manila by the British), the Dutch (dutch colony what now is in River Side Marikina), the Japanese (19th century colony of San Miguel, and the Japanese Occupation), and America.
The same traits that make Filipinos so easy to get along with foreigners are the very traits that make Filipinos cultural versatile, and this is the lack of a strong dominant culture. Although, you can make that leap that our "Meta-culture" is not having a culture at all.
In my opinion of what constitutes a Culture is the influence of its Historical Aspect. Culture is formed over time and practice. It is a method of transmitting values and ways of thinking. Seeing the evidence in our cultural versatility- Philippine Culture is about having No strong commitment to any particular Manner of Living.
Unfortunately this doesn't really count because there is no Active and Conscious effort of such a practice and tradition. Ideally, by tradition, the Philippines is a Western (spanish) Christian Culture derivative. Unfortunately, Spanish culture only affected the Upper Class and the Lower Class was left to develop its own servile culture based on what the Spanish Aristocracy wanted out of them: humble, servile, conscious of saving face and appearance, and with a strong sense of debt to what ever scraps their masters saw fit to give them.
Actively Filipinos try to work within what their parents think tradition should be (based on the Spanish's familial culture) and try to make it work with what Modern Thought and Practicality has optioned to them. This is a very very messy affair, because the line of "cultural evolution" is heavily interrupted by technological innovation and religious/family traditions that cannot grasp or adapt to these barrage of alien ideals.
Personally, I want Philippine culture to actively play the game General Antonio Luna wanted to play: Adapt, Pander, Innovate and Move on in his foreign policy. If Philippine culture would learn its foundation is in its very diversity and disconnected line of progression: its Bastard nature then it will not hold on to tradition merely on merit of sentimentality, instead will hold on to, create and innovate traditions based on their merit of effectiveness in getting things done, communicating ideas, and how effectively it transmits to the next generation.
Such a culture will be empathic on the culture of the past: Dad and Mom's culture was different to Our own culture because of the technology, political structure, and current events that was occurring in their time, and our children culture would be just as strange and distant to our own parents as they meet the same factor in their era.
Comments
Post a Comment