EAST-WEST CULTURAL INTERFOW AND POLITICAL MODERNIZATION:Some Issues and Concerns from the Philippine Experience

Aileen San Pablo-Baviera

　　When we speak of East-West cultural interflow, what immediately comes to mind is the　transmission of ideas, values and attitudes that takes place through means such as the arts, literature, technolo8y and most especially face-to-face encounters. In this paper I propose to　explore how East-West cultural interflow may have influenced the modernization project in the　Philippines, highlighting its socio-political dimensions.
　　What I consider as the modernization ideal very simply refers to the aspiration of every individual and every society to whatever progressive transformations of cultural, social, economic　and political structures and relations, as may be necessary for radical improvement in one’s　status and standards in terms of ability to cope with one’s natural surroundings. Insofar as　technological reorganization of economic production, industrialization, urbanization, secularization of ideas and rationalization of governance will help man achieve mastery over nature, then these are considered desirable, the Filipino is no exception. Whether peasant or　politician, office receptionist or jungle revolutionary, every Filipino desires this.
　　Having said this, a caveat is in order: if these things will in the balance create greater disturbances between man and his natural environment, as we are only just beginning to　understand, then we must indeed take a second Iook at how we have chosen to define　modernization.
　　In the East, as well as in Africa, Latin America and the Arab world, modernization has been　largely perceived to be a function of how successfully and effectively ideas, institutions, and　other things “Western” have been adopted, absorbed and internalized by the native　populations. Not surprisingly, in the post-colonial era, the modernizaton question has been　framed partly as a nationalist debate as to what extent Western culture and standards should be　allowed to influence, alter, and some would even say, the indigenous way of life.
　　It is not the intention here to denigrate the innumerable advantages of East-West cultural　interflow, especially in terms of the transfer of science and technology, and advances in international communication and understanding. Rather, I highlight the problematic issues in the　hope that these concerns be ackowledged and addressed by both sides of the Cultural Divide in　manners that will help not only to sustain but further develop mutually-enriching exchange.
　　The Philippines is one case where the Western colonial intrusion has made a pervasive and　permanent imprint on the national culture, such that at points in our contemporary history, the　Filipinos have referred to themselves as a “wounded culture”, ora “nation of little brown　Americans.”
　　The country comprises 7,107 islands, having more than 60 million multi-ethnic and multi-lingual people are mainly Malayo-Polynesian. There are historians who say that at the time we　were first colonized by Spain sometime before1572, we were atready well on our way to becoming a Muslim nation with Chinese, Arabic and Indian influences.
　　After over 300 years of what is perceived in Philippine conventional history as Spanish frailocratic oppression, the people were Catholicized and Hispanized, generation after generation. The Muslims and other cultural communities who resisted colonialism were pushed into the　hinterlands, becoming today’s most underdeveloped and marginalized sectors of society. Meanwhile, rural subcultures and grassroots subcultures developed within the mainstream that　combined creatively and in very colorful fashion the colonial and the indigenous, the elite and　the mass traditions.
　　Subsequently we fell under the Americans, then Japanese, then the Americans again until we　were granted independence following the Pacific War. Each colonial ruler brought with him　cultural influences that, with political subjugation and economic exploitation, were being justified and legitimated as our emancipation from poverty, ignorance and misery.
　　Indigenous culture, particularly folklore in our predominantly oral tradition, was suppressed　as mere expressions of “superstition”and“ignorantism”.⁽¹⁾Significantly, the hundreds of revolts　that dot our long history of resistance to colonial rule were invariably inspired by nativistic sentiments which drew heavily from cultural symbols, eventually even appropriating the symbols　of the colonial culture itself.
　　The Western cultural perspectives that the Spaniards inculcated via Christianization were　compounded by the Americans through the introduction of liberal democracy, a system of public education that emphasized American history and institutions, as well as the mass media　which from the very start was patterned after American models.
　　Today, popular culture as we know it in the Philippines is not only American cinema or television or music or theatre, although we certainly have too much of those. It is also “Filipino” cinema and television that adapted forms such as the vaudeville, and even for a time imported　plots such as the American Western or cowboy films. In music, we followed the Americans　from jazz to rock and roll to rap. More recently, there is also a tendency to develop mini-serials patterned after the so-called American soap.
　　One observer has said that Western culture has been so deeply assimilated by the Filipinos　that it dictates not only the form and shape of contemporary culture, but its sensibilities as　well.⁽²⁾And such influence is not limited to urban-educated classes but even rural villages　where the sole source of entertainment is the transistor radio, and small towns where young　people would flock to the rundown cinemas on Sunday afternoons, then gyrate to disco music　in makeshift dancehalls some evenings.
　　Even mainstream intellectuals, with the possible exception of radicai nationalists, would　share much more in common in terms of familiarity with George Washington, Miguel de Cervantes, Vincent Van Gogh and Cary Grant than, say, the life of local revolutionary heroine　Gabriela Sliang, or the verses of our great epic poem Biag ni Lam-Ang, or the folk wisdom of　the fast-disappearing babaylanes (local pre-Spanish priestesses). Much less would we know, or cate, about the music of the gamelan, or the verses of Tu Fu, or the cosmic theory of the　Upanishads. What we do know of our pre-colonial culture still mainly consists of what was　handed down to us by European and American historians. The teaching of Philippine history is　still mainly focused on Filipino heroes who may have viewed Western colonial rule with hostility and who may had sentimental attachments to the native culture, yet they also looked to the　west for national salvation. The earliest propagandists of Philippine independence were Filipino　scholars based in Madrid and writing from Spain and in Spanish.
　　From past to present, our intellectuals have been mainly responsible for the propagation of　the colonial mindset. A great number of our scientists, doctors and artists choose to migrate to　the West. Partly through them, we too, have made our contributions to human progress. While Filipino intellectuals obtain degrees from universities in the West, or at least through　mastery of Western ideas, many of us are not conscious that we begin to interpret our surroundings using Western paradigms and norms, judging ourselves by a yardstick that grew out　of the total[y different historical and cultural experiences of our colonizers, and influencing our　students, colleagues and policy makers accordingly.
　　For example, Filipino social scientists, taking the cue from American and German sociologists and other Western Filipinologists, had built a portrait of our people as accommodating, complacent, fatalistic and subservient. This, however, is sharply inconsistent with our long　history of bloody social conflict and popular resistance to both foreign and local oppressors. Nor does it help explain the participation of millions of Filipinos in the anti-dictatorship struggle　leading to the EOSA uprising of 1986.
　　The Filipino is the colonial success story in the sense that, having been exposed so early, so　systematically and for so Iong to Western cultural influences, he has accepted, adopted and　adapted the culture of the colonizers as the “correct”culture and considers his own traditions　and values as something that must be overcome or outgrown. Our own native traditions having been abused and suppressed for so long 〔except for token recognition of some regional art　forms〕 and with the onslaught of Western economic, political, technological and cultural　innovations, Filipinos seem to have developed a very low sense of self-worth, a veritable identity crisis anda rather feeble national consciousness that largely stems from a xenocentric　or Western-oriented worldview. And yet each of us knows how we were traditionally a proud　and dignified people.
　　In this context, it is not difficult to understand why national unity and consensus continue to　evade us, creating probably the biggest obstacles to peace and progress. Even today, there is　resistance by certain ethno-linguistic groups to the official use of the national language, called　Filipino, on grounds that it is mainly based on the Tagalog language and therefore spoken only by a minority, yet there is similar resistance to the use of English as an official language or as　the main medium of instruction.
　　 Filipinos, however, take cognizance of the best of the colonial legacies. For some time, we prided ourselves as having higher literacy rates anda longer experience in self-rule and representative institutions compared to our Asian neighbors. We were more politically mature, more cosmopolitan, we thought, and able to make it big internationally. Our facility in English 〔despite the strange accent〕, good American-style education, modern outlook and our adaptability to Western thinking used to attract foreign investors and helped build valuable friendship　and goodwill ali the way to North America and Europe. We even cornered the best contracts in　the labor export market. Given such blessings, our leaders nurtured myths that we could stand　up equal to the West, or that there was a “special relationship” - particularly with the United　States -that would somehow be the key to prosperity and progress.
　　In the meantime, more and more of our Asian identity was lost or transformed, and we　practically ignored our Asian neighbors.
　　To be member of the Filipino political elite, one must generally be the type of person who　“looks West”and “thinks West”, meaning aspiring to be modern, i. e., Westernized, which　necessarily has made him pro-West. And, he is not really able to transcend bis own culture.
　　The Filipino senator, for example, usually would attribute failures of our political institutions　to system malfunctions, spurring endless debate on whether the presidential or parliamentary　form of government is best for the country. He ignores the persistence of personalistic and paternalitic politics, or the dominance of powerful traditional interests. Yet bis own behavior is　otherwise dictated precisely by such patronage relationships, such as a political or personal　debts incurred or kinship and fictive kinship (compadrazgo)ties.
　　As a negotiator of our foreign debt, he ends up explaining to the Filipino people why the　IMF-World Bank conditions must be imposed, rather than explaining to our foreign creditors　why the impoverished Filipinos cannot survive such impositions. He argues that without such　conditionalities, no new Ioans will be forthcoming. But cornered by opponents, he falis back　on deep-seated Filipino core value of utang na Ioob (which can be only roughly translated as　debt of gratitude), saying we cannot allow ourselves to be perceived as balasubas (ingrates), and somehow the argument is appreciated.
　　The Filipino city mayor would demolish the squatter shanties and leave homeless people to　fend for themselves to make way for high-rise tourist hotels with French chandeliers and bathrooms using elegant Spanish tiles. Then come election season, he woos them back with a parade of movie stars and promises of new jobs, knowing that Filipinos are quick to forgive and　have a stronger sense of gratitude than of acrimony.
　　We also have in our country a legal system where private law is adapted from the Spanish　Civil Code where public law follows the American constitutional framework.⁽³⁾Such a law considers the right to property as inviolate as human life itself, which creates problems in a society where in many parts, land was traditionally communal, where most people still have property　to speak of?and where in defense of their property, owners have been known to resort to the　destruction of human life. There is therefore a widespread public perception that there is　somehow no correspondence between jurisprudence and the indigenous concept of comprehensive justice or katarungan 〔as a convergence of rights {karapatan}, truth {katotohanan} and　reason {katwirant}〕⁽⁴⁾. Perhaps partly because of this non-correspondence between formal law　and cultural expectations, the law, the lawmakers, and the law enforcers do not receive the　same respect by the members of society as the traditional village elders acting as arbiters did.
　　The few among the elite who tried to advocate nationalist development became voices in　the wilderness, but in the past such voices as that of Claro M. Rectoneverthess stirred deep emotions among the young and idealistic especially in our universities. With our Westernized　elites giving nationalist sentiments only rhetorical recognition, the nationalist cause, and to　some extent the propagation of popular indigenous culture, was appropriated and became the　almost exclusive trademark of the Philippine left,⁽⁵⁾including the underground Communist Party　and the National Democratic Front.
　　Underscoring the extent of our Westernization, we must say that even the most rabidly nationalist Filipino is not anti-Western culture but rather anti-colonial economic policy and antipolitical intervention. When he tires of mouthing anti -imperialist slogans, he relaxes to the　music of Tchaichovsky or strums his guitar to the music of the Beatles, depending on bis taste.
　　So this is the Filipino. He is Western, and yet be is not. He is modern, and yet be is not. Ours is not one culture, but many pockets of cultures where region or linguistic group, class, education, politics and Western influence interact to produce great differentiation. Ir other　cultures find us difficult to understand, it is also because we understand ourselves so little.
　　Recently, Richard Armitage, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense, who negotiated　the failed RP-US mi]itary bases agreement on behalf of the U. S. government, said one of bis　biggest disappointments was that “though we were using English as the medium of　communication, we were speaking two different languages in reality.”Armitage was complaining about differences of approach, where the U.S., he said, saw the issue of their continued presence as a matter of“an alliance that has something to do with shared values, shared　objectives, shared goals… affection for democracy, for sovereignty.”He said the Philippine　negotiators could not and would not embrace such a concept, and “constantly brought this　down to simply a matter of dollars and cents.”Certainly, I agree with Mr. Armitage’s observation that they were speaking two different languages. Ironically, while he was trying to　speak the language by which the Filipino and American elites had together developed the myth　of the “special relationship” between our two countries, the Filipino negotiators were in turn　trying to speak a language which they believed more acceptable to the Western mind --that of　presumed equality, of contractual obligations, of pragmatism and materialism.
　　The greater significance of this incident is that, for the Filipino political elite, the realization had finally set in that there is special relationship between colonial ruler and subject, and there　never was. Ina few years, we will be celebrating the centennial of revolution, and many among us find it gratifying that the message our forebears who died resisting colonial subjugation　may have finally come home.
　　From the Philippine experience, East-West cultural interflow has meant mainly a Iong, long　period of assimilation of Western culture, such that we can no longer distinguish the foreign　from the indigenous. And we have both benefitted and suffered from it. We have Iooked to　the West as far as we can remember, bur now we would like to open our eyes to the East, and to what is oriental in us.
　　The lesson that I hope we shall draw from our experiece is this: while we learn from the　West and continue to respect and admire other cultures for what is noble in them, we must also treasure our own culture, understand it, preserve what is good in it, develop and enrich it, and above ali take pride in it. We must be true to ourselves, ultimately. Without it, we are　lost in the jungle of homogenizing modernity. In the Philippines, we in the universities and cultural institutions are coming to terms with our unique national identity, but trying to　rediscover, recreate and understand its indigenous elements, as well as recover our pride in　it. We are making a little progress and it is ah exciting search.
　　We are hoping that, in the future, every time the Japanese wayang, or the Japanese kabuki, or the Beijing opera is performed, Filipinos will no Ionger be anguished with envy.

　　(1)Angelito L. Santos: Looking Out for Indio Jones: An Essay on Philippine Nationalism and Culture. Civil Liberties Union Series - . (Quezon City: Foundation for Nationalist Studies, c. 1993)
　　(2)Doreen Fernandez: Philippine-American Cultural Interaction. (Quezon City: Third World Studies Program　Discussion Papers, 1980)
　　(3)Virgilio Enriquez: From Colonial to Liberation Psychology: The Philippine Experience, Quezon City, University of the Philippines Press, 1992)
　　(4)Enriquez, ibid.
　　(5)Jose V. Abueva Filipino Politics, Nationalism, and Emerging Ideologies. (Manila, 1975).