Sunday, May 30, 2004

A New Research Method for Asian Indigenous Psychologies

Dr. David Y.F. Ho has proposed of a new methodology in approaching indigenous concepts. This is a new perspective that has gained wide acceptance to nations of East Asia (China and Taiwan). It is hoped that this methodological orientation be of more use instead of methodological comparison.

Methodological Relationalism (MR)

David Y.F. How
University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

Abstract


As a general framework for the analysis of human thought and action, methodological relationalism attends to social actions within the context of not only interpersonal relationships, but also metarelations (relations of relationships). Accordingly, two levels of analysis may be distinguished. The first, relational analysis, applies to interactions between individuals; the second, metarelational analysis, applies to interactions between relationships. Relational constructs, such as guanxi, serve as powerful intellectual tools at both levels of analysis.

In this presentation, I attempt to show that relational and metarelational analyses not only define what is Chinese about Chinese social science research but also promise to lead the way in diverse domains of knowledge generation.


Selected Bibliography


Ho, D. Y. F. (1994). Face dynamics: From conceptualization to measurement. In S. Ting-Toomey (Ed.), The challenge of facework: Cross-cultural and interpersonal issues (pp. 269-286). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Ho, D. Y. F. (1998). Interpersonal relationships and relationship dominance: An analysis based on methodological relationalism. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 1 (1), 1-16.

Ho, D. Y. F., & Peng, S. Q. (1998). Methodological relationalism and its applications in Eastern and Western cultures. Sociological Research, 4, 34-43. (In Chinese; republished in Sociology, No. 1, 9-18, 1999.)

Ho, D. Y. F., Chan, S. F., & Zhang, Z. X. (2001). Metarelational analysis: An answer to “What’s Asian about Asian social psychology?” Journal of Psychology in Chinese Societies, 2 (1), 7-26.

*Ho, D. Y. F., Peng, S. Q., Lai, A. C., & Chan, S. F. (2001). Indigenization and beyond: Methodological relationalism in the study of personality across cultural traditions. Journal of Personality, 69 (6), 925-953.

(* = read first)

On Liberating Psychologies

Liberation Psychologies: An Invitation to Dialogue

Dan Hocoy, Aaron Kipnis, Helene Lorenz, Mary Watkins
Pacifica Graduate School

1. What is a "liberation psychology"? These points are an invitation to dialogue, not a set of precepts. For the last hundred years, psychology in the West has most often presented itself as a universal and ahistorical science, largely presenting local and Eurocentric perspectives as facts. Today it is possible to see how psychological theories of a bounded individualistic and competitive subjectivity with fixed developmental stages leading to separation constituted an expression of dominant cultural interests. We are concerned that the academic discipline of psychology has historically been complicit, whether intentionally or not, in the establishment of colonial, neo-colonial, and globalized hierarchies of oppression. We want to place such psychology alongside other starting points from different cultural environments and other indigenous psychologies. Our efforts to articulate markers to identify liberation psychologies are an outcome of a local dialogue, reflecting and constrained by our own social locations, personal histories, and academic commitments. We welcome conversations with others with different life experiences as we struggle for clarity about the educational system that has formed us and that we simultaneously want to resist and revise. We present this gathering of provisional ideas to orient discussions about values, praxis, and outcomes in psychology. Our basic orientation is dialogical, and we expect that within the frame of these discussions, many innovative ideas could develop. We are not seeking homogeneity of thought, but the opening of a space for improvisation, for the emergence of new ideas and practices in psychology, for an interdisciplinary approach to the psychological, and for unfolding liberatory work within our communities. We hope that these ideas will provide a lattice that can support such improvisations, without unduly constraining them.

2. Liberation psychologies locate psychological work within a paradigm of interdependence. We live in a co-created world where many levels of order interconnect. Psyche, culture, and nature continuously unfold in communication through language, symbol, and image. The psychological can be understood as part of this wider web, thus requiring interdisciplinary approaches to psychological suffering and well-being. Liberation psychologies seek to repair the fragmentation in relationships, experience, theory, and environment inherent in oppression, through reconciliatory and transgressive practices.

3. Culture and psyche, self and community, interpenetrate and co-create each other. Liberation psychologies suggest they be approached as an evolving multiplicity or diversity of perspectives, performances, and voices in various degrees of dialogue. Liberation psychologies attempt to encourage dialogue, creative thinking, and utopian imagination where it has been absent. Through studying dynamics of oppression and engaging in practices of listening-in to differences, new venues for transformation can be created.

4. Liberation psychologies recognize the importance of giving priority to what or who has become marginalized both in psyche and society. In every context, there are always elements of the situation that have been marginalized or else not yet expressed. These are explored for liberatory potentials where exiled voices can enter dialogue with normative scripts. It is important to listen to and acknowledge voices that have become silenced both in individual and community work. Those dispossessed in a community suffer by virtue of their exclusion. Those defending hegemonic myths suffer the loss of silenced perspectives and histories.

5. Liberation psychologies engage in practices of empowerment and participation that attempt to redress disparities of status in the world and in psyche. We live in a historical context where structures based on differences of race, gender, and class massively disempower large numbers of people. Liberation psychologies open to applications in community, ecological, and individual work where dominant hierarchies of power can be challenged, and alternatives can be imagined. Questions of social and economic justice, hunger and poverty, representation and censorship, resistance and repression, violence and mediation are central to liberation psychologies. Liberatory research would seek to limit power differentials between researchers and researched and to engage in collaborative, participatory explorations that benefit the community involved.

6. Every perspective is embedded in an evolving local indigenous language, culture, and history. All of the ways we understand, experience, and represent ourselves and others have inevitably materialized within in a cultural history. Our creativity is constrained by local culture and language, which allow only a limited range of experimentation, parody, transgression, and myth-making. That we are completely free of constraints may be the most widely shared fantasy of those who have been educated in Western Enlightenment thought. Since we tend to be blind to normative cultural values, dialogical spaces need to be created where we can locate their context and historicity. Cross-cultural education and encounters are ideally suited to make our culturally embedded assumptions more visible.

7. Liberation psychologies carefully question who and what their ideas will serve in any given context. Psychology has often wittingly or unwittingly served to perpetuate status quo arrangements of power that result in injustice, institutional racism and Eurocentrism. These arrangements have mitigated against cross-cultural encounter and obscured crucial understandings of ideology and power. Presently, Western psychology has begun an attempt to become more multiculturally sensitive. While this is a positive development, it is important that this increasing sensitivity not be used to further support a claim-implicit or explicit-of universality. Western psychology should not strive to be an overarching discipline that assimilates others' knowings, repositioning Western psychology as a "center" and other psychologies as "periphal".

8. Cultural and intrapsychic spaces need to be created where dialogue among diverse points of view can question, share, and revise meanings and actions. Such spaces need to be participatory, welcoming image, poetry, art, dance, music, literature and ritual to express experience and to imagine alternative realities. While open to difference and collaborative creativity, it is inevitable that such spaces would also host fierce confrontations, the revelation of bitter wounds, and the acknowledgement of collusion and responsibility. In situations where dominant groups in power have no interest in such dialogues, it is important to create such spaces at the margin where new scripts can be generated, rehearsed, and nurtured.

9. Liberation psychologies value the inspirations and energies that emerge from imaginative, artistic, religious, and spiritual practices. Individuals and communities continually redevelop mythologies and practices of meaning to orient their lives. These mythologies are precious community resources, serving as a reservoir of symbols for future expressions of connectivity and strength, longing and belonging. As we move toward more homogenized globalization of corporate control, the particularity and uniqueness of every local vernacular context is rich with alternative visions of wholeness and sustainability crucial for survival.

10. Liberation psychologies nurture longings for just and peaceful communities as acts of faith in the future. We can do much better in creating a just and peaceful world. We recognize that the utopian impulse we are expressing is itself culturally embedded in Western notions of evolution and progress. Nevertheless, we believe the full possibilities for resistance, creativity, and spiritual development are still unexplored and deserve to be cultivated. Subjectivities-in-community are emergent phenomena, and no one can yet say the last word about what we might create together.

From Pacifica Graduate School Copyright 2004

Saturday, May 29, 2004

From American Orientation to Filipino Orientation of Psychology.

2003.My very first exposure to Sikolohiyang Pilipino was during my last semester as an undergraduate at the New Era University, supervised then by Dr. Josefina Malibiran (who is a professor of special education and educational psychology, faculty of college of education, university of the philippines). Her teachings opened my mind about the negative implications brought out by Western psychology to the Filipino psyche. My encounter with SP eventually change my views since then.

2004.My very first paper that i did was about kapwa ("shared identity"), a concept expounded by Enriquez who labeled it as the core value of Filipino personality. After this stint that i reported in my Psych 114 class in 2003, i eventually shifted from pure emic-ism to an integrationist perspective (cf. Kim, Park, Park, 2000--JCCP, 2000 30(1); Kim, 2000--AJSP 2000 3(3)). This happened when i acquaint myself with Triandis work (2003) and that article published by Pe-Pua and Protacio-Marcelino (2000) (cf. Sta. Maria, 1996). Being an integrationist is to accept both indigenous psychology knowledge (emic) and cross-cultural and experimental psychology (etic) (cf. Triandis, 2000). SP itself is divided into two, that of which is the etic perspective by Enriquez and that of which is emi perspective by Zeus Salazar's pantayong pananaw (a type of civilizational discourse). Both dichotomies are accepted and should be seen as continuum and not two pathway dialogues (cf. Church & Katigbak (2000), Javier (1996)).

References:

Church and KAtigbak (see previous title)
Javier (1996) Layag.
Kim, Park and Park (2000) Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology: Special Issue (Looner&Church).
Kim (2000) Asian Journal of Social Psychology: Special Issue on Millenium Symposia Prelude.
Pe-Pua and Protacio-Marcelino. (see previous title)
Triandis (2000) Asian Journal of Social Psychology: Special Issue on Millenium Symposia Prelude.

Note:

In a recent conference on Philipine studies, it has been regarded by one social scientist that with respect of Salazar's contribution and work on pantayong pananaw (PP), that PP is not a social science but a civilizational discourse.

Sikolohiyang Pilipino

Trends and Developments of an Indigenous Psychology: The Case of Sikolohiyang Pilipino

I am currently doing a research paper concerning Sikolohiyang Pilipino. This research concerns the history (1970-1989), trends and development of SP (1990-2004). I have been interested in the field after my exposure with it during my lasst semester at the New Era University, Diliman under the supervision of Dr. Josefina Malibiran, (SpEd and Educational Psychologist, UP Diliman). [See next section why i got interested!!!] I started this blog so that i could reach anyone out there who has any access or papers concerning recent or latest publication concerning this field.

There has been difficulty in searching papers about SP in 1990-2004. This is according to my research. If there are any, these are not under the principle of Sikolohiyang Pilipino but under Philippine Psychology published in the Philippine Journal of Psychology (PJP) of the Psychological Association of the Philippines (PAP). Although the existence of Pambansang Samahan ng Sikolohiyang Pilipino (PSSP; National Association for Filipino Psychology) enabled the course of SP in cycle, their annual conventions only accounts the vast majority of research being done. Efforts of practicing publication research such as journal/newletter is absent. (However, my recent contect with Jay Yacat (2003), representative of PSSP, confirmed that the association would be re-launching its journal entitled Diwa. This is still to be seen whether it would triumphantly arise after its silence.) Dr. Gastardo-Conaco also confirmed this (with my correspondence) that the University of the Philippines, Department of Psychology (UPDP) has been lately not practicing publication journal or that their publication--Sikolohiya--'has been erratic in coming out', the fact that this is the primary institution wherein SP was formulated and established. The last appearance of that journal was in February 1997 and that copies of the said journal are rare to found elsewhere except at UP. The Dept. of Psychology in De La Salle University has practised publication journal. They entitled their journal, Layag. However, the publication has been discontinued but successfully able to publish three volumes. The highlight of indigenous psychology or sikolohiyang pilipino is highlighted on Layag's maiden issue. Why both universities are stated here is that they became the primary institutions where the late Dr. Enriquez, who passed away in 1994,professionaly practised teaching Filipino psychology-the former, his first teaching stint and SP's establishment; the latter, Enriquez became a visiting professor. During Dr. Enriquez' time, publication of SP was active such as in Kaya Tao, DLSU Dialogue, and PJP (vol. 10-13).

Sikolohiyang Pilipino generally is a study of Filipino psychological processess, orientation and consciousness born out of the use of the local language and culture. Founded by Dr. Virgilio Gaspar Enriquez in late 1970, SP is a new discourse in psychology that is against Anglo-Eurocentic mainstream psychology. It's effort is to establish Filipino consciousness, identity and liberation against colonial imperialism of Western psychology.

Partial list of references that are of best work in SP:

Church, A.T. & Katigbak, M.S. (2000, July) Indigenization of psychology in the Philippines. Paper read during the Symposia in Indigenous Psychology Development chaired by John Adair at the XXVII International Conference of Psychology, Stockholm, Sweden. [Revision of this paper sent to me by Dr. Marcia Katigbak-Church].

Enriquez, V.G. (1994a) From colonial to liberation psychology: the Philippine experience. Manila, Philippines: De La Salle University Press. [Still in print, available at DLSU Press]

Enriquez, V.G. (1994b) Pagbabangong-dangal: Cultural empowement and indigenous psychology. Quezon City, Philippines: PPRTH. [Still available at the PSSP]

Pe-Pua, R.E. & Protacio-Marcelino, E.P. (2000) Sikolohiyang Pilipino (Filipino Psychology): A Legacy of Virgilio G. Enriquez. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3(1). [Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Asian Association of Social Psyhchology & Japanese Group Dynamics Association]

Protacio-Marcelino, E.P. & Pe-Pua, R.E. (Eds.) (1999) Unang Dekada ng Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Kaalaman, gamit at etika. [The First Decade of Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Knowledge, Applications and Ethics] Quezon City, Philippines: PSSP. [No information, contact PSSP]

Sta. Maria, M.A. (1996) Is the indigenization crisis of social sciences solved around sikolohiyang Pilipino? Layag, 1. [Out of Print by Dept. of Psychology, DLSU]

Sta. Maria, M.A. (2000) Ethnopsychology, indigenous psychology, cultural psychology and cross-cultural psychology: implications for sikolohiyang Pilipino. Asia-Pacific Social Science Review, 1(1). [no information, contact College of Liberal Arts, DLSU]