A REACTION PAPER ON THE ISSUE
CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION IN THE PHILIPPINES: LESSONS,
PROSPECTS AND POSSIBILITIES
Presented by Sherry Marasigan
AS PART OF THE SEMINAR
THE HUMAN DIMENSION IN PHILIPPINE
EDUCATION:
Theories, Policies and Practices
Written by
Marcial I. Enginco
Submitted to
Michael Muega, PhD
Professor, EDFD 201
University of the Philippines Diliman, College of
Education
What is a Filipino and can it be
taught inside the classroom? This is a basic but very important question that sums up Sherry
Marasigan’s quandary as a Social Studies teacher mandated to teach citizenship
to young students.
In her brief but thought-provoking
talk Marasigan, an instructor at Colegio San Juan de Letran and a PhD student
of Education, pointed out alarming but very familiar behavior among many
students that would belie their attitudes towards being a Filipino, among which
include the students’ apparent disconnect while observing nationalistic
activities such as flag-raising ceremony, apathy towards and sometimes
ignorance of pressing national issues, and the overwhelming drive to get out of
the country to pursue greener pastures after they graduate from college.
Due to time limitations Marasigan
was not able to expound on the gravity of the issue nor did she offer concrete
solutions or at least show a road map to guide educators on how to infuse and ingrain
a sense of national pride amongst the youth inside the classroom. However, whatever was shared during her brief
tenure at the podium was enough to spur me into rumination. The more I ponder over this prevailing
situation the more I realize that that challenge to teach citizenship is enormous
and growing more herculean, even quixotic, with the passing of time.
Consider these.
The Philippines, a nation of close
to a 100 million people, does not own a unifying language. Tagalog, or the politically-safe term
Filipino, is perhaps the closest to a mother-tongue that the Philippines has
and it is so because, for the longest time, the National Capital Region – in conjunction
with surrounding Tagalog-speaking provinces -- has been the country’s seat of power and
economic activity. But based on the
number of native speakers Tagalog is not even the language of the majority but
merely of the plurality, with significant numbers of Filipinos counting on
Ilocano, Ilonggo, Cebuano and numerous other regional dialects as their native
tongue. Thus the country’s fractured
language base is in itself a barrier to attaining a firm sense of national
identity. It does not help the
nationalist perspective either that English, a foreign language, is
institutionalized in the educational system, government, the business sector
and even in cyberspace as the preferred language for communication, in line
with the rest of the world.
As the country inches forward to a
rapidly homogenizing world where ideas, culture and technology are as freely
exchanged as market commodities, the issue of teaching citizenship further hits
a barrier that is very difficult to overcome.
A cursory inventory at what many youths value today – iPhone, Korean boy
bands, imported clothings and articles, and whitening soaps, lotions and cream –
will give educators a sense that the Filipino youth, at least extrinsically, is
more comfortable being a global citizen than as a local, patronizing local
products, choosing to look local.
Can this trend be reversed? I am hopeful but I have my doubts.
So what is a Filipino? Physically, we don’t have an accurate model
of what majority of Filipinos should look like.
We are tall as we are short, light-skinned as we are dark, round-eyed as
we are slit-eyed --there’s just no distinct Filipino look. However, when I ask my college students what
they believe are traits that best describe the Filipino, being hospitable is
always by far the top answer, followed
by being friendly and being a happy people.
But being all those, especially
being hospitable, did not come by accident.
A keen analysis of the lessons of history will show that we, as a people,
did not choose to act and behave in such agreeable terms but were constrained
to do so. We are a hospitable people
because over a span of more than 4 centuries colonizers, one after the other, called
our country theirs, and took whatever they liked and desired inside our homes
and farms as if they were extension of theirs. We couldn’t call our country ours, let
alone our homes. And we were trained to smile because if we
didn't and instead showed displeasure over such stark inequality then the oppressive
guests may then just decide to take the last thing that our countrymen held
precious – their lives.
This is, in principle, the
foundation of a giving, hospitable culture.
A typical Filipino host telling the grateful guest, “Consider what we
have in our home yours, as well” is an accurate description of the mindset that
has been wired deeply into our psyche.
We have grown comfortable being
with other people, be they from a neighboring barangay or from a far-off
nation. It is no wonder then that
Filipinos are touted all over the world as great adapters, with chameleon-like
skills in seamlessly blending with the crowd in just about every nation they
are in, under any condition. This
ability is, I believe, also a natural by-product of being exposed to all kinds
of foreign body in our own country.
So can Citizenship and its ideals be
taught inside Philippine schools? I am
hopeful but I have my doubts. If we can identify
our National Identity beyond what our national anthem or national flower is, we
can. If we can define what a generic Filipino
is, we will. If we have convinced
Filipinos that their future lies here in local shores, and that the proverbial
greener pasture can be realized locally using their talents, intelligence and
daring, then we have.
