RECTO MEMORIAL NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL

Disciplines and Ideas in the Social Sciences

Quarter 2: Sikolohiyang Pilipino

WEEK 3

Sikolohiyang Pilipino is an experience, thought and orientation of the Filipinos, whereby the concepts and
methodology emerge from the experiences of the people from the indigenous culture. It is significant to
understand the distinctive value of a true Filipino and its application for the progress of our lives and the
society as a whole.

This module will discuss the Sikolohiyang Pilipino.

After going through this module, you are expected to:

✓ Examine the key concepts and ideas of Filipino thinkers in the Social Sciences rooted in Filipino
language/s and experiences in the 20th- 21st Century (Sikolohiyang Pilipino). (MELC)

Sikolohiyang Pilipino
Filipino Psychology (Sikolohiyang Pilipino) is the scientific study of psychology derived from the
experience, ideas, and cultural orientation of the Filipino. Virgilio G.Enriquez was considered as the Father
of Sikolohiyang Pilipino. This merely focuses on fostering national identity and consciousness, social
awareness and involvement, psychology of cultures and languages, concerning with application of
indigenous psychology in health practices, agriculture, art, mass media, religion and the psychology of
behavior and human abilities (Enriquez, 1992 ).

Three Primary Areas of Protest of Sikolohiyang Pilipino

1. Sikolohiya ng Pagbabagong isip This movement is against a psychology that
(psychology of re-awakening) perpetuates colonial mentality and promotes the
national consciousness
2. Sikolohiyang Malaya (liberated Against the importation and imposition of a
psychology), psychology that has been developed.
3. Sikolohiyang Mapagpalaya (liberating This movement is against a psychology used for the
psychology) exploitation of the masses

Enriquez coined the term “Kapwa” as a recognition of shared identity, an inner self shared with
other which is the Core Value of Sikolohiyang Pilipino. Kapwa has two categories “One of Us” kapwa as
hindi- ibang tao and “Not one of us” kapwa as ibang tao.

Five Level of Interaction of Kapwa as ibang tao

 1. Pakikitungo (Civility) Right behavior means right conduct towards
authorities.
2. Pakikisalamuha (Act of Mixing) It espouses the ability to adapt.
3. Pakikilahok (Act of Joining) This translates to participation of the entire
community to help a person.
4. Pakikibagay (Conformity) This runs with the conflict with individuality, which
many Filipinos in fact willingly throw away the favor of
conformity with demands of those who are in charge.
5. Pakikisama Being united with the group

Three Level of Interaction of Kapwa as Hindi Ibang Tao

1. Pakikipagpalagayang -loob Act of mutual trust
2. Pakikisangkot Act of joining others
3. Pakikipagkaisa Being one with others

Other Filipino Values

➢ Pakiramdam: Shared inner perceptions. Filipino use damdam or the Inner Perception of others’
emotions, as a basic tool to guide his dealings with other people.

➢ Kagandahang Loob: Shared Humanity refers to being able to help other people in dire need due to a
perception of being together as part of Filipino Humanity.

➢ Hiya: Loosely translated as “shyness “by most Western Psychologist. Hiya is actually “sense of
Propriety”

➢ Utang na Loob: Norm of Reciprocity. Filipinos are expected by their neighbors to return favors
whether these were asked for or not - when it is needed or wanted. Example (Abuloy and Bayanihan).

➢ Pakikisama and Pakikipagkapwa: This attitude is primarily guided by conformity of the majority.

➢ Bahala Na: “leave it up to God” it is used as an expression, almost universally, Filipino Culture. Filipino
engage in Bahala na attitude as a culture-influenced adaptive coping strategy when faced with challenging
situations.

➢ Lakas ng Loob: this attitude is characterized by being courageous in the midst of problems and
uncertainties.

➢ Pakikibaka: Concurrent clashes. It refers to the ability of the Filipino to undertake revolutions and
uprising against a common enemy.

➢ Karangalan: Loosely translated to dignity, this actually refers to what other people see in a person
and how they use that information to make a stand or judge about his/her worth.
 ⚫ Puri: the external aspect of dignity .May refer to how other people judge a person of his/her
worth. This compels a common Filipino to conform to social norms, regardless how obsolete they
are.

⚫ Dangal: the internal aspect of dignity. May refer to how person judges his own worth.

➢ Katarungan: Loosely translated to justice, this actually refers to equity in giving rewards to a person.

➢ Kalayaan: Freedom and mobility. Ironically, this may clash with the less important value of pakikisama
or pakikibagay (conformity).

➢ Hospitality: The friendly and generous reception and entertainment of guests, visitors, or strangers.

➢ Utang na loob: A Filipino cultural traits, which means a debt of one's inner self or debt of gratitude.

WHAT’S MORE?
Complete the diagram below. Identify specific Filipino traits and the importance of Studying
Sikolohiyang Pilipino you observed in the country.

SPECIFIC FILIPINO TRAITS

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

IMPORTANCE OF STUDYING SIKOLOHIYANG PILIPINO

_1.__________________________________________________________________________________
_2.__________________________________________________________________________________

_3.__________________________________________________________________________________

_4.__________________________________________________________________________________

_5.__________________________________________________________________________________
 RECTO MEMORIAL NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL
Disciplines and Ideas in the Social Sciences
Quarter 2: Pantayong Pananaw

WEEK 4

This module defines the concept of Pantayong Pananaw, which emphasizes the use of Filipino language
as the language of discourse. At the end of this module, the students/learners are expected to know the
significance of using a particular language in discourse and to provide their own understanding about the
lesson that been tackled.

This module will discuss the concept of Pantayong Pananaw.

After going through this module, you are expected to:

1. Examine the key concepts and ideas of Pantayong Pananaw in the Social Sciences rooted in the
Filipino language/s and experiences.

Pantayong Pananaw: Isang Paliwanag

Zeus A. Salazar

Sa lahat ng mga wikang Pilipino, may mga konseptong katumbas ng “tayo”, “kami”, “sila” at tayo
na tumutukoy sa mga nagsasalita at lahat ng kangyang kausap, kasama kahit na iyong kahit wala.
Halimbawa, “tayong mga Pilipino” kung ihahambing sa “kaming mga Pilipino” ay nangangahalugang ang
nagkakausap-usap ay mga Pilipino mismo at implisitong hindi kasali ang mga banyaga. Sa sitwasyon ito,
ang lagay, konsepto, kaisipan at ugali na maaaring pagtuunan ng pansin ay madaling maintindihan dahil
sa napapaloob sa ating sariling lipunan at kultura. Mapag-uugnay natin sila sa isa’t isa na hindi kailangang
magkaroon pa ng pantukoy sa iba pang mga konsepto, tao, ugali, at kaisipan na kaugnay nila. Katunayan
nga maraming bagay ang mga implisito nating nauunawaan.
Ibig sabihin, kung ang isang grupo ng tao ay nag-uusap lamang hinggil sa sarili at sa isat-isa, iyan
ay parang sistemang ‘’closed circuit’’ pagkat nagkakaintindihan ang lahat. Samakatuwid, ang lipunan at
kultura natin ay may ‘’pantayong pananaw’’ Lang kung tayong lahat ay gumagamit ng mga konsepto at
ugali na alam natin lahat ang kahulugan, pati ang relasyon ng mga kahulugang ito sa isat isa. Ito ay
nangyayari lamang kung iisa ang ‘’code’’; ibig sabihin, isang pangkabuuang pag-uugnay at pagkakaugnay
ng mga kahulugan, kaisipan at ugali. Mahalaga at pundamental pa nga] rito ang iisang wika.
Makikita natin na bago pa dumating ang mga kastila sa kapuluan, bawa’t isa sa mga grupong
etniko ay may sarili nang ‘’pantayong pananaw’’ o sarililing kabuuan na nakasalalay sa pagkakabit-kabit
ng mga elementong kultural at panlipunan sa isat-isa na naipamamalagi at naiintindihan ng taga grupo
etniko sa iisang wika; ang sarili.
Sa ganitong pagkakaunawaan, ang pantayong pananaw kadalasan ay hindi hayag sa mga tao
kung buo ang lipunan at kalinangan, pagka’t iyon na ang kinagisnan nila at wala ng iba pang kulturang
natutunan, maliban sa mga elementong nakakapasok sa [at inaangkin ng] kanilang batayang kalinangan.
Bago dumating ang mga Kastila, wala pang iisang pananaw ang buong archipelago, dahil wala
pa ang bansang Pilipino. Ang bansang Pilipino ay nabuo lang sa ikalawang bahagi ng nagdaang dantaon.
Ito ay nabuo sa pamamagitan ng mga elite ng bahaging Kristiyano ng kolonyang Kastila. Nabuo lang ito
sa isang bahagi ng Kapilipinuhan na nag-expose nang husto sa Kanluran, ng mga natuto ng kastila at
napapasok sa kabihasnang Kastila.
Ang tawag ko sa mga ito ay mga akulturadong tao, na nagsimula sa isang grupong panlipunan
noong panahon ng unang pagkatagpo ng mga Pilipino at Kastila. Tinatawag na ladino ang mga ito,
sapagka’t sila ay natuto ng Kastila, kaya ginawang tagasalin ng mga prayle. Isinalin nila sa kanilang
katutubong wika, ang mga konsepto at kaisipang ipinasasalin ng prayle, at isinalin din nila ang mga
konsepto, ideya at kaisipang katutubo sa wikang Kastila para sa mga prayle. Sa madaling salita, ang mga
ladinong ito ang nakipagtulungan sa mga Kanluranin sa proseso ng pankolonisa sa kanila mismo at sa
kanilang kakultura.
Simula noong ikatlong dekada ng ika-18 ng dantaon ay unti-unting pumasok nang mas
maramihan ang mga ladino sa sistemang kolonyal ng mga Kastila. Sila ay naging mga escribano [klerk,
sekretaryo, atbp], mga abu-abugado [abogadocillos] o di kaya mga katuwang ng mga alkalde at iba pang
opisyal na Kastila. Ang iba naman ay pumasok sa sistemang panrelihiyon; naging mga pare sila, mga
pareng secular. Noong mga unang dekada ng ika-18 dantaon, nagsimula nang magtatag ang rehimeng
Kastila ng mga seminaryo, dahil sa masidhing pangangailangan at sa patakaran ng Hari. Kaya nakapasok
sa mga Simbahan at namahala sa mga parokya simula noon ang mga pareng Pilipino ito---mga Indio,
Sangley [mistisong Instik], at mistisong Kastila.
Ang bagong anyo ng ladinong naging pareng secular, ang ilustrado, ay iba, dahil talagang
edukado sila at edukado sa labas ng Simbahan. Noong ika-19 na dantaon, nagkaroon ng mga Kolehiyo at
Unibersidad na napasukan ng mga Indio, mistisong Sangley at mistisong Espanyol, na nasamahan na rin
ng mga tinatawag na kreolyo [mga Kastilang ipinanganak dito sa Pilipinas na tinatawag na ‘’Hijos de Pais’’
o mga anak ng bayan]. Dahil sa mga edukasyon nila ay hindi sa seminaryo, mas nakatuon sa tunay na
daigdig [sa kalagayang panlipunan at pampulitika ] ang kanilang pag-iisip. At dahil sila ang pinaka-
intelektuwal at edukado sa mga ‘’katutubo’’ sa Pilipinas, sila ang pinakamadaldal, pagka’t puede silang
makipag-usap sa Kastila. Sila rin ay puwedeng pagbuntunan ng mga alipusta ng mga Kastila hinggil sa
mga ‘’katutubo’’ [na, para sa mga kolonyalista ay katulad nila], dahil nakakaintindi at nakakausap sila ng
Kastila.
Mula noong panahon ng Kastila, hanggang ngayon, sumusulat ang mga propagandistas [at mga
humahalili ritong mga intelekwal na mga ilustradong nadagdagan ng mga pensionadao, Fulbright
scholars at iba pang inisponsor ng Amerika] sa wikang dayuhan, para ipakita na puwede rin sila at puwede
nga. Iyon lang, upang makalikha sa Kastila [o Amerikanong Ingles] kakailanganin munang maging Kastila
[o Amerikano] ang mga nagmimithing maging ‘’Pilipino’’. Ibig sabihin, kailangang munang humiwalay sila
at iwanan nila ang katutubong kultura. Kakailanganin ang mga iyon na mapahiwalay sa katutubong
kultura, at mamaya-maya ay bumalik dito para gamitin sa kanilang paglikha at upang bigyan ito ng ibang
kaayusan. Maaaring ito ay idealization process o kaya pag-aalipusta sa dating kultura. Ngunit, anuman
ang bagong kaayusang kultural nalikha nila ay batay sa banyaga at hindi bukal sa sarili.
Ang pinaka-importante sa konseptong Pilipino ng ‘’Kasaysayan’’ ay ang ideya ng saysay, na ang
ibig sabihin ay kapwa ‘’salaysay’’ [o kuwento] at ‘’katuturan”, ‘’kabululuhan’’. Kaya nga’t ang paglalahad
ng mga pangyayari [bagay na nangyari o lumitaw /sumulpot na lamang] at kaganapan [bagay na
naganap, o naging ganap, buo, o tapos na] ay isang ‘’salaysay’’ o ‘’saysay’’. Subalit ang ‘’Kasaysayan’’
lamang ang ‘’may saysay’’, sapagkat ito ay nakatuon sa mga pangyayari kaganapang ‘’may Kasaysayan’’-
--ibig sabihin, lipos ng ‘’Kahulugan’’, ’Katuturan’’ at Kabuluhan’’. Samakatuwid, para sa atin noon man,
hanggang ngayon, ang kasaysayan ay isang salaysay hinggil sa nakaraan o saan pa mang paksa na may
saysay para sa sariling lipunan at kultura. Hindi maaring ang isang salaysay tungkol sa isang grupo ng tao
ay may saysay na malalim pa sa ibang grupo ng tao. Higit sa lahat, may saysay iyon sa grupo ng tao mismo
na paksa ng kasaysayang isinasalaysay. Malayo ito sa kinagawian nating depinisyon o eskuwelahan [na
tatag ng Amerikano] na ang Kasaysayan daw ay pag-aaral ng nakaraan [‘’History is the study of past’’].
Mas importante ang dalawang tanong na ‘’kaninong nakaraan’’ at ’’para kanino isinasalaysay’’. Kaya,
para sa kasalukuyang yugto ng ating historiograpiya, ang Kasaysayan ay dapat maging isang ulat hinggil
sa nakaraan sa kabuuang lipunan at kultura ng bansang Pilipino.

“Source: Excerpt from Covar, Prospero The Filipino has culture and society, pp. 120-127.

PANTAYONG PANANAW

Pantayong Pananaw is a discourse within the indigenous tradition that was developed by Dr. Zeus
Salazar, a history professor from the History Department of University of the Philippines Diliman and
considered as the “Father of the Pantayong Pananaw”. He developed the Pantayong Pananaw discourse
as a response to the westernized perspective of the study of the Philippine history and historiography.
“Considered as the most theoretically advanced and productive in terms of the number of research
outputs on the indigenization of the social sciences”, the Pantayong Pananaw introduces a
communication-based theoretical innovation on the study of Philippine Historiography. This new model
in historiography refers to the “normative speaking context within which scholars in the movement seek
to help forge a “national discourse on civilizations”. The Pantayong Pananaw wishes to contribute to the
“nourishing of a talastasang bayan” or national discourse. Together with the notion of history as salaysay
which carries a notion of the nation’s pag-uulat sa sarili or the nation reporting to itself, the Pantayong
Pananaw wants to create a venue “whereby the nation can share in one encompassing discourse, one
that would lend a sense of kabuuan or “totality” or a shared of understanding of the nation’s history that
can give a force and direction to a collective vision of the future.” . (Mendoza, 2007, 267-268)

Pantayong Pananaw came from the words pantayo and pananaw. The term pantayo was derived
from the root word “tayo” which means “we” the plural form of the first person pronoun and the prefix
“pan” which means “for”. While “pananaw” means “perspective” in English. Understood as a single term,
Pantayong Pananaw means “A-For-Us-Perspective”. In 2003, Ramon Guillermo translated Pantayong
Pananaw as “a from-us-for-us perspective”. In this new translation, the perspective emphasize that the
“cultural notion is not only the subject and goal but it is also the source of it” (Mendoza, 2007, 268).
Salazar used tayo as basis for the theoretical base of the perspective and not the pronoun kami
because according to Salazar, the latter refers to “we-speaking to others” as opposed to the former, which
means “we-speaking among ourselves”. The Pantayong Pananaw introduces a “closed circuit of
interaction a context where discourse is carried on by and among Filipinos, without the inclusion or
interference of outside participants or dominant perspectives who are unwelcoming to Filipino interest
(Salazar, 2007, 105). Through, this perspective, Filipinos can communicate freely using their own concepts,
language, thought patterns, manner of relating, and interests.

The Pantayong Pananaw has basic tenets that explains the nature of perspective:

1. The original language of the Filipino and other indigenous groups in the Philippines must be used
in writing Philippine history.
2. Language as proposed by the advocates of Pantayong Pananaw serves as the root and backbone
of the Filipino experience.
3. Foreign people can speak and learn the Filipino language but cannot really have that whole
hearted knowledge about the language.
 4. Writing history using Pantayong Pananaw would therefore hinge on using and tapping the local
and national languages.
5. Having one language (Filipino) used in writing history makes the Filipino society fully grasp the
true meaning of Kasaysayan.

PHILIPPINE HISTORY FROM THE LENS OF THE PANTAYONG PANANAW

Salazar believed that the prior to the coming of Spaniards, there was no unified Pantayong
Pananaw among the ethnolinguistic groups throughout the Philippines. He examines the creation of the
Philippines as a national political entity through the efforts of the Christianized elites who pursued for
reforms and the country’s independence during the end of nineteenth century. He called these elites as
the “acculturated group or the ladino class.” These Ladinos, Salazar argues, had very complex and intricate
transactions and collaborations with the Spaniards. They helped the Spaniards to introduce Hispanic
culture into the lives of the Filipino lives by indigenizing and translating Spanish works into the native
language. They have privileged status because they acted as cultural mediators during the Spanish period.
Ladino class included the Filipino propagandist who sought reform from Spain (Salazar 2007, 107-108).
This very same group emerged as the elite class during the American occupation of the Philippines. Today,
they include, according to Salazar, the Fulbright scholars and other Filipino intellectuals who were given
scholarships by American foundations, the Japanese government and other foreign countries and
institutions. He believes that these scholars continue to discourse in English and use foreign constructs in
their researches and studies about the Philippines and Philippine society because they were educated
from foreign academic institutions. He argues that these Filipino scholars wrote researches and had
academic practice that disregarded the Filipino culture in their own ways even if they try to work for the
country’s national liberty (Salazar 2007, 112-114).

The Pantayong Pananaw seeks to bridge the division of society between the elite class, intellectuals and
technocrats and the majority of the Filipino masses who are still silent and voiceless because their main
form of discourse is limited to the use of indigenous languages. The Pantayong Pananaw endeavor to
narrow the gap between this “Great Cultural Divide” by first constructing a totality or national consensus
or pagbubuo to produce a “shared framework for differently making sense of the past’’. The creation of a
shared framework can serve as a basis for developing a common future (Mendoza 2007, 269.)

WHAT’S MORE?
In your own understanding, write the significance of using Filipino Language in discourse. Briefly discuss
your answer below.
WHAT CAN I DO?
DIRECTION: Write a reflection essay on the strengths and limitations if Pantayong Pananaw. In your own
judgement, can you say that Pantayong Pananaw truly provides a better alternative to Western
positivist historiography? Why or why not?

RECTO MEMORIAL NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL

Disciplines and Ideas in the Social Sciences
Quarter 2
Dominant Approaches in Filipino Perspectives
WEEK 5
Filipino Perspectives and Western concepts and methods is very significant in analyzing and solving social
problems. The Filipino society should be analyze from the eyes of Filipino perspective or any dominant
approaches related to Filipino because the dominant approaches were originated from the west and
individual social behavior of Filipinos are different from Westerners.

This module will discuss about the Dominant Approaches in Filipino Perspectives.

After going through this module, you are expected to:

✓ Evaluate the roles and significance of Filipinos’ indigenous social ideas to national development
(MELC)

Dominant Approaches In Filipino Perspectives

This module presents the dominant approaches of Westerners and Filipino Perspectives particularly the
significance of Pantayong Pananaw theorized by a historian and anthropologist, Dr. Zeus Salazar. From his
theory, we can ascertain that the concept of Pantayong Pananaw begins with society itself, including the
society’s aspirations and hopes. Pantayong Pananaw is a voice of Filipino Society. The only way to
contributes in a common social discussion is to use a common language that can understand by everyone.

The needs for critiquing the dominant approaches based on Filipino perspectives for the students to
realize that the society should be analyzed from the eyes of Filipino perspectives or any dominant
approaches related to Filipino perspectives.

Critique Dominant Approaches in Social Science

The dominant approaches were originated from the West. The individual and social behaviors of
Filipinos are different from the Westerners.

1. Structural Functionalism
Individual plays little role, based on the ideas of Emile Durkiem. It is a broad perspective in sociology
 and anthropology, which interpret society as a whole in terms of functions of its constituent
elements such as norms, customs, traditions, and institutions.

Society is a system of interconnected parts that work together in harmony to maintain a state of
balance and social equilibrium for the whole. For example: each social institution contributes
important functions for a society;
• Family provides a context for reproducing, nurturing and socializing children;
• Educations offers a way to transmit a society’s skills, knowledge and culture to its youth;
• Politics provides a means of governing members of society;
• Economics provides for the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services;
and
• Religion provides moral guidance and an outlet for worship of a higher power. (Mooney, Knox
and Schact, 2007).

Critique of Structural Functionalism:

During the 1970’s, the image of society as a complex system made up of interdependent parts was
rejected by sociologists, who emphasized that society was based on conflict among various social
groups. Critiques of this theory point to the way that the perspective sees society as an old fashion
traditional system with the conservative bias. Such can amplify social problems rather than solve
them. According to Emile Durkiem argued that a major principle of sociology is to study social facts
as things which means that social life can be studied and understood as events and objects in nature.

2. Conflict Perspective (Marxism)

Conflict theory seeks to scientifically explain the general contours of conflict in society: how conflict
starts and varies and the effects it brings. The central concerns of this theory are the unequal
distribution of scarce resources and powers. This works in Weber’s 3 classification system, class,
status, and power.

Critique of Marxism:
Marx generally gave a vision of society; he knew what the problems were and could see where
society was headed but had not concrete measures on how equality was to be achieved. His work
was therefore left open to the interpretation other socialists who imposed their own methods of
achieving equality, methods that were often dictatorial and oppressive. Some critique say that Marx
tended toward economic determinism in which the economic base was solely responsible for
political and social ideologies including religion and culture. He ignored the competition, on the
prices and value of commodities and on the laborers wages.

3. Symbolic Interactionism
It reflects the micro-sociological perspective and was largely influenced by the work of early
sociologist and philosophers such as Simmel, Cooley, Mead and Geoffman. According to W.I
Thomas, emphasizes that human behavior is influenced by definitions and meanings that are
created and maintained through symbolic interactionism. This also suggest (human respond to
their definition of a situation rather than to the objective itself) that our identity or sense of self is
shaped by social interaction.

Critique of the Symbolic Interactionism Approach:

The approach is credited for providing rich insight on the ways that individuals interact in small scale
 everyday situations. It provides a deep understanding of the social bonds that form in society.
However, symbolic interactionism fails to consider the influence of large social factors and
institutions on individual behavior. It this counts the systematic impact of these forces in creating a
peculiar context where the interactions, self, and symbols interface.

4. Psychoanalysis Perspective
It is a framework for understanding the impact of the unconscious on thoughts, feelings and
behavior.

Critique of the Psychodynamic Perspective:

One major criticism of Freud’s theory is that he based much of his interpretation on the results of
his patients free associations, as they talk about anything without fair of negative feedback. He did
no experiments to arrive at conclusions about personality. Thus, his sources of information are often
criticized as too ambiguous and his conclusion without enough scientific evidence.

5. Rational Choice Theory

Refers to the ideas that social interaction can be considered as social exchange which is patterned
on economic action that people are motivated by the rewards and cost of actions and by the profits
that they can make at the lowest possible cost. The beginning of rational choice can be traced back
to the age of reason.

Key concepts of rational choice theory:

• Utility Maximization
• Structure of Preference
• Decision-making under conditions of uncertainty.
• Centrality of individuals in the explanation of collective outcomes

Critique of the Rational Choice Theory:

Provides an insight into the decision-making process of individuals, by highlighting how individuals
are guided by the ways they assess costs and benefits, which can predict their satisfaction or
happiness in relation to their choice. Business and consumption related industries find rational
choice theory useful in terms of designing their products and services.

6. Institutionalism
It is the study of how institutions emerge, endure, change, and shape the social, economic, and
political decisions and behavior of a state or a society.

This views a society as made up of individuals who are influenced by institutions, which are also
humanly created constraints that shape or structures political, economic and social interactions.
The five basic Social Institutions are the Family, Education, Religion, Economics and Politics.

Critique of Institutionalism:
The main objective of old institutionalism is to determine what institutional design is best to direct
and regulate the behavior of individuals, who are assumed to be unpredictable and irrational while
new institutionalism focused on social groups and informal relationships brought about by a more
behavior-centered approach. This incorporated how interpersonal relationships, or the ways by
which individuals interact with each other. This approach focused on how power was distributed
informally on the impact of group pressures and on individual political behavior. New
 institutionalists believe that states no longer hold the only source of power; rather, power is
distributed to other institutions and social groups.

7. Feminist Theory
This promotes the belief that women and men should be treated equally and that steps have to be
taken to realize the goal of social inequality.

Critique of Feminism:
The feminists movement is as diverse as the feminisms it advocates. Each of the branches of
feminism- liberal, Marxist, Radical- has emerged from the perceived inadequacies of another. One
of the major critiques that have come from feminists of the third wave is that feminist knowledge
does not apply to all women. Many scholar says that feminists identities are intersectional. There is
a need to look at the social location of the groups of women, of the ways that gender, ethnicity, and
social class intersect to shape the unique experiences of females.

8. Hermeneutical Phenomenology

Studies the meanings that people give everyday experiences within their life-worlds and such,
allows us to understand what it is like to live in particular social worlds. Its goal is to capture
Interpreting data, phenomenology invites us to be open to the variety of experiences. Hermeneutic
phenomenology is the study of experience together with its meanings. (Friesen, Henrikson & Savi,
2012)

Critique of Hermeneutic Phenomenology:

It is impossible to investigate experience without at the same time inquiring into its meaning: it is
likewise impossible to analyze meaning without being grounded on experience. As an approach
hermeneutic phenomenology represents an “attitude or disposition as sensitivity and openness to
everyday experienced meanings as opposed to theoretical ones” (Van Manen, 2002).

9. Human Environment System

This recognizes the human activities, which place pressure on the environment and how these
pressures modify the current state of the atmosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere. This leads to
impacts on the environment as well as on social and economic systems. In turns, human society
attempts to problem-solve in order to remove, reduce, or prevent the divers and pressures, restore
the state of the environment and mitigate impacts. A human environment is the area that a human
lives in.

They are varied from there; even more so by humans’ ability to adapt the environment to us and us
to the environment.

Critique of Human Environment System:

Analyzed the dynamics of human-environment interactions and examines the ways that the
environment shapes and constrains human behavior and the ways that human activities on the
environment construct the built landscape which also shapes and constrains behavior. Cultures
evolve out of the ways that humans have worked with, and adapted to, the physical environment.
There is no right or wrong culture. But as cultural groups start dominating in society and in the
 world. They begin imposing their own standards and ideologies on others. Example, what we think
of as mainstream “Filipino” culture is in fact the culture of the dominant Tagalogs.

Filipino Perspective

1. Sikolohiyang Pilipino is an experience, thought and orientation of the Filipinos, whereby

the concepts and methodology emerge from the experiences of the people from the
indigenous culture.

2. Pantayong Pananaw – “From-us-for-us perspective”: A communication-based framework

whose aim is to produce a "national" discourse (“talastasang bayan”). “Ang pantayong
pananaw ay isang buong (ibig sabihin, di watak-watak na) diskursong pangkalinangan o
pangkabihasnan, ang pinakakatangian ng isang kalinangan o kabihasnang may kabuuan at
kakanyahan. Batayan siya, samakatuwid, ng pagkakaisa ng isang grupo ng taong may sariling
wika-at-kultura. (Salazar, 2000)”

1. Pilipinolohiya - It encompasses the study of Filipino history, Filipino Culture, Philippine

Languages, Filipino Society, Filipino Life, Filipino Psyche, or Filipino Psychology, politics and
Government and all about awareness about the Philippines, this also aims to make students
of Philippine studies aware of Filipino Ethnic identity by experiencing
2. Philippine Culture.

What Can I do?

I-Scoop: ( 5 points Each)

1. As a social science student think of social issues in the

Philippines and explain it using the most appropriate
dominant approach.
2. What is the importance of examining dominant approaches
from the eyes of Filipino context?
3. As a social science student, what is the significance of
discovering the approaches/perspectives in analyzing social
issues?