the case against over-nationalism in pursuing filipino psychology (ethnocentrism)

being the serious type (dysthymic or even depressive, in clinical term :-), i was able to come up with the following OBJECTIONS against just naturally following filipino psychology.

1. the fallacy of the familiar (a universal phenomenon, not specifically or properly filipino alone)

i read somewhere this awesome but often neglected fallacy of the familiar (my own term :-) which states that what is familiar is true or right.

in psychopathology, being raised in an abnormal, e.g., abusive home environment makes one believe (and feel, and later on act) that what is abusive (FAMILIAR) is NORMAL (just the way things are in reality / life).

2. "group think" (a shadow of kapwa-tao)

i also read about this and the term is not mine, but an accepted academic term.

as a participant observer in a 5-day seminar in a group of 8 high school teachers, i was refreshed with this concept. 

when asked by our foreign facilitators to share in dyads, the "natural" (i would even say "lazy") inclination is to just share in a group. 

the disadvantage of this is that only the most vocal or "intelligent" of the group is heard. the others' voices are muted, if not totally left unheard or silent.

3. the social chamelon (a shadow of pakikipagkapwa as manifested in pakikisama or smooth interpersonal relationshipos) 

the word comes from the greek "khamai" meaning "on the ground," or "diminutive" + leon = lion, i.e., a small lion. in filipino, i translate it as "nagleleon-leonan" or acting as if one is a ferocious lion.

this was brought home to me very powerfully when in dubai. an indian said: "you filipinos are good if your companions are good, and bad if your companions are bad." bow! straightforwardly truthful / objective.

thus, "chameleon" (i heard our former parish priest use the word unyango [i don't know the exact spelling, but that was how it was pronounced] as a filipino translation) connotes one who is "CHANGEABLE, FICKLE, or INCONSTANT" (dicitonary.com). in other words, UNRELIABLE, or being OVERLY-FLEXIBLE. this last word connotes an excess of something that would be otherwise positive (golden mean concept).

this is manifested in the SIPSIP phenomenon, i.e., being too SOLICITOUS (defined as "showing consideration, concern, attention, etc." in dictionary.com) with the eager intent of winning the favor of the other (kapwa) as manifested in the giving of POSITIVE COMPLIMENTS to the point of already being INSINCERE or INAUTHENTIC. some of these may already by so ingrained in the culture that it is automatically or unconsciously done, thus lowering the so-called "culpability" in morals.

4. passivity (the shadow of the filipino value of katahimikan, cf: fr. dionisio miranda, svd, std)

this is embodied in the common saying "tatahimik na lang para walang gulo" which i quoted in my objection ("appeal" letter) to the administrators of the school of my child for giving him a sanction for a minor offense that was not in the student handbook that we signed.

in morals, this is again called SIN OF OMISSION. it is an offense against TRUTH and JUSTICE.