However,
before enumerating the arguments against the culture of filial obligations in
the Philippines, we must first discuss the proliferation of the practice of indebtedness
or utang na loob in order to understand
its significance to the Filipino identity and its overall nature. The history
of indebtedness in the Philippines is discussed in order to know the different
contexts utang na loob can be
situated. This contributes greatly to the arguments against the foundations of
Filipino filial obligation because it emphasizes that indebtedness in the
modern context is just as unjust and unreasonable as the functions it served
throughout Philippine history.
To
begin with, not much is known about filial obligation in the context of the
pre-colonial society. Accounts regarding kinship ties were only limited to the
naming of said ties without any in-depth explanation to the dynamics between
the manyanak (the parents) and the oyo (son) or the akay (daughter).[5] However,
the concept of indebtedness already existed during the pre-colonial period in
the form of utang na loob to the Datu (chieftain). People from the second
class, Timawas at Maharlikas
(collectively: vassals), were expected to be at the service of the chieftain at
all times.[6] From
agricultural labor of the chieftain’s farmlands to military servitude in wars,
people from the second estate were expected to follow the orders of the
chieftain without question or delay. Failure to follow the orders of the chieftain
almost always results in punishment like hefty fines or the imprisonment of the
stubborn or disobedient vassal. These services were expected of them (the
second class) in exchange for the protection and wisdom of the chieftain. On
certain occasions, the Datu might
even call on his vassals to build a house or fight a war without any
recognition or payment in return.[7] In
this case, the absence of any form of gratitude from the chieftain implies an
asymmetric relationship between him and his vassals.
In
this chieftain-vassal relationship, it is noteworthy to point out that people from
the second class were typically members of the younger, extended branch of the
chieftain’s family.[8]
The seniority of the chieftain’s family earns respect and service from the much
younger Timawa and Maharlika class. Although manifestations
of filial obligation at that time did not necessarily exist in the nuclear
family i.e. children to parents, the practices of indebtedness or utang na loob were still practiced, more
or less, in the familial level. The chieftain-vassal relationship mirrors the
reciprocal relationship expected from the adult child to his elderly parents in
the modern setting wherein the child must be at the service of his parents due
to their (the parent’s) seniority.
Moving
forward, just after the advent of the Spanish conquest of the Philippines, people
from a particular region were literally corralled, the Spanish called this reducciones, into a centralized town (pueblo) to convert animist natives to Catholicism. However, Catholicism
was introduced to the Tagalog-speaking natives in the Spanish tongue, prompting
the natives to submit to the doctrines of Catholicism without any proper understanding.[9] This
is the reason why Spanish-Christian values such as Fe (faith) were mistranslated by the locals as utang na loob (indebtedness) due to the lack of any equivalent
concepts in the natives’ language.[10] This
untranslatability of reciprocity led the native Tagalogs to believe that faith,
the central tenet of Christian morality, is essential not to enter the Kingdom
of God but to “give back” to God in exchange for His giving life to them
through prayers, corporeal acts of mercy, etc.[11] In
other words, the Spanish-Christian definition of faith was misconstrued by the
locals to fit in the already existing notion of utang na loob. This particular mistranslation of Christian
doctrine, imparted to us by the Imperial Spanish, ultimately “branched out” away
from its original meaning to the utang na
loob that is, at some degree, associated with filial obligation. The
Spanish, wanting natives to convert to Catholicism and to submit to the Spanish
Crown, used the already established culture of indebtedness to their own imperial
motives.[12]
Alongside
the proliferation of Spanish-Christian values, Chinese customs and traditions
also influenced the notions of filial obligation of native Filipinos. Since
Chinese culture is deeply ingrained in the Filipino identity, practices from
the two different cultures have amalgamated into one.[13]
An example is the Confucian value of filial piety, i.e. reverence, respect, and
obedience towards one’s parents, being transferred to the culture of
indebtedness of Filipinos.[14]
This amalgamation of cultures resulted in yet another definition of filial
obligation. I should take care of my
elderly parents because I respect and honor them. This dynamic emphasizes
the seniority-minority relationship as seen in the chieftain-vassal dynamic
where the elderly is respected and followed due to their seniority.
To
synthesize the historical contexts of indebtedness in the Philippines, the
pre-colonial notion of utang na loob served
as a ‘guiding principle’ for the people from the second estate to serve the Datu. As we can see, the dynamics of the
chieftain-vassal kinship ties can be succinctly defined as a relationship that
keeps the social balance in check. The chieftain protects the rights of the
vassals and, in return, the vassals serve the chieftain involuntarily. The reciprocal
loop illustrated in the pre-colonial context is closed even if the dynamic
between the two parties is asymmetrical.
On the other hand, the concept of indebtedness in the Spanish colonial
period had another use: religious functionality. Due to the nature of the
relationship between man and God, the former cannot fully repay his debt to the
latter. Ergo, in this relationship, man is always indebted to the other party –
God. This particular manifestation of utang
na loob in the God-man relationship is then justified to be also
asymmetrical. Moreover, Chinese-Confucian believers practice asymmetry in the
child-parent relationship by necessitating the need for filial piety. The
amalgamation of the Filipino and Chinese cultures further extends the scope of
indebtedness in the adult child-elderly parent relationship by excluding the
opinion of the adult child in the filial dynamic due to the parents’ wisdom and
seniority. As for this remaining relationship, the Chinese imparted a personal
aspect to the Filipino culture of filial obligation. This manifestation further
justifies another asymmetric dynamic for the notion of indebtedness. The
pre-colonial, Imperial Spanish, and Chinese contexts of reciprocity are
discussed briefly in order to illustrate just how far the extent of the concept
of utang na loob reaches in the
context of societal norms and customs. This is likewise done so that the
varying manifestations of utang na loob in
different historical settings can be examined and evaluated in its appropriate
context.
Going
back, the present arguments in favor of Filipino filial obligation glosses over
and does not take into full account the multiple contexts that might
significantly affect the adult child’s capacity to take care of his elderly
parents. For one, how can a financially
incapable adult child take care of himself, more so his own elderly parents?
This case is important to take into consideration because recent legislative
actions prioritize the need for adult children to take care of their elderly parents;
otherwise the former will receive a hefty fine or even a considerable amount of
time in prison.[15]
At present, legislations like the Parents Welfare Act of 2016[16]
create a necessity for adult children to care of their elderly parents
undermine the quintessential value of the familial relationship formed from the
adult child- elderly parent relationship – gratitude. For this instance, the
adult child will only take care of his elderly parents out of fear of
persecution not out of gratitude. This creates a tensioned atmosphere between
the child and the parents where a single litigation can break all familial
ties. Second, how can an adult child take
care of his elderly parents in the specific case that the latter requires
special medical needs? In this instance, the Filipino child who embodies
the gratitude-based adult child-elderly parent relationship might opt to place
his elderly parents in a nursing home. This is not done to abandon the adult
child’s elderly parents but to place them in the hands of medical professionals
who can immediately, and knowingly, attend to the elderly parents’ needs. This
particular practice is looked down upon by traditional Filipinos because of the
unfounded implications that the child is not grateful for his parents, walang utang na loob, and wants to
abandon them in a home for the aged. These cases are just a few examples of the
different possible manifestations of an adult child-elderly parent relationship
founded on the gratitude-based familial relationship.
Nevertheless,
the main argument against the presupposed utang
na loob or indebtedness to one’s parents is based primarily on the child being
involuntarily brought up into the world. The common saying for adult children
is that they “were not asked to be born”[17]. If I didn’t ask to be born, then why am I being obligated to take care of my parents? This, in fact, is true for the mere
reason that no child consents to his own being conceived and born. In the
Filipino culture of filial obligation, the adult child is indebted for the
actions of his parents, i.e. giving him life and taking care of him, so he must
reciprocate these all back through the care of one’s elderly parents. However, how is this considered as an appropriate
model of reciprocal indebtedness if the former had not requested for the
latter’s favor? It is then right to assert that the birth of a Filipino
child should be considered not as a debt to one’s parents but as an unrequested debt which, according to the definition given before, does not demand or
solicit any favor in return.[18]
Since
the parents gave life to a child, they are liable for that child’s upbringing
because they have knowingly brought a vulnerable and defenseless child into the
world that, in fact, is unable to make his own decisions i.e. not having the
rational capacity to do so. After all, if a couple choose to have a child they
incur a huge responsibility to raise and take care of that child or to give it
away to someone who will. The necessity of parents to take care of their
children (who were born involuntarily) arises, therefore, not from obligation
but on moral responsibility.[19]
Ergo,
the present model of Filipino filial obligation is patterned on unreasonable
and involuntary indebtedness to one’s elderly parents because the adult child
did not do anything to incur such obligations to his parents and is
subsequently obligated to repay this favor due to societal norms and pressures.
Without a doubt, if we continue to accept the present model of Filipino filial
obligation, then we are acquiescing to the fact that it is definitely
reasonable for someone to incur a debt, without his asking for the initial
favor, and to repay it obligatorily and involuntarily. The child, young and
oblivious during his childhood, does not enter into any moral contract with his
parents regarding the former’s obligation to the latter in the future. More so,
if the obligations stemming from familial ties are based from the blood relation
of the adult child and the elderly parent, then there is surely a discrepancy
if the adult child is adopted.[20]
Taking this adopted child-elderly parent relationship into account, one can
evaluate that the adopted child has, essentially, no obligations whatsoever to
his parents because his elderly “parents” had not given him life – undermining
the Filipino notion of indebtedness. The adopted adult child is then free to
leave his elderly parents at the care of other people, but on most occasions
does not.[21]
This example verifies that, in such cases, the adult child (adopted or not) has
a certain “gratitude-based” familial relationship between his parents that
affects the manifestations of his filial obligation other than their biological
connection. The inclusion of this particular child-parent dynamic, in the
discussion of whether Filipino filial obligation is justified, presupposes that
the present relationship of both adult child and elderly parent is not the
appropriate model for the local notion of filial indebtedness. Instead, the
gratitude-based model of familial relationships should be the one practiced in
Filipino society.
Following
this line of reasoning, we can assert that, due to the nature of child rearing,
parents don’t raise their children with any expectations of a “payout” in the
future. The benevolent parent carries the weight of the responsibility of being
a parent and loves his child unconditionally.[22]
Whether a couple adopts or conceives a child does not matter because the
parents ultimately and morally want the child.
So no matter how much a child receives, either physically or
emotionally, he doesn’t incur any debt from his parents because the nature of
familial ties does not work as such.
Taking
care of one’s elderly parents should therefore be seen as voluntary and be
based not on one’s feelings of indebtedness and obligation but on the value of familial
gratitude. An adult Filipino child, therefore, is free to choose whether to
take care of his parents based on his gratitude for the kind of relationship
with his parents (as either being benevolent or malevolent) not on the cultural
norm and the expectations of society “to do so”.[23] On
the other hand, where indebtedness is involuntary, gratitude is not. The adult
child is, likewise, free to express and act on his gratitude towards his old
parents in whatever magnitude he wants without any societal judgments and repercussions.
He might manifest his gratitude towards his old parents through their inclusion
into the adult child’s nuclear family or at a local nursing home where they can
receive the best healthcare and attention.
In conclusion, the present
foundation of filial obligation in the Philippines is based on the elderly
parent giving life to and taking care of the adult child. As discussed before,
this foundation should not be practiced because the reasoning behind Filipino
filial obligations is an unjust and unreasonable one for the part of the adult
child. Therefore, there exists a need to re-examine and re-evaluate these
cultural foundations of asymmetrical indebtedness in the present time. The
examination of the nature of indebtedness in the Filipino adult child-elderly
parent dynamics yields that taking care of one’s parents because of their moral
responsibility is unjust and should therefore be replaced by the principle of
gratitude towards the child-parent relationship. In doing so, the adult child may choose to
take care of his elderly parents not because of the blood relation between them
but on the familial friendship that blossomed in the child-adult relationship.
Arguing to change this cultural norm maybe a faux pas in the eyes of
traditionalist Filipinos, but by evaluating these notions, we just might be
able to fully appreciate, without social pressure and expectations, probably the most intimate, if not important, relationship in our life
and upon which society is built on – family.
[1] Andres and Ilada-Andres, Understanding the Filipino, 44-45.
[2]
Ibid.
[3]
English, What Do Children Owe Their
Parents?, 351-356.
[4]
Wicclair, Caring for Frail Elderly
Parents, 163-189.
[5]
Scott, Barangay, 138.
[6]
Scott, Filipino Class Structure, 142-175.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
and Scott, Barangay, 138.
[9]
Rafael, Contracting Colonialism,
110-135.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13]
SunStar Philippines, The Filipino-Chinese
Identity, February 20, 2015.
[14]
Ibid.
[15]
Philstar Global, Lacson Wants to Penalize
Neglect, Abandonment of Elderly Parents, September 30, 2019.
[16] Senate
of the Philippines (18th Congress), Press Release, July 29, 2016.
[17]
Stuifbergen and Van Delden, Filial
Obligations to Elderly Parents, 63-71.
[18]
English, What Do Children Owe Their
Parents?, 351-356.
[19]
Ibid.
[20] Ibid.
[21]
Ibid.
[22] Ibid.
[23]
Van den Hoven, A Claim for Reasonable
Morality, 2006.
Main Page | ThinkTalk
Bibliography
Andres, Tomas D., and Pilar B. Ilada-Andres. Understanding The Filipino. Quezon City: New Day Publishers, 1987.
English, J. "What Do Grown Children Owe Their Parents?" Edited by O. O'Neill and W. Ruddick. Having Children. Philosophical and Legal Reflections on Parenthood (Oxford University Press), 1979: 351-356.
Leska, Ang. "The Filipino-Chinese Identity." SunStar Philippines, February 20, 2015.
Philstar Global. "Lacson Wants to Penalize Neglect, Abandonment of Elderly Parents." September 30, 2019.
Rafael, Vicente L. "Untranslatability and the Terms of Reciprocity." Chap. 4 in Contracting Colonialism, by Vicente L. Rafael, 110-135. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1988.
Scott, William Henry. Barangay: Sixteenth-Century Philippine Culture and Society. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1994.
Scott, William Henry. "Filipino Class Structure in the Sixteenth Century." Philippine Studies (Ateneo de Manila University Press) 28, no. 2 (1980): 142-175.
Senate of the Philippines. Lacson Bill Penalizes Failure to Support Elderly Parents. Press Release, Pasay City: Senate of the Philippines (18th Congress), 2016.
Stuifbergen, Maria C., and Johannes J.M. Van Delden. "Filial Obligaation to Elderly Parents: A Duty to Care?" Medical Health Care and Philosophy 14 (2011): 63-71.
Van den Hoven, M. "A Claim for Reasonable Morality. Commonsense Morality in the Debate on the Limits of Morality [dissertation]." Utrecht City: Utrecht University, 2006.
Wicclair, M. R. "Caring for Frail Elderly Parents: past parental sacrifices and the obligations of adult children." Social Theory and Practice 16, no. 2 (1990): 163-189.
Paper pr
Paper pr