130 Benitez Luzano Jiolito.

HCMCOUJS-Social Sciences, 12(1), 130-143

In defense of Filipino values and norms:

Debunking the ambivalence theory
Benitez Luzano Jiolito1*
1
Cebu Normal University, Philippines
*
Corresponding author: benitezj@cnu.edu.ph

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

DOI:10.46223/HCMCOUJS. No nation has been so scorned for her values and norms by
soci.en.12.1.2215.2022 her own people, including the most educated of them, as the
Philippines. This study critically peruses the ambivalence theory of
Filipino values and norms to debunk its central claim that Filipino
values and norms are ambivalent due to their inherent potential to
be good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, strength and
weakness. Using as frameworks of analysis the sociological and
psychological postulates of ambivalence as well as the Aristotelian
notion of virtue, the perusal yields five paramount findings that
sum up the errors of this theory. First, the problematic and
Received: March 19th, 2022
dichotomic approach to Filipino values and norms as good and bad,
Revised: April 28th, 2022 right and wrong, weakness and strength, virtue and vice to warrant
Accepted: May 27th, 2022 the forgone conclusion of ambivalence. Second, the epic confusion
in which the transgressive attitudes, traits, and behaviors are
deemed part of the defining features of Filipino values and norms.
Third, Filipino values are blamed for or used to justify the negative
attitudes, weak character traits, and misdeeds of Filipinos. Fourth,
the proponents' negative and inconsistent interpretations of Filipino
values and norms. Fifth, the sociological and psychological
postulates of ambivalence and the Aristotelean concept of virtue do
not support the claim of ambivalence. On the strengths of the
findings, the ambivalence theory is effectively debunked. With the
Keywords: putative post-ambivalence period, comes the challenge to disabuse
ambivalence; character traits; the minds of those who have credulously professed the
Filipino values; norms; virtue ambivalence creed.

1. Introduction
No nation has been so scorned for her values and norms by her own people, including the
most educated of them, as the Philippines. The view, that Filipino values and moral norms are
ambivalent, such that they have the potential for good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice,
strength and weakness, is peddled by many Filipino scholars and academics so that it has
become a widespread belief among Filipinos (Aguas, 2016; Andres, 1981; Bulloch, 2017; Dy,
1994; Hong, 2019; Miranda 1992; Macaranas, 2018). This paper peruses the central claim of the
ambivalence theory of Filipino values and norms to determine whether or not it is supported by
the existing theories of ambivalence. It likewise argues that the claim of ambivalence theory is
erroneous and unfounded.
 Benitez Luzano Jiolito. HCMCOUJS-Social Sciences, 12(1), 130-143 131

Studies on Filipino values in the Philippines began in the 1960s. The earliest works dealt
with Filipino values, personality, modernation, and culture (Tan, 1997). The succeeding decades
saw a growing literature on Filipino culture and society. Benitez (2020, 2022a) classified
different works on Filipino values and norms into four categories based on their primary
objectives.
The first category consists of studies whose primary objectives are the understanding of
the Filipino values system and analysis of the core Filipino value concepts. The works of Lynch
and de Guzman (1973), Enriquez (1978, 1980, 1992), Mercado (1976, 1979, 1994), and Jocano
(1997, 1998a, 1998b) are among the most important and influential, not only in this category in
particular, but also in the literature on Filipino values in general. The second category, which
represents the largest bulk of the works on Filipino values and norms, includes the studies of
Kaut (1961), Bulatao (1992, 1964), Holnsteiner (1973), de Mesa (1979, 1986), Miranda (1989,
1992, 2003), de Guia (2005), and many others, who have profusely enriched the understanding
of several Filipino value concepts. The third category appropriates certain Filipino value
concepts into the field of moral philosophy as exemplified by the writings of Mercado (1976,
1979), de Castro (1995, 1999), Reyes (2015), Cleofas (2019), Tablan (2021), among others.
Recently, some Filipino scholars have ventured into the integration of core Filipino value
concepts into virtue ethics.
The fourth category, the central focus of this paper, consists of studies that are
particularly critical of Filipino values and norms. This category banners the ambivalence theory
of Filipino values and norms as exemplified by the works of Hong (2019), Macaranas (2018),
Bulloch (2017), Aguas (2016), Miranda (1992), and Andres (1981), among others, who either
claim or subscribe to the view that Filipino values are ambivalent. However, the focal tenets of
the ambivalence theory of Filipino values are articulated in the works of Emerita Quito’s The
Ambivalence of Filipino Traits and Values, Patricia Licuanan’s a Moral Recovery Program:
Building a People--Building a Nation, and Vitaliano Gorospe’s Understanding the Filipino
Values System (Dy, 1994).
This study considers Quito, Gorospe, and Licuanan as the main proponents of the
ambivalence theory of Filipino values and norms.
2. Theoretical framework
This paper critically peruses the ambivalence theory of Filipino values and norms to
debunk its central claim. It contends that the claim of ambivalence on Filipino values and norms
is erroneous and problematic. To achieve this objective, an expository synthesis of the works of
the three major proponents of the ambivalence theory is presented. The central claim of the
ambivalence theory and the arguments offered to support it is then evaluated according to the
sociological and psychological postulates of ambivalence and the Aristotelian notion of virtue.
The choice of these frameworks is formally and substantially necessary. If, as claimed by
the proponents, Filipino values are ambivalent, then it is only logical to evaluate it according to
the existing and relevant postulates of ambivalence, namely, the sociological and psychological
theories of ambivalence. Moreover, since it is further claimed that the Filipino values system is
paradigmatically akin to the Greek ideal of moderation, then it is likewise fitting to evaluate this
claim according to the Aristotelian notion of virtue, which is the most systematic philosophical
account of the tenets of moderation.
The Sociological and Psychological Postulates of Ambivalence. The Merriam-Webster
(2021) online dictionary defines “ambivalence” as the existence of “simultaneous and
132 Benitez Luzano Jiolito. HCMCOUJS-Social Sciences, 12(1), 130-143

contradictory attitudes or feelings (such as attraction and repulsion) toward an object, person, or
action,” “continual fluctuation (as between one thing and its opposite),” and “uncertainty as to
which approach to follow.” From the given definition, it is clear that ambivalence denotes the
individual’s attitude or disposition toward something.
In Sociological Ambivalence and Other Essays (Merton, 1976), the prominent American
sociologist, Robert K. Merton, hailed as the founder of modern sociology, traces the idea of
ambivalence to Eugen Bleuler (1857 - 1939), a Swiss psychiatrist, who coined and introduced
the term in the field of psychology. Accordingly, Bleuler distinguishes ambivalence as cognitive
(contradictory ideas), volitional (conflicting wishes), and affective (positive and negative
feelings). Bleuler considers ambivalence as the simultaneous presence of conflicting passions of
love and hate toward a single object (Griffiths, 2021). Notably, Bleuler understands the concept
of ambivalence as a psychological phenomenon, particularly in the context of schizophrenia.
Prior to Bleuler, philosophical reflections on the human experience of ambivalence are already
extant in the works of the seventeenth century French philosophers Pascal and Montaigne.
Merton (1976) explains that while certain types of psychological and sociological
ambivalence are empirically related, they are nonetheless theoretically disparate. In a
sociologically restricted sense, ambivalence refers to conflicting normative expectations emanating
from socially defined statuses and roles. In this context, social structures, rather than psychological
states, generate conditions that give rise to ambivalence. For instance, ambivalence emerges in a
situation in which a police officer arrests a suspected drug lord who turns out to be a close friend.
This situation produces a tension between conflicting demands associated with friendship and
the proper discharge of one’s duty as a law enforcer.
Moreover, Merton speaks of a subset of sociological ambivalence which occurs at the
crossroads of incompatible interests and values. For instance, conflicting values and interests
may put scholars in an ambivalent situation when their professional values clash with the
interests of their organization. In this context, sociological ambivalence arises from conflicting
norms within a given social structure.
Berman (2012) describes ambivalence as the failure of individuals or society to distance
itself from certain beliefs, feelings, or interactions that it claims to oppose or uphold. In The
Mendicants’ Rap Poetry: Critique from the Margins, Benitez (2015) remarks that the existence
of ‘mendicant rappers’ is a subterranean social reality that rebuts the society’s public profession
of the values of justice, love, and solidarity. Blazina and Shen-Miller (2011) consider
ambivalence as “conflicted, uncertain, and paradoxical feelings.” Weigert (Hillcoat-Nallétamby
& Phillips, 2011) frames ambivalence as an emotional experience of contradictory feelings
toward an object. Smelser (Hillcoat-Nallétamby & Phillips, 2011) posits that ambivalence is the
simultaneous occurrence of “attraction and repulsion, love and hate” in an individual. In similar
manner, Maio, Haddock, and Verplanken (2019) define ambivalence as a state of conflict in an
individual who simultaneously regards an object, idea, or person in a positive and negative light.
Hillcoat-Nallétamby and Phillips (2011) reviewed the concept of ambivalence within the
ambit of sociology of relations. Citing Bauman (1991), Giddens (1991), Beck (1194), and Smart
(1999), Hillcoat-Nallétamby and Phillips (2011) cast postmodernity as a life that is characterized
by conflict, contradiction, disorder, anxiety, and uncertainty due to its inherent tendency to
abolish the ordering, normative elements of civilization. These postmodern conditions of life are
said to cause manifold forms of ambivalence that are rather permanent than transitory (Benitez,
2022b).
 Benitez Luzano Jiolito. HCMCOUJS-Social Sciences, 12(1), 130-143 133

Studies on ambivalence are by nature sociological and psychological. From the

sociological point of view, Connidis and McMullin (2000a, 2000b) as quoted by Hillcoat-
Nallétamby and Phillips (2011) argue that ambivalence should be framed within both the social
structure and individual autonomy. Locating ambivalence within the social structure alone, as
Merton had earlier suggested, denies the role of personal agency in social interactions. Besides, a
great number of empirical studies on ambivalence has largely focused on interpersonal exchange.
While studies on ambivalence assume socio-psychological perspectives, ambivalence itself is
primarily a sociological phenomenon that stems from the social actors’ actions within the
network of social relations.
All things considered, ambivalence is a sociological and psychological phenomenon. As
a sociological reality, ambivalence is brought about in an individual by conflicting interests,
values, and norms as well as by situations in which the statuses and roles of social actors
generate conflicting demands. Being a psychological fact, ambivalence is characterized by the
simultaneous occurrence of conflicted, paradoxical, and contradictory beliefs and passions in an
individual toward the same object. Undoubtedly, the notion of ambivalence does not apply to
values, norms, and character traits because it pertains to the social actors' experiences under
certain sociological and psychological conditions.
Aristotle’s Concept of Virtue. Following Socrates, who integrated the exhortation “gnothi
seauton” (Know Thyself), written in Apollo’s temple at Delphi, into his ethical thought (Barakat,
2017), Aristotle exacted the notion of virtue as ‘golden mean’ from the Delphic inscription “meden
agan” (Nothing in Excess). Aristotle stresses that the phronimos or the “practically wise person”
possesses the “orthos logos” (right knowledge) of the “kalon” (morally beautiful) and the
“aischron” (morally shameful, ugly) so that the phronimos acts accordingly by determining the
course of moderation, the golden mean between excess and deficit (Meyer, 2008).
In Nicomachean Ethics (Books II-V), Aristotle discusses two types of excellences,
intellectual and ethical (Crisp, 2004). The intellectual excellences are developed primarily by
teaching, while the ethical excellences are acquired through practice and habituation. The ethical
excellences, also known as moral virtues, are determined by the intellectual virtue of phronesis
or practical wisdom. Phronêsis regulates moral virtues, which in turn regulate disposition,
character and action. Aristotle defines virtue as the middle ground or the mean between two
extremes, the vice of excess and the vice of deficiency. The virtue of courage, for instance, is the
mean between the vices of boldness and fear. As a virtue, courage hits the mark of moral
excellence, whereas cowardice and boldness miss the golden mean.
The Homeric ideal of moderation, or meden agan, finds its counterpart in the different
values systems across the world (Aurell, 2017; Dy, 1994) such as the Roman “in medio stat
virtus” (Virtue lies in the middle), the Buddhist and Confucian doctrine of the middle way, and
the Filipino “Hindi labis, hindi kulang, katamtaman lamang” (Neither in excess, nor in deficit,
but moderate). Since one of the proponents of the ambivalence theory of Filipino values and
norms categorically claims that the Filipino concept of value is akin to the concept of
moderation, then Aristotelian notion of virtue as golden mean is a fitting framework of analysis
in examining the merit of the claim that Filipino values and norms are ambivalent.
3. Discussion
The critical view against Filipino values and norms is the charge of ambivalence. While
many Filipino scholars and academics share this critical view (Aguas, 2016; Andres, 1981;
Bulloch, 2017; Hong, 2019; Macaranas, 2018; Miranda, 1992), the writings of Emerita Quito,
134 Benitez Luzano Jiolito. HCMCOUJS-Social Sciences, 12(1), 130-143

Vitaliano Gorospe, and Patricia Licuanan, published in the book Philippine Values in Education
and Culture (Dy, 1994), represent and articulate the principal tenets of the ambivalence theory of
Filipino values and norms.
Emerita Quito’s The Ambivalence of Filipino Traits and Values (Dy, 1994). Quito
proposes to examine the “negative Filipino traits” and the “negatives in the Filipino psyche” in
an attempt to cull out what she maintains to be positive and redeeming aspects of Filipino values.
Notwithstanding the nobility of her intent, she immediately typifies the Filipino as negatively-
oriented and a fault-finder, one, who not only emphasizes his/her “weaknesses, faults, and
defects,” but also considers his/her standard as that of “smallness, averageness, and mediocrity.”
In Quito’s eyes, the notions of grandeur and greatness are alien to the Filipino.
She follows through with a categorical claim that the Filipino traits and values such as
hiya (shame), ningas-cogon (procrastination), pakikisama (group loyalty), patigasan (test of
strength), bahala na (resignation), kasi (because, i.e., scapegoat), saving face, sakop (inclusion),
mañana or “bukas na” (procrastination), utang na loob (indebtedness), and kanya-kanya (self-
centeredness) are ambivalent. Quito demonstrates their ambivalence by singling out their
positive and negative characteristics, as shown in the table below:
Table 1
Ambivalent Filipino values and traits
Positive Values & Traits Negative
peace of mind hiya (shame) inhibits action
indifference, peace, ningas-cogon (procrastination) lack of perseverance
tranquility
absent of dissent pakikisama (group loyalty) condone evil for group peace,
harmony
fight for one’s right patigasan (test of strength) stubborn, vindictive, irrational
trust in superior power, bahala na (resignation) laziness camouflaged as
humility religiosity
seeing both sides; guiltless kasi (because, i.e., scapegoat) disowns responsibility
freedom from responsibility, saving face avoids responsibility
guilt, embarrassment
cares for family, clan sakop (inclusion) parasitic dependence on others
absence of stress, tension mañana or “bukas na” indolence, no
(procrastination) accomplishments
recognition of gratitude utang na loob (indebtedness) moral principles are violated
for the sake of gratitude
care of oneself, family kanya-kanya (self-centeredness) self-centered, selfish
Source: Quito (1994)
Regrettably, Quito offers no definition of ambivalence, yet the examples and
explanations she provides strongly amplifies an understanding of ambivalence as the coexistence
of positive and negative characteristics in a value or trait. A value is ambivalent because it
contains potentials for good and evil, right or wrong which are actualized in practice. The value
 Benitez Luzano Jiolito. HCMCOUJS-Social Sciences, 12(1), 130-143 135

of bahala na, for instance, is positive in the sense that it exhibits humility and trust in a superior
power, on the one hand, and negative in the sense that it demonstrates laziness garbed in
religiosity, on the other hand. In like manner, a character trait has a potential to be a virtue or
vice depending on how it is manifested. Kanya-kanya is positive when it is done for the sake of
oneself and family, but it becomes negative when it is exercised for selfish reasons.
Patricia Licuanan’s A Moral Recovery Program: Building a People -Building a
Nation (Dy, 1994). In her article, Licuanan begins with an observation that after the EDSA of
1986, the Filipinos were back to their old wicked ways of self-centeredness, disregard of
common good, lack of discipline and rigor, colonial mentality, emphasis on form rather than
substance, passivity, and reliance on leaders to take responsibility and solve the country’s
problems. She then turns her focus onto the great challenge of economic recovery,
reestablishment of democratic institutions, peace and social justice, changes in institutions and
people, all of which are essential ingredients to building a people and nation. All these will
happen if Filipinos reflect upon themselves, eliminate their weaknesses, and develop strength of
character.
Licuanan identifies various strengths and weaknesses of the Filipino character traits. The
strengths include pakikipagkapwa-tao (interpersonalism), family orientation, joy and humor,
flexibility, adaptability, and creativity, hard work and industry, faith and religiosity, and ability
to survive. The weaknesses consist of extreme personalism, extreme family centeredness, lack of
discipline, passitivity and lack of initiative, colonial mentality, kanya-kanya (self-centeredness)
syndrome, and lack of self-analysis and self-reflection.
Table 2
Strengths and weaknesses of Filipino character
Strengths Weaknesses
pakikipagkapwa-tao (interpersonalism) kanya-kanya syndrome (self-centeredness)
family orientation extreme family centeredness
hard work and industry passitivity and lack of initiative
flexibility, adaptability, creativity lack of self-analysis and self-reflection
joy and humor colonial mentality
faith and religiosity lack of discipline
ability to survive
Source: Licuanan (1994)
In fairness to Licuanan, she never categorically claims that Filipino character traits are
ambivalent. Nonetheless, a consistent reading of her work reveals that she does view Filipino
character traits as ambivalent. This reading is based on her description of certain character
strengths and weaknesses that pertain to the same value or trait. Accordingly, family orientation
is a strength for it not only provides a space for the expression of deep and genuine love,
commitment and responsibility among members, but it is also a source of personal identity,
emotional, and material support. However, family orientation becomes a weakness when it
regresses to extreme family-centeredness which is antithetical to the value of community and
common good. Moreover, Filipinos are hailed for their hard work, industry, flexibility,
adaptability, and creativity but they also are ridiculed for their passivity and lack initiative.
136 Benitez Luzano Jiolito. HCMCOUJS-Social Sciences, 12(1), 130-143

Filipinos are known for their value of pakikipagkapwa-tao, but they are likewise frowned upon
for their kanya-kanya (self-centered) mentality.
Vitaliano Gorospe’s Understanding the Filipino Values System (Dy, 1994). Gorospe
accentuates the existence of universally shared human values that are particularized in various
societies and cultures. He likewise recognizes the common feature inherent in many values systems
in the world, which is the idea of moderation, variously expressed in Greek as “meden agan”
(Nothing in Excess), in Latin as “in medio stat viritus” (Virtues lies in the middle), in the Buddhist
and Confucian philosophy as the doctrine of the mean, and in the Filipino normative thought as
“Hindi labis, hindi kulang, katamtaman lamang” (Neither in excess, nor in deficit, but sufficient).
A section in Gorospe’s article bears the heading “Filipino Values: Ambivalence and
Split-Level Christianity.” Under this section the author poses the question, “Are Filipino values
good or bad?” to which he immediately offers the answer, “The truth is that Filipino values are
ambivalent in the sense that they have a potential for good or evil, a help or hindrance to
personal and national development, depending on how they are understood, practiced or lived.”
Of the three authors under consideration in this paper, Gorospe offer the most straightforward
assertion that Filipino values are ambivalent, and provides the clearest explanation why Filipino
values are ambivalent.
Table 3
Ambivalent Filipino values
Positive Values Negative
risk-taking, trust in divine bahala na (fatalism) resignation, superstition, blind
providence, self-reliance faith, fatalism, escapism
kaunlaran (progress) pakikisama, utang na loob, hiya kabaluktutan (crookedness)
Source: Gorospe (1994)
Gorospe (1994) regards pakikisama (getting along well with), utang na loob
(indebtedness), hiya (shame), and bahala na (fatalism) as ambivalent because they can be used for
kabaluktutan (crookedness) or kaunlaran (progress). To demonstrate their ambivalence, he
analyzes the value of “bahala na,” which he judges as positive in the sense of risk-taking, trust in
divine providence, and self-reliance. The same value becomes negative in the sense of false sense
of resignation, superstition, blind faith, fatalism, escapism. Hence, for Gorospe bahala na is
clearly ambivalent because, just like all other Filipino values, it contains negative and positive
elements. Gorospe levels the same charge against Filipino religiosity, echoing Bulatao’s infamous
phrase “split-level Christianity.” Filipino Christianity is split and bipolar because it reeks of
double standard morality and hypocrisy. Gorospe typifies this bifurcation in Filipino values as
value (positive elements) and disvalue (negative elements). This distinction further cements his
conviction that Filipino values are positively and negative charged, in a word, ambivalent.
The Absurdity of Ambivalence Theory. Are Filipino values ambivalent? Are Quito,
Licuanan, and Gorospe correct?” Unfortunately for them, but fortunately for the Filipinos and
their values, the resounding answer is “No!” A critical analysis of their claims will show why
the charge of ambivalence against Filipino values and norms does not square with logic and the
theories of ambivalence.
Quito claims that Filipino values and traits are ambivalent because they retain elements
of good and bad, right and wrong, vice and virtue. This claim is doubtful for many reasons. For
 Benitez Luzano Jiolito. HCMCOUJS-Social Sciences, 12(1), 130-143 137

one, Quito’s failure to define the terms value and ambivalence results in her erroneous inclusion
of the concepts patigasan, kasi, ningas-cogon, mañana, kanya-kanya, and saving face in the
category of values. Without question, these are not values. If at all, they are undesirable attitudes
and behaviors. There is not a single credible study on morality and values that posits these
negative attitudes (patigasan, kasi, ningas-cogon, mañana, kanya-kanya, saving face) as values.
In fact, Filipinos who embody these attitudes and traits are frowned upon as undesirable, and
they should be. Not only does Quito parade these wolf-like attitudes in sheep’s clothing, but she
likewise erroneously elevates them to the pedestal of value.
Moreover, Quito’s description of the values of hiya, pakikisama, bahala na, utang na
loob, and sakop ignores the well-established accounts of these values by prominent scholars
which were already available during her time (Bulatao, 1964; bahala na, de Mesa, 1986;
Enriquez, 1992; Holnsteiner, 1973; utang na loob, Kaut, 1961; hiya, Lynch & de Guzman, 1973;
pakikisama, Lynch & de Guzman, 1973; Mercado, 1976; sakop, Mercado, 1979; Miranda, 1992).
Disregarding these studies, Quito bifurcates Filipino values into positive and negative
polarities while conferring on them a rather arbitrary interpretation. Her earlier commitment to
evaluate Filipino values and traits using what she calls an “oriental yardstick” has never fully
materialized nor has she been able to clarify what she means by “oriental yardstick.”
Most importantly, Quito's her assertion of ambivalence of the Filipino values and traits
fails to garner any support from the psychological and sociological postulates of ambivalence.
Likewise, the bifurcation of Filipino values and norms into positive and negative polarities does
not cohere with the sociological notion of ambivalence, which posits ambivalence as a conflict
between values and norms within a specific social structure (Merton, 1976). The same
bifurcation of Filipino values and norms does not square with the psychological postulate of
ambivalence which defines ambivalence as a simultaneous occurrence of conflicted and
contradictory feelings and emotions in an individual (Berman, 2012; Hillcoat-Nallétamby &
Phillips 2011).
Licuanan’s discussion of Filipino character traits suffers the same ambiguity as Quito’s.
Licuanan lumps together such concepts as pakikipagkapwa-tao, family orientation, kanya-kanya,
religiosity, ability to survive, lack of self-analysis and reflection, and colonial mentality under the
category of “character traits.” Certainly, these are not strictly character traits. Some of these are
values, attitudes, and even skills. To be fair, Licuanan levels no explicit allegation of
ambivalence on Filipino character traits. However, what she doesn’t categorically state, she
strongly implies. A consistent reading of her article reveals that she does view Filipino character
traits as ambivalent. This reading is based on her description of certain strengths and weaknesses
that actually pertain to the same value, trait, or attitude.
Accordingly, family is a strength, for it not only provides a space for the expression of deep
and genuine love, commitment and responsibility among members, but it is also a source of
personal identity, emotional, and material support. Surprisingly, the same trait becomes a
weakness when it regresses into extreme family-centeredness which is antithetical to the value of
community and common good. Moreover, Filipinos are hailed as hard working, flexible, and
creative, yet they also are ridiculed for their passivity and lack of initiative. They are extolled for
their value of pakikipagkapwa-tao, yet frowned for their kanya-kanya mentality. In Licuanan’s
terms, we may never know for certain whether Filipinos are self-centered (kanya-kanya) or
humane and altruistic (pakikipagkapwa-tao); hardworking and industrious or passive and lazy
(lack initiative); or whether they lack self-analysis and reflection or creative, flexible, and versatile.
138 Benitez Luzano Jiolito. HCMCOUJS-Social Sciences, 12(1), 130-143

Evidently, Licuanan regards Filipino character traits, values, and attitudes as ambivalent
since they do simultaneously contain strengths and weaknesses. However, it is Licuanan’s
problematic and inconsistent characterization of those Filipino character traits that accounts for
ambivalence rather than the traits themselves. Licuanan’s view of ambivalence, as a disjunction
of Filipino character traits and values into strengths and weaknesses, is inconsistent with the
sociological and psychological postulates of ambivalence. Hence, her vicarious claim that
Filipino character traits and values are ambivalent is bereft of any theoretical support.
Of the three thinkers, Gorospe makes the most categorical assertion of ambivalence and
offers the most unambiguous explanation why Filipino values are ambivalent. In a way, Gorospe
can be considered as proponent of the ambivalence theory of Filipino values par excellence. His
position defines the standard of ambivalence theory of Filipino values. Gorospe strongly
contends that Filipino values are ambivalent because “they have a potential for good or evil, a
help or hindrance to personal and national development, depending on how they are understood,
practiced or lived” (Dy, 1994; Gorospe, 1994). A critical appraisal of this thesis easily exposes
its logical flaw. The potential for good and evil lies, after all, not in the values themselves but in
the manner by which they are understood or practiced by Filipinos. Simply put, what Gorospe
actually means here is that ambivalence is on the people, not on the values. Which goes without
saying that it is ultimately not a case of ambivalent values but an instant of people
misappropriating and misusing these values. The fact that people invoke Filipino values and
norms in order to justify their negative attitudes, weak character traits, misdeeds, or immoralities
does not necessitate the view that Filipino values are substantially wrong, vicious, and immoral.
Gorospe fails to see this crucial distinction.
There is an obvious, rather almost scandalous, inconsistency in Gorospe’s assertion. He is
all too willing to deplore the enigmatic nature of Filipino values and norms and blames them for
the disvalues (negative attitudes and misbehaviors) of the Filipinos. He attributes responsibility
on the values themselves rather than on the social actor. However, in an uncharacteristic twist, he
does not blame Christian morality for the immorality and hypocrisy of Christian Filipinos.
Instead, he blames the people. He blames the Filipino values (normative standard) for the moral
depravity of Filipinos. Yet, he blames the Filipinos, not the Christian morality (normative
standard), for their immorality and hypocrisy. Gorospe may well be right in attributing
responsibility (hypocrisy and immorality) to the Christian Filipinos. This is consistent with the
principle in general ethics, which states that an act, moral or immoral, is properly attributed to
the doer of an act under the conditions that such an act is done knowingly, freely, and voluntarily
(Pilsner, 2006). However, Gorospe is wrong and inconsistent in ascribing responsibility
(negative attitudes and misbehaviors) on Filipino values.
Gorospe’s crucial mistakes leads hims to the unfounded and erroneous claim of
ambivalence of Filipino values and norms. More importantly, his dichotomization of Filipino
values as evil or good, help or hindrance, and value or disvalue does not comport with the
literature of sociological and psychological ambivalence.
Aristotle’s Concept of Virtue and the Theory of Ambivalence. As stated earlier,
Gorospe affirms the close affinity of the Filipino values system with the ideal of moderation in
the Greek, Roman, Buddhist, and Confucian axiology. The concept of moderation finds its
equivalent in the Filipino ideal of katamtaman (moderate). The notion of katamtaman is
consistent with Aristotle’s concept of virtue which is understood as the middle ground between
the vices of excesses and deficiency. In fact, the Filipino saying “Hindi labis, hindi kulang,
katamtaman lamang” (Neither in excess, nor in deficit, but moderate) rightly resonates this
Aristotelian understanding of virtue.
 Benitez Luzano Jiolito. HCMCOUJS-Social Sciences, 12(1), 130-143 139

To be consistent with the Aristotelian notion of virtue, Filipino values must be

understood as rightly standing in the middle. As such, they are always right, good, and positive.
Any attitudes, traits, and behaviors that fall short or exceed the bar of Filipino values should be
judged as kalabisan (excess) or kakulangan (deficiency). When Filipinos fail to practice the
values and norms of kagandahang loob, pakikisama, utang na loob, bahala, and hiya, their
failure must be described as kulang (deficient) or labis (excess). The Filipinos' failure to embody
the ideals of the katamtaman (moderation) should not be construed as part of the defining
features of Filipino values and norms. Nor should Filipino values and norms be blamed for their
moral failures. Aristotle is unambiguous, vices do not define virtues; vices are a failure to
practice virtues (Crisp, 2004). The virtues cannot and should not be blamed for the existence of
vices or vicious individuals.
Gorospe, Quito, and Licuanan fail to sustain this important Aristotelian notion of
moderation in their claim of ambivalence. In their view, Filipino values are soiled, unstable, and
ambiguous because they contain both the virtuous and the vicious. By comingling the elements
of kalabisan and kakulangan with katamtaman, these renowned thinkers have effectively
rendered the Filipino heart as a cesspool of moral decay. Gorospe, in particular, makes this
colossal contradiction when he frames the Filipino values system in the context of katamtaman
(moderation), yet goes on to undermine its integrity by poisoning it with the hemlock of
kalabisan and kakulangan. Prominent as these thinkers are in the Philippines, their views have
easily influenced many Filipino scholars and common folks. In fact, the view that Filipino values
are ambivalent have been taken for granted and widely accepted as though gospel truth
that provokes neither questions nor doubts. This view is anti-Filipino for it desecrates the
Filipino soul.
Lamenting this erroneous and unfair characterization of Filipino values, the prominent
Filipino anthropologist, Felipe Landa Jocano, explains that what many scholars and ordinary
folks falsely call as “negative values are actually actions violating the standard of proper
behavior but are rationalized in the context of existing values” (Jocano, 1997). In a study in
Defense of Hiya as a Filipino Virtue, Lasquety-Reyes (2016) noted many scholars conferred the
Filipino value of hiya (shame or embarrassment) with negative and ambivalent interpretations.
Roces (1991) frames the concept of ambivalent behavior among Filipinos due to unresolved
apparent conflicts between different sets of values. Roces’ view of ambivalence is consistent
with the sociological postulate of ambivalence.
It turns out, rather ironically, that it is the very conceptions and interpretations of the
proponents of the ambivalence theory norms that are negative and vague and not the Filipino
values and norms themselves. More importantly, the central claims of the ambivalence theory of
Filipino values and norms do not find any support from the sociological and psychological
postulates of ambivalence nor from the Aristotle notion of virtue.
4. Findings
The perusal of the central claims of the ambivalence theory of Filipino values, norms,
and traits as propounded by Quito, Gorospe, and Licuanan yields five paramount findings. These
findings sum up the crucial errors that refute the claim of ambivalence.
First, the arbitrary descriptions of Filipino values, attitudes, and traits. These descriptions
do not only ignore the existing literature of Filipino values as provided by Filipino social
scientists, but purposively follow a dichotomic approach of good and bad, right and wrong, weak
and strength, virtue and vice in order to warrant a forgone conclusion of ambivalence.
140 Benitez Luzano Jiolito. HCMCOUJS-Social Sciences, 12(1), 130-143

Second, the misconception of Filipino values which comes in the form of an epic
confusion between the Filipino values and norms (as a standard of what is right, good,
virtuous, and desirable) and the negative attitudes, weak character traits, and misbehaviors
(that deviate from that standard). These transgressive attitudes, character traits, and behaviors
are erroneously deemed part of the defining features of Filipino values and norms rather than
their adversative specimens. Merging the normative standard and its violations is a serious
logical and factual mistake.
Third, Filipino values and norms are not only blamed for the deep moral malaise that
afflicts Philippine society, worse, they are also used to justify the same moral decay.
Fourth, ironically, the proponents’ conception of Filipino values and norms vague,
negative, and inconsistent.
Fifth, most importantly, the central claims of the proponents of the ambivalence theory of
Filipino values and norms fail to garner any support from the sociological and psychological
postulates of ambivalence. Moreover, the Aristotelian notion of virtue decisively refutes the
ambivalence claims.
5. Conclusion
Under the weight of the findings, the ambivalence theory of Filipino values and norms is
decisively debunked as it crumbles into the ground of absurdity. The claim of ambivalence fails to
garner any support from the sociological and psychological postulates of ambivalence. Aristotle’s
concept of virtue defies it. The ambivalence view is fatally flawed, but more importantly, it is
inimical to the Filipino moral ideals and unfair to the Filipino people. It rears the social malaise of
defeatism that cripples the Filipino’s ability to believe and be proud of themselves as a nation.
In the putative post-ambivalence period, there is an urgent need to disabuse the minds of
those who have credulously professed the ambivalence creed. The ways to move forward are
manifold. The challenge for a critical interrogation of the problems concerning Filipino values
and norms outside the lens of ambivalence is both important and imperative. The repudiation of
the ambivalence perspective will most likely pave the way for fresh and genuine understanding
of the normative ideals of the Filipino people as well as a candid recognition of the spiritual
malaise and moral decadence that afflict this nation. There too is the challenge to examine the
moral dissipation that afflicts the country’s social institutions. The role of education is
indispensable. These, among other things, await the vigorous interests of Filipino scholars.
It is worthy of note, however, that the conclusion arrived at in this study is limited to the
theory of ambivalence as advanced by its proponents, and precludes other substantially different
conceptions of ambivalence of Filipino values and norms.

References
Aguas, J. J. S. (2016). The Filipino value of pakikipagpagkapwa-tao vis-à-vis Gabriel Marcel’s
notion of creative fidelity and disponibilite. Scientia: The Research Journal of the College
of Arts and Sciences, 5, 17-39.
Andres, T. Q. D. (1981). Understanding Filipino values. Quezon City, Philippines: New Day
Publishers.
Aurell, M. (2017). The lettered knight: Knowledge and aristocratic behaviour in the twelfth and
thirteenth centuries. New York, NY: Central European University Press.
 Benitez Luzano Jiolito. HCMCOUJS-Social Sciences, 12(1), 130-143 141

Barakat, Z. M. (2017). From heart of stone to heart of flesh: Evolutionary journey from
extremism to moderation (Vol. 17). Bavaria, Germany: Herbert Utz Verlag.
Benitez J. (2022a). An Inquiry into the Problems Concerning Filipino Values and
Norms. Recoletos Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 10(1), 39-50.
https://doi.org/10.32871/rmrj2210.01.03
Benitez, J. (2022b). Who Are We to Judge?’: Pathologies of Moral Judgement. CONNEXION
Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 11(1), Article ID: 258088. Retrieved from
https://so05.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/MFUconnexion/article/view/258088
Benitez, J. L. (2020). Filipino values and moral norms: An inquiry into the problems concerning
their validity and efficacy (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Silliman University,
Dumaguete City, Philippines.
Benitez, J. L. (2015). The mendicants’ rap poetry: Critique from the margins. CNU-
Journal of Higher Education, 9, 231-240.
Berman, N. (2012). Passion and ambivalence: Colonialism, nationalism, and international law.
Boston, MA: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Blazina, C., & Shen-Miller, D. S. (Eds.). (2011). An international psychology of men: Theoretical
advances, case studies, and clinical innovations (Vol. 7). New York, NY: Routledge.
Bulatao, J. (1964). Hiya. Philippine Studies, 12(3), 424-438.
Bulatao, J. C. (1992). Phenomena and their interpretation: Landmark essays, 1957-1989.
Manila, Philippines: Ateneo University Press.
Bulloch, H. C. (2017). Ambivalent moralities of cooperation and corruption: Local
explanations for (under) development on a Philippine island. The Australian Journal of
Anthropology, 28(1), 56-71. doi:10.1111/taja.12173
Cleofas, J. A. (2019). Towards a practical and empirically grounded account of útang-na-
loób as a Filipino virtue. Retrieved February 08, 2022, from https://archium.ateneo.edu/
cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=philofaculty-pubs
Crisp, R. (Ed.). (2014). Aristotle: Nicomachean ethics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
de Castro, L. (1995). Ang utang na loob bilang konsepto ng etika. Quezon City, Philippines:
CSSP Publications.
de Castro, L. (1999). Kagandahang loob: Love in Philippine bioethics. Eubios Journal of Asian
and International Bioethics, 9(2), 39-40.
de Guia, K. (2005). Kapwa: The self in the other. Pasig City, Philippines: Anvil Publishing.
de Mesa, J. (1979) And God said, “Bahala na!”: The theme of providence in the lowland
Filipino context. Quezon City, Philippines: Maryhill School of Theology.
de Mesa, J. (1986). Loob and prayer. Ministry Today, 2(1), 42-50.
Dy, M. B. (Ed.). (1994). Values in Philippine culture and education (Vol. 1). Washington, D.C.:
The Council for Research in Values and Philosophy.
Enriquez, V. G. (1978). Kapwa: A core concept in Filipino social psychology. Philippine Social
Sciences and Humanities Review, 42(1/4), 100-108.
142 Benitez Luzano Jiolito. HCMCOUJS-Social Sciences, 12(1), 130-143

Enriquez, V. G. (1980). Philippine world views: The Filipino weltanschauung in languages,

literature, popular culture, visual arts, and other fields. Manila, Philippines: Philippine
Psychology Research House.
Enriquez, V. G. (1992). From colonial to liberation psychology. Quezon City, Philippines: The
University of the Philippines.
Gorospe, V. R. (1994). Understanding the Filipino values system. In M. B. Dy (Ed.), Values in
philippine culture and education (pp. 63-68). Washington, D.C.: The Council for Research
in Values and Philosophy.
Griffiths, C. (2021). The ambivalence of gay liberation: Male homosexual politics in 1970s West
Germany. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Hillcoat-Nallétamby, S., & Phillips, J. E. (2011). Sociological ambivalence
revisited. Sociology, 45(2), 202-217. doi:10.1177/0038038510394018
Holnsteiner, M. (1973). Reciprocity in the lowland Philippines. In F. Lynch & A. de Guzman
(Eds.), Four readings on Philippine values (pp. 69-92). Quezon City, Philippines: Ateneo
de Manila.
Hong, Y. (2019). A theological understanding of power for poverty alleviation in the
Philippines with special reference to US-based Filipino protestants in Texas.
Retrieved January 25, 2022, from AsburyTheological Seminary website:
https://place.asburyseminary.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2360&context=ecommonsats
dissertations
Jocano, F. L. (1998a). Filipino prehistory: Rediscovering precolonial heritage. Quezon City,
Philippines: Punlad Research House.
Jocano, F. L. (1998b). Filipino social organization: Traditional kinship and family organization.
Quezon City, Philippines: Punlad Research House.
Jocano, F. L. (1997). Filipino value system: A cultural definition. Quezon City, Philippines:
Punlad Research House.
Kaut, C. (1961). Utang na loob: A system of contractual obligation among Tagalogs.
Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 17(3), 256-272. doi:10.1086/soutjanth.17.3.3629045
Lasquety-Reyes, J. (2016). In defense of hiya as a Filipino virtue. Asian Philosophy, 26(1),
66-78. doi:10.1080/09552367.2015.1136203
Licuanan, P. B. (1994). A moral recovery program: Building a people-building a nation. In M.
B. Dy (Ed.), Values in Philippine culture and education (pp. 35-54). Washingtont, D.C.:
The Council for Research in Values and Philosophy.
Lynch, F., & de Guzman, A. I. (Eds.). (1973). Four readings on Philippine values (4th ed.).
Quezon City, Philippines: Ateneo de Manila.
Macaranas, B. P. (2018). A philosophical review of Filipino values: Ambivalent values.
Retrieved September 30, 2020, from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Juan-
Macaranas/publication/349991771_A_PHILOSOPHICAL_REVIEW_OF_FILIPINO_VA
LUES_AMBIVALENT_VALUES/links/604a59d3a6fdcc4d3e57ef9d/A-
PHILOSOPHICAL-REVIEW-OF-FILIPINO-VALUES-AMBIVALENT-VALUES.pdf
Maio, G. R., Haddock, G., & Verplanken, B. (2019). The psychology of attitudes and attitude
change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.
 Benitez Luzano Jiolito. HCMCOUJS-Social Sciences, 12(1), 130-143 143

Mercado, L. (1976). Elements of Filipino philosophy. Tacloban City, Philippines: Divine Word.
Mercado, L. (1979) Elements of Filipino ethics. Tacloban City, Philippines: Divine Word.
Mercado, L. (1994). The Filipino mind. Retrieved September 30, 2020, from The Council for
Research in Values and Philosophy website: https://www.crvp.org/publications/Series-
III/III-8.pdf
Merriam-Webster. (2021). Ambivalence. Retrieved February 08, 2022, from www.merriam-
webster.com
Merton, R. K. (1976). Sociological ambivalence and other essays. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Meyer, S. S. (2008). Ancient ethics. New York, NY: Routledge.
Miranda, D. (1989). Loob: The Filipino within. Manila, Philippines: Divine Word Publications.
Miranda, D. (1992). Buting Pinoy: Probe essays on value as Filipino. Manila, Philippines:
Divine Word Publications.
Miranda, D. (2003). Kaloob ni Kristo: A Filipino Christian account of conscience. Manila,
Philippines: Logos Publications.
Pilsner, J. (2006). The specification of human actions in St Thomas Aquinas. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Quito, E. (1994). The ambivalence of Filipino traits and values. In M. B. Dy (Ed.), Values in
Philippine culture and education (pp. 57-61). Washington, D.C.: The Council for Research
in Values and Philosophy.
Reyes, J. (2015). Loób and kapwa: An introduction to a Filipino virtue ethics. Asian
Philosophy, 25(2), 148-171. doi:10.1080/09552367.2015.1043173
Roces, M. (1991). Cultural conflict as a framework for interpreting Philippine postwar history.
Asian Studies Review, 15(2), 94-102. doi:10.1080/03147539108712782
Tablan, F. (2021). Filipino virtue ethics and meaningful work. Humanities Bulletin, 4(1), 20-40.
Tan, A. L. (1997). Values research in the Philippines. Philippine Studies, 45(4), 560-569.

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.