Filipino Identity Construction

This week, I analyzed Filipino identity construction and its relationship with colonial mentality. David and Okazaki identify colonial mentality as a “form of internalized oppression following colonialism” that is characterized by “an automatic and uncritical rejection of anything Filipino and an automatic and uncritical preference for anything American” (2006, p. 241). Their study hypothesized and found possible results that this mentality is passed through socialization, which became more apparent during our discussion at the Philippine Women’s University (David & Okazaki, 2006, p. 249). At our group discussion between students and faculty at PWU, both the students and the faculty used terms such as ‘pure’ and ‘full’ American instead of ‘White’ because they assumed to be American a person had to be White. Because both students and faculty used the same term, it exemplified that miseducation is passed down through generations and that education aids socialization.

Miseducation, which spurs colonial mentality, is a product of colonial education from Spain and the United States in the Philippines. According to Constantino, the Filipino tendency to be “naïve and trusting in its relations with foreigners, devoid of the capacity to feel indignation even in the face of insults to the nation” is due to the fact that “colonial education has not provided [them] with a realistic attitude toward other nations” and has instead emphasized the “gifts that [their] conquerors have bestowed” (1982, p. 186). The Americans used education as a war tactic in the Philippines, to brainwash the Filipinos to adopt the American culture and government structure. According to Andresen’s “Knowledge Construction, Transformative Academic Knowledge, and Filipino American Identity and Experience,” the reeducation of Filipinos using an American framework created a “Filipino American identity that rendered their Filipinoness invisible and no different from the other Asian Pacific Americans in American society” (2012, p. 73). Miseducation has greatly impacted the ability for Filipinos to construct a unique identity.

One of the leading factors in rendering Filipinoness invisible is the use of English in the classroom. Constantino explains that using English rather than the native languages impedes learning due to both the focus on memorization of word and sentence meanings rather than understanding and the difficulty of expression which leads to a lack of deep thinking among parts of the Filipino population (1982, p. 189-190). He also asserts that “experience has shown that children who are taught in their native tongue learn more easily and better than those taught in English” (Constantino, 1982, p. 190). This was apparent at the PWU discussion when terms such as pure, full, half, and American were not universally defined or understood in the same way despite being spoken in the same language; the connotations of these terms were completely lost in translation.

Lastly, David & Okazaki also connect four acculturation strategies—assimilation, integration, separation, and marginalization—as different manifestations of colonial mentality as shown in Figure 1, where assimilation is having high identification with the dominant culture and low identification with the heritage culture, integration is having high identification with both, separation is having low identification with the dominant culture and high identification with the heritage culture, and marginalization is having low identification with both (2006, p. 242).

Figure 1. A chart from MDPI that visualizes the four acculturation strategies identified by David & Okazaki.

In the movie “Slow Jam King,” the protagonist JoJo exemplifies assimilation because he attempts to act like a pimp in order to fit in with the dominant crowd though he later struggles with who he really wants to identify as later on. This relates back to the David & Okazaki study where they support that those who are more assimilated may identify less racist events, perhaps because they are less aware of them or feel that they are less likely to happen if they try to fit in with the dominant culture (2006, p. 250). However, it is easiest for me to identify assimilation when it comes to Filipino identity construction versus the other acculturation strategies. I am interested in exploring the following: how do integration, separation, and marginalization manifests in Filipino identity construction and what factors affect which strategy is utilized?

References

Andresen, T. (2012). Knowledge construction, transformative academic knowledge, and Filipino American identity and experience, In E. Bonus & D. Maramba, (Eds.) The “other” students: Filipino Americans, education, and power. (pp. 65-87). Charlotte, NC: IAP.

Constantino, R. (1982). The Miseducation of the Filipino. In I In A.V. Shaw & L.H Francia, Vestiges of war. (pp. 177-192). New York: New York Press.

David, E. J. R., & Okazaki, S. (2006). The Colonial Mentality Scale (CMS) for Filipino Americans: Scale construction and psychological implications: A review and recommendation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53 (1), pp. 1–16.