LOL
Read THIS first.
The question, however is whether these “examples” are representative of the overall character of Philippine society. Even more important, we will find that the last two are family- and ethnic/faith-centric. Honour to one’s family is easy — because the motivation to be so is practically ingrained in our DNA as vessels for propagating our genetic code.
Yes they are, in that those traditions and predispositions are common to a vast majority of Filipinos – with the possible exception of the rido, but even then that’s just a matter of degree. Even non-Muslims carry defense of honor across generations, only not in so spectacular a fashion.
Incidentally, no @benign0, rido is NOT faith based.
In any case, the proposition asked if Honor was a strong part of Filipino tradition. Whether defending honor is easy or difficult is beside the point. @benign0 sidesteps this fact by sliding into a true scotsman fallacy. Apparently, he wants us now to talk of a specific (if arbitrarily defined) kind of honor – the transcendental kind.
The bigger challenge is finding evidence of honour that transcends family and religious ties — as what we can see in TRULY modern societies where all ethnic and religious groups and minorities are treated fairly and respected unconditionally.
“In Japan there are very few lawyers and the codes are mostly unwritten, but they are binding, nonetheless.” – Greg Sheridan, *Asian Values Western Dreams*
The ludicrousness of this statement is so painfully obvious. Still, since @benign0 is all about the audience, let’s point out why this statement is silly.
First, again, the insistence of an a “TRULY modern society,” is a dodge, because no one really has a definition of what is truly modern and what is not. Thus, the person making this argument can easily shift his criteria when the mood takes him or if he feels he needs to protect his point from being proven wrong.
Second, even assuming that we can pin down this “truly modern society” of his – in this case, he appears to be talking about Japan – it is requires a much lesser leap of faith to say that even in modern-day Japan, such codes are not always iron-clad. Et in arcadia ego.
But going beyond that bare assertion – and accepting for now the accuracy of the insight of Greg Sheridan – one must inquire whether the comparison between Japanese culture and Filipino culture is fair.
It is not.
The Japanese have, for most of their history, been dominated by an imperial family considered to be of literally divine origin. This is a primitive model, as anyone who has ever questioned the idea of divine intervention – even existence – can attest. Japanese society was also ordered by a system of shoguns – warriors who sat atop a very strict social caste system. And despite attempts to modernize, this system – insofar as it related to social control – was not fully expunged from the hearts and minds of modern day Japanese. And so, until the second War, the Japanese still adhered to these concepts, albeit no longer as explicitly as before. In fact, about the only foreign influence the Japanese ever fell under for any significant length of time was after the war. And even then, the conquering generals made a conscious decision to retain much of the old social relationships in order to make the population more biddable. Sure, they humanized the emperor forcefully, but the new order simply stepped into the shoes of the old.
Doers this have Philippine echoes? Absolutely. Have you heard about how Jose Rizal was picked for promotion to national hero by the occupying forces because he presented a model of cooperation with an occupying power? Take that (for all I know apocryphal bit of information) and you can see how, behind the scenes, social dynamics can be steered in different directions.
Which brings me back to the quote from Sheridan. Sure, the codes are binding, but WHY are they binding? And were the same conditions, which granted those codes such binding power, present and active when our society was being ordered? I say they were not.
Japanese society was molded by a strong social framework that was centuries old, AND was allowed to continue in that vein. Philippine society, on the other hand, was molded by an oppressive system that put a premium on obedience to the occupying power. That being the case, Philippine society developed along a divergent path.
On the one hand, fear of authority has been ingrained. Correspondingly, the ability to circumvent authority arose as a prized survival trait. In other words, very early on, Philippine society has been characterized by a love-hate relationship between those without power, and those who wield it. In that relationship, therefore, Filipinos tend to favor their own smaller circles – the ones that do not hearken back to the life and death kind of power that established authority represented. But within those smaller circles, honor and shame emerged as predominant social mechanisms. In others words, a strong part of Filipino tradition.
Being made between two cultures that bear little resemblance to each other, both in origins and in terms of how they were shaped by modern forces, the implied comparison, therefore, is false.
In sum,
Has @benign0 proven that my examples are NOT responsive to the proposition? No, he has not. Instead of denying that they are examples of Filipinos being driven by the concept of honor (which he defined), he dismisses them as being “easy,” and proceeds to alter the framework of the debate by insisting on a different specie of honor.
Has @benign0 proven HIS point, that Honor is not a strong part of Filipino tradition? No, he has not. At least not to any creditable standard. I make no claims, however, about what he and his will accept. It does get noisy in an echo chamber.
Will, @benign0 continue this conversation? I expect he will. In fact, given the tit-for-tat he insisted on (a move that can be commended for its base cunning and little else), it is now his turn to present proof of his assertion about honor and the Filipino culture.
Unless…
Unless he tries to pass off this article – written by one of his circle, btw – as his proof of his claim. But since the talented author has opted out of this discussion, I await @benign0’s explanation of the contents of that piece (as opposed to merely pointing out that the article exists), with bated breath.