Behind Filipino Colonial Mentality

Colonial mentality is the product of colonisation and for a country like the Philippines which has been colonised for more than four hundred years, colonial mentality has relevant influences towards shaping the Filipino culture both ancient and contemporary.  It is part of Filipino contemporary culture and society and with this, I will explore how symbolic power of colonial mentality affects the daily lives of Filipinos. This essay will discuss a brief history of the Philippines under Spanish colonisation and its transition towards American commonwealth. I will explore the racial caste system during Spanish colonial period and argue on the relevance of ‘ethincisation’ and ‘racialisation’ in forming a Filipino identity using primarily the article “‘Race, ‘Ethnicity’, and Identity” by Lewis,G. and Phoenix A. It will discuss on how the American imperialism redefined the Filipino identity focusing on the westernisation of the Filipino society. Centring on the daily influences of colonial mentality on Filipino lives, I will show the prevalence of colonial mentality in Filipino mass media and the effects it has on contemporary Filipino society. Lastly, using Bourdieu’s habitus I will explore how Filipino contemporary identity is shaping and responding to its society.

The Spanish colonisation of the Philippines started when Ferdinand Magellan, a Portuguese explorer was commissioned by the Spanish crown to explore the east in search of spices. On March 16, 1521 he landed on the shores of Limasawa, Leyte where they were welcomed by the natives. Guided by the chief of the island of Limasawa, Magellan’s fleet arrived in the island of Cebu on April 7, 1521. He later entered into a blood compact with Cebu’s Chief Humabon and baptised the natives into Christianity in honour of the King of Spain. Chief Lapu-lapu of Mactan Island was the only chief who defied Magellan’s wish to honour Spain. Enraged, Magellan sailed to Mactan to subdue Lapu-lapu which ended in a battle wherein Magellan died (Arcilla 1998). After the death of Magellan on April 27, 1521 Spain sent voyages following Magellan’s route into the east. A lot of them failed and by February 2, 1543, the fourth expedition by Rey Lopez de Villalobos landed in Davao Oriental and named the islands; Philippines, after Prince Philip (later King Philip II), heir to the throne of Spain. Spain ruled the Philippines for 356 years which ended with the signing of the ‘Treaty of Paris’ wherein Spain relinquished its remaining colonies including the Philippines to the United States of America. A sum of US$20 million was payed to Spain as part of the agreement (Philippine History 2014). During American occupation, the Philippines’ transitioned into a democratic country with the establishment of a Filipino elected legislature. On May 14, 1935, Manuel Quezon became the first Commonwealth President and by July 4, 1946 the Philippines gained full independence.    

Prior to Spanish colonisation the Philippines already had a social structure which comprised of a datu (chief), timawa (warrior), and oripon(serfs and slaves) and regardless of rank they all belonged to one class. During Spanish colonialism a social structure was created base on superior-inferior and civilised-primitive type stereotype (Tan 1987) wherein at the top of the social hierarchy are the Peninsulares who are full bloodied Spaniards living in the Philippines, in the middle are the Mestizos who are of mixed blood mostly of Spanish-Indio (Filipino) decent, down are the Indios who are the Christianised natives and the lowest are the Moros who are the natives of Moslem decent and the Infieles or the indigenous natives. The coloniser insisted conversion of Christianity of the natives for the reason of making the Philippines as ‘a strong hold of Christian faith in Asia designed to evangelise the non-Christians of Japan and China’ (Camba 2012, p.218). Being a Christian is the first identity that the Filipino adopted through colonisation. It also gave the Indios social rights which the Moros and the Infieles were deprived of. In retrospect, the natives did not had any choice but to convert because being a non-Christian made them an outcast as well as belonging to the lowest class in society.  This social hierarchy manifested racism for they treated natives inferior, denied their social rights and exclusion (Lewis & Phoenix 2004). This also shows how the natives categorised between Indios, Moros, and Infieles were subjected to ‘racialization’ and ‘ethnicization’ because the Spanish social hierarchy placed ‘individuals and groups into racial or ethnic categories (Lewis & Phoenix 2004, p.123). Not only were the natives subjected to oppression and exclusion by the coloniser, but the need to abandon old traditional identity to gain cultural capital (Bourdieu 2006) was a necessity. This cultural capital was important for it gave the Indios recognition in a society which was highly dominated by the Spaniards.

Since colonisation was considered a holy mission the coloniser considered labour from the Indios as a reward from God for which the Spanish took advantage of. ‘The encomenderos, Spanish soldiers turned land owners, had been known to overwork the Filipinos for agricultural production’ (Camba, 2012 p. 218). This is the second identity that the Filipino adopted, the labourer. These are the two major identities ascribed to the Indios which is set by the Spaniards; 1) as a Christian native and 2) labourer.  As time progressed the Indios demanded more rights and freedom and being identified as a Christian native who works as a labourer was showing its strains. Lewis and Phoenix (2004) mentioned that ‘racial’ and ‘ethnic’ identities are produced as part of a social process, that they are collectively produced and that they may change over time and as an example, from 1872-1892 a new breed of Filipinos emerged who were mostly educated in Europe. One of them was Dr. Jose Rizal, who was one of the leaders of the Philippine revolution against Spain (Tan 1987). Spanish colonisation ended on 1898 by virtue of the Treaty of Paris.

The end of Spanish colonialism did not provide the independence Filipinos were longing for but it only transitioned into American imperialism. American imperialism was veiled in the idea that the Philippines must abandon pre-modern colonial mentality and assimilate a new modern imperial perspective for the sake of national development towards independence. In order for the Philippines to integrate into the flow of time, Filipinos need to extract pre-modern stasis and must enter into rigorous regime of evolutional change (Hawkins 2012). With this core idea introduced by the imperialist the Filipinos accepted American imperialism. Commerce was the first agenda that the Americans wanted to control. The Philippines major export of tobacco, sugar and coconut oil helped the country to grow its economy while being dependent on American investments. The educational system changed because the American introduced secondary and higher education with English as a mode of instruction. As a result of education Filipinos were equipped with tools of modernization and a new cultural outlook which was apathetic towards traditional ways. The educational system provided this cultural orientation wherein traditional values were considered primitive and inferior as opposed to the Western tradition which was considered modern and therefore superior (Tan 1987). When the Philippines gained its independence on July 4, 1946 the Filipino has assimilated much of the western culture which gained him a new identity achieved from a new social process that assumed American culture and values. This was superimposed by introducing American sports, cinema, fashion and music (Tan 1987).     

From 1946, an evolution towards modernisation ran in the Philippines. Independence gave the Filipinos freedom of controlling its own economy and government but Filipino identity was still restrained in the confines of the attributed and assimilated identities set by the colonisers. These identities intersected together in constructing a Filipino identity which is highly influenced by colonial mentality.  A Filipino identity therefore is primarily (but not exclusively) a Christian who is well educated with westernised values (Spanish and American). These attributes do not necessarily connote restrictions but underlying colonial discourse that comes with colonial mentality is something that I want to discuss further. Part of colonial discourse are statements set by the colonisers regarding the ‘[r]ules of inclusion and exclusion operate in the assumption of the superiority of the colonizer’s culture, history, language, art, political structures, social conventions, and the assertion of the need for the colonized to be ‘raised up’ through colonial contact’ (Ashcroft et. al 2000, p. 42). As a result of colonial discourse colonial mentality in the Philippines is manifested into two dimensions: first is lack of patriotism; second is an actual preference for everything foreign (Dy 1994).

Having cultural confidence is having a sense of patriotism and loss of patriotism in the Philippines began when the colonisers developed an educational system which insisted as having the colonisers’ language (Spanish and American) as mode of instructions. Since colonisation, especially during the American period, taught the Filipino to adapt westernised culture and values Filipino patriotism was not given any importance. Both colonisers also ingrained into the Filipino identity that the west is superior to everything local (Filipino) and as a result of this social process the Filipino identity is highly influenced by colonial mentality even in contemporary society.  One of the best manifestations of colonial mentality in the Philippines is through the notion of ‘pigmentocracy’ or shadeism. The term ‘pigmentocracy’ is adopted by social scientist to describe societies in which social status and wealth are defined through skin colour resulting from discrimination by Europeans towards other races (Lyn 2008). The Philippines being one of these societies equates having lighter skin tone, an attribute of the colonisers, of having wealth, higher status, knowledge and beauty while having a darker skin tone connotes the exact opposite.  The effects of ‘pigmentocracy’ is not limited on the epidermal because it creates meaning and discriminates Filipinos who have darker skin tones which is a form of social, racial and ethnic discrimination within its own society and race. This is reinforce in mass media. Whitening products are prevalently sold and purchased everywhere and a survey in 2004 done by Synovate on the use of skin-lightening products revealed that the Philippines has the highest rate of usage in the Asia-pacific region (Glenn 2009, p.63). Television and film industry encourages actors and actresses to have ‘whiter’ skin tone and as a result mass media has created a massive industry which subtly interjects discrimination that has daily effects on the Filipino life. It implies that having ‘whiter’ skin gives the individual social advantages and higher social status.

Recognizing that colonial mentality as a form of social capital which is mainly interest-motivated which perpetuates social differences and hierarchies (Bourdieu 2004) will help us navigate on how the habitus of colonial mentality is carried out in everyday Filipinos lives. Considering that habitus is ‘a durable set of dispositions that are formed, stored, recorded and exert influence to mould forms of human behaviour’ (Navarro 2004, p.16),   as a result of colonisation, Filipino identity adapted a post-colonial behaviour which is mimicry. Mimicry describes the ambivalent relationship between the coloniser and the colonised wherein the colonised subject is encouraged to ‘mimic’ the coloniser through the adoption of coloniser’s habits, values, and institutions (Ascroft et.al 2000, p. 139). Within Filipino contemporary life mimicry is highly visible through preference of everything foreign.  This preferential bias is not limited to imported goods and brands but it extends to a preference of foreign culture as well. Again, this is reinforce in mass media. The proliferation of American films to Spanish and Korean soap operas presented in everyday Filipino cinema and television indicates that within contemporary Filipino life is an intersectionality between being local and foreign at the same time. Since colonial mentality is a form of symbolic power, the ordinary Filipino is symbolically coerce and he unconsciously adapts and assimilate a habitus for the sake of acquiring higher social status. He bleaches his skin, perpetuates foreign products, and integrates foreign culture and values into his identity.

Is colonial mentality then essential and beneficial for Filipinos as an individual and as a society in contemporary life? I believe that colonial mentality has been ingrained thoroughly within Filipino culture that it has become part of a Filipino identity. Noting that it constitutes a part of Filipino identity means that it does not entirely define his whole self. Not discounting the facts that colonial mentality limits and discriminates individuals, it also constitutes resilience and adaptability to change, thus it is both negative and positive. Focusing on the positive side of colonial mentality we can only hope of the possibility of change that the Filipino as an individual and society will adapt a new mentality which will encouraged them to appreciate their diversity, ancestry and history which is beneficial to personal and social growth.

Scrutinizing Filipino colonial mentality through connecting it to Filipino history gives us a better perspective on how and why it affects the lives of Filipinos both ancient and within contemporary society. By citing the manifestations of colonial mentality in contemporary Filipino lives like ‘pigmentocracy’ and unpatriotic gives us an understanding on how the modern Filipino identity is shaped as a result of colonisation which in turn is taken advantage of by symbolic powers like mass media. The sedimentation of colonial mentality within the Filipino identity is reinforced by habitus which is necessary in gaining social capital.

             

Fast....Walk FAST!

One of the interesting things I have noticed upon arriving in London about six months ago was how Londoners walk. FAST! Is the word to define the walking pace of Londoners for it seems everyone is on coffee rush therefore everyone walks FAST in this city. Now I am beginning to understand the constructions of why city dwellers like Londoners are always on a rush.

With regards with Mark Fisher’s brief but concise lecture and discussion, he particularly pointed out how capitalism has socially constructed a norm wherein everything is geared towards being and needing to be FAST! Fast production means more commodities out for the market. This creates service which needs to be FAST as well. Fast pace of life in order for everyone to have fast access of goods and services and as a reward of having a FAST pace of work is to take part of the ever FAST growing (?) middle class. What a privilege many would say which I personally think is banal.

Capitalism has created the FAST pace mentality and what we internalise is the constant bombardment of anxiety. No wonder mental health is one of the critical issues that England is facing at the moment. This seems to be deemed acceptable and normal because everyone is in a state of anxiety. If we are not busy we might be deemed lousy or lazy. Even when going on holiday a lot of us feel the need to be doing something, anything, and when we STOP, anxiety builds up to the point of choking. Work hard party harder is the life theme of this generation. How sad.

This essay does not aim to criticise Londoners, it is my honest observation of the mentality that this (or any) city creates. The demand to have a fast pace of life in observance of capitalism is something that I now see. I was slowly sucked into the vortex of FAST PACE WALKING and thankfully I woke up and realise……NO! I will have a leisurely walk instead. I’d rather walk among the living then be part of the zombies which Mark wittingly points out:

‘Capital is an abstract parasite, an insatiable vampire, and zombie maker; but the living flesh it converts into dead labor is ours, and the zombie it makes is us.’ (Fisher, M., 2009. p.15)

 Being critical with society can be very liberating!            

The 'Yaya meal' of the Philippines

The "Yaya meals” or Nanny Meals known at particular five star resorts & restaurants which is ONLY served to nannies and maids became headline news in the Philippines. It is a must for the affluent to have their children’s yaya to come along with the family wherever they go. Wherever they go includes five star resorts and restaurants. The yaya wearing her insipid uniform needs to eat as well but instead of the employer getting her something straight from the menu, set meals intended for yaya's, maids, and drivers which includes simple basic food of fish and rice is given as an 'option'. This was or still is practised as a request by (affluent) employers but also tolerated by (some) establishments. This is one way of displaying power, simple as it may but it is nonetheless shocking!

The yaya and rich employer goes through some of Mark Webber’s Classification of forms of Legitimacy which I find interesting.

Convention & contract:

Since employer and yaya are bound by contract, yaya is bound to obey employer. But is she still bound to have no choice with regards to choosing her own meal?

Universal principles:

It is not unusual in the Philippines to have a yaya. It is a custom to a large extent for families to hire a yaya to look after their young children. More now than ever since the new adults today can afford to employ yayas as well. What is evolving is the way some Filipinos treat yayas. Majority would treat them as part of the family and some choose to treat them as mere servants.

Expertise:

Employer might think that they have the best interest for the yaya’s in the context of choosing a yaya meal for them. Some of these employers would make a reason that since their yayas do not have enough knowledge of the type of food served in these establishments they are making the right choice by making them feel comfortable with a meal that they are familiar with.

Personal relation:

This is clear in the sense that employer is master and yaya is servant. But the degree of loyalty between master and servant in this context might vary depending on the subjects. Some yayas might think that they hold loyalty to their employers because their employers have their best interest. Then again some yayas would differ.

Personal quality:

As mentioned by Weber leadership is the key word for this classification. The employers don’t seem to have a good grip of being a leader in this context.

I find it interesting how this issue became a national issue. Why is it so shocking when reality is there are worse forms of power displayed every day? Is it only because everyone regardless of class, status and party can clearly relate and have their own opinion about it? Or is it just plain simple blatant abuse of power?