Philippine Studies and Pilipinolohiya:

This article aims to present the overarching themes of what Zeus Salazar calls as two methods of studying “matters Filipino”, namely “Philippine Studies” and “Pilipinolohiya”. In his paper, Salazar defined Philippine Studies as “the study of the Philippines from the external point of view (mula sa labas na)” of Philippine civilization and culture. And, Pilipinolohiya is defined as “the study of the Philippines from within (mula sa loob ng) Philippine civilization and its cultures” (Salazar, 1991:1).

For a very long time, the Philippines had been viewed from the eyes and lens of the foreigner: Chinese, Spaniards, and Americans. The study of the Philippines by the foreigners is not only written in foreign tongues but also placed us under a “foreign view” that alienated us from our true collective national Self.

Our foremost national hero Jose Rizal spearheaded the clamor for the study of the “Vaterland” or “Patria” by annotating Antonio de Morga’s Sucessos de las Islas Filipinas and organizing a group of scholars “Les Philippiniste” to articulate the task of “national self-understanding and self-definition”.

Salazar (1991:14) in his paper pointed out that Pilipinolohiya “aims at understanding Pilipinas from within – i.e. it has a singular focus and a single vantage point, that of the Filipino nationality. Ultimately, the author argues that Pilipinolohiya “works toward unity and homogeneity (pantayong pananaw) of Pilipinas” while Philippine Studies may lead towards division and differences.

A rally point in Salazar’s discourse is the assertion that the Philippines as an area of study came about as a result of the “intellectual encounter” between and among the scholars of the Philippines and Europe. Subsequently, he posited that the study of the Philippines was a result of the exchange of scholarly views and insights between Rizal and his fellow Propagandist and Ferdinand Blumentritt and other Europeans, interested at that time in the Philippines.

In the course of the author’s article, he characterized Rizal as favoring the “…founding of Pilipinolohiya and leaving Philippine studies to his European friends.” The agenda of Rizal here was to espouse the study of Filipinas by the Filipinos in accordance with their national unity and identity while encouraging the European scholars to write about the Philippines as a support to the Propaganda campaign. Ultimately, the aim of Pilipinolohiya “…is to report and explain about Pilipinas to Filipinos in their own terms and with a view to strengthening Filipino nationality.”

An important aspect of Salazar’s article is his contrast between Pilipinolohiya and Philippine Studies. He juxtaposed key points and importance of both areas of scholarship and the problematic dichotomy of both. However, considering the arguments presented by the author, it is clear that his leaning is towards Pilipinolohiya. The push for Pilipinolohiya is apparent due to the following reasons: 1. focus on Filipinas 2. indigenous methods and approaches 3. it edifies and reinforces the Filipino nationality 4. use (or, preference?) of the Filipino language, and 5. its effect on the unity of the Philippines (pantayong pananaw).

Finally, Salazar warned and/or reminded the reader that due to our colonial experience, the Filipino scholar has become subservient to the scholarship of the foreign Other echoing the colonial viewpoint on the Filipino. Thus, scholarship that does not align with the unity and nationalist viewpoint of the Filipino is deemed as a “national-disruptive ‘research’ ideology.”