The Concept of "Hiya" in Phil Culture
Tito Domine
by Dr Virgilio Enriquez called "Filipino Values: Towards a New Interpre-
tation (Using Local Language As A Resource)" written sometime in 1987.
The main theses of this paper is as follows :
1. Filipinos are not too aware of what Filipino values (and morals, of
course) are. At the very least, they are confused somewhat about what
"Filipino values" truly mean.
2. One of the reasons for this confusion is that majority of studies
on identification of Filipino values were made by Western or Western-
trained social scientists who minmally understood local language.
3. This judgemental view of Filipino culture resulted not because of
the alien perspective pe se but because of the assumption that the
alien culture is supposedly superior.
We thus see comments like - "The reason why Filipinos have
corrupt government is because of the padrino system which is based
on "utang na loob"."
4. Such studies and their conclusions became the basis of teaching the
Filipinos what their values supposedly were, thus re-inforcing the
"colonial" character of how Filipinos viewed themselves.
This occurs predominantly in the identification of the so-called
triad of Filipino core values - "utang na loob", "hiya" and "pakikisama".
The other "identified" values that were ill-described are
"amor propio" ,"ningas kogon" and "bahala na".
To recapitulate, English or English-trained social scientists
used the moral values embedded in the English language as the supposedly
superior "measuring rod" to view Filipino culture thus resulting in
a judgemental view of it. This is what has been bequeathed to us.
Furthermore, Western civilization has two main foundations -
Graeco-Roman culture and of course Semitic religion (christianity and
judaism).
The Social Interpretation of "Hiya"
(For purposes of clear discussion, I will number each point :)
1. One of the early studies of "hiya" was done by Sibley (1965) from the
Philippine Studies Program at the Univerity of Chicago. He came to the
conclusion that "hiya" is social in character. That is "hiya" carries with
it a social injunction. He buttressed his argument by using the Tagalog
salawikain - "Nahiya sa tao, sa Diyos ay hindi". (sic) (*Note - Here is
where the the error crept in - the correct salawikain is - "Nakakahiya sa
tao, sa Diyos ay hindi". - Rough English - "Shameful to men (or in the
eyes of men), but not to God".
This was due to Sibley's mediocre Tagalog.
2. Salazar (1981), in his study of Tagalog affixation - "na-",
"nakaka-" concluded that affixation changes the meaning implied in words.
To illustrate -
a) "Nahiya siya dahil ang kanyang pantalon ay gusot."
(Meaning : he was embarrassed because his pants were mussed)
The nature of the embarrassment is social awkwardness due to
unpressed pants.
b) "Nakakahiya ang kanyang asal".
(Meaning: His behavior is shameful)
The nature of the "shame" implies a moral dimension.
In tagalog, we do not hear "Nakakahiya ang kanyang pantalon." -
unless there is a moral overture.
By the way - the word "dyahe" is a inversion of "hiya" - "ya-hi".
c) "Mahiyain siya"
(Meaning : He(she) is shy.)
The connotation is social shyness.
d) "Kahiya-hiya siya"
(Meaning : His(Her) actions are shameful)
The dimension is clearly moral.
3. Salazar differentiated between the "labas" (extroversal) and "loob"
(introversal) aspects of "hiya", thus bringing to light its real nature
and function in Philippine society - its dual nature as a social deterrent
to socially unacceptable behavior and as a moral deterrent to morally
reprehensible behavior.
This conclusion could not have been possible without at thorough
grasp of the nuances of Tagalog and the study of affixation.
(Next : The Second Most Important Concept in Phil Culture - "Loob")
(Note : The most important concept is "ka-" which will be discussed at the
last.)
tito
Marida Ignacio
|From: ti...@ocf.berkeley.edu (Tito Domine)>
|
| Most of the following discusssion is culled from a paper written
|by Dr Virgilio Enriquez called "Filipino Values: Towards a New Interpre-
|tation (Using Local Language As A Resource)" written sometime in 1987.
Got nothing better to do with life, huh. (The peers.)
;^,
| ...
| [other issues of relating *grammar (affixes)* to morality and the
| the Filipino understanding of himself and thus the evolution of
| our terms/nomenclatures...]
Do you personally (weeele, weeele, really) believe this generalization?
I don't.
;^,
| 1. One of the early studies of "hiya" was done by Sibley (1965) from the
|Philippine Studies Program at the Univerity of Chicago. He came to the
|conclusion that "hiya" is social in character. That is "hiya" carries with
|it a social injunction. He buttressed his argument by using the Tagalog
|salawikain - "Nahiya sa tao, sa Diyos ay hindi". (sic) (*Note - Here is
|where the the error crept in - the correct salawikain is - "Nakakahiya sa
|tao, sa Diyos ay hindi". - Rough English - "Shameful to men (or in the
|eyes of men), but not to God".
Before this discussions become too misleading (and political)...
(for what point is it, anyway?)
I hope that what we all learn from this are:
that 'kaplastikan' or hypocrisy is really bad (specifically if propagating
in all directions causing domino-effect that others adopt it);
that somebody should not always have to *save his face* b/c of 'hiya' or
perhaps, pretend to be helpful to others but actually just being egocentric
or egoistical (likes to look good) and not really reflecting upon his *real*
inner intensions of helping others (not himself) in God's way.
('utang na loob' is another story)
So how do you actually live your life?
Saving your face in this net or in front of others OR
being modest/humble, honest/true, and unselfishly helpful towards others.
You know which is what God prefers, right?
-Marida