In this article. the writer looks carefully into the Filipino value system as it relates to caring. A review of traditional value theory yields the decision that reason-based values have primacy over those that are based on emotion. such as caring. Feminist philosophy’s part is to project a critical oculus on the manner traditional Western doctrine uses criterions. It is revealed that doctrine and value theory are gendered. In looking at the Filipino values of caring such as pagkalinga. pagaaruga. and pakialam. the writer puts them in context via her ain life experiences.
She argues that caring ought to be recognized and re-valued but finds that most Filipinos have yet to take the value of pakikipagkapwa more earnestly. She adds that although lovingness is of import. it is non independent of other value systems such as justice-based moralss. INTRODUCTION Filipino values have been around throughout coevalss. as these are what the Filipino people deem as ideal and desirable. I maintain that such values are ne’er inactive. they mutate and evolve and are capable to alterations as human interactions shape them.
These are values that persons consider as good. of import. proper. and suited and there are as many Filipino values depending upon the many things that are valued ( Timbreza 2001: 1 ) . However these values have been interpreted in assorted ways. frequently in footings of effects. That is. the consequence of valuing and cognizing which values really do us good and which do us harm. Many find it hard to truly appreciate the positive maps of our traditional values because we merely have a obscure apprehension of value system itself ( Jocano 2000: 2 ) .
Some have even managed to follow the country’s current jobs to our culture’s value system and pronounce it as “damaged” ( Fallows: 1987 ) . 2 Harmonizing to Jocano ( 2000: 19 ) . Filipino values may be approximately translated to kahalagahan ( valuing ) and it has one of import characteristic ; as a value paradigm. it sets criterions of behaviour. or “pamantayan. ” This is the term that Felipe Landa Jocano prefers over halaga as it is the “most appropriate term for criterion ( 2000: 19-20 ) . ” He besides notes that these values do set internal regulations. act as directing forces. are themselves beginnings of significances. and act as a system of significances.
Jocano will calculate conspicuously in my treatment of the Filipino value system as he has made an luxuriant treatment of the pamantayan’s of import elements. viz. . halaga ( appraising nucleus ) . asal ( expressive nucleus ) . and diwa ( religious nucleus ) . This treatment is critical in understanding how closely our value system ties in with the Feminist Ethics of Care. Some of the illustrations of Filipino values that we are most familiar with and which easy come to mind are utang na loob ( debt of gratitude ) and delicadeza ( properness ) . We know what these average and recognize that these are valued because the Filipino is aware about others.
These Filipino values originate out of our concern for the people around us. our “kapwa-tao. ” Kapwa ( fellow individual ) is a relational criterion. Importance is given to smooth inter-personal relationships because although we may be covering with “others. ” we recognize them as our fellow individuals worthy of consideration. This relational facet is non unlike the accent on the value of caring. espoused by Feminists. where the moral voice speaks a linguistic communication of attention that stresses relationships and duties instead than personal liberty.
Acerate leaf to state. a batch has already been written about Filipino values—these surveies involve in-depth analyses of these nucleus values and different ways of construing them. But I am concentrating my research on values that are ever-present but rarely acknowledged. much less recognized in Filipino society. I have besides narrowed the range into a peculiar field that is consistent with my academic involvements. 3 And as opportunity would hold it. recent events in my life as a Filipino adult female Feminist have provided context and contributed greatly to the result of this research.
In this paper I will foremost do a study of some Filipino values through Jocano’s value system and this will take to my quest to re-explain these values harmonizing to my context. my lived experience. Then there is need to re-examine the function of traditional doctrine and value theory. and in the manner that these values are ordered and ranked. and whether they are cosmopolitan or gender-neutral. I will asseverate that traditional value theory is gendered male and that there is a great demand to re-valuate the missing feminine/Feminist constituent.
Some Feminist Ethical theories will be cited. along with the realisation that these values have certain traits that are shared by ideals that the Filipinos hold beloved. Our value system as evidenced by the many signifiers of caring—pag-aaruga. pagtangkilik. paglingap. pagkalinga. even pakialam show that it is extremely relational. affectional. 4 and really similar to the Feminist Ethics of attention as espoused by Gilligan ( 1982 ) . Noddings ( 1984 ) . Tronto ( 1993 ) to call a few. I am good cognizant that the construct of holding nucleus Filipino values is in itself debatable as it assumes a general or essentialist thought.
So excessively with a consistent Feminist Ethics. as there are many versions. and internal differences prevail. However. I will reason that despite these. the Filipino experience does demo that the pattern of lovingness is so present and extremely valued. Last. I recommend that lovingness is a value that we. Filipino adult females and work forces likewise. should acknowledge and give importance to. But while we value attention and give primacy to the Filipino version of caring in pagkalinga. pag-aaruga. and paki ( alam ) . this does non intend that attention entirely and its many signifiers ought to be ranked as the lone worthy rule.
It should besides be reviewed invariably and tempered with the moralss of justness. These two paradigms are non distinguishable nor are they unreconcilable ( Stocker 1987: 62 ) . Filipino Value System Harmonizing to Jocano ( 2000: 24 ) . the Filipino value system or pamantayan has three elements. viz. halaga. asal. and diwa. First. the pamantayan’s appraising facet. “halaga” ( 2000: 29 ) is what Filipinos find most worthy. It is given to detect traits that make the virtuous individual. she or he who is “uliran.
” Interestingly plenty. the halaga has non one but three dimensions: one’s dignity ( pagkatao ) . one’s dignified relationships with others ( pakikipagkapwa-tao ) . and holding compassion ( pagkamakatao ) . These three are closely tied together. since one’s dignity is mutualist with demoing compassion and her dignified relationships with others. Second. the appraising facet is manifested in the expressive facet of a person’s behaviour or “asal. ” Asal has three criterions ( Jocano 2000: 51-83 ) : kapwa ( relational ) . damdamin ( emotional ) . and dangal ( moral ) .
Individuality is merely non a portion of the traditional Filipino civilization. Jocano shows grounds to this via the three elements of the kapwa. which is the relational criterion. Pakikitungo is to move meekly. to profess. and to cover with others in order to keep smooth interpersonal relationships. Pakikisama values sensitiveness. it is to acquire along. be concerned and supportive. And in footings of crisis. pakikiramay is to sympathise and portion agonies. All three clearly show sensitiveness. empathy. and compassion to the other ( kapwa ) . This Filipino sensitiveness and intuition shows the emotional criterion of the asal.
Jocano referred to it as damdamin. To the Filipino. Even an unguarded/unintentional remark. stare. rebuke can do serious. frequently fatal struggles. Emotionality is given higher premium than rationalism in managing state of affairss or in get bying with conditions. Our reason frequently involves deep emotionality peculiarly in interactions holding to make with personal award. self-respect. and moral rules. ( Jocano 2000: 68 ) The basic supportive norms of emotions are the different degrees of concern we give to the “feelings of others” where their damdamin ought non to be hurt and struggles are minimized.
5 With delicadeza proper behaviour and polish are expected. Delicadeza is connected to amor propio. which gives us self-esteem. cognizing that we behave consequently. Awa is mercy. understanding. compassion for others and hiya comes in assorted signifiers. It is the painful feeling for wrongdoing. As the moral criterion. dangal. which means societal award. repute refers to one’s character. individuality. pride and committedness to revered ideals. This includes cognizing what is morally right. experiencing what is morally good. and moving in a morally desirable manner.
Dangal is manifested in values such as regard and respect or paggalang. 6 reciprocality or utang na loob. and pagkabahala or concern and duty. From the expressive criterion. allow us continue to Jocano’s religious facet. which is diwa. This represents the efficaciousness of the spirit of soundness in what one believes in. It embodies cardinal quality of thoughts. sentiments and actions. Without diwa. 7 life would be devoid of interior verve and significance as it is besides the highest incarnation of ethical rules and moral ideals in life.
But it is impossible to talk of the Filipino construct of diwa ( Jocano 2000: 85-118 ) without an of import point of mention. which is loob. This speaks of the inner nucleus. depicting our physical. mental. and emotional status. Loob figures in the Filipino linguistic communication and system of significances. 8 In order to understand Filipino behaviour and value system. Jocano avers that first we need to understand the Filipino kalooban where grounds and feelings are merged. Unlike the Western duality of idea or ground versus feelings or intuition. these two are closely intertwined within the Filipino kalooban.
On the other manus. labas refers to outer conditions. a public character sometimes used to hide our true purposes. 9 Pakitang Taoist is disguise. pagbabalatkayo is masquerade. pabalat-bunga is bogus. kunwari is pretense. while pasikat is to exhibitionist ( Jocano 2000: 97 ) . In drumhead. the Filipino value system of pamantayan is to a great extent relational. In every bit much as self worth or pagkatao is of import. it finds look in looking out for the public assistance of others ( kapwa ) in emotional footings ( damdamin ) and moral footings ( dangal ) . This culminates in the religious facet of diwa as kalooban.
With this consciousness of the Filipino value system comes a critical revisiting of philosophical constructs. peculiarly of the impression of ground as it relates to the construct of “good. ” If values are so ideals. or the pamantayan. so it makes sense to look into the subject by which they are invariably examined. Gendered Philosophy Feminist Theory cuts across assorted subjects. happening itself in the humanistic disciplines ( in doctrine and its many subdivisions. literature ) . the societal scientific disciplines ( history. psychological science. political scientific discipline ) . even the scientific disciplines ( biological science ) .
It brings in the position that gender affairs. naming into inquiry the antecedently held belief that there is an absolute and cosmopolitan manner of making things. For illustration when Aristotle ( 1981 ) asked. “What sort of life shall I best lead? ” we were taught that virtuousnesss. when cultivated and practiced consequently. would take us to the good life. What is frequently overlooked is the fact that Aristotle’s celebrated inquiry ne’er applies to adult females because his doctrine denies them the right to be full moral agents ( Pearsall 1999: 314 ) .
Looking closely at Aristotle’s works10 will demo that although he is implicitly serving out his advice to everybody. he is coming from a peculiar vantage point. that is. as a privileged free adult male life in Ancient Greece ( Noddings 1990 ) . Hence. Feminist philosophers argue that traditional doctrine is gendered as male. embodied by the adult male of ground ( Lloyd 1984 ; Grimshaw 1986 ) . Western doctrine in peculiar is ill-famed for dualisms. for illustration. reason/emotion. thought/feeling. abstract/concrete. general/particular. absolute/relative. active/passive. good/evil. to call but a few.
Ann Ferguson ( 1999: 61 ) notes that although ground involves the module of logical statement. abstraction. and cosmopolitan generalisation. it is non a mere unemotional centre of cognition since it besides involves a love of and a desire for the Good. What is unsafe about this sort of thought is that non merely are the grey countries reduced but besides when applied to existent people and existent life experiences. it becomes unequal. Human existences as gendered persons do non get away this Manichaean thought.
Work forces have been assigned the privileged footings of ground. idea. capable of groking the abstract. activity. and goodness—while adult females. in this manner of thought. are relegated to what Simone de Beauvoir ( 1952 ) calls the “Other. ” that is. the unwanted class. If adult male is rational so she is irrational because she is non adult male. Possibly the greatest sarcasm is that whilst philosophers since Aristotle insisted on woman’s unreason and controversy in the name of doctrine. the goddess Sophia herself is a adult female. 11 The duality between ground and emotion is peculiarly of import in discoursing values.
Because traditional male ethicians link goodness with ground it is now imperative to look into the traditional manner of making value theory. If “reason-good” is linked with males and “emotion-bad” with females so the latter coupling becomes suspect. This means that there is merely one cosmopolitan criterion of goodness. But this alleged universal is non impersonal. nor value-free. It is gendered. Nel Noddings ( 1990:390 ) argues that to build an ethic free of gendered positions may be impossible as we live in gendered society. Our experiences as adult females are different from experiences of work forces. hence impacting our value systems.
FEMINISM. ETHICS. AND VALUES Traditional Western moral theories are lacking to the grade that they lack. ignore. trivialise or minimize traits and properties that are culturally associated with adult females. Joan Tronto ( 1989: 394 ) notes that what work forces in general value most differ from adult females. The traditional position is that men’s concerns are the more of import things such as money. calling. promotion and thoughts. Women’s preoccupations are under-valued and deemed as less of import. such as households. neighbours. friends. and caring ( Tronto 1989: 394-395 ) .
These alleged of import things to be achieved necessitate a certain set of traits. If a adult male values money and promotion. it follows that he needs to cultivate a set of rules and schemes to accomplish that end. He needs to be independent. competitory but to be just to others ; he besides has to be merely. Justice is so the “good” of traditional morality. Carol Gilligan ( 1982 ) presents her work as a response to Lawrence Kohlberg’s Six-stage procedure of moral development. and she concedes that although this scale entreaties to many people. it is by no agencies applicable to all ( Tong 1998 ) .
Kohlberg’s findings reveal that adult females are assigned a lower moral phase. She conducted her ain research and found that the moral development of adult females is non lacking in relation to men’s but that it follows a different logic. truly a “different voice. ” Gilligan argues that Kohlberg’s method is male biased as his ears are “attuned to male and non female moral voices. ” This moral voice speaks a linguistic communication of attention emphasizing relationships and duties. instead than the linguistic communication of justice12 that emphasizes rights and regulations ( Gilligan 1982 ) .
Harmonizing to Gilligan. there are at least two moral orientations that in their several truths can non be reduced to one another and neither is one the higher good. The ideal is to incorporate both the moralss of justness and the moralss of attention. Interpreting Gilligan’s work. Marilyn Friedman ( 1987: 193. 203 ) notes that adult females. more so than work forces. happen it hard to react to the full in conjectural quandary. If more information is provided so the adult female grasps the state of affairs and is in a better place to react.
This is where contextualizing or supplying context is important as a concern for the contextual item moves a moral ratiocinator from principled moral logical thinking in the way of contextual relativism and therefore go loath to judge others. In Gilligan’s survey. the adult females find that moral jobs do non ensue from a struggle of rights to be adjudicated by ranking values ( adult females and moral theory ) but instead “moral jobs are imbedded in a contextual frame that eludes abstract. deductive logical thinking. ” These adult females employ schemes that aim at keeping personal ties whenever possible without giving the unity of the ego.
The Feminist argument about an moralss of attention has become so extended that Andrea Maihofer ( 1999: 393 ) claims it is now hard to supply an overview of it. What Carol Gilligan started in 1982 has ignited a ferocious treatment of its empirical rightness and the cogency of its generalisations. Maternal minds like Sara Ruddick ( 1989 ) affirm that moralss and value systems should be built on a theoretical account that fits life as most people live in it on an mundane footing and non on a contract footing. in a manner that two concern executives would carry on their fiscal personal businesss.
Nel Noddings ( 1990 ) takes moralss as being about peculiar relationships between two individuals. the “one-caring” and the “cared-for”—rooted in women’s experiences in caring for loved 1s ( kids ) and this has nil to make with abstract rules or faith. She argues that the mother’s experience of lovingness and everyone’s recollection of being cared for constitute the footing of moralss. Joan Tronto. like Ruddick. acknowledges that signifiers of penetration. cognition. and values develop in our mundane lives. and in concrete societal scenes but. unlike Ruddick. she bases her thought on a really wide construct of caring for others ( Pearsall 1999: 315 ) .
She identifies two types of lovingness. “caring about” and “caring for. ” where the differentiation is based on the object of caring. The boundaries aren’t fixed though she notes that caring about refers to less concrete objects and is characterized by a more general signifier of committedness ( Tronto 1993 ) . “Caring for” implies a more specific. peculiar object that is the focal point of caring. It besides involves reacting to the peculiar. concrete. religious. rational. emotional demands of others.
She besides argues that “traditional gender functions in our society imply that work forces care about but adult females care for” ( Tronto 1989: 400 ) . In developing the normative deductions of the practice of attention for others. Tronto came up with the four stages of caring— caring approximately. detecting the demand to care in the first topographic point ; taking attention of. presuming duty for attention ; care-giving. the existent work of attention that needs to be done ; and. care-receiving. the response of that which is cared for to the attention.
Hence. the success of caring for others depends upon the perceptual experience of the demands of another. every bit good as the preparedness to take duty for those demands. Further. she extrapolates that this practice of attention for others has “four ethical elements of attention: heed. duty. competency and responsiveness” ( Tronto 1993: 127 ) Although the moralss of attention is an independent normative construct. Tronto. like Gilligan. emphasizes the demand to incorporate it with the moralss of Justice. THE EXPERIENCE OF Lovingness
Recent events in my life prompted me to reflect on my experiences of caring for and caring approximately. pakikisama. pakikipag-kapwa. pakikiramay. I have realized that so the Filipino value system has many similarities to the Feminist Ethics of Care. As both Filipino and Feminist adult female I find that I am in a alone place as I discover merely how profoundly I am influenced by both values. Caring is ineluctable. Before I did this research I felt burdened by relationships and duties. Excessively much lovingness ( about or for ) was taxing.
My initial experience Tells me that even our society does non acknowledge the importance of lovingness. Those who care about and for others were faced with that all important inquiry. what about me? Caring in the wide sense carries a assortment of significances. To care is to experience concern ( be bothered. concern. love. believe about ) . to demo concern ( clinch. caress. pay a visit. spend clip with ) and understand what the other is traveling through ( sympathize. sympathise ) . Ultimately. it is the context of caring that will farther exemplify why it is a value.
For Filipinos. lovingness may be synonymous with any ( or may be all ) of the undermentioned: pag-aaruga. attention for particularly the immature or the ill. may be the value of what Ruddick calls maternal thought ; pagsasaalang-alang. to see. or believing about the public assistance of another ; pagtangkilik. to care about the amenitiess of another. being hospitable ; pakialam. while sometimes taken to intend negatively ( as intervention ) “may pakialam” is besides a lovingness by agencies of remaining informed and holding a interest in the affair ; pagkalinga is benevolence. compassionate lovingness.
Feminist Ethical motives maintain that the peculiar. concrete. mundane life experiences affair. because unlike the traditional theoretical account. this is rooted on our world. For many Feminists. we excessively should be interested in the topic of the good but the route to happiness that has been paved by traditional ethicians may be closed because of cardinal differences. These rules have been based chiefly on men’s lived experiences. As privileged males who had entree to resources. they did non hold to worry about sexual torment. unwanted gestations. covering with little kids.
The sexual division of labour farther cements the wall that separates the kingdom of the populace and the private ; so. Tronto ( 1993: 394 ) notes that while all individuals do care. work forces simply care about. while adult females attention for. Although I agree with Tronto on this mark. I am besides cognizant that she is puting up another dualism. In the past months I have experienced caring about and caring for different things. animals. people. I care about issues like societal justness. gender equality and animate being rights.
These are issues and causes that I am passionate about. I besides feel a sense of responsibility towards caring for others and see to it that these ends may be realized. But because of certain restraints I can non to the full acquire involved with these causes. My clip is divided between what the constitution deems as “important” ( that is. my calling ) and caring for others who depend on me and I feel responsible for. Although I am individual. I am caput of the household.
As the eldest kid and bread-winner I am caring for my household. widening fiscal support to my brothers who are completing their college surveies. supplying emotional and moral support to my female parent who is invariably worried about stretching the household budget. looking after my grandma. who at 89 old ages old is doddering and incontinent. supplying attention to pets who demand fondness. demoing concern and imparting an ear to disturb friends and pupils. Indeed my kapwa. of import worlds and animals around me. count a batch.
And I find that caring for others in its assorted pretenses. from pagsaalangalang or caring about the public assistance of my pupils and friends who need personal and academic advice. and pakialam or bothering to be informed about what is go oning with my loved 1s and their personal personal businesss. to pagkalinga and pag-aaruga. or caring for helpless and homeless animate beings. and patiently looking after my senile grandma. Caring tantrums good with the relational Filipino value system of pakikipagkapwa Taoist even as it develops in many degrees.
It is easy to see how Filipinos attention for household members ( Hindu iba SA atin ) . so excessively with caring for members of the community—our neighbours and friends. my pupils ( taga-atin ) —and caring for others as evidenced by the celebrated Filipino cordial reception. The Filipino construct of the ego is non independent in the manner that the West. peculiarly American society values personal autonomies. Along with lovingness is paki ( alam ) or inquiring and cognizing about what is go oning with others as a show of concern. To state “may pakialam” means to be a stakeholder.
But paki besides carries with it another significance that is taken negatively—the usyoso outlook of the Filipino. Westerners in peculiar position this as intervention. At the hazard of sounding nosey. Filipinos inquiring personal inquiries like where have you been or where are you traveling ( saan Ka galing. saan Ka papunta ) is borne out of a sincere desire to cognize because they are concerned. A speedy rejoinder to such inquiries may be “ano ba’ng paki minute? ”13 The Filipino ego. as in Gilligan’s Feminist Ethics. is a self-in-relation as we are non individualistic.
But unlike advocators of Feminist Ethics who make no castanetss approximately caring as a feminine trait. the Filipino value system appears to be gender-neutral. All signifiers of caring. such as pagkalinga. pagsasaalang-alang. paglingap may be attributed to Filipino males and females. After all. pakikipag-kapwa Taoist does non denote a generic adult male. for Taoist means everybody. 14 CONCLUSION The Filipino system of values or pamantayan is really similar to the Feminist Ethics of attention in the sense that both are relational. both value emotional sensitiveness. value smooth interpersonal relationships. and avoid pain others.
While Filipinos use the construct of loob to be inward looking ( Jocano 2000: 38 ) . Feminists draw upon their experience as health professionals. as female parents and even as receivers of attention. We see this in the many types of caring such as pakialam. pagkalinga. pagaaruga. pangangalaga. pagtangkilik. and the similar. But each system is flawed in the sense that Care Ethics claims to talk for all adult females while Filipino value system claims to talk for all Filipinos. Although we recognize the importance of the positions of gender ( Feminist ) and ethnicity ( Filipino ) . there is problem that farther differences might be obscured within these classs.
This type of essentialism has its booby traps. for while we are critical of male Western/first universe values. we may be guilty of raising our ain and enforcing it on others. Besides we must defy the temptingness of romanticising the function of the health professional because it is. as I have experienced it. burdensome. Easily the ego may be obliterated in our preoccupation with caring for others. In our state today. a mass-exodus of nurses. accoucheuses. instructors ( care-givers all ) who are besides female parents and primary health professionals to their immediate household members are lending to the encephalon drain.
15 And while they are looking after other people’s kids. what is go oning to their ain households back place? Are the male parents making a good occupation of caring or fussing? It becomes easy to once more do generalisations about the Filipino mind and rubric over of import differences like the classs of category ( those who can afford to pay for nursemaids and accoucheuses ) and gender ( it is still the adult females who do a batch of existent caring-for ) . Filipino adult females ( particularly the hapless ) are overburdened. Feminists besides caution adult females in lending to their ain development ( Tronto. 1987 ) .
Puting the value of attention in the Filipino context means that there is a demand to be critical. and acknowledge the fact that despite this Filipino value system that is relational ( that is. of pakikipagkapwa ) there is grounds everyplace that caring is nonexistent: in the streets where male drivers are foolhardy ( manner beyond caring ) . a blazing neglect for traffic regulations. hapless work moral principle in authorities offices ( “walang paki sa dapat na pinagsisilbihan” ) . we can non pull off even our refuse state of affairs so this consequences to deluging.
Too. lovingness is frequently misplaced as pakikialam. The construct of loob may be positive because we are inward looking but we need to spread out the range of the interior circle ( the private ) and encompass others. We should besides include caring for other people ( we are racialists. we love aliens but discriminate against our ain race ) . animals ( we do non care as much about Philippine vegetations and zoologies. we abuse our resources ) . and the environment.
We should besides get down caring about issues. be better informed and lose our apathy so we will non maintain electing icky leaders. We have pakialam over showbiz occurrences. and street accidents but rarely when it matters most. It is now more than of all time that we have to be concerned ( or to do pakialam ) . But there is besides a demand to anneal caring with the spirit of justness. Although bookmans have done surveies on values the facet of lovingness has been overlooked. Caring has many signifiers and this is the most interesting portion ; it is expressed in so many ways.
It is besides interesting to inquire why despite our being caring/pakikipag-kapwa Taoist. we are non traveling on? Caring is so undervalued and it has to be recognized. We need to calculate out how to incorporate it with the moralss of justness and do it work to our advantage. Yes. we care. may pagmamalasakit. but it is merely non plenty. There is a demand to take caring more earnestly. To care about the ego and the other go manus in manus. hypertext transfer protocol: //www. crvp. org/book/Series03/IIID-4/chapter-6. htm.