ROGELIA PE-PUA University of New South Wales Australia 382 Unpacking the Concept of Loob: Towards Developing Culture- Inclusive Theories” hhis chapter articulates one of the most cited core concept in Philippine indigenous psychology-loob. Loob literally means “inner,” “interior” or “internal.” As a concept, it refers to one’s inner self, the internal dimension of one's identity. As a potential culture-inclusive theory, it has at least 250 variants that represent Filipino constructs. Loob has breadth and depth, Itcan refer to thought, awareness, memory, volition and emotion. It has positive, negative and neutral meanings. Loob is the embodiment of personality, character and humanity. In unpacking this, am taking up the challenge of articulating this to a diverse audience—indigenous Filipino, non-indigenous and other indigenous scholars—a culture-inclusive theory, in a language that is not the source of the indigenous concept. I used the approach of “indigenization from within” or cultural revalidation, that is, understanding it from the point of view of the indigenous, instead of direct translation or interpretation that is not sensitive to cultural nuances. ‘THE EXOGENOUS, THE INDIGENOUS AND THE, CRoss-INDIGENOUS (“CULTURE-INCLUSIVE”) ‘The Philippines has a long history of indigenization of psychology that started with a movement that challenged the universality of Western Psychology, and evolved into a discovery and identification of genuinely indigenous concepts, “theories” and research methods. “Sikolohiyang Pilipino (Filipino psychology) refers to the psychology born outof the experience, thought and orientation of the Filipinos, based on the full use of Filipino culture and language (Pe-Pua and Protacio-Marcelino 2000, 49)” This development has to be appreciated against = historical backdrop of periods of colonization ofthe Philippines by Spain (300 years) and the USA (50 years). The Americans, i= particular, have influenced the establishmentand the nature of the discipline of psychology in the country. Ironically, itwas a= American-trained Filipino psychologist, Virgilio Enriquez, whe started the Sikolohiyang Pilipino movement, after he and his colleagues came to realize the inadequacy of Western theories and methods in reflecting and describing the Filipino psyche The start of the movement coincided with the time in the eariy 1970s when the country was rebelling against a dictatorsat * Copyright © 2017 The Author.government, and rejecting “imperialistic” influence from the West (a.k.a. America) Sikolohiyang Pilipino represented the process of decolonization in the form of being critical of Western theories and methods, and ‘wanting to discover their “own” psychology. (For a fuller history of the indigenization of psychology in the Philippines, see Pe-Pua and Protacio-Marcelino 2000; and Pe-Pua and Perfecto-Ramos 2012). Enriquez (1987, 1992) illustrated the indigenization process in terms of two pathways. The first pathway is what Enriquez (1987, 1992) called indigenization from without, or what Sinha (1997) termed indigenization ofthe exogenous. The exogenous culture is the source, the flow is inward, i, the indigenous culture is the target. The process involves creating an indigenous version, in other words, adaptation of the foreign material to the indigenous context, producing an indigenous version of imported materials. The popular examples are the translation of imported theories (mainly from the West), or modification of psychological tests, or replication of Western studies. In many countries where indigenization occurs, it is this type of indigenization that is more common. ‘The other pathway is what Enriquez (1987, 1992) called indigenization from within or cultural revalidation,’ which Sinha (1997) called internal indigenization. The source of concepts and methods is the indigenous culture. Psychologists start by identifying indigenous concepts, theories and methods, rather than adapting existing Western concepts, theories and methods to local situations. Through semantic elaboration, indigenous codification or re-~ codification, and systematic explication of implied theoretical frameworks, what is produced is a psychology that reflects the indigenous experience and realities. This strategy also pays attention to the application and use of the generated knowledge to benefit the indigenous. The outward flow indicates that there is an intention to apply this outside the indigenous culture. Through the development of Sikolohiyang Pilipino, one of its most significantachievements is the identification of indigenous concepts, which are later analyzed using various approaches, including hermeneutical, linguistic, philosophical, historical, sociological, anthropological, and psychological. An example is the concept of kapwa (shared identity) which is at the core of Filipino social psychology, and which is at the heart of Filipino values. While foreign scholars who studied Filipino personality identified a different value, pakikisama (smooth interpersonal relations) as core value, Enriquez (1978, 1994) discovered that it is not maintaining smooth interpersonal relationships that Filipinos are most concerned with, but pakikipagkapwa which ‘means treating the other person as kapwa or fellow human being. Since the initial identification of kapwa, this concepthas been studied widely, with the most recent advances being the experimentation and systematic study of kapwa using both quantitative and qualitative methods. There should be enough materials to go with to start theorizing kapwa and relating it to other indigenous concepts in Chinese and Japanese psychology, for example, Filipino personality has been and continues to be a popular area of study of foreign scholars who came to the Philippines. Their interpretations of Filipino personality characteristics vary depending on their knowledge of the local language (with many relying on interpreters, which is an issue in indigenization), and more significantly, on whether they are using the indigenous or exogenous lens. | will give just one example. Hiya was one of the Filipino values identified by American scholars in the 1960s. Pe-Pua and Protacio-Marcelino discussed this in an article outlining the legacy of Virgilio Enriquez. Sibley (1965) translated it as “shame.” Lynch (1961) * Enriquez and a few other authors argue that the term "Indigenization” when referring to this approach to indigenization is not accurate—how do you indigenize something that is already indigenous? PE-PUA 383explained it as "the uncomfortable feeling that accompanies awareness of being in a socially unacceptable position, or performing a socially unacceptable action; for example, when a son or daughter is scolded by the parent in front of other people. The Filipino Andres (1994) described hiya as “an ingredient in why Filipinos overspend uring fiestas [holiday festivals celebrating some patron saints or significant events in the locality] in order to please their visitors, even to the extent of going into debt (64) The three interpretations above can be considered as “exogenous,” even Andres's although he Is a Filipino. They were inadequate because they failed to take into account the effect of affixations in Philippine languages that can giveanewmeaningtoa root word suchas hiya. A Filipino philosopher, Armando Bonifacio (1976) adopted an indigenous approach and alerted us to the different meanings of hiya depending on its form or affixation, Thus, it could simply refer to “embarrassment” as in nakakahiya (embarrassing), napahiya (placed in an awkward position), ikinahiya (be embarrassed with someone), etc. With some affixes, it can have a negative meaning, as in napahiya/pinahiya (humiliated by someone) for example; with others, positive, as in mahiyain (shy-considereda virtue, especially among women); and instill other forms, itcan be either positive or negative, eg,, kahihiyan (sense of propriety, or embarrassment) After Bonifacio, a Filipino-born but German- trained historian, Zeus Salazar (1981, 1985), expanded on the analysis of hiya by looking at the affixation to the root word, and in the process discovered the internal and external aspects of hiya. From this, it became evident that the foreign scholars have captured the external aspects only. To make the long story short, the more appropriate translation of hiya in English is not “shame” (exogenous) but “sense of propriety” (indigenous). This chapter follows the indigenization- from-within approach, The basis is the indigenous language and | will come back to the issue of affixations in the Philippine language as I examine the indigenous concept of loob. The challenge I face is how to convey UNPACKING THE CONCEPT OF L00R 384 the ideas of an indigenous concept, based on an indigenous language, to non-speakers of this language, and non-bearers of this culture, But this is precisely the kind of challenge that we need to address if we are to progress towards achieving the goal of indigenous psychologies which is to make a contribution to universal psychology. As expected in this process, we are constrained by the English language which often could give an approximation only of the concept in its original linguistic source. ‘Asa caveat, the paper is about developing culture-inclusive theories. To me, the term “culture-inclusive” means acknowledging the crucial role of culture in theorizing, It also means “inclusive of many cultures,” which is the essence ofthe cross-indigenous approach. “Mn this model, the different cultures of the world are tapped as sources of cultural knowledge. The resulting poo! may then be called ‘cross-cultural knowledge’ More aptly, itis cross-indigenous knowledge . . ” (Enriquez 1992, 86). Way Loon? Loob featured among the important things to study if we want to understand Sikolohiyang Pilipino. Enriquez (1975) clarified that psychology should be the study of kalooban (emotions) and kamalayan (experienced knowledge), ulirat (awareness of one’s surroundings), isip (information and understanding), diva (habits and behavior), and kaluluwa (soul). Inseveral studies and explorations into the Filipino philosophy and the Fil personality, loob has always been identified as a core concept. Aside from Filipino philosophers (Mercado 1974, 1994; De Mesa 1984) and psychologists (Alejo 1990: De Guia 2005; Enriquez 1992), historians (Salazar 1977, 1981; Ileto 1979; Rafael 1993) and a poet (Lacaba 1974) have also analyzed loob. Loob is also a central concept in understanding Philippine values. In fact, next to kapwa, loob is one of the richest indigenous concepts that came out of Sikolohiyans Pilipino.MEANINGS OF Loos The Vicassan's Pilipino-English Dictionary (Santos 1983) translated loob this way: 106b (lo-6b),n. 1. inside; interior; inner part. Syn. interyor. 2, Will; state of mind; volition; disposition. Syn. kalooban, kagustuhan, kaibigan. 3. Courage; valor. Syn. tapang; giting; lakas ng loob. 4. Manners, behavior Syn, asal, ugal. Just looking at this dictionary entry, we could glean that Joob is not just literally understood, but has some psychological dimensions. From looking at the psychological, philosophical, anthropological, and historical writings about loob, the following interpretations have been given to just the word loob: * inner self, the internal dimension of a person's identity, inner being (Ileto 1979) + inner being, the subjective worlds (De Guia 2005) + the holistic self (Mercado 1974) * “cave” containing Filipino thought (Lacaba 1974) + what's inside the self + actual personal feelings of the self (Salazar 1977, 1981) + core characteristic of the self (Salazar 1977, 1981) * a Filipino value (Enriquez 1992) + common humanity (De Mesa 1984) * core of one’s personality and shared identity with others (kapwa) (De Mesa 1984) (I will come back to these interpretations later) There is a tendency to contrast loob with labas, Unlike loob, Vicassan’s dictionary translated labas in a more literal way, devoid of psychological dimensions: “outside, outer side or surface; dismissal, time of dismissal (from school/work); outflow, discharge, Passing out, as of water from a faucet, or of blood, etc.; coming out or issue, as of a magazine; coming out, as from hiding, ie., appearance; showing or presentation, as of a play, show or film; part or role of an actor, as in a play” (Santos 1983). As a psychological concept, labas has been interpreted as: * physical, outward appearance + behavior and actions (versus core characteristic) (Salazar 1977, 1981), ‘There isalso a tendency to contrast loob (in its ‘common meaning as emotion) with thought (isip), as in “pag-isahin ang loob at kaisipan” (‘to unite feelings and thoughts"), Similar to the example of the concept of hiya, loob takes on some nuanced meaning when prefixes, infixes and suffixes are added to it. Thus, kalooban (which is often used interchangeably with foob) means emotions, but kaloob means “will” (as in kaloob ng Diyos or God's will). Saloobin means attitude, niloloob means inner feelings and thoughts, while isaloob, paloob and mula sa loob all connotes an inward process, The repetition of words in Philippine language connotes intensity, so that kaloob-looban means the inermost., Still consistent with the meaning of loob as emotion, the word can also be combined with the word hulog (fall) to form the phrase “nahulog ang loob” which means “to fall in love.” Anumber of studies on loob have relied on a meta- or psycholinguistic analysis of the word, After all, it is not just a word; it is a rich concept. Alejo (1990) was able to compile 287 variations of lob, The richness of understanding loob is brought out by the affixations similar to the above, and the combination of /oob and another root word. With the help of two diagrams containing selected variations of loob, I shall introduce the lexical/semantic domain of loob, albeit ita small proportion of the whole concept. Lexical domain of loob: loob + another root word Figure 1 shows 12 variations of loob when a second root word is attached to it. 1 will briefly describe these, and alert the reader to the affixations that are important in understanding these forms of loob. PE-PUA | 385Figure 1. Lexical domain of Loob (non-binary) Loob + ganda (beauty) When loob combines with ganda, we get kagandahang-loob (n.) a socio-personal value that links with the core Filipino value of kapwa (shared identity). Someone who is maganda ang loob (adj.) is generous. Someone who has magandang kalooban (beautiful o0b) (n.) is pure-hearted, noble- minded. The act of showing kindness and generosity is nagmagandang-loob (v) Loob + palagay (at ease) Palagay means at ease, so when combined with loob indicates two or more Jobs being at ease with each other. Palagay ang loob (adv) means being in rapport, being comfortable and at ease with, where there is mutual trust. A friend or someone that one is at ease with is a kapalagayang-toob (n). Pakikipagpalagayang-loob (verb-noun) is the process of mutually establishing rapportand trust, while makipalagayang-loob (w) is the action of a person trying to gain the rapport and trust of another. Loob + kusa (initiative) Kusang-loob (n.) is a sense of initiative from within, without prodding from others. It is voluntary (not forced), from one’s own decision. It is sincere, selfless, and not expecting of any reward. UNPACKING THE CONCEPT OF L008 386 Loob + tibay (durability) Tibay ng loob (strength or durability of the foo) (n.) refers to an inner strength that is stable and unwavering. Someone who is matibay ang loob (adj,) is unflinching, determined, and brave, When in crisis, one is given this prodding or advice, "Tibayan mo ang loob mo!” (*Strengthen your loob; ie. call on that inner strength), Loob + payapa (peaceful) Someone who is mapayapa ang loob (whose loob is peaceful) (adj.) is calm, at peace with themselves, unperturbed. Thus, one aims to always have kapayapaang-loob (1), inner peace. Loob + tapat (truthful) Tapatna kalooban (a truthful loob) (n) is being true to one’s self, and sincere. Someone with this virtue has pureand noble intentions, aclear conscience, trustworthy, keeps to his/ her word. He/She is therefore reliable with what he/she speaks, Loob + utang (debt) Utang-na-loob is perhaps the most controversial indigenous concept in Sikolohiyang Pilipino, having been exposed to the same exogenous and indigenous interpretations as hiya. Utang-na-loob was translated by the American sociologist Kaut (1961) as “debt of gratitude.” Andres (1994, 190-91) defined it, following Kaut's logic, as “the principle of reciprocity incurred when an individual helps.another. The person helped then feels an obligation to repay the debt in the future when the helper himself (sic) is in need of aid, or he (sic) may. repay his (sic) debt by sending gifts. Itis often not clear when a debt has been fully paid, so that the relationship becomes an ongoing one.” Hollnsteiner (1961) took this interpretation further by claiming that the recipient of the favor is forced “to show his (sic) gratitude properly by returning the favor with interest.” Enriquez (1977) dared to speculate that there is an element of wanting to promote reciprocity which is useful for maintaining the image of the colonizer as benefactor. But‘coking at utang-na-loob more closely in the context of Filipino culture, it actually means “gratitude/solidarity.” It is not necessarily a surdenas the word “debt” connotes, because i the Filipino pattern of interpersonal relations, there is always an opportunity to return a favor. It is not absolutely obligatory in the immediate future, for the opportunity wo show utang-na-loob might come only in the next generation, maybe not in your lifetime. Your children will see to itthatitis recognized and respected. It is a beautiful element of Filipino interpersonal relationships that binds people to their home community or ‘home country. In fact, this is expressed in a popular Filipino saying, “Ang hindi lumingon sa pinanggalingan ay hindi makakarating sa paroroonan. (Those who do not look back to where they came from will not reach their destination)’ Utang-na-loob isa calling heard by many Filipinos who go to other lands but who still retain strong ties with their homeland. Loob + wala (none) This is not about having a loob. Wala a loob literally means “it is not in the loob.” Therefore, it could mean not being one’s self, forgetting about an important issue, or not taking an important matter seriously (e.g., when one has said a hurtful thing but does notmean it, having not thought about it well). Itcan also mean a lack of energy or attention to an issue, or being numb (emotionally), or involuntary in one’s feelings and actions. Loob + bago (new)/balik (return) Someone who experiences a pagbabagong-loob (renewal ofthe loob) is said to have undergone some kind of conversion, usually for the better—enlightenment, a paradigm shift, a shift to another way of thinking, A related concepts pagbabalik-loob (return of the /oob), for example, balik-Diyos (return to God) which means a renewal after being lost in one’s way. It could include repentance, returning home after forsaking it, returning to (good) old ways and rejecting the negative/bad path. Loob + tining (sharpness of tone) Tining ng loob (n,) refers to clarity of thinking, feeling and volition. It is related to tibay ng loob (integrity). Loob + dakila (great) A great loob (dakilang loob) (n.} is taking kagandahang-loob (shared humanity) to a higher level of being heroic, self-sacrificing, being able to think of the wider good, and not justthe individual or the family. Someone who possesses this is alsoa deep and wide thinker, ‘The archetype for this is God. Loob + baba (low) Humility is considered a virtue in Philippine culture, therefore people who have a mababang-loob (a low loob) (n.) is admired because they are able to live true to themselves, and know how to be one with the poor and disadvantaged. They respect the equal dignity of others, listen to others sincerely, accept their own weaknesses and shortcomings, and admit their own mistakes. Binary versions of loob Figure 2is still about loob combined with another root word, but this time, there are binaries of the added root word that provide a different meaning to loob, Sometimes they are direct opposites, sometimes they are not. Seven such binaries are presented here. Loob + lakas (strong)/hina (weak): Strength ofloob ‘The positive side, lakas ng loob (loob’s strength) (n.) means courage. Someone who is malakas ang Ioob (adj.) can be adventurous and daring, and tends to get into tight situations without being afraid. There is an advice to the afraid, “Lakasan mo ang loob mo!" (“Be brave, strengthen your loob”), while there is also disdain for someone who has too much of this, asin “Ang lakas ng lob mof" (“Your daringness is wrongly placed!” or “How dare you!”)—also said of someone who has too much self-confidence (“bilib sa sarili’). The opposite of Jakas ng loob is hina ng loob (loob’s weakness) (n.). The person PEPUA 387parma sgescomams Figure 2. Lexical domain of Loob ~ binary who is mahina ang loob (adj) is a coward, always afraid, easily frightened, lacking in self-confidence, unprepared to take chances, afraid to get hurt, emphasizes their weakness rather than their strength. Loob + gaan (light)/bigat (heavy): Weight of loob Gan (lightness) and bigat (heaviness) rng loob are related to how one feels toward the other—whether you like or dislike them, whether you feel comfortable with them, whether you accept them or not. Gaan ng Ioob connotes sympathy with the other, and willingness to show and accept kagandahang- loob. It is certainly consistent with palagay ang loob, Its intense form, mabigat ang loob, can mean distrust, anger or even hate, It is consistent with sama ng loob (see next). Loob + buti (good)/sama (bad): Good and bad loob Mabuting loob (good loob) (adj.) is close to magandang-loob (beautiful loob). Someone who has mabuting loob is kind, good-natured, pure of heart, honest, has good kapwa skills. Sama ng loob (n.) is not the opposite of mabuting loob. Itis a feeling towards another, UNPACKING THE CONCEPT OF LOR 388 characterized by hurt feeling resentment or bearing grudge. Sama (bad) is used here not in an ethical senseas in masamang-tao (abad person) but more in the sense of the weather (ie, masamang panahon, bad weather). Loob + lambot (soft)/tigas (hard): Soft and hard loob Both malambot (soft) and matigas (hard) ang loob are sometimes problematic characteristics of a person, for the Filipino. ‘The malambot ang loob (adj,) can be someone who is easily swayed by sweet words, ‘manipulated by the other's pleading or tricky maneuvers. But they can also be preferred because they listen, so it is easy to explain things to them. But no one likes the matigas ang loob (adj,) because they are uncaring, tough, have no empathy, no sense of kapwa, not merciful, fierce, stubborn, do not care about what is happening around them, and refuse to change their mind despite reasoning todoso. Loob + lamig (cold)/init (hot): Temperature of loob Both malamig ang loob (cold loob) and mainit ang loob (hot loob) have positiveand negative qualities. The coldness brings indifference, lack of interest or cold treatment of kapwa; but it can also indicate calmness, being clear-headed and having control of the self, Same with mainit ang loob, this normally shows impulsiveness and quick to anger, but itcan also mean being passionate for a person ora cause. Loob + luwag (spacious)/sikip (tight): the space of loob Maluwag ang loob (adj.) is someone ‘who has space in their loob to accept another person ora fate that comes their way. There is no resentment; there is only readiness, open- mindedness, On the other hand, someone who is experiencing sikip ng loob finds it difficult to accept their fate, or someone. Itis related to sama ngfoob (hurt feelings). Loob + bukas (open}/pikit (eyes shut): the open and closed loob Bukas ang loob (open loob) (n.) issimilar to maluwag ang loob—open to others, approachable, helpful, generous—a close kin of kagandahang-loob (beautiful loob).On the other hand, the loob has eyes too, that when shut (pikit) or blind to injustice is called pikit ‘ang loob (adi) PRELIMINARY THEORIZING OF THE Loon From the 19 forms of loob illustrated in figures 1 and 2 and described briefly above, ‘we can see some potential for loob covering aspects of Filipino character or personhood. As mentioned earlier, the loob has been analyzed by several scholars. Alejo (1990) summarized these studies in his seminal work before presenting his own model of, the loob, The descriptions below are from Alejo’s summary. I follow this by Alejo's conceptualization of loob. Loob as the cave of Filipino thought (Lacaba 1974) Emmanuel Lacaba was an activist poet during the 1970s, the period of nationalistic protests against American imperialism and the regime of the late President Ferdinand Marcos—the same period when the Sikolohiyang Pilipino movement was born. Lacaba theorized that due to centuries of being under colonial rule, the Filipino consciousness seemed to have withdrawn into their loob. The loob, or kalooban, is the “cave” that becomes the organizer or organization of Filipino thought, much like darkness, or melancholic forest. The loob is part of the dialectic of personhood. The development is internal, borne out of the struggles within, for example, a society, leading to pagbabagong-loob (enlightenment or renewal of the loob). Alejo (1990) criticized this interpretation by commenting that it was not so much that the Filipinos decided to withdraw into their /oob, but that due to the foreigners’ interference in the Filipinos’ lives, they lost their home; they were thrown out of their selves; they lost their loob. Loob as holistic (Mercado 1974) Fr, Leonardo Mercado belongs to the SVD or Divine Word Missionaries order of the Catholic Church. He is primarily a theologian and philosopher who worked closely with Enriquez in developing Sikolohiyang Pilipino. Using metalinguistic analysis, he conceptualized loob as being holistic, consisting of four dimensions: intellectual (e.g, isaloob-internalize; loob as mind; saloobin-attitude), emotional (eg, sama ng loob-grudge, resentment; mainit ang loob-impulsive), volitional (e.g., kusang- loob-initiative; loobin-will it), and ethical (e.g., utang-na-loob-human solidarity; magandang loob-shared humanity; balik- Joob-enlightened returning /oob). Mercado (1994) also conceived the loob as closely linked to katawan (body), to sarili (elf), and to bait (sense, reason). “Sarit is the ‘bigger umbrella’ which embraces loob and katawan, Katawan, in turn, is inseparable from soul and spirit. Loob isan interior aspect of sarili. The loob manifests itself in the katawan and vice-versa (chapter I, p13). Alejo regarded Mercado's work as among the first systematic studies of loob. He noted though that Mercado did not pay attention to affixations in Philippine languages which could have lead him to a fuller understanding of loob PE-PuA 389Loob as state of emotions and core characteristic (Salazar 1977, 1981) Zeus Salazar is a Filipino historian with a German training who was at the forefront of developing Sikolohiyang Pilipino, together with Enriquez. In examining the history of Sikolohiyang Pilipino, he came up with four filiations of Philippine psychology: (a) the Western tradition of academic- scientific psychology; (b) the Western (clerical) tradition of academic-philosophical psychology; (c) ethnic psychology (major basis of Sikolohiyang Pilipino); and (4) psycho-medical system with religion as cohesive element and explanation (Salazar 1985). Salazar (1977) linked loob to other indigenous concepts such as ginhawa (total well-being), ulirat (awareness of one's surroundings), malay (experienced knowledge), which he believed are part of Joob since they are niloloob (inner). In other words, loob is not just emotions. There is volition, lagay (comfort), saloobin (attitudes), While emotions, well-beingand other aspects of consciousness are within loob, there are still differences between these and loob. Salazar’s (1981) further explorations in psycholinguistics lead him to the loob-labas dichotomy. The loob has to do with core characteristics, while the labas has to do with behavior or action. Therefore, things do not stay in the loob but there are actions or movements outward. Included among these behaviors are intellectual behaviors such as understanding, conscience and so on. The Jabas has social and temporal dimensions, while the loob has state of emotions. The loob is passive; its movements are involuntary. ‘The labasis active, intentional and voluntary. In summary, the loob is pure subject, non- temporal, individual, ahistorical. However, itis linked to the labas which is the world of object, thing, society. ‘Alejo's comment about Salazar’s work is thathe missed the many meanings of foob and focused too much on loob-labas. For example, kagandahang-loob (shared humanity) has external manifestations. Alejo believed that Iabas needs its own theory that emanates 390 | UNPACKING THE CONCEPT OF L008 from [oob. Ina way, labas is the loob coming to the surface (Alejo 1990), Loob as the true self (Ileto 1979) Reynaldo Ileto is another Filipino historian. He became popular with his publication of Pasyon and Revolution: Popular ‘Movements in the Philippines, 1840-1910, where he attempted to give a voice to the humble revolutionaries in the uprising against Spanish rule. He stumbled across indigenous concepts related to personhood or character when trying to understand the perceptions and perspectives of the Filipino revolutionaries, One of these conceptsis loob, which he analyzed using a hermeneutical approach. individual [oob (inner self), which Is where the true worth of a person lies. It is alright to be maginoo (the Tagalog ‘equivalent of datu [chieftain]) as long as, the external signs of power are matched by an equally beautiful loob, (Ileto 1979, 20) eto (1979) sees the loobas the arena where everyone is equal, regardless of their class, religion, and color of skin. But the loob is not static; it has an influence on the environment, onsociety, and the world. The state of loob can be seen in external events. What is the relation of loob to the revolution? The revolution requires a change of loob of members of society. Members of the revolution must undergo rituals of purification of the loob, from the darkness of being afraid to the light of the loob. The revolution will succeed if there is unity in pagbabagong-loob (renewal or enlightenment of the loob) thatis focused on offering oneself to the struggle. For the ordinary people, the revolution is a religious adventure. One must be bukas ang loob (open loob) to God, to mercy and sympathy, Being worthy is the path to freedom. Enlightenment is felt in the loob; sufferings of the loob will be replaced by joy and enlightenment (Ileto 1979). Tleto presented some negative qualities of the loob, such as vacillation (pag-urong- sulong ng loob) in times of trials (a weak Ioob will lead to the weakening of themovement); being blinded by material things (the brightness of the loob versus the luster of the labas; those who live according to the labas prey on those who have mahinang loob- weak lob}; and katigasan ng loob (“hard uncaring loob; being numb to the sufferings of others) (Ileto 1979). eto (1979) also proposed that the lob has an innate strength, butt will go nowhere until it has understood or appreciated the truth of where he/she came from. A pure Joob will lead to glory or ginhawa (total well-being), Loobas the center of personality and the world of being (De Mesa 1984) Alejo (1990) considered De Mesa’s theological hermeneutical interpretation of oob as the most productive, if not the most sophisticated attempt to understand loob. De Mesa was able to grasp the concepts of utang- na-loob, kagandahang-loob and loob itself. De Mesa (1984) theorized that loob is the ultimate framework that is central to our reality. Moreover, it is the zone of our being and the substratum of emotions, ideas and actions. Loob is the principle that binds and integrates our humanity at the intellectual, emotional, volitional and ethical dimensions. But loob is not just the core of our personality; it is the self as kapwa. Words like utang-na- loob, kagandahang-loob, kaloob, sama ng loob, etc, are relational concepts. Therefore, loob is arelational concept. Last but not the least, loob is the source of creativity and being, as Jongas the individual has relationship with the Creator (God). De Mesa (1984) was the one who gave the clearest explanation of why utang-na-loob is not debt of gratitude where reciprocity dominates, and contractual obligation is the ethical mechanism. Rather, it is “debt of humanity”—our responsibility to humanity is to behave in a humane manner, to show concern for others (kapwa). There isa phrase, “Utang-na-loob!" which translates to “Please!” but certainly the word “please” does not capture the essence of this phrase. You could hear victims of disasters say, "Utang-na-loob! Maawa kayo sa amin! Tulungan nyo kami!" This translates to "Please! Have pity on us! Help us!” In this context, utang-na-loob has nothing to do with reciprocity or contractual obligation. Itis a call to one’s sense of human solidarity. You respond to such a plea, not because you owe them a favor, but because you are a kapwa, you have good loob, a sense of one-ness with humanity. The architecture of loob (Alejo 1990) Albert Alejo is a Filipino Jesuit scholar- anthropologist who studied under Enriquez. The title of his book, Tao Po! Tuloy! Isang Landas ng Pag-unawa sa Loob ng Tao (Knock Knock! Come int A Path towards Understanding ‘Man's Loob), immediately defines loob as the inner sanctum—you must knock in the most respectful way, and wait for permission to enter and access the /oob. Sometimes, the loob can be silent, or the door may not open, so you need to be sensitive and use pakikiramdam (being sensitive to cues) and slowly gain trust so that the loob can come out. Pakikiramdam islike trying to get into the loob of someone's loob. Alejo (1990) started his theorizing of Ioob by suggesting that loob is not just “not- labas"—it has breadth, depth and content. It is both the container and the content. This is the sculpture or the shape of Joob. He then proceeded to presentthe architecture of loo. Much like any building, you need to admire and appreciate a building not by just doing it from the outside, but you must go in and be in the center, inside the building, and then move around. Therefore, to understand the loob, you must go inside, pumaloob, and gain the point of view from the loob, the seat of consciousness and feeling. You must be able to enter the loob without forcing yourself in, You need to be matunog (resonant) and know how to behave; and you must be good in pakikiramdam. You also need to go through pakikipagpalagayang-loob (building rapport and trust) in order for the loob to come out, or for you to be allowed to access the loob. Kutob (hunch) is a relevant concept here. It can be a slight hint, which could prove to be wrong, but at least give you a glimpse of the loob. It takes time to understand someone's loob. Itrequires patience, intense observation, listening, and focus (Alejo 1990). PE-PUA 391Filipino Behavior Patterns and Value Structure: Surface, Core and Societal “¥ Bahalana (determination) Sama /lakas ngloob(resentment/ guts) Pakikibala (resistance) “Kagancdahang-loob (shared humanity) 9 Btang cartoon jefeolldwnity) —Lantiag (ewceenbss/capess} a Sean > : Figure 3. Filipino Behavior Pattems and Value Structure (Enriquez 1992) Alejo elaborated on how loob is both ubod (core) and daigdig (world), much like the center and the rays of a wheel. As daigdig, loob has three elements: (a) abot-malay-the extent of consciousness or awareness, measured by breadth; (b) abot- dama-the extent of emotions, measured by intensity or depth; and (c) abot-kaya-the extent of ability, measured by strength and content. Abot-malay includes awareness of self, others (kapwa), the world, and God. Abot-dama includes getting into the loob of the other person, showing empathy and sympathy, being deeply involved, and being one with God, Abot-kaya includes integration ofthe /oob, taking responsibility, continuity of integrity, and struggle and hope. (Alejo 1990) Loob as value (Enriquez 1992) The fascination with loob started with utang-na-loob and the rejection of the exogenous interpretation. Together with kapwa which ended up as core Filipino value, ueang-na-loob was givena place in Enriquez's redefined value system but notasa core value, 392 UNPACKING THE CONCEPT OF L008 It was considered a colonial accommodative value, It was kagandahang-loob that was given amore prominentposition.Sama/lakas ng loob also earned a place in this model (see fig. 3) Enriquez’s English translation of kagandahang-loob is "shared humanity, shared inner nobility.” He classified it as 2 socio-personal value linked to the core value of kapwa. ‘The concept is manifested through an act of generosity or kabutihan. Thus, one sees kagandahang-loob in the act of lending utensils to neighbors or graciously accommodating a guest. But to qualify as kagandahang-loob, suchacts, of generosity must spring spontaneously from the person's goodness of heart or kabaitan.A display of kagandahang-loob must have no motive save that of kindness and inherent graciousness. (Enriquez 1992, 45) With utang-na-loob, Enriquez rejected th= exogenous interpretation of the concept. and questioned why this was the conceptpicked on by the American scholars when this was just one in a long list of meaningful psychological concepts related to the fertile concept of loob. He suggested that utang-na- Joob “would be convenient in perpetuating the colonial status ofthe Filipino mind” Enriquez 1977). On this basis, he has classified utang- na-loob as colonial/accommodative surface value. Agreeing with De Mesa's interpretation of utang-na-loob as debt of “humanity,” Enriquez (1992) considers utang-na-loob as “a value which moves to recognize, respect, promote, and at times defend the basic dignity of each person” (68). Lakas ng loob (guts, daring) was classified as confrontative surface value, described as inner resource for change. Lakas ng loob is,a key ingredient in the realization of pagbabangong-dangal, enabling one to face difficulty, even death, to vindicate the dangal (dignity/ honor/good) in one’s being (De Mesa 1987). Lakas ng loob is a damdamin {internal feel/attribute/trait) necessary for actualizing the good not only in one’s selfbutalso in one’s fellow man (kapwa), inone’s loob, and in facilitating the “social good” in kapwa, (Enriquez 1992, 71) ‘THEORIZING LOOB: WORK IN PROGRESS From the above, we could easily see that loobisa fertile, rich conceptthatis indigenous to Filipinos, There is certainly great potential for developinga theory offoob, using previous theorizing as starting point. In doing this, it is important to recognize the existence of several major linguistic groups in the pines, and acknowledge that most of the previous analyses of loob have been based on. ‘one major group and language, the Tagalog. There is evidence of equivalence of this concept in other cultures such as Indonesian and Melanesian cultures. It is important to look at this also. The purpose of this paper was to introduce a psychological concept that is indigenous to the Filipinos. It was an invitation to enter the loob (pumaloob) of Philippine indigenous psychology. Admittedly, this in itself, just like the theorizing of loob, is still work in progress. In future endeavours, the purpose will shift to finding the similarities with other cultures, integrating several loobs, along the path of cross-indigenization. REFERENCES Alejo, A. E. 1990. Tao Po! Tuloy! Isang Landas ng Pag-unawa sa Loob ng Tao. Quezon City: Office of Research and Publications, Ateneo de Manila University. Andres, T. D. 1994. Dictionary of Filipino Culture and Values. Quezon City: Giraffe Books. Bonifacio, A. 1976. “Hinggil sa Kaisipang Pilipino (On Filipino Thought).” Pp. 24-48 in Ulat ng Unang Pambansang Kumperensya sa Sikolohiyang Pilipino, edited by L. F. Antonio, E. S. Reyes, R. E, Pe, and N. R. Almonte. Quezon City: Pambansang Samahan sa Sikolohiyang Pilipino, de Guia, K. 2005. Kapwa: The Self in the Other: Worldviews and Lifestyles of Filipino Culture-Bearers. Pasig City: Anvil Publishing, Ine. De Mesa, J. 1984. “Loob and Prayer.” Witness, Second Quarter. Also published as pp. 42-50 in Ministry Today 2 (1), 1st Quarter. .1987. “With a Listening Heart.” Solidarity with the Culture: Studies in Theological Re-rooting. Quezon City: Maryhill School of Theology. Enriquez, V. G. 1977. Filipino Psychology in the Third World. Quezon City: Philippine Psychology Research House. —— 1978. "Kapwa: A Core Concept in Filipino Social Psychology.” Philippine Social Sciences and Humanities Review 42 (1-4): 100-08. ; 1987. “Decolonizing the Filipino Psyche: Impetus for the Development of Psychology in the Philippines.” Pp. 265-87 in Psychology Moving East: The Status of Western Psychology in Asia and Oceania, edited by G. H. Blowers, and A. M. Turtle, Boulder & London: Westview Press. PE-PUA 393= 1992. From Colonial to Liberation Psychology: The Philippine Experience. Quezon City: University ofthe Philippines Press. 1994. Pagbabangong-dangal: Indigenous Psychology & Cultural Empowerment. Quezon City: Akademya ng Kultura at Sikolohiyang Pilipino. Hollnsteiner, M. R. 1961. “Reciprocity in the Lowland Philippines.” IPC Papers no. 1. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University. Ileto, 1979. Pasyon and Revolution: Popular Movements in the Philippines, 1840-1910. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press. Kaut, C. R. 1961. “Utang-na-loob: A System of Contractual Obligation.” Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 17: 256-72. Lacaba, E. 1974. “Ang Loob: llang Tala sa Paglimi-liming Pilipino.” The Literary Apprentice. Lynch, F. 1961, “Social Acceptance.” Pp. 1-21 in Four Readings on Philippine Values, edited by F. Lynch. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press. Mercado, L. 1974, Elements of Filipino Philosophy. Tacloban City: Divine Word University Press. Mercado, L. N. 1994. The Filipino Mind: Philippine Philosophical Studies II (Cultural Heritage and Contemporary Change Series III Asia). Washington, D.C: Council for Research in Values and Philosophy. Pe-Pua, R,, and P, Perfecto-Ramos. 2012. “The Philippines” Pp. 395-411 in The Oxford Handbook of the History of Psychology: Global Perspectives, edited by D. Baker. New York: Oxford University Press. UNPACKING THE CONCEPT OF L008 304 | Pe-Pua, R., and E, Protacio-Marcelino. 2000. “Sikolohiyang Pilipino (Filipino Psychology): A Legacy of Virgilio G. Enriquez.” Asian Journal of Social Psychology 3: 49-71. Rafael, V. 1993. Contracting Colonialism: Translation and Christian Conversion in Tagalog Society under Early Spanish Rule. Durham and London: Duke University Press. Salazar,Z. 1977.“Ang Kamalayan at Kaluluwa: Isang Paglilinaw ng Ilang Konsepto sa Kinagisnang Sikolohiya.” Pp. 131-44 in Ulat ng Ikalawang Pambansang Kumperensya sa Sikolohiyang Pilipino, edited by L, F. Antonio, L. L. Samson, E. S. Reyes, and M. A. Paguio. Quezon City: Pambansang Samahan sa Sikolohiyang Pilipino. , 1981. “Wika at Diwa: Isang Pansikolingguwistikang Analisis sa Halimbawa ng Konsepto ng ‘Hiya.” Pp. 38-43 sa Ulat ng Ikalabindalawang Seminar sa Sikolohiya ng Wika, edited by S. Cipres-Ortega. Quezon City: University of the Philippines. —— 1985. “Four Filiations in Philippine Psychological Thought.” Pp. 194-214 in Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Isyu, Pananaw at Kaalaman (New Directions in Indigenous Psychology), edited by A. Aganon and M. David. Manila: National Book Store. Santos, V. C., ed. 1983. Vicassan’s Pilipino- English Dictionary, revised ed. Manila: National Book Store. Sibley, W. 1965. Area Handbook on the Philippines. Chicago: University of Chicago. Sinha, D.1997. "Indigenizing Psychology” Pp. 129-69 in Handbook of Cross-cultural Psychology, 2nd ed., vol. 1, edited by J. W. Berry, ¥. H. Poortinga, and J. Pandey. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.