JADSMON G.

CARABALLE
BTH - LEVEL 2
ETHICS

ASSIGNMENT: A research on pakikisama on leadership

CHAPTER VIII
A CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS OF PAKIKISAMA [Getting Along Well with People]
DANTE LUIS P. LEONCINI

Pakikisama or pakisama is a Filipino concept and trait. As a trait it is used as a facility to form
and maintain good relationships. It can be conceived as one among many possible contributory
ingredients of the moral life but not a necessary one. The concept of pakikisama is amphibolous
because it lacks an unambiguous definition. Thus it is confused with other traits such as
pagkakasundo, pakikibagay, and pakikitungo. Because it is considered a trait of value, there is a
tendency to abuse it. Different ways of defining the concept are shown-from its etymology to the
ways it is used- including the author's way of defining it. Furthermore, two conflicting aspects of
the trait-how it is abused (the negative) and what the trait really is (positive), are portrayed
before the concluding remarks that show how the trait itself makes the Filipino good.

INTRODUCTION
Pakikisama or pakisama is both a concept and a trait. Its concept, trait, and its derivatives
expressed in words or phrases² are important for the Filipinos.3 They take its application or
practice in life with utmost seriousness. It is one important trait that equips them to form and
maintain good, harmonious, and healthy personal relationships with others. If we are to
conceive of the moral life in terms of everyday relationships as Paul J. Wadell' argues, then we
have to consider pakisama as one among the many possible ingredients of the moral life.
However, in this sense, we ought to conceive pakisama as a contributory but not a necessary
factor for living a moral life.

This paper is about the concept and trait known as pakikisama. This trait might exist as well in
other cultures but herein we shall assume that it is a typical Filipino trait. Hence, pakikisama's
treatment will be in the context of Philippine culture. This paper is not concerned if it is gender-
specific or if it is affected by any economic status. It aims to clarify some issues relative to
pakikisama through conceptual analysis and discussions. Most important is the issue
concerning the way it is defined and understood.

Another issue concerns the way the trait is abused (negative aspects) and what the trait is really
supposed to be (positive aspects). Because of its conflicting aspects, pakikisama is considered
an ambiguous trait. Another issue is whether pakikisama is a value.

Pakikisama is sometimes considered a norm or a guide to achieve or practice other values,

such as pakikipagkapwa-tao, katahimikan (KTH), and Smooth Interpersonal Relations (SIR). In
this sense we might think of it as one of the forms of either pakikipagkapwa, KTH, or SIR.' It
means that even without pakikisama, pakikipagkapwa, katahimikan, and SIR are still possible. It
is sometimes considered a constituent or a part of a larger value, such as pagkakasundo, and
again, pakikipagkapwa,' and SIR. Still sometimes, pakisama is considered a value itself. When
so defined, however, pakisama is conceived in many conflicting ways. This is due to the
misconception of its concept. Misunderstanding the concept of pakisama leads to the confused
and fragmented ways of viewing it as a trait. A concept that is not clearly defined is incapable of
serving as a basis or foundation for describing its trait properly.

In his work "Kapwa," Enriquez" suggests something very instructive. What is instructive is that
"the language of the Philippines is as good a starting point as any... for understanding Filipino
behavior." His purpose is broader than our own. Understanding Filipino behavior in general¹2 is
his goal but we simply want to understand the concept and trait, pakisama. In our case, this
applies in so far as we consider the Filipino language (the Tagalog language) as a starting point
for understanding the key Filipino concept and trait of pakisama. But nothing stops us to seek
the aid of other Filipino languages (Ilocano, for example) that possess concepts with meanings
closer to the concepts of the Filipino language as compared to a non-Philippine language, such
as English, so that issues of meaning may be clarified better.13 Enriquez (1986) states:

The problems with the token use of Filipino psychological concepts in the context of a western
analysis that relies on the English language and English categories of analysis are many. It no
doubt can lead to the distortion of Philippine social reality and the furtherance of the mis-
education of the Filipinos... The Filipino language... provides conceptual distinctions among
several levels and modes of interaction.

PAKIKISAMA AND INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS

George Guthrie (1970:64) attempts to explain Filipino behavioral patterns in terms of a few
characteristics they behaviorally manifest or concepts they deem important in dealing with
others. These behavioral patterns are amor propio [self-esteem], hiya [embarrassment], utang
na loob [obligation], and pakikisama [getting along together/with others].14 These "four
concepts have proven very useful in attempting to understand Filipino behavior patterns.
Although they merge at many points they do have significant independent manifestations...
Ordinarily implicit and unspoken, they have great influence on the ways Filipinos deal with one
another" (Guthrie 1970: 60-1).

For Filipinos an interpersonal relationship is more than an individual matter. One's reputation-
and that of one's family-is involved whenever one deals with others. One, including one's family,
practices pakikisama towards the good and loyal friend. The friend and the friend's family do the
same. This is the proper ways of dealing with friends for Filipinos. This is why pakikisama is
defined as the "Filipino value of 'belongingness' and loyalty to one's in-group" (Gorospe 1988:
32). In the practice of pakikisama many things are unsaid. Mostly, things are implied in
behavioral patterns. This is the typical way Filipinos relate with one another.

Filipinos feel more at ease when their relationship with others is personalized, like family.16
"Offense is taken, not only by an individual, but by his extended family too." More than one
person is shamed or obligated. While good personal relationships are primary, success or
failure in this domain is more than an individual matter" (Guthrie 1970: 60-1). This is why
pakikisama is described as "a relatively persistent and consistent behavior pattern manifested in
a wide range of circumstances" (Andres 1987: 75). Pakikisama forms part of what we call the
ethos of the Filipinos.18 It is one way Filipinos actually behave within the context of their
relationships. Without relationships, it would not be possible to practice pakikisama.

ETYMOLOGY AND USAGE OF PAKIKISAMA

The term pakisama is derived from two Tagalog words: the root word "sama, accompany, go
along with" (Lynch 1963: 10) or come along with and the prefix paki, please or kindly. Its
etymological definition and literal meaning is, therefore, "kindly or please accompany or come
along with or go along with." Its literal meaning derived from its etymology is clear. It actually
implies the concept of companion or companionship. This becomes more obvious even in
Ilocano/Ilokano, 19 another Philippine language dialect.

Pakikisama suggests good company when I say of a friend, "I enjoy his company:"20 or simply
stated in a situation when good company is necessary, "Just accompany me." It also suggests
being protective of another when one says of a friend, "He accompanied me until all the trouble
subsided."22

The trait pakikisama is taken to mean or understood in so many ways when either described or
practiced. There is either one of two reasons why this is the case. First, the trait pakikisama
either involves too many other traits or is so associated with the concepts of other traits and
values that it becomes difficult to distinguish it from the others. Second, its concept tends to be
confused with the concepts of other traits and values for it probably lacks a proper definition or
meaning of its own. For example, instead of conceiving pakikisama as a norm that implies
and/or is implied by doing other traits and values, there is a strong tendency to think of it no
differently from those traits and values.

Consider the following examples that illustrate our point. Pakikisama implies consideration and
cooperation when a father says, "It is not difficult to talk to my child, he gets along well."23 It
implies helpfulness when a man says of his neighbor, "He knows how to get along, he helped
me when he saw me having a hard time carrying wood."24 It implies leniency when a student
says of a guard, "He gets along well because he allowed me to enter even without my I.D."25 It
suggests good nature and honesty when one does not take advantage of others (i.e., not an
opportunist) by way of giving good and honest advice or suggestions. For example, a cyclist
says of a bicycle storeowner, "Yoyoy knows how to get along well because he did not permit me
to replace the gear changer of my bike that still works."26

It suggests gratitude, utang na loob [debt of gratitude/ obligation] for something valued-such as
a past friendship when one says of another, "I never forget the deep friendship we had."27 It
suggests other Filipino characteristics, such as amor propio [self- esteem] and hiya
[embarrassment/shame]. Amor propio is implied when one says, "He cannot say anything with
the way I get along with him."28 Hiya, together with compassion, concern, or understanding is
somehow implied when somebody says, "You show how well you get along with my relatives, I
am embarrassed."29

In the above examples, derivatives of the term pakikisama are used to imply other traits and
values. It is through pakikisama that the practice of other traits and values is actualized. It is
also possible to think that other traits and values imply pakikisama. It is through their practice
that pakikisama is realized. If one is not careful in recognizing this fact, then one is bound to
understand pakisama as no different from consideration and cooperation, helpfulness, leniency,
non-opportunism, utang na loob, amor propio, and hiya. These examples show that pakikisama
implies and is implied by other traits and values but it does not follow that pakikisama itself is
the same as the traits and values that it implies or imply it. We will notice later that this is one
reason why giving a definite meaning to pakikisama taken as a trait is difficult. Understanding
pakikisama as a trait entails the understanding of other traits and values as well.

Earlier, Guthrie pointed out that Filipino concepts or traits "merge at many points [but] do have
significant independent manifestations." We definitely agree with this good observation. I
believe identifying similarities is important; however, a serious study on Filipino behavioral
patterns must include making distinctions. Making distinctions is an important philosophical tool
especially when the concept or trait we are currently referring to has so much in common and so
associated with other concepts and traits. Making distinctions will, therefore, be a good method
to arrive at a clear definition of the concept pakisama so that it may be properly described as a
trait.

VARIOUS MEANINGS OF PAKIKISAMA

So far, we have encountered many possible meanings of pakikisama and may have developed
an impression of what it means. Frank Lynch (1963: 10) traces the etymology of the word and
says its literal meaning is "kindly or please accompany or come along, or go along." While
discussing pakikisama as an important guide to understanding Filipino behavior, Guthrie (1970:
64) translates the term as "getting along together or with others." The examples shown above
follow Guthrie's translation of pakikisama expressed as "getting along." This translation is
acceptable in ordinary parlance but let us try to improve it later on. The meaning Guthrie gives
to the term is bound to confuse pakikisama with another trait called pagkakasundo that is closer
to the notion of "getting along together or with others."

While discussing personal relationships, we cited Vitaliano Gorospe (1988: 32) who says
pakikisama is defined as the "Filipino. value of 'belongingness' and loyalty to one's in-group."
Gorospe's definition suggests that pakisama is the same as the value called "belongingness."
His idea of "belongingness" is obviously derived from the concept of "companion." But as he
shows, the concept of belongingness leads to the concept of an "in-group." I find it difficult to
understand why it must be conceived of only as "loyalty to one's in-group." This conception is
vague because he does not define what "in-group" means in this context. If by "in-group" he
means "those who are very close to one" then he is limiting the practice of the trait to those
close or dear to a potential doer of acts portraying pakisama. Truly, the trait is mostly observed
when one deals with one's close friends and relatives (in-group); but the practice of pakikisama
is likewise possible when dealing with acquaintances. This concept does not suggest closeness
or dearness but something less than that.30

Andres (1996: 148) says, pakikisama "is the ability' to get along with others in such a way as to
avoid outside signs of conflict. (It) also refers to giving in or yielding to the wish of the leader or
the majority, even when at times it contradicts one's ideas or the common good." By thinking of
pakisama as "ability," we might think of it as a skill or talent,³¹ something developed and
learned. The defect with his way of defining pakisama as "getting along with others to avoid
outside signs of conflict" is similar to the case of Guthrie.32 This is closer to pagkakasundo as
we pointed out.

Another criticism with the way Andres describes pakikisama is portrayed by the statement,
"giving in or yielding to the wish of the leader or the majority even when at times it contradicts
one's ideas or the common good." This is closer to pakikibagay.33 This way, Andres makes
pakisama appear as a trait that encourages passivity and submission. In an earlier work,
however, Andres (1986: 43) tells us: "The worst thing that can be said about a Filipino is
"walang paki 34 or he does not share or cannot relate or get along with others. The philosophy
of each man for himself (kanya- kanya) is the opposite of 'pakikisama."" He (44) adds that
"Filipinos censor negative attitudes such as 'matapobre' (one who despises the poorer member
of the community) and 'wala akong pakialam' or the 'What the heck syndrome."" In here, I agree
with the way Andres defines pakisama by way of its antonym- "each man for himself."

Aside from the etymology and literal translation of pakisama, how else should we define and
understand its concept? I agree with the English translation Santiago and Enriquez (1986)
present alongside the term pakisama. They say it is "being along with." But I think "being with" is
better (please see note for the crucial difference). If I were asked the English concept close to
that of pakisama, I think it is congeniality. Being congenial, therefore, is close to may pakisama.

Like may pakisama, being congenial implies and is implied, involves, and relates to a lot of
possible behaviors described in the following ways and examples: agreeable, benevolent,
companionable, cordial, empathic, friendly, helpful, pleasant, sympathetic, etc. Like pakisama,
congeniality suggests being a good and nice companion. As pointed out earlier, a potential doer
of acts portraying pakisama need not be a friend or relative (in-group) but an acquaintance
knowing how it is to be a good and nice companion. The skill of being such a kind of companion
can, therefore, be applied or practiced for the sake of and upon others who are not necessarily
close or dear to one. In this sense, pakisama is less preferential than friendship. The notion of
being friendly is not equivalent to that of being a friend. But being congenial and friendly,
including acts portraying pakisama serve as tools for developing good friendships and
presuppose good friendships. There is yet another view worth examining. Frank Lynch relates
pakisama to Smooth Interpersonal Relations or SIR.

PAKIKISAMA AND SMOOTH INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS

Lynch (1963:10) defines SIR as "a facility at getting along with others in such a way as to avoid
outward signs of conflict." He enumerates some outward signs of conflict and then describes
how SIR is used as a facility or tool at getting along with others:

[SIR] connotes the smile, the friendly lift of the eyebrow, the pat on the back, the squeeze of the
arm, the word of praise or friendly concern. It means being agreeable, even under difficult
circumstances, and of keeping quiet or out of sight when discretion passes the word. It means a
sensitivity to what other people feel at any given moment, and a willingness and ability to
change tack (if not direction) to catch the lightest favoring breeze.

The examples Lynch enumerates show that SIR is closer to pakikibagay [fitting-in or tuning-in],
pakikitungo [civility], and pagkakasundo [getting along]. I have been pointing out that the
conceptions of pakikisama shown so far are closer to other traits, like pagkakasundo,
pakikibagay, and pakikitungo. I hold an opinion crucial at this point. I think these traits may be
practiced without pakikisama; but these may serve as preludes to the practice of pakikisama.
Also, these may be interpreted as acts showing pakikisama when companionship has been
established. This way, I am lead to think that pakikisama implies them but not the other way
around.

It appears that Lynch thinks the other way around. If we take SIR as equivalent to
pagkakasundo, then this can only be possible with the presence of pakikisama and two other
requirements he mentions, namely, euphemism and the use of a go-between. He (1963: 10)
thinks "SIR is acquired and preserved principally by three means: pakikisama, euphemism, and
the use of a go-between." If SIR is acquired and preserved by the three means enumerated,
then that means pakikisama is considered a norm or a guide so that SIR may be achieved.38
Lynch (1963: 10) adds: "At times the word pakikisama is used as synonymous with what I
understand by SIR; when so employed, the word is very frequently (almost predictably)
translated as 'good public relations."" I think "good public relations" is close to the concepts of
pagkakasundo, pakikibagay, and pakikitungo. And we said these are possible even without
pakikisama but pakikisama is not possible without any one of these. The absence of at least
one among them serves as a good reason why one may refuse to practice acts of pakikisama.
Lynch taking SIR and pakikisama as synonymous has its origin in the way he translates
pakikisama as "getting along," meaning pagkakasundo. SIR as he describes it is close to
pagkakasundo, including pakikibagay and pakikitungo. This shows one thing significant. The
concept pakikisama has a clear definition being the concept of companion. But defining
pakikisama as a trait is difficult for it is always understood in terms of other traits and values.

Lynch also distinguishes SIR from pakikisama. He (1963: 10) believes "the term pakikisama is
more commonly used with a meaning narrower than SIR. In this more restricted sense it means
'giving in,' 'following the lead or suggestion of another;' in a word, concession. It refers
especially to the lauded practice of yielding to the will of the leader or majority so as to make the
group decision unanimous. No one likes a hold-out." Understanding pakisama as concession
solicits the same argument hurled against Andres. If pakikisama is used with a meaning
narrower than that of SIR then it might be, in this sense, a component or part of the larger value
SIR.39 SIR is realized through pakikisama or concession. In case he considers SIR a value, as
Enriquez implies, then pakikisama might be seen as a "lesser" or "weaker" value.

Whether the trait pakikisama is considered a norm to practice a value, a component of a larger
value, or a value itself is less important than the fact that it definitely is of value. It is a trait worth
having for a Filipino. Filipinos appreciate people who possess this trait. We can say there is a
degree of excellence attached to the trait itself-not necessarily for ethical reasons but in the way
one relates to or with others. Pakikisama is an important facility or tool intrinsically desirable and
valuable in our interpersonal relationships not only because of itself, also because of the other
traits and values it implies and that imply it. A relationship where pakikisama is practiced is of
better quality compared to one where no traces of the trait are observed or seen. It is good
enough if there is pagkakasundo, pakikibagay, or pakikitungo but better if there is pakikisama
for it includes at least one of these.

Andres (1987: 75) says, "pakikisama is an important facility or tool in getting along with others,
in maintaining harmonious interpersonal relationships within the confines of the home as well as
outside of it. It is through pakikisama that one becomes socially accepted." This is agreeable but
would be better said as "facility or tool to be with others" ("being with others") instead of "getting
along with others." It is precisely for this reason that the trait tends to be abused by others. They
rely on the argument that one becomes socially accepted if one has pakikisama. This now leads
us to the ways the trait is abused.

ABUSE OF PAKIKISAMA ("NEGATIVE EFFECTS")

The abuse of pakikisama as a trait is the result of misunderstanding its concept. Some
misunderstand the concept of a good and nice companion. The trait's abuse is sometimes
based on the premise that one wants to maintain good relations with others. The others,
knowing this desire that one has, take advantage and abuse the trait.

More than anything else, the Filipino wants to get along well with everyone whom he considers
as very necessary to maintain good relations in order to feel that he belongs and to be socially
accepted. Human relations is pakikisama to Filipinos. Unfortunately, this Filipino value has not
been fully understood; in fact, it has been used many times in a negative way (Andres 1996:
148).

Some people abuse others by taking advantage of their effort to be on good terms with them. In
the process the trait pakikisama acquires an irreverent meaning. The distasteful practice of
abusing and taking advantage of the other in the name of pakikisama buries and hides its real
intrinsic value and worth. One good example showing how the trait is abused is given by
Gorospe (1988:32). The example is that of a sabungero40 who wins in a cockfight.

He is expected by his group to spend all the money he won on his bet so that he can give a
"blow out" to the whole group. If he refuses or tries to save some of the money for his family, he
is called mayabang (proud) or kuripot (stingy). In other words, he is regarded as a very bad
sport (masamang makisama). So he yields to social pressure even to the point of being in debt
again or dead drunk on basil or tuba2 just in order to have mabuting pakikisama. This example
will suffice to show the wrong understanding and use of pakikisama.

In this case, it is the group that abuses a member in the name of pakisama. We must also
consider a case where one abuses the others in the group. For example, a man prepares food
and drinks for his friends who pay him a visit. After eating and drinking for several hours, the
others ask their friend's permission so they may leave. Now, the host refuses them to leave
even if they are drunk and exhausted and late. Instead, he convinces them to drink and eat

some more even when he no longer has any money left. It is time for his family to rest and sleep
but he obligates his wife to cook some more and sends his children to purchase more drinks
from a near-by store on credit. He goes to that extent so that his friends will consider him as one
who has pakisama. As mentioned, he is not the only one obligated to treat his visitors well but
also his family. We understand he is not the only one shamed, but his family too, if his visitors
are not treated well. But the circumstances show that he is overdoing it. Taking more alcohol
and food than one can handle coupled with exhaustion is not pleasurable. The pakisama shown
by the host is enough to ruin the others' evening and moods.

Pakikisama is also abused when one is consistently giving in or yielding to the will of the leader
or the group. This is bad enough, but giving in or yielding to the will of the leader or group is
worse if it is against one's will. This usually happens for the sake of pakikisama for uniting the
wills of a group's members. Miranda writes something relevant to this. He (1993: 155) says,
"taken in this sense, in fact, pakikisama becomes a misnomer for itself, since pakikisama
contains a hint of forced cooperation or accommodation." What follows is the way Andres (1986:
42-3) explains it:

Many times, "pakikisama" becomes the practice of yielding to the will of the leader or to the
group as to make the group's decision unanimous. Conformity to the group's norms is rewarded
with cooperation and assistance while non-conformity is punished by withdrawal of support.
Sometimes, "pakikisama" leads to "small-group centeredness"-the feeling and loyalty to a small
primary group. Its resulting negative effects are "small group thinking," "kami" rather than
"tayo"43 is the goal, lack of a sense of national unity, regionalism, selfishness and "walang
bigayan walang lamangan" mentality.

This passage from Andres easily assists us into thinking that pakisama entails an element of
blackmail (Miranda says "forced cooperation and accommodation" while Lynch calls it
"concession"). Its description also manifests narrow-mindedness on the part of the members of
the group.45 Pakikisama is here portrayed as a reason for a group's decision to be consistently
unanimous. Conforming to the will of the leader or group has its rewards, such as, cooperation
and assistance or support. This is also relative to the concept of utang na loob. The group has a
debt of gratitude or obligation to the member who always conforms but failure to do so means
the withdrawal of support. This suggests that pakisama invokes the fallacies known as appeal to
force and appeal to advantage for the purpose of aligning wills.
This is probably true in the case of groups that practice pakisama in an extremely abusive way
or groups consisting of narrow-minded members. Let us qualify certain points. Assume that
members of a group are always obliged to conform to the will of the leader or group or at least
to arrive at a consensus just so the group's decision is unanimous, then the leader or group
ruins the spirit of true pakikisama. This is because the trait is not properly practiced.
Consistently imposing one's will upon another and obliging another's will to conform to one's will
in the name of pakikisama is not pakikisama but coercion.

It can be different for the case of other groups. There are numerous instances too when the
leader or the group "gives in" to the wishes of at least one member. For example, if one
member- not necessarily "the leader" thinks more reasonably and saner than the rest. Or, there
are other acceptable reasons, such as, studying for an examination instead of joining the
group's activities. We need to point out one more thing. Insinuating that a group ought to always
have a leader is misleading, unless we talk of gangs in its literal sense. The concept "leader"
should not be conceived of as one who consistently leads and ought to be obeyed at all times.
Ordinarily, members of a group share equal importance being human beings involved with each
other. In one particular occasion one may stand out as compared to the rest; but, this is the
case for each and every one of them every once in a while or from time to time.

There is some truth to the claim that support is withdrawn when one consistently refuses to
cooperate with the aims and purposes of the group without good reason. In this case, one is not
("not being with") acting the way a member of a group must. But this is not necessarily true for
long-standing friendships where one understands the other's eccentricities and mood swings. In
good friendships, eccentricities, mood swings, even fetishes, are sufficient to serve as good
reasons! In History of the Filipino people, Agoncillo and Guerrero (Andres 1996: 148-9) clarify
the matter by way of a loose translation:"In its original connotation, pakikisama may be
translated loosely as the intensive signification camaraderie or the spirit of comradeship, the
main elements of which are unselfishness and good faith. There is, therefore, no element of
deceit, or dishonesty, or subversion of justice attached to the term." I agree with this view, and
think this is one good way of explaining pakisama as a concept and trait. The phrase "intensive
signification of comradeship" is obviously compatible with the concept of "companionship."

There is a general assumption and a misconception suggesting that one who does not practice
pakikisama is a masamang tao [bad person]. The assumption is a corollary to the notion that the
trait pakisama is necessary for living a moral life. This assumption is false. Very often, this
misconception is actually the opinion of individuals who do not receive the favors they ask from
others. This practice of claiming that a person does not have pakikisama when one does not get
one's request or want is so prevalent that it has become a cultural practice. This is one way of
justifying the importance of one's demands or needs. One making such a claim is arguing from
insufficient evidence.48

One may not give favors asked by another because of legitimate reasons. But these reasons fail
to be understood. Being the case, there is no other inference possible but perceiving the one
refusing to give favors-with good reasons-as having no pakikisama, hence, a bad or evil person.
One does not have to cooperate or fraternize with others as long as one has reasons. In this
sense, pakikisama gives way to paninindigan [conviction]." It does not follow, however, that one
is uncooperative at all times and with everyone. Miranda (1993:156) describes the person
without pakikisama:

He is unwilling to contribute of himself and his goods; he cares only for himself; he shares only
for the sake of his private interests; he has no paki[ki]sama because he has no damay (sense
for the whole, solidarity). Conversely, one must challenge the uncritical cultural assumption that
one who has no paki[ki]sama must be masamang-tao; we have seen that this is simply not the
case, and in fact violates the deepest logic of the culture.

However, there are situations which lend truth to the cultural assumption and practice that one
who does not have pakikisama is a masamang-tao. One does not have pakikisama if one
intentionally refuses to make some situations less tedious for others. For example, I see my
neighbor's two-year old daughter playing in a busy street and likely to be hit by passing
vehicles, but I do not inform my neighbor nor bring the kid home to her house. This is one way
of showing I have no pakikisama because I show no concern, pagpapahalaga sa kapwa.
Mostly, it is the gravity of the situation. that serves as the basis whether the cultural assumption
or practice holds truth or not. On the other hand, we may argue that under certain
circumstances involving menial favors, one who does not practice pakikisama is not necessarily
a bad person. Under these circumstances, however, one possibly fails to be socially accepted.
We are arguing that the wrong practice of pakikisama is actually based upon the
misconceptions of the concept itself. If one, for example, conceptualizes pakikisama as a trait
that implies forced cooperation or submitting to the will of the group or its leader, then one's
practice of the trait would definitely manifest this misconception. To conceive of a companion as
one who must always submit to the will of the group or its leader is to misunderstand the
concept of pakisama. The misconceptions of pakikisama as a concept brings forth the wrong
ways of practicing it as a trait. We then see the trait abused and perceive its malpractice as its
negative aspects or effects. Andres (1996: 149-150) correctly points out that:

Today, however, due to the lack of Filipino values education there are people who do not
understand the art of pakikisama. To them it's a matter of being sip-sip to the boss, to the
people who work around them and to the management. They get along well with others even if
they go beyond their limits. The feeling that they are accepted by people, especially by those
with authority, makes them feel like a '10-foot' man. There are also people who are misguided
and have a misinterpretation of pakikisama. They say that it is the way to use people in order to
achieve personal goal. Thus, the feeling of being used and abused is the effect of pakikisama.
Due to the inroads of Western civilization, particularly politics and materialism, the term
pakikisama, according to Flordeliza Geronimo-Cruz, has been debased into an attitude that
makes a crook well-liked or at least admired. For a person to be described as mabuting
makisama, he must be dishonest mentally or otherwise, or unjust, or unfair, or unprincipled by
subordinating justice in order to be in good graces to many naïve people, or to use the badly
battered cliché-to have a good public image.' He is mabuting makisama if he helps a politician
fellowman by stealing from the public toll in order to practice bogus philanthropy. A secretary is
mabuting makisama with her boss if she tells his wife when she calls up that the boss is in
conference when in fact he is out dating his querida; a driver is mabuting makisama with the
boss when the former delivers a gift or message to the latter's sweetheart; a worker is mabuting
makisama if he punches in for a late co-worker.

Misunderstanding the concept of and the malpractice of the trait pakikisama just described
leads us to think that we must act according to the hypothetical imperative.50 That means we
must only practice the trait because of the privileges and rewards that we shall receive as a
consequence. The abuse of the trait, seen as its negative aspects, is the result of
misunderstanding its concept. Misunderstanding the concept leads to the malpractice of the
trait. It is incorrect to claim that pakikisama has negative aspects or effects. Some people have
a misconception of what it really is and so practice the trait the wrong way. We may say that
people practice the trait the wrong way because they misunderstand the real essence of
pakikisama. But is it not correct to say, for example, that it is not pakikisama that they practice
but the violation of the trait itself? It is not the trait that has negative aspects or effects. Its
concept is ambiguous because its definition is open to many interpretations (amphibolous). To
make this worse, the other concepts that its concept entails, such as, amor propio,
consideration and cooperation, empathy, friendliness, helpfulness, hiya, leniency, non-
opportunism, sympathy, utang na loob, etc., are misconstrued- either intentionally or not only for
the sake of satisfying the needs and wants of one party. In this sense, there is some sort of
special pleadings committed. Finally, the trait is practiced the wrong way and abused as a
result.

Although pakikisama is misconceived and practiced the wrong way, the value of pakikisama
either as a concept or trait remains.If others think that pakikisama is without value or worth, this
does not necessarily mean that pakikisama is without value or worth. If a couple decides to end
their marriage, for example, it is not marriage that loses value or worth. Its value remains. It is
the couple that ruins the value of marriage, probably thinking that marriage is useless and
worthless, therefore, ending their marriage in the process. The way they think of marriage and
behave as a result of the way they think is not in accordance with the real essence of marriage
but in accordance with violating the concept of marriage itself." What then is the real essence of
pakikisama? The real essence of pakikisama is what pakikisama really is and this refers to the
proper way of practicing the trait, often referred to as its positive aspects or effects.

WHAT PAKIKISAMA REALLY IS ("POSITIVE EFFECTS")

Inquiring about the real essence of pakikisama is inquiring what pakikisama does to make the
Filipino good. Pakikisama can, indeed, make the Filipino good whether we consider it a trait or
norm towards a value, a part of a larger value, or a value itself. When properly directed and
understood, pakikisama leads to very positive results. For example,

[Pakikisama] leads to pakikipagkapwa-tao, that is, treating and dealing with people on equal
terms and respecting another person's right and winning his respect for you. It leads to
pagpapahalaga sa kapwa or concern for others. It makes the Filipino group-oriented and to
think together. It makes the Filipino community- oriented (tayo mentality). There is mutual or
community sharing among them. Pakikisama cannot be divorced from paggalang sa kapwa-tao,
pagdadamayan, and utang-na-loob. It makes the Filipino makatao. To be makatao, one should
have that concern and feeling for others. To be makatao is sharing one's talent and time with
less fortunate members of the community. Some sayings that extol this value are kung
samasama, kayang-kaya, and abot kamay para sa kasaganaan (Andres 1986: 43).

Gorospe (1988: 33), on the other hand, insists that the real essence of pakikisama is realized if
it is applied not only to one's small group but to the larger community to which one really owes a
deeper utang na loob. He continues by writing:

It makes the individual realize his oneness with the community and his personal commitment
and loyalty to the community in return for a debt that he can never repay. For his own good is
so bound up with the good of the community that without group identity he really has no self-
identity. This is what Fr. Eugene Moran, S.J. means by 'community development,' namely, that
the individual does not come as an outsider to improve the community but rather becomes part
of the community and gets himself involved with the community interests, convinced that only
by developing the community can he develop his own personality. The positive value inherent in
the Filipino concept of pakikisama can be reoriented not only towards nation-building but also
towards the renewal of the Church in the Philippines.

Andres (1986:45) equates pakikisama with bayanihan or doing things as a group and relates
this to the community.

Bayanihan for the Filipino is the genuine concern for every member of the family, as well as the
community in which we live. It is many hands and minds working together, each one
contributing his share, doing his best for the attainment of a common goal. It is the sharing
together of the fruits of our own common toil and sacrifice. It is working together to our utmost to
get the job done; it is to share together in the harvest in good or bad weather.

Pakikisama makes the Filipino makapamilya or family- oriented. There is bayanihan in the
family because of pakikisama. Bayanihan as actually applied in the family, is looking after the
welfare of the lowliest and youngest members; equitable partaking of the fruits of the family's
labors; reciprocal material and moral support in times of crises and emergency; guidance and
training of the weaker members and encouragement and due recognition of the strong members
(Andres 1986: 44).

Andres (1986:44) emphasizes his point by saying, "The true meaning of pakikisama or
bayanihan is community orientation, community thinking and community action. Thus, there is
abuloy (the act of giving and asking donation) for someone who died in the community. There is
pagkamakabayan or nationalism." Gorospe, on the other hand, explains pakikisama as
bayanihan in relation to human dignity to distinguish it from forced labor. He (1988: 32-33)
writes:
To be secure the individual needs a sense of belongingness to a group of one's own kind and
the price of security is loyalty to one's in-group. To belong to a group demands a spirit of
cooperation, an attitude of give and take, a sensitivity to the feelings of others. These positive
aspects of pakikisama are better expressed by the word bayanihan or togetherness. It is the
true spirit of pakikisama that has given us one of the eight wonders of the world, the rice
terraces of Banawe. It is interesting to note that the great pyramids of Egypt were built at the
expense of human dignity and freedom....But the Banawe rice terraces will not only remain a
wonder of the world but a lasting monument to human dignity and freedom since they were built
so that human beings could be free from hunger and want and maintain their dignity and
creativity.

"Pakikisama makes the Filipino basically good" (Andres 1986: 44). This is one reason why I am
sometimes inclined-if not tempted to think that pakikisama is a value. Although I am totally
convinced it is a trait exhibited by means of other traits and values, it might serve us some good
to conceive of it as a value for now. Truly, many examples exhibit that pakikisama is either a
norm or guide to achieve a higher value or a part of a larger value still. But one possible way we
can argue that pakikisama is a value is to make clear that it is a personal value to achieve an
end value. If we claim that pakikipagkapwa-tao, pagpapahalaga sa kapwa, being community-
oriented, and being makatao are end values (the higher value), then these can be realized with
or without pakikisama. Nevertheless, they may be achieved through pakikisama just as well.
This is the case because people may practice pakikipagkapwa-tao, etc. whether or not they
possess pakikisama as a personal value. We might also see it as a value but a "lesser" or
"weaker" value. In this case, pakikisama is necessary to practice or realize the "encompassing"
value. If we may consider makapamilya

(family-oriented) and pagpapahalaga sa kapwa (concern for others), pagdadamayan and utang
na loob as "encompassing" values, then we view pakisama as the "lesser" or "weaker" value
necessary for the others' sake. This view suggests that these values are not possible without
pakisama. Being family-oriented and concerned for others, being involved or sympathetic and
obligated are possible only if we "are with" others as a companion. Lastly, if we consider
belongingness and loyalty to one's in-group as values and equate these to pakisama as
Gorospe (1988:32) does then it is logically valid to say that it is a value. This time, however, the
argument we used to signify that pakisama is of value works against us. It does not mean to say
that pakisama is a value just because we think it is!

Ultimately, we must say that pakikisama not only brings out the best in Filipinos but is also
among the best that is Filipino. Andres (1996: 150) reveals,

Pakikisama is the act of reaching out to people and trying to know them, and understand them
in their need to develop in themselves as potential members of the group and as assets to the
organization...It is a symbiotic relationship of give and take that eventually leads to
understanding. Pakikisama if applied just like what the 'People Power' did at EDSA when
Filipinos put their hands, hearts, and minds working together, doing the best and the right thing,
then there's no reason for us not to be united. Pakikisama embodies the best that's Filipino if we
a) work together for a common purpose, b) move forward together, c) help friends, neighbors,
and the needy, and d) love our country.

CONCLUSION
Pakikisama is both a concept and a trait. Defining its concept as "being with" or companion finds
it origin in the method prescribed by Enriquez. More or less, the prescription's advice is to start
with the use of the Philippine language to understand concepts of Filipino traits and values. This
we did to examine the concept of pakisama. And this we did by seeking the aid of another
Philippine language, the Ilocano. The method is actually an application of Enriquez's advice if
we wish to see it that way. We are forced to give a "precise" definition of pakisama's concept by
way of its etymology and literal translation, so that we may be able to think of it in a clear and
concise way.

We have argued that without a clear understanding of what the concept of pakisama is, without
a clear definition, the concept is incapable of serving as a basis for describing its trait properly.
Defining the trait pakisama remains a difficulty because its practice is tied up with other traits
and values. The concept of companion, like that of being congenial, also includes many other
concepts used to describe what it really is. In this essay, however, certain distinctions are made
to give us a clearer viewpoint. It has been made clear that the trait pakikisama either involves
many other traits or too associated with the concepts of other traits and values that it becomes
difficult to distinguish it from the others. We have pointed out that being the case, there is a
strong tendency to think of pakikisama as no different from or similar to the traits and values that
it either implies or imply it. Understanding pakikisama entails the understanding of other traits
and values as well.

Most important and interesting part of the paper is the issue about the way the concept
pakikisama is defined and understood. There have been some side trips made along the way
which delve into issues. For example-is pakikisama a norm or guide so that other traits may be
practiced, or is it a component of a larger trait, or is it a value itself? We have also examined
why people think it has negative aspects and it has been argued that this impression is formed
only because the trait is abused. Some think the trait has positive effects and we argued that
this impression is borne out when we determine what the trait is really supposed to be.

Whether it is a value or not, pakikisama is of value and it holds so much worth for the Filipino. It
is culturally enforced starting within the environment of the family. In the case of Filipinos, it is
difficult to imagine interpersonal relationships that do not include either the concept or trait of
pakikisama. It is a trait worth having for the Filipino. Filipinos take its concept seriously and a
degree of excellence is attached to the trait. As Andres says, pakikisama makes the Filipino
basically good. As a concept and a trait, it invites us to do good by responding to the call of the
others so that we may practice one's ability that all relationships depend on the ability to be a
good and nice companion.

REFERENCE:
 Leoncini, Dante Luis P. (2005). A conceptual analysis of pakikisama. In Rolando M. Gripaldo
(ed.), Filipino Cultural Traits: Claro R. Ceniza Lectures. Council for Research in Values and
Philosophy. pp. 157--184. Retrieved from https://books.google.com.ph/books?
hl=tl&lr=&id=hXJe6vKMjroC&oi=fnd&pg=PA157&dq=research+on+pakikisama+on+leadership&
ots=IycQFvnWRg&sig=5AZfOyW9efnDdxE3xFJ23JYEN6E&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=resear
ch%20on%20pakikisama%20on%20leadership&f=false