Catholicism in Migration and Diaspora

Cross-Border Filipino Perspectives

Gemma Tulud Cruz

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2022
• Print ISBN:
  9781032252568
• eBook ISBN:
  9781000609899
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christianity

This book focuses on the Philippines as a powerhouse in the Catholic and global migration landscape. It offers a wide-ranging look at the roles, dynamics, character, and trajectories of Catholic faith and practice in the age of migration through an interdisciplinary, religious, and theological approach to Filipino Catholics' experience of migration and diaspora both at home and overseas. In so doing, the book introduces the reader to the hallmarks and characteristics of a contextual model of world Christianity and global Catholicism in the twenty-first century.

Part I

Culture and Religious Experience

DOI: 10.4324/9781003282310-2

1 Looking for God in the Complexities of Filipino Migration and Diaspora

Theology and Filipino Cultural Identities in a Globalized World

Julius-Kei Kato

DOI: 10.4324/9781003282310-3

Introduction: Framing Our Theme, Challenges, and Task

As the title boldly declares, our quest here is to “look for God” in the complexities of Filipino culture as found in migration and diaspora. A more properly theological way of expressing it would be: reflecting on Filipino migrant-diaspora culture as a locus theologicus.¹ Is that even possible? How might we go about correlating theology with the complex varieties of Filipino cultural identities in our globalized world? It is obvious how challenging it is to identify even just the main characteristics of Filipino cultural identities as they are present in the various loci of migration and diaspora today because Filipinos around the world have, and continue to go through, extensive and complex migratory patterns. Moreover, they have established diaspora communities in many places around the world that interact with local contexts in multifarious ways, producing a variety of new cultural forms. As if that were not enough, we could even throw in the fact that “Filipino culture” in the diaspora means vastly different things across different generations of people who still self-identify in some way as “Filipino-a, not to speak of various mixtures or hybridities in which the Filipino element is mixed with other cultural elements. In the face of all these factors, could we still speak of these diverse, continually developing cultures as “Filipino” in some way?

This chapter surveys the big picture of contemporary Filipino migration and diaspora from cultural perspectives and suggests the contours of what may still be labeled as shared “Filipino identity.” Starting with an essentialized idea of “culture,” it will go on to show how migration, diaspora, and hybridity in their Filipino versions necessitate a process of complexifying the notion of cultural identity. What this means concretely is that migration and diaspora produce what could be called a hybrid “Filipino-X” cultural identity. It is not just a sum of its component parts (Filipino plus some other concrete cultural context[s]) but a complex and hybrid entity that must be dealt with on its own merits. The chapter argues that this “Filipino-X” cultural identity in the Filipino diaspora should be made the explicit and primary context, as well as object, of theological reflection. After all, it is the task of theology to indicate that it is in the context of the diversity and complexity of various Filipino-X cultural identities around the world that the process toward a greater wholeness (salvation) is being continually realized in the reign of God.

Describing “Culture”: A First Take

Culture is one of the most commonly used words to describe the human condition. Yet, when examined more deeply, it might come as a surprise that its precise meaning is quite difficult to state plainly. Theologian Robert Schreiter, who has worked extensively in the field of culture and theology, comments that “culture is a notoriously slippery concept, with no agreed upon definition.”² Thus, it might be best to begin with a survey of some conventional definitions of culture as preliminary heuristic aids to have a framework for understanding this slippery concept. These definitions will be critically engaged with later to see if and how they might apply to culture as lived in Filipino migration and diaspora.

A classic definition of culture is offered by Clifford Geertz, who holds a prominent place in cultural anthropology. Geertz defines culture as an historically transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of which people communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and attitudes toward life.³ Theologian Michael Gallagher provides a helpful synthesis of the “essential aspects for any description of culture,” that adds a rich nuance to our understanding. Culture, according to Gallagher, is a uniquely human product inherited from the past yet ever-changing in order to cope with different historical environments. It evolves into a set of assumptions, often unconsciously assimilated by a given group or society, involving an entire way of life that, in turn, becomes a source of solidarity and identity for the group members. Culture, Gallagher adds, is a whole complex of ways of interpreting the world. It carries with it meanings and beliefs, values, customs, practices, and traditions. This complex of factors extends from the most mundane human activities to more profound concerns, such as the significance of existence. Not to be forgotten is culture’s communicative dimension: it seeks to pass its cumulative wisdom to future generations. Last but not least, culture often involves some religious vision.⁴

As a third heuristic aid, we turn to Kathryn Tanner, another theologian who has reflected profoundly on the relationship of culture and theology. In Theories of Culture, Tanner summarizes the “modern” view of culture (as opposed to a “postmodern” one). More specifically, she speaks of culture as a universal element defining what is human. At the same time, Tanner says culture highlights human diversity in that it varies from one social group to another, distinguishing the specific pattern of behaviors which define a society as different from all others. One can, therefore, say that the boundaries of a particular culture become the boundaries of a particular society. Considering culture as specific to a particular group, one can understand that a group’s culture refers to its entire way of life.⁵

A Stab at Describing Filipino Culture

Given the abovementioned conventional meanings of culture, let us take a first stab at delineating some dominant features that might give us some idea of “Filipino culture.” Imelda Marcos, the (in)famous former First Lady of the Philippines, once declared, “The Philippines is in a strategic position—it is both East and West, right and left, rich and poor…. We are neither here nor there.”⁶ This intriguing description captures—what I consider—an essential characteristic in attempting to describe Philippine culture. Philippine culture, both in the country itself and more widely in the diaspora, can be considered a “mixture” of many things. Niels Mulder, for example, speaks of the “mixed-up” symbolic language of the Filipino whom he describes as “an English-speaking Malay, with a Spanish name, who loves to eat Chinese food.”⁷ Others refer to the Filipino as the “brown American” with a contemporary culture that gives the impression of a “bricolage.”⁸ I will use “hybridity” here to capture this characteristic of Filipino (cultural) identity.

Indeed, Filipinos/-as, as a group, are living embodiments of hybridity. Although present-day Philippine society is composed of an ethnically diverse people, the ancestors of the vast majority came from Southeast Asia, especially the islands that make up Indonesia and environs. These Filipino ancestors were of the Malay ethnic group. Hence, we can say that this original and dominant Malay ethnicity and culture forms a cultural bedrock together with those of the smaller number of indigenous peoples. Subsequent history brought waves of other ethnicities and cultures to the Philippine archipelago that transformed it in irrevocable ways. We can include here the waves of Chinese immigration, the influence of Islam in the southern part of the country, the long colonial reign of Spain from the mid-16th to the end of the nineteenth century, the US occupation and administration period (1898–1946), and the brief Japanese occupation during World War II (1941–1945).⁹

With such a history, we can say that Filipinos/-as have a cultural identity stemming from original indigenous cultures that have subsequently been hybridized in many ways through the waves, and long periods, of colonial history and through ongoing globalization. Thus, the Filipino language, ethnicity, and culture constitute an interesting amalgam (a hybrid) resulting from the various mixtures of indigenous elements with the uneven power relations to which they have been subjected to (between colonizer and colonized), and continue to be subjected to by other forces in our contemporary globalized world.¹⁰

What then could be named as the most common and typical values and characteristics that define Filipino culture? In my quest to sketch the general contours of what may be considered a corporate Filipino identity,¹¹ I turn, first, to an enlightening study of Philippine politics by sociologist David Timberman, where he identifies what, he posits, are key traits that profoundly shape the dominant political culture of the country: the primacy of kinship, the influence of particularism and personalism, the importance of reciprocity and patron–client relations, the emphasis on smooth interpersonal relations, and the effect of pervasive poverty on values and behavior.¹²

Another helpful resource is a list of Filipino personality traits and values identified in a 2010 research paper published by a team of researchers of Rishō University in Tokyo for the purpose of advocating for Filipinos/as to come to Japan as caregivers.¹³ Noteworthy here is the fact that their list was compiled from a study of 24 works of pertinent research previously published by Filipino scholars¹⁴ and augmented by personal interviews conducted by the research team. The study mentioned the following as the most “characteristically Filipino” personality traits¹⁵ in the order that they appear in the list: pakikisama (smooth interpersonal relationships), hiya (embarrassment, shame, timidity) and utang na loob (debt of gratitude), close family ties, bahala na (“come what may” optimism along with feelings of submission and resignation to fate or luck), amor propio (personal pride, self-esteem), bayanihan (mutual aid and cooperation) and hospitality, and ningas cogon (doing well, in whatever one is doing, at the beginning).

To the abovementioned studies, could be added the characteristics that the Catechism for Filipino Catholics (CFC) identifies as fundamental traits of Filipino identity:

1. family-oriented (particularly shown in the anak–magulang [child–parent] relationship);
2. meal-oriented (salu-salo, kainan);
3. kundiman-oriented (in the sense of “heroes sacrificing everything for love”);
4. bayani (hero)-oriented;
5. spirit-oriented (having a spiritual sense or pagiging relihiyoso).¹⁶

CFC suggests that these five characteristics are key to shaping a Christian catechesis that is well suited to the Filipino identity.

The abovementioned cultural characteristics are obviously not authoritative nor all-encompassing. Rather, they should be treated as merely sketching the general contours of Filipino culture and a Filipino corporate identity. Clearly, Philippine society is quite diverse with significant differences between urban and rural areas, as well as between different regions and ethnic groups. It is also constantly evolving as a result of different historical and social forces. Any list of so-called Filipino cultural identity trai...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of Contributors
• Introduction
• PART I: Culture and Religious Experience
• PART II: Political Economy and Social Ethics
• PART III: Mission and Ministry
• Index