 |
 |
| Issue 2, 2009 |
|
|
|
Download Pdf |
|
|
|
 |
| Issue 1, 2009 |
|
|
|
Download Pdf |
|
|
|
 |
| Issue 3, 2008 |
|
|
|
Download Pdf |
|
|
|
 |
| Issue 2, 2008 |
|
|
|
Download Pdf |
|
|
|
 |
| Issue 1, 2008 |
|
|
|
Download Pdf |
|
|
|
|
 |
| Issue 4, 2007 |
|
|
|
Download Pdf |
|
|
|
 |
| Issue 3, 2007 |
|
|
|
Download Pdf |
|
|
|
 |
| Issue 2, 2007 |
|
|
|
Download Pdf |
|
|
|
 |
| Issue 1, 2007 |
|
|
|
Download Pdf |
|
|
|
 |
| Issue 4, 2006 |
|
 |
|
Download Pdf |
|
|
|
 |
| Issue 3, 2006 |
|
|
|
Download Pdf |
|
|
|
 |
| Issue 2, 2006 |
|
|
|
Download Pdf |
|
|
|
 |
| Issue 1, 2006 |
|
|
|
Download Pdf |
|
|
|
 |
| Issue 1, 2005 |
|
|
|
Download Pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issue 3, 2008
|
|
|
Shades of Grey
|
|
Glenn Q. Maboloc
The concepts of ‘self’ and ‘autonomy’ have often been
raised in feminist discourse. Fairly recently, breaking away
from liberalism’s autonomous self, Marxism instated the
concept of self as social. All meaning – of work, of equality,
of happiness itself to the individual – is achieved socially.
Traditional Philippine valuation of the self was one step
ahead of Marxism. Anthropologist F. Landa Jocano posits
that Filipinos ‘by cultural orientation…are relationists, not
individualists… [They] always want to be part of a group
and to be noticed as such. This is why [they] disdain kanya-
kanya (each to his/her own self-interest) as a trait.’ Jocano
laments that Filipinos’ ‘current claim to individualism is
derived from Western-influenced formal education… (and
is) reinforced by exposure to Western-influenced media.’
(Jocano, 63)
This relational Filipino self finds its most ardent expression
in familism, or ‘the concept (having) to do with our concern
over the well-being of our families or that of our kinsmen.’
(Jocano, 64) Belen Medina notes: ‘The family as the basic
unit of Philippine society is very significant to the Filipino.
It demands his interests and loyalty more than any other
institution in the larger society. Its influence is far-reaching
for it pervades every aspect of his life, be it social, political,
religious, or economic.’ (Medina, 12)
Damdamin or emotion plays an important role in maintaining
Filipino social relationships. An especially sensitive people,
Filipinos make decisions around the feelings of others. Hiya
(shame) and delicadeza and amor proprio (proper behavior
and self-esteem) are two of the norms that are followed so
that ‘damdamin is not hurt and conflicts are minimized, if not
avoided. [Hiya] is often invoked to effect conformity to local
mores and practices in order to prevent embarrassment,
shame or conflict. [Delicadeza and amor propio] are part of
[the] cultural shield intended to protect the self from being
embarrassed or shamed through public exposure. The face
must be protected at all times, by all means, and at all
costs…Losing face is losing personal dignity, integrity and
honour as an individual and as a member of the group.’
(Jocano, 73)
Transwomen (and transgenders in general) disturb these
cultural norms, more so than other sexual minorities
by managing to be spectacles in an intensely conformist
society. In fact, the probable shame prevents many
transwomen from expressing their real selves. Transwomen
also experience discrimination right in the hands of the
‘same’ people who’ve experienced it: gay men.
In fact, J. Neil Garcia posits that one of the reasons why the
LGBT liberation movement in the Philippines has not taken
off is the schism between the parlorista (literally, working
in a beauty parlor, often transwomen; loud and vulgar) and
the pa-men (straight-acting; circumspect). In this sense,
transwomen not only challenge the Filipino heterosexual
conception of propriety, but Filipino gays’ as well.
Transwomen transgress these cultural norms because
they unsettle the broader concepts of heternormativity
introduced by colonialism and religion.
The Filipina transwoman was regarded with respect in
many parts of pre-colonial Philippines. Called babaylan
(priestess), she often presided over important spiritual
ceremonies of her then animist society, and was found to
have married and lived with men.
But history would change her status in Filipino society.
Colonial powers would reach her shores. Sam Winter
describes thus: ‘Serena Nanda has described the ‘sexualising’
and masculinising of the Filipino culture by successive
Arab, Spanish and American dominations…(Carolyn)
Brewer [also] paints a vivid picture of the way in which
Filipino gender and sexuality were regulated to conform
to the colonisers’ norms. These norms arose from Hispanic
machismo (the idealization of stereotypic gender roles and
the repression of deviance from them), and from closely
related Christian (predominantly Catholic) attitudes
towards sexual and gender diversity.’
Winter believes that because of Catholic doctrines ‘Filipino
transpeople are left vulnerable to accusations of immoral
conduct on several levels: cross-gendered dress, abuse of
body and homosexuality. As one might expect, religious-
inspired transphobia percolated into broader society.’
Catholicism’s heteronormativity is based on its insistence
on the procreative function of sex and marriage. As such,
the identity of a woman is configured according to her role
and/or ability to conceive.
The history of colonial and religious enslavement impacts
the social perception of the Filipino transwoman. Although
research has surfaced a few labels with which Filipinos
identify transwomen, Marc Johnson has devised an identity
model (based on his study of transgenderism in Southern
Philippines) that encapsulates the general Filipino valuation
of transwomen: impotent men and unreproductive/defling
women. This construction corresponds to the historical
(patriarchal) and religious precepts that have led to the
disenfranchised status of the Filipina transwoman.
The foregoing describes the historical-religious and cultural
context in which the transwoman struggles for self and
autonomy. But while she faces undue hardships because of
her identity, she can look to present trends that presage
some form of emancipation.
For one, the grip of the family over the individual is
loosening as Filipino society transitions from a traditional
to a modern-industrial system. ‘The traditional system is
kinship-oriented where one’s personality is subordinate
to the interests of the kin-group… where interaction
is characterized by particularism or emphasis on how
persons are related to one another… [or] where priority
is given to the expressive and integrative needs of the
group. The modern industrial system, on the other hand,
is characterized by differentiation in values, interest, and
goals… [or] where priority is given to the instrumental
needs of the individual.’ (Medina, 240)
Transwomen can thus hope to carve out a place in
society through personal achievement. (Some critics have
forwarded that gays have a tendency to compensate for
their second-class citizenship by over-achieving.) Many
have found employment in the entertainment and fashion
industry, in public relations and publishing, and especially
in the fast-rising call centre industry. In fact, transwomen
who experience family animosity migrate to urban centres
or even abroad, especially Japan, in search of a better life
and meaningful relationships.
Because while many transwomen have a hard time securing
long-lasting relationships, a surprising few have found love
in the most unexpected places. The Christian religious
society, the Order of St. Alreid, has officiated over many
trans-unions in the last fifteen years. Many of the unions
are between transwomen and male foreigners usually from
the United States or Europe. Same-sex marriage has also
been sanctioned by the Communist Party of the Philippines
since the 90s. In general, same-sex or gender-variant
relationships are short-lived and uncommon because they
are not sanctioned by the family, the Filipino’s primary
source of social security (Fernandez). In this sense, the
transwoman needs to re-evaluate again the connection
between her self and her family and society.
Feminist Marilyn Freidman offers a solution in preserving
autonomy in social relationships: ‘Feminists tend to share
with communitarians the view that selves are inherently
social…This perspective on the self leads easily to the view
that autonomy should also be conceptualized relationally.
At the same time, a little reflection on everyday life reveals
that autonomy sometimes results in severing of relational ties –
that it does sometimes disconnect us from others, including
those who are closely related to us…The conclusion has to
be that relationships of certain sorts are necessary for the
realization of autonomy, whereas relationships of certain
other sorts can be irrelevant or positively detrimental to
it.’ (Friedman, 55-56)
The Filipina transwoman today then needs to re-define the
place of familial and social acceptance in her conception
of self – to achieve real autonomy. While Filipino culture
does not effectively ostracise her from the public sphere,
she might need to re-assess just how much what her family
and society thinks of her should affect her life.
The ideal would be that her family accept her as she is
(as many families have done); but when it doesn’t, she
needs to rely on her own esteem. Chucking the family, as
suggested by some feminists years back, may not be a viable
option as the Filipino family still is and can be a source of
social protection especially in the Third World context of
economic insecurity.
As can be attested by some transwomen who have been
embraced by their families, Filipino culture is not a
patriarchal-feudal or homophobic monolith. Filipinos
also do follow another cultural norm that suggests better
conditions for all transwomen are possible. If hiya and
delicadeza/amor propio ensure that feelings are preserved
in maintaining relationships, awa is another important
norm. Awa means ‘compassion, mercy, charity, kind
heartedness, and sincerity…It expresses both [the Filipino]
understanding of the situation another person is in and [his]
feeling of empathy for (another’s) misfortune.’ (Jocano,
79) This norm has accommodated somewhat the perceived
transgressions of transwomen of social mores concerning
gender and sexuality, and highlights the important role of
consciousness-raising in trans-liberation. Filipinos, in the
end, are pusong mamon or soft-hearted.
To be compassionate to the Filipina transwoman is Filipino
society’s test; to insist on her self and autonomy in Filipino
society is the Filipina transwoman’s challenge. Indeed,
social and individual transgressions pave the way for each
other’s transformation as well.
Works Cited:
Fernadez, Doreen. ‘The Gay.’ Being Filipino. Ed. Gilda Cordero-
Fernando. Manila: GCF Books, 1969.
Friedman, Marilyn. ‘Autonomy and Social Relationships.’
Feminists Rethink the Self. Ed. Diana Tietjens Meyers. Oxford:
Westview Press, 1997.
Jocano, F. Landa. Filipino Value System: A Cultural Definition.
Manila: Punlad Research House, Inc., 1997.
Johnson, Marc. Beauty and Power: Transgendering and Cultural
Transformation in the Southern Philippines. New York: Berg,
1997.
Medina, Belinda T.G. The Filipino Family. Quezon City:
University of the Philippines Press, 1995.
Winter, Sam. ‘What Made Me This Way? Contrasting Reflections
by Thai and Filipina Transwomen.’ Intersections: Gender, History
and Culture in an Asian Context. Vol. 4. Nov. 2006.
Glenn Q. Maboloc studied english literature at the ateneo
de manila university and is pursuing a master’s degree in
women and development at the university of the philippines,
diliman. She is the president of a young and youth-led NGO,
knowledge and rights with young people through Safer
Spaces.(KRYSS)
|
|
|
|
