toptermpaper.com

Marx’s 1848 discussion of theoretical Communism is widely held by historians as one of the most influential political texts ever written. Its principles formed the basis of the Communist movement and offered an alternative to the growing capitalism within various societies around the world. However, many of the principles that Marx offered have been debated by political commentators and historians through the ages. For example, Cohen argues the following: “Now, there exists a debate about whether or not Marx regarded capitalist exploitation as unjust. Some think it obvious that he did believe it to be unjust, and others think that he patently did not.” (1995, p. 195).

This premise will be examined in this essay, drawing on various academic works in order to provide credibility to the argument that Marx did indeed condemn capitalism as unjust.

Before analysing Marx’s argument against capitalism, it is necessary to examine it and draw conclusions as to what the implications within the text actually are. The Communist Manifesto and German Ideology both deal with social dynamics and the interactions between capitalism, production, the proletariat and Communism. Marx actually identifies capitalism as the following: “To be a capitalist is to have not only a purely personal but a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion.” (2002, p. 236).

As such, he actively asserts that capitalism is a manufactured state that is borne out of selfishness and the personal need to be materialistically rich. This implies that capitalism does not benefit the collective, instead being of benefit to the individual looking to climb the social ladder. Despite this, as capital is a collective notion and so this gives the impression that it can be used to benefit everyone if it is utilised in the correct manner. This would create an equality that would ensure that nobody need ever suffer within society again. In German Ideology, Marx explains why this has not yet occurred:

“…the patriarchal relationship between journeyman and master continued to exist; in manufacture its place was taken by the monetary relation between worker and capitalist – a relationship which in the countryside and in small towns retained a patriarchal tinge, but in the larger, the real manufacturing towns, quite early lost almost all patriarchal complexion.” (1970, p. 74)

Patriarchal societies had existed for centuries and implied that there was some sort of responsibility being taken for those less fortunate than the business owners, even if there was a major disparity in terms of wealth. The fact that Marx asserts that the patriarchal element of society has been removed speaks volumes about the level of social responsibility that he thought existed following the development of capitalism. The social responsibility that every individual had for his fellow man had disappeared and so it became every individual for himself, which not only led to social climbing but also led to a greater gulf between the classes than previously existed (Jacoby, 1976, p. 206). This is just one of the reasons why it can be argued that Marx believed capitalism to be unfair and unjust.

The fact that every individual became concerned with what he could get and forgot about his fellow man was just the start of Marx’s damning social commentary. The impact that this had upon the proletariat was far more profound in retrospect than anybody imagined beforehand. However, Marx predicted the unjust treatment of the waged people that Hampsher-Monk highlights:

“There was a battle to establish – against the remnants of political and economic feudalism – the institutions of a liberal and commercial state, and there was, for some others at least, the battle to establish a socialist answer to the veils of developing capitalism, the poisoning and maiming of workers and children in regulated factories, the discharge of untreated poisons, the destruction of familial stability and resulting poverty…” (1992, p. 487)

Reports of the events outlined above had begun to filter through when The Communist Manifesto and German Ideology were published but got worse after the spectre of capitalism began to grow. Those events within the quote represent just a sample of the treatment that the waged people had to experience and they aptly highlight the problems that capitalism provided them with. Unable to escape industry because they needed to feed their families, the proletariat were subjected to awful conditions for their bosses to make a profit and the latter did not care providing their own wealth grew. This is yet another example of how and why capitalism was indeed unjust. By highlighting these events and the lack of care from the higher social classes, Marx actively and effectively argues that capitalism is unjust and uses the very principles of capitalism to do so:

“It is important to remember that the assumptions Marx begins from are assumptions about capitalism taken from capitalism’s own ideologues. His is a picture of a buoyant and innovative capitalism, competitive, and with plenty of capital accumulation through profits.” (McClelland, 1996, p. 558).

By using the ideology of capitalism to frame his argument, Marx is able to highlight the social injustice that capitalism can bring within its own framework, thus highlighting the negatives that lie behind the presented positives.

Tucker also introduced the idea of capitalism actually being “legalized robbery” (1969, p. 43) because it deprives the individual worker of what he or she is actually entitled to: “…the wage worker under capitalism was being robbed of something that rightfully belonged to him, or that profit was theft” (1969, p. 39). In short, the individual worker is only paid a fraction of what his or her labour is worth under capitalism with the remainder going to the employer. As such, it is not the labour offered by the worker that proves fruitful but rather the exploitation of that labour by an individual from a higher class who never has to get his hands dirty in order to reap the rewards. This exploitation and lack of appropriate reward is repeatedly highlighted by Marx, especially in relation to wages: “The average price of wage labour is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely requisite to keep the labourer in bare existence as a labourer” (2002, p. 236). This particular quote highlights how unjust capitalism actually is in relation to the present and the future. It also provides evidence that there are no just rewards available for the proletariat. Designed to maintain the status quo, much as feudalism was, it actually provides a worse situation for the working class because they become further entrenched in capitalism. There is no hope of relief because of the lack of patriarchal values and opportunity to advance in the workplace or life in general. When placed alongside Marx’s ideological system of equality, capitalism is proven to be unjust.

Husami asserts that “… no social system has ever been condemned more radically, indicted more severely, and damned more comprehensively than capitalism was by Marx. It is a system of domination of men by men, of men by things, and of men by impersonal forces.” (1978, p. 27). In doing so, he effectively makes the case for Marx arguing that man is subordinate to the machine under capitalism. In fact, this is evident within all of Marx’s political texts. The proletariat is considered to be the commodity in that it is effectively the machine. If the proletariat did not work then the machine would not work, but a machine does not have needs. A person and indeed a society does. This is another reason why capitalism is so unjust. The needs of the individual wage worker are ignored and so are in no way fulfilled. In becoming a cog in the capitalist machine, the wage worker is forced to forego all rights and individual wants and needs he may have. As Husami argues, everything becomes impersonal and nobody is treated with the respect and individualisation they deserve. In stripping every wage worker of his humanity and rendering him a faceless machine part, it is easy to ignore the individual without focusing too much on what he is being deprived of. Capitalism makes that possible and ensures that “…the threat of unemployment [is] hanging permanently over their heads” (McClelland, 1996, p. 537). This, in turn, ensures that wage workers remain in their social place and do not have a voice to use unless they come together as a collective. As such, this is the basis of the argument for the onset of Communism that Marx presents within his ideological texts. The workers have to come together in order to create a movement strong enough to overthrow the unjust capitalism.

However, not all academics agree that Marx argues that capitalism is unjust, citing that there are “…explicit denunciations and sustained criticisms of social thinkers (such as Pierre Proudhon and Ferdinand Lassalle) who did not condemn capitalism for its injustices or advocated some form of socialism as a means of securing justice, equality, or the rights of man.” (Wood, 1972, p. 244). Whilst it is true that the views of the social thinkers did stand opposed to Marx’s views, this argument can be perceived in a number of ways. For example, Marx himself denounced Proudhon because “his petty bourgeois leanings had a tendency to wish to resort to authoritarian solutions” (Thomas, 1990, p. 237). As such, it could be argued that the way in which social thinkers viewed capitalism did not match up with the way Marx himself perceived it, meaning that he neither thought it completely unjust or worthy of total eradication. In fact, it is possible to read The Communist Manifesto in a way that agrees with this perspective. For example, if “Capital is a collective product” (Marx, 2002, p. 236) then the lower classes control it as much as the upper classes do. However, even with all of the above in mind, there is too much evidence available to prove that Marx did consider capitalism as unjust. Marx’s use of language and words like robbery, embezzlement, booty, theft, plunder and usurpation betray his feelings towards the concept of capitalism for all to see (Husami, 1978, p.43). This dichotomy just serves to prove that “…capitalism can be both just or unjust, depending on one’s class interests and the conditions which determine them.” (Kain, 1991, p. 160). Marx’s perspective definitely belonged to the latter category and not the former.

In conclusion, whilst an alternative reading is possible as a result of the nature of the debate itself and Marx’s condemnation of social thinkers that followed in his footsteps, it is quite clear from in depth analysis that he believes that capitalism was unjust. His argument against capitalism characterises it as dehumanizing, disenfranchising and downright unfair based on the contribution of workers to society. Although there is no direct argument against the modernisation, there is an argument against the social condition that it imposes on the workers. In terms of the rewards that the individual gets, capitalism most certainly is unjust and the Marx argument can still be applied to society today.

In this essay I shall review The devil makes work by Clarke and Critcher. Using wider information I shall evaluate the books strengths and weaknesses and suggest implications for the sociology of leisure.

The book deals with the historical development of what we now call leisure. The change from older forms of economic markets to capitalist industrialisation forced a schism in the work/leisure relationship. “The identification of leisure as the sphere in which needs are satisfied and pleasure found simultaneously makes work less susceptible to criticism as unsatisfactory and more salient as that which has to be tolerated to ‘earn’ the freedom of leisure.”^[1]

This demarcation is seen as the principle victory, in a stream of relatively uncontested battles, of capitalism in regards to leisure. The alienation of labour is made more tolerable by leisure activities and pursuits. Work became a means to an end, leisure.

The sphere of leisure offered the ruling classes the opportunity to restrict and control workers lives further, in insidious ways, permeating what was supposed to be ‘free’ time. “If the working class wants alcohol and music, it shall have them – but only to be consumed under certain conditions.”^[2] Under the guise of caring for workers needs, and by setting up institutions of leisure, the dominant ruling classes could ensure that time away from work was spent in activities deemed appropriate. The point of this control was to ensure their productivity thus perpetuating the capitalist market.

“The establishment of leisure as consumption…has also been of considerable significance.”^[3] This was capitalism’s second great victory. The capitalist process, at its most fundamental, is consumption. By turning leisure into a commodity, to be bought, sold and used, revenue could be exploited. The irony and hypocrisy of the sphere of leisure, supposedly free of capitalist ideology, feeding that ideology with new avenues of revenue, production and reproduction, is shown by Clarke and Critcher.

The book points out the fallacy of the ‘freedom’ of leisure. “The much vaunted democracy of the market-place rests on the rather less democratic foundations of the profoundly unequal distribution of wealth.”^[4] Instead of resistance to the fact that choice is limited, nay controlled, by the market, we, the consumer, value what choices we do have all the more. Choice in leisure is curtailed by social division and unequal distribution. Clarke and Critcher indicate a direct link between the alienation of work, to an alienation of leisure, precisely because they conceptualise leisure as being a by product of what we term as work. Leisure is defined by work, caused by work and needed because of work.

Resistance to leisure models is ultimately futile. The market can not completely control how leisure products are used, the young especially tend to use them in ways never envisioned. This would be seen as resistance except, “Such strategies may modify but cannot challenge the market/consumer model. Before we can modify the meaning and use of any commodity, we must first enter the market as consumers to acquire it.”^[5]

“The major forms and definitions of leisure seem to be changing under the diverse pressures of economic recession and the transition to a post-industrial society.”^[6] The piece ends with some predictions. The current (1985) change to a post industrial society would cause mass unemployment. This unemployment would greatly impact leisure, not least because in the capitalist model leisure time is a reward for work, when a person isn’t working they receive fewer rewards.

Clarke and Critcher’s work has its place in a continuum of Marxist thought.

Simmel stated, “In this context then, the history of forms of leisure is the history of labour … The exhaustion of our mental and physical energies in work lead us to require …leisure.’”^[7] These notions support the work of Clarke and Critcher, that leisure is a reward for time spent working. The real purpose of leisure is to repair and relax the worker ready to once more be a useful member of the industrial complex.

The ruling Bourgeois idea of leisure, for Veblen^[8], was conspicuous consumption, the ostentatious display of wealth through the purchase of commodities. For Freud, it was, “ Just this ‘objectivity’ which…viewing the individual as…consumer…regarded pleasure as the consequence of possessing valued objects.”^[9] Freud depicted the Bourgeois ego as deriving its pleasure from owning commodities. This pleasure was leisure and inexorably, both implicitly and explicitly, the subordinate classes were compelled to adopt this view because, “the ideas of the bourgeois class are the ruling ideas in society.”^[10] These notions support Clarke and Critcher’s assumptions.

Clarke and Critcher state that their work, “Does not attempt to lay to rest all those complex definitional questions about what is or is not leisure.”^[11] Moorhouse raises the very salient point that one could consider it blithely ignorant to conduct research without first defining what it is one is researching^[12]. Clarke and Critcher rely on the ‘self evident’ truth of what leisure is. ‘Self evident’ truths are, quite often, less than self evident. They rely on common sense notions, but in this case sense is not necessarily common. For Moorhouse, their treatment of work is crude and their definition of leisure spurious. They refuse “To allow that paid labour can be, for most, a source of satisfaction, purpose, creativity, qualitative experience, and so on.”^[13]

Classical assumptions of the nature of work and leisure may no longer be sufficient. Clarke and Critcher themselves state that they are writing during a time of transition to ‘post-industrial’ society. If one takes this claim seriously then it has important implications. “The introduction of flexi-time and the development of human relations techniques in management have made the workplace less oppressive and monotonous for many workers…Moreover, technical progress enables paid employment to be conducted from the home.”^[14] Technology, in particular that most wide of world webs, has magnified the possibilities of working from home further blurring the lines of what constitutes work and leisure. The dualistic and simplistic account as found in Clarke and Critcher may no longer serve. Their account seems isolated in a very specific moment, a moment of change. As noted above, they attempted predictions. Mass and continued unemployment never occurred and one can question how much this fact weakens the conclusions they derived.

Some sociologists see leisure as a site for developing essential social networks, places that maintain and improve cohesion and interaction^[15]. If one considers Simmel’s conception that sociability is leisure in its, “Pure form,’^[16] then one might conclude that the development of leisure networks are a ‘morally’ good occurrence that let actors enjoy true or ‘pure’ leisure, pleasure and fun.

“Social structure may also be manipulated by the intentional activities of actors.”^[17] The Marxist based argument is one sided. The bourgeois are the active oppressors, the working class the submissive victims and there is no room for any real dialogue between worker’s and capitalist ideology. ^[18] Also it assumes that capitalist ideology is uniform and coherent. The ideological structure is rarely that simple.

Feminist theorists such as Wearing^[19] raise the issues of the problem of women’s experiences of leisure. Though raised in Clarke and Crichter’s work, their account does not, perhaps, delve deeply enough into the feminist sociological perspective. The structural and pervasive ideology of Marxism is, in many ways, present in feminist accounts, however particular attention should be paid to the fact that this ideology is exclusively the preserve of men, and is not exclusively economic. Theorists such as Butler^[20] indicate the problem of explaining women’s position in society while being forced to use the only language available, the language of masculinity. Still further Collins critiques feminism as the preserve of white women only.^[21]. “If one ‘is’ a woman then that is surely not all that one is…gender intersects with racial, class, ethnic, sexual and regional discursively constituted identities.”^[22]

In conclusion, Critcher and Clarke’s work fits very neatly within Marxist theoretical framework. As such it has the strengths, and indeed weaknesses, of much Marxist and neo-Marxist theory. Using any one methodology can leave a study exposed to accusations of one dimensionalism. This is a charge that can be levelled, probably fairly, at their thesis. Not only this, but the book, timed during a change in leisure practices, is dated and some of its conclusions are clearly inaccurate. Nonetheless that is not to say that the text is of no use as it does represent many of the dominant ideas that course throughout the study of leisure. The best way to proceed is to use all of the implications noted here, and yet others, when investigating the sociology of leisure.

Bibliography

Leisure for leisure edited by Chris Rojek. Published by Macmillan press 1989

The devil makes work: Leisure in capitalist Britain by J Clarke and C Critcher. Published by Macmillan 1985

Leisure in society, A network structural perspective by Patricia A Stokoswki. Published by Mansell 1994

Ways of Escape by Chris Rojek. Published by Macmillan Press 1993

Leisure and Feminist Theory by B Wearing. Published by Sage 1998

Gender trouble by Judith Butler. Published by Routledge 1999

Black feminist thought by P H Collins. Published by Routledge 1990

The theory of the leisure class by Thorstein Veblen. Published by The new American library 1959

Critically evaluate the research evidence in support of the contention that Britain developed an “underclass in the 1990s?
What are the main differences between the use of underclass and the concept of social exclusion and why is the distinction important?
Introduction

The idea that society was stratified and inhabited by different classes of people dates back to the thought of Karl Marx. Marx saw capitalist society as exploitative and oppressive. Marx maintained that the conflicts between those who rule and those who are ruled, would eventually lead to changes in the economic system of a society (Marsh, I et al.2000). According to Marx the blame for class exploitation does not lie with individual capitalists but is inherent in capitalist systems . Conflict and tension are also evident in capitalist systems. These are especially evident between between different groups of wage earners and between the ruling classes these would intensify due to a number of developments, namely polarisation, homogenisation, and pauperisation (Marsh, I et al.2000).

Polarisation, Marx believed, would occur as a result of increasing tension and hostility between the ruling class and the working class, within the groups individuals would become more like each other resulting in homogenisation, capitalists in their desire for expansion and workers in their reliance on work in factories rather than on traditional skills. The success of capitalism meant that wages need to be kept down and the gap widened between employers and workers. In this way workers are made poorer, or become unemployed and are pauperised. Marx believed that this would result in social revolution and the setting up of a new social system (Marsh, I et al.2000). This did not happen and such pauperization, it might be argued became the basis for what Charles Murray (1990) has termed the development of an underclass.

This paper will evaluate evidence to assess whether and in what ways an underclass may be said to have developed in Britain during the 1990s. It will also look at the main differences between the concept of an underclass and the concept of social exclusion and why this distinction is important.

Charles Murray and the Underclass

Charles Murray is an American and his theory of the underclass was originally developed in over there. He saw an increase in violent crime, a rise in the number of illegitimate births and people dropping out from the labour force, it was on this basis that he formed his theory of a developing underclass. He then attempted to apply this theory to the UK where he observed similar phenomenon taking place. Some of his views led to heated debates, particularly with regard to single mothers, during the Thatcher and Major governments and under New Labour.

Unlike America, Britain is more of a welfare state, or was at the time, and he believed that the over provision of welfare services encouraged welfare dependency and a decreasing desire to work for a living (Murray, 1989). Greater welfare provision, he argued encouraged young girls to have children out of wedlock because they no longer had to rely on a man to support them and their child. The culture of dependency that Murray identified, did, he argued, have a generational aspect. Young males growing up without proper role models ran wild and fathered illegitimate children themselves thus continuing a dependency culture.

Debates in England

His arguments were welcomed by the then Conservative Government who had already vowed to roll back the welfare state. Claiming themselves to be the party of the family (Giddens, 2001) they agreed with Murray that those who did not work should not have children. Those who did have children out of wedlock and could not support them should have their benefits stopped and be forced to give their children up for adoption. Throughout the 1990s this view was espoused by a number of British politicians who aired their views on television debating shows. Although this did not happen, successive Governments have tightened their hold on benefits purse strings and made life much harder for those who have to live on welfare benefits. This had further repercussions in policy making in the UK.

The Housing Act of 1996 was seen by many as a result of these debates and deleted some groups from local authority housing lists those people e.g. single mothers, who had been a priority when it came to local authority housing allocation, thus reducing the responsibility towards the homeless for local authorities. It also brought in the Single Persons Homeless Register, thus reducing responsibility for those who would have been seen as in priority need (Bramley et al, 2005). During this time increased unemployment left large numbers dependent on benefits. The number of those who are long-term unemployed also rose. Social changes and successive government policies has widened the gap between rich and poor. Field (1996) has argued that the actions of the Conservative Government in targeting benefits through means testing, actually increased welfare dependency and put people into an inescapable poverty trap. Field further maintains that these policies were a major factor in the development of an underclass in Britain.

However, in Field’s view the blame rests squarely on the shoulders of the Thatcher and Major governments.

The Underclass and Ethnicity

Some of Murray’s views might be considered racist, in that he claims that black people are less intelligent than whites and black women are more likely to have illegitimate children and live on benefits. Giddens supports Murray’s ideas of an underclass and (albeit for market reasons rather than the reasons given by Murray) also argues that a dual labour market is in operation and as a result of discrimination the underclass contains a high proportion of people from ethnic minorities. Much of what he has to say pre-empts Murray’s work as it was written in 1973.

Where ethnic differences serves as a disqualifying market capacity, such that those in the category are heavily concentrated in the lowest paid occupations, or are chronically unemployed or self-employed, we may speak of the existence of and underclass (Giddens, 1973:112).

Gaillie (1994) has questioned the arguments of Murray and Giddens. He disputes the idea that the underclass develops a specific culture and maintains that there is little evidence to support the existence of a dual labour market. He does however, acknowledge that the position of many people in the labour market has been weakened to the point where they are working for slave wages. While this does tend to support the existence of an underclass, Gaillie refutes the notion that such groups are forming either a class or a culture.

Murray’s Later Work

Writing in 1999 Murray observed that unemployment among young males was much higher than ten years earlier. He disputes the findings of others when he maintains that there was no evidence to suggest that this was the result of a shrinking market. He cites a rise in crime rates, particularly violent crime as further evidence that an underclass sin Britain is developing in the same way as in America. These figures are however disputed by other theorists who would argue that although the crime rate is high it has been on a downturn. He also refers again to the number of single parent families, but figures in Britain evidence that the majority of single parent families are that way as a result of divorce or the death of a partner, rather than the never married single mother. Some of what Murray has to say takes little account of other social problems that may contribute to people living on the margins of society. Some of the groups that Murray refers to might be said to be socially excluded, but this is not the same thing as an underclass.

Social Exclusion

Social exclusion is a term used in a variety of ways but is generally seen to refer to those people who for one reason or another are not fully included in the social life of a community. The reasons for social exclusion are connected, and are poverty, unemployment, and a lack of education. These are not only reasons however, where a person lives, their ethnicity, sexual orientation, or disabilities are also reasons why they might be regarded as excluded. Government recognises that they cannot tackle social exclusion unless they adopt an approach that deals with all these issues together (ODPM, 2004). However, much Government discourse tends to make little distinction between the socially excluded and an underclass because many of its documents refer to single parent families, anti-social behaviour and youth crime. This is wrong because people can be socially excluded without being part of a sub-culture or underclass, if such a thing exists. Social exclusion is a process that stops people from fully participating in society (Giddens, 2001) whereas the concept of an underclass implies that some people choose to opt out of society.

Conclusion

Although there are times where Murray presents a convincing argument, it is not convincing enough to be able to say that there really is an underclass in Britain. Too many different forces could account for the increase in the number of people on benefits, not least a shrinking labour market which Murray refuses to acknowledge, even though many theorist will agree that this is a global phenomenon. Some points that he makes could place people in the category of socially excluded, but as this paper has attempted to establish that is not the same thing as being a member of an underclass. It is certainly the case that some groups of people are a lot less fortunate than others. Many single parents are forced to rely on benefits because if they go to work they will be even worse off. The costs of childcare are astronomical. In conclusion I would say that the evidence does not support Murray’s theory of an underclass. It does tend to suggest that we live in a society where the gap between rich and poor gets wider every day. This in turn means that people are excluded from full social participation e.g. many parents cannot afford for their children to go on school trips. People who live in poorer areas go to the worst schools and so exclusion becomes a vicious circle, but that is not the same thing as saying an underclass is developing in Britain.

Bibliography

Bramley et al, 2005 Evaluation of English Housing Policy 1975-2002

Field, F. 1996. Stakeholder Welfare. London, IEA

Gaillie, D 1994 “ Are the unemployed and underclass? Some evidence from the social change and economic life initiative” Sociology 28, 3 pp737-757

Giddens A 1973 The Class Structure of the Advanced Societies London, Hutchinson

Giddens A 2001 Sociology 4^th ed Cambridge Polity

Murray, C 1989 Underclass Sunday Times Magazine I 26^th November

Murray, C 2000 Underclass+10 Charles Murray and the British Underclass 1990-2000 London, Civitas in association with The Sunday Times

ODPM, 2004. Theme 1: Supply, Need and Access London ODPM

Walsh, I ed. 2000 Sociology: Making Sense of Society. Edinburgh, Prentice Hall.

Every society is dependent on people that comprise of both men and women who are responsible for every activity that is done by them; without people society has no existence. In the 19th century, sociologists started studying relationships between society and people’ interaction with it; it is studied under separate discipline known as “Sociology”. In other words, sociology is both scientific and systematic study of behaviors of human, society and social groups; sociologists are continuously striving to study the forces which are structural and institutional to determine their impact on people’s behaviors, lives, social values along with creation of socially defined structures and institutions (Bau, 2009).

Sociology is described both as a discipline and a practice that requires various attempts by sociologists to attend this field; they have to study people’s activities to note what they are doing on daily basis. It has been rightly stated by a Greek philosopher, cited by Dunn (2010) that sociology is a science that has accumulated every aspect of human’s life; various facets of human interactions have emerged into different subjects or disciplines and that is why sociology is considered as the basics of all social sciences. According to UNESCO (2010), people prefer to assemble so that they can form families, tribes, groups, organizations, nations and communities which can even go beyond boundaries at national level.

As people decide to form groups, they have to make various conscious and oblivious choices regarding sacrifices for their freedom on individual level; at same time, various social benefits can be deduced during this process. The interdependency between individual and society is the main area of focus for every sociologist and they have been trying to study the relationship among people which is known as “social imagination”; it is a mind’s quality which develops an understanding about people in larger society’s context (Anderson, 2006).

Development of Sociology and ideological viewpoints in Sociology

As a result of changing social climate, many developments took place in field of sociology; some problems were observed in worldwide industrialization, immigration, urbanization and changes in intellectual climate and they initiated the need of finding explanations that were impacting social, economic and political sectors in United States and Europe (Dholokia & Wilcox, 2010).

The word ‘sociology’ was coined by a French philosopher “Auguste Comte” in 1839 who is recognized worldwide as father of sociology. The term “Sociology” is basically combination of Latin word ‘Socius’ which means ‘society’ with Greek work ‘Logus’ which means ‘knowledge’ or ‘science’ (Dunn, 2010). According to Auguste Comte, sociology is defined as ‘science of society’; it is the study of societies, groups and social life of humans and it is a discipline that focuses on understanding human behavior as part of social life. Comte focused on positivism which emphasizes on analyzing society by using methods such as experimentation, historical evaluation, observation and comparison. His major contribution is identification of two major areas of sociology, social statics and social dynamics; social statics focus on stable elements such as social structure that can be easily found in societies, while, social dynamics focus on changes that happen on social level. Both of these factors contributed in development of structural functionalist perspective (Bau, 2009).

Harriet Martineau contributed to sociology by introducing first and thorough sociological treaty on social life of American people and did comparison among social stratifications of America and Europe by the name “Society in America”. Her major contribution is translation of Comte’s Introduction to Positive Philosophy in English language; she even realized the need of ending inequality that existed between women and black people. Likewise, Herbert Spencer introduced the idea of evolution which was introduced before Darwin coined the phrase ‘phrase of the fittest’; his philosophy is referred to as Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is based on the concept that societies get evolved like living organisms that evolve with time while getting adapted to environment that is changing at an accelerating rate.

Emile Durkheim did a lot of work in field of sociology by establishing it as a vital part of academic discipline. According to the sociologist, there are a lot of social bonds that exist among various societies which are classified as mechanical solidarity and social solidarity. Durkheim believed that pre-modern and agrarian societies are held together by the mechanical solidarity which is a form of social bond that ensures that beliefs and traditions shared by a group have a sense of social cohesion. On the other hand, societies that are industrial ones are held together in the form of organic solidarity which is a social bond that is based on division of labor which creates interdependence and rights for individuals (Bau, 2009).

A German philosopher Karl Marx made major contribution in sociology by working on conflict theory; he lived during Industrial Revolution era when societal changes were taking place at an increasing rate and concept of capitalism emerged from his work which is the economic system that formed basis of private organizations and sector. Marx had a viewpoint that capitalism was causing class conflict and social inequality in between bourgeoisie who were the owners of factors of production (land, natural resources, money and factories) and proletariat who were the workers. His work also gave foundation to functionalist perspective of sociology. Max Weber contributed to field of sociology by studying the shift from traditional society into modern industrial society. Weber emphasized on rationalization process by studying application of economic logic to every activity of human as a result of the development of bureaucratic society (Dholakia & Wilcox, 2010).

Theoretical perspectives in sociology

In sociology field, there are three major theoretical perspectives in which all theories are classified that are Structural Functionalism Perspective, Conflict Perspective and Symbolic Interactionism Perspective. According to Structural Functionalism Perspective, society is viewed as a social system that comprises of interdependent parts and all of these elements have to fulfill vital functions to enhance effective operation. The origin of this perspective can be traced back to works contributed by Comte, Durkheim and Spencer. According to Dunn (2010), society is composed of a system that has interrelated parts or structures that are basically large-scale institutions which form society like family, politics, education and economy; each of these various parts have to meet society’s needs and when they work together they create a whole system in the form of society.

The concept of conflict theory emerged from the works of Marx who emphasized that social change and society are the basis of social conflict. Marx viewed society with materialistic viewpoint in which people try to maintain their status quo and in order to retain the same status, conflicts arise between people. According to conflict theory, conflict arises when there is disparity in resources both material such as wealth and property and immaterial such as ideology, power and identity of groups. All theories falling in this perspective have macro-oriented view and they emphasize on the structure of society that how it is originated and functions; structure of society is mainly controlled by cultural, social and economic assets. Capital is the main element in conflict theory that enables people to get positions of power in both private and public sectors in which structures are created which disseminate their interest and power (Bau, 2009).

The most modern perspective that is shaping the field of sociology these days is Symbolic Interactionism Perspective (Dunn, 2010). According to this theory, society is similar to a stage where people are the ones who define and redefine their interpretations as they do interaction with one another. The theorists of Symbolic Interactionism perspective view interaction and interpretation or meaning as foundation of society; it is assumed that meanings are created by interaction and they are not inbuilt. This perspective has proven to be highly prominent perspective of 21st century (Bau, 2009).

It is a belief that Symbolic Interactionism is a process in which things are constructed by people as human beings behave towards concepts, values and ideas on their basis of meaning which things have for them, all these meanings are results of interaction that take place in society and they can be filtered and revamped via a process that is interpretive which is used by each individual to deal with signs of outward level (UNESCO, 2010).

Issue of diversity

As a result of globalization, mobility has increased which has created an environment in which people from various cultures, religions, nationalities, ethnic backgrounds and races are forming part of society; such diverse culture is raising demand of creation of society in which everyone is given equal and fair treatment. There are many sociological researches that have indicated that every American is acknowledging diversity importance and well-known conceptions are ambiguous that reflect more on political correctness rather than understanding the existence of diversity (Bau, 2009). It is important for people to realize that social issues cannot be viewed solely by focusing on simple terms such as good or evil, white or black and right or wrong; diversity issue can be tackled only by understanding values, viewpoints, beliefs and lifestyles of people who have different ethnic backgrounds, nationalities, races, religions and cultures.

In order to understand diversity that exists in society, research should focus to make a sample that comprise of people of both sexes, complete range of roles of each gender, wide variety of groups such as ethnic and racial, diverse range of physical and mental abilities, various sexual orientations and many representatives from various political, cultural, religious and national affiliations along with social classes (Dholakia & Wilcox, 2010). Therefore, sociologists are taking interest in various variables like age, sex, social class, race and other social characteristics such as interaction on social level and society structure in which people are living. Hence, social diversity is being studied by many sociologists so that various aspects of social life can be questioned which is the basics of sociological thinking.

Impact of media on public attitudes

According to all three perspectives of sociology i.e. Structural Functionalist, Conflict and Symbolic Interactionism, media has impacted the way in which people view groups belonging to specific race, nationality and religion; it has high power in influencing people’s perceptions about various groups. Media has both benefits and drawbacks that have affected people’s attitudes towards diverse groups. With the help of various communication tools such as Television, Internet, Newspapers, Magazines, Conferences and alike, various critical issues can be heightened such as natural disasters, instability in society and war. As a result of various media activities, passivity has been encouraged, stereotyping is promoted, people are provided fake and inaccurate information, physical activity has been discouraged and critical thinking skills have been affected to a considerable extent (Dunn, 2010).

For instance, when 9/11 incident took place, Muslims were condemned worldwide and it was imposed by media that every Muslim should never be trusted and a stereotype was created about Muslims; this image was wrongly portrayed by various mediums of communication. However, when people protested about inequality between men and women and black and white people, the government took necessary steps by passing a law that there should be no discrimination on the basis of race, color, age, lifestyle, ethnic background, religion and nationality. Therefore, it can rightly said that media has power of influencing patterns of people’s thinking mechanism and even their attitudes towards various diverse people (Bau, 2009).

Subtle cues impacting Individual’s thinking about social structures and patterns

The sociologists have rightly pointed out that media plays an increasing role in creating social structures and patters that are preferred by powerful people of the society. According to Symbolic Interactionism perspective, media has the ability of defining situation in shortest possible time; some of the most effective tools are films, videos, advertisements and posters that have been used to create images about certain groups of society. All tools of communication create subtle cues that tend to impact their thinking about structures and patterns of society. For instance, when posters related to some ethnic group are posted to highlight their role in society, they will create certain images in minds of people which form subtle cues.

Hence, in these days, various communication tools are being used in media to create awareness in the market; politicians even stage various media events so that they can create popularity of various important agenda and promote careers. Every activist organization and social movement organization has a website so that it can form images in people’s minds and promotes its mission and primary business objectives. Therefore, films and critiques even communicate information both real and overt that impact societal attitudes, patterns and structures. People get influenced by films and try to implement the things learnt from such videos in their real lives; it is vital for them to make sure that they accept right messages and implement those cultural aspects that will impact their culture. Therefore, media has played an important role in shaping societal patterns, structures and culture.

It started during the 1980’s. In the context of Philippine colonial education, Filipinos believe that scientific psychology came from the West. Murray Bartlett, an American established undergraduate psychology courses in the College of Education, University of the Philippines. American textbooks and English language were used as the medium of instruction. The good thing here is that literary writing was in Filipino language that was in dominance. Francis Burton Harrison’s policy of attraction was also introduced during this time. [1]

The works of del Pilar, Jacinto and Pardo de Tavera were rich sources of psychological theories even though they were propagandists and not psychologists. Even Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo mentioned the term “Psicologos del verbo Tagalog” in his speech. They were not title holders in Psychology but they still have this innate nature. The English language and the American system of Education were the instruments used. During the twenties American psychology teachers were replaced by Filipinos. [2]

The Philippine objection to uncritical importation of Americans’ Psychological models challenged some of the Filipinos. The first attempt was done by Sinsiforo Padilla who took over from Alonzo’s position as a chairman at the University of the Philippines. Nevertheless, it was his colleague Manuel Carreon who took the cudgels for appropriate relevant psychological testing. 1926 he published in New York his Ph.D. entitled the Philippine Studies in Mental Measurement. The arguments he presented was valid but the his wrong move was he published it in English. Nobody listened to him because during that time most of psychologists were ahead and they administered American tests. Some understood part of Carreon’s message were modified to fit the Philippine context. “change-apples-to-bananas” [3]

Isidoro Panlasigui identified the new culture of Psychology. The third generation of American brainwashed Filipino psychologists like Panlasigui. Due to this, Panlasigui admires America and it was clearly showed when he wrote about the psychology of the Filipino as he fought for the colonial language to be used.

Alfredo V. Lagmay and his colleagues were sent to the United States not to neutralize the department. Lagmay studied Psychology in Harvard where he was trained in the area of Experimental Psychology. He came back to the Philippines during the poor unrest under Hukbalahap with Luis Taruc, as the head. During that time, the Department of Psychology in the University of the Philippines was part of the College of Education. It was then Lagmay’s first move to transfer it to the College of Liberal Arts by changing the educational point of view to a more scientific basis of orientation. Experimental Psychology is now an integral part of the undergraduate curriculum in Philippine schools and it was because of him. The U.P Department of Psychology was perceived as behavioral orientation form the 50’s up to early 70’s. His students continued some remarkable and significant studies in the field. [4]

The History and Lines of Filiations in Philippine Psychological Thought
Psychology-Academic

This aspect of psychology became part of university curriculum under Francisco Benitez during 1922. It was first taught in the University of the Philippines as a part of the education curriculum. This is the period wherein several studies in psychology such as Experimental Psychology, Educational Psychology and Psychology of Advice Giving were introduced. It was said that the Western Psychology first entered the UP system but it was spread widely in UST (University of Sto. Tomas) and University of San Carlos in Cebu. During the year of 1954, Joseph Goertz established the Department of Psychology and used English as the medium of teaching. On the other hand, in the midst of its growth in Manila this discipline was also introduced as a course in the University of St. Louis in Cordillera. It was facilitated by Fr. Evarist Louis a missionary priest. [5]

Psychology-Academic Philosophy

However, Psychology-Academic Philosophy was established first at University of Sto. Tomas by Spaniards and improved by the Jesuits. This aspect was older than the aspect mentioned before. It started and founded in many universities like UST (University of Sto. Tomas) and other Spanish institutions like San Ignacio and San Jose. In such institutions the medical and philosophy courses started. The ideas and written records on that time were seen to be related to Psychology. In a deeper analysis those can contain the way of life before. It includes the language , how the “indio” perceive the concept of self ,its criticisms and the activities of the ancient civilization.

Ethnic Psychology

The third aspect of Psychology known as Ethnic Psychology. It originates from the Filipinos and through the influence of other countries. It is not only older but also much complicated compared to the previous aspects. It has many strands to be entangled and one of those is the psychology that came from the Filipinos themselves. An indigenous psychology that is owned or influenced by other countries. The language is a cone attributing factor especially those activities that can show the collective experiences of Filipinos. The works of Jose Rizal and Isabelo de los Reyes were consisted of Filipino Psychology and it was greatly connected to the Psycho- Medical Psychology of our forefathers. [6]

Social Psychology

The study of Social Psychology is defined as a systematic study of the nature and causes of human social behavior. Primarily, its concern is about human social behavior. It includes a lot of matters regarding the individual’s impact on other people, the processes of social interaction and the relationship that exist between individuals in the society. It is not just concerned with the nature of social behavior but also with its causes. The study seeks to unravel the reasons and pre conditions of social behavior. It also depicts the analysis of social behavior in a dynamic way. It relies on methodologies, findings, experiments and surveys. In asking what the study is all about its 4 main concerns were also considered as a means of knowing it clearly. Basically it is about the impact that one individual has on another, the impact that a group has on its members then vice versa and the impact of a group to another group. [7]

In the context of the discipline in a working definition. Psychologists focus their attention in understanding the behavior of individuals within the context of society. It is primarily concerned with the understanding of the how and why individuals behave, think and feel as the way they do. In dealing with behavior we mean feelings and thoughts as well as overt actions.” [8]

Consequently, it is defined as a scientific study of how a person’s behavior, thoughts and feelings are influenced by several factors that can be real or imagined in the form or the presence of others. The field looks at behavior and mental processes including the social world in which we exist, as we are surrounded by other whom we are connected and by whom we are influenced in so many ways. It focuses on influence. [9]

The definition of Social Psychology in the Filipino context was explained through the interview that I have conducted. According to Ms. Leslee Natividad from the Department of Social Sciences, University of the Philippines, Los Ba?”os ,when I asked her what is the role of Filipino Social Psychology in the deeper understanding of Filipino behavior? She gave me a definition to answer the question .

“First we have to define first what Social Psychology is soaˆ¦Social Psychology is the study of how individuals affect the society and how the society is affecting the individual .If we’re going to relate Filipino into that on how the Filipino is affected by the society that we have here in the Philippines and maybe in the world in general. Now the world and the Philippine society affect the Filipino individual. As a person, everything that we are experiencing around us. Things that we are seeing, things that we are hearing, things that are affecting each and every moment of our lives that is part of Filipino Social Psychology. All of our behavior is shaped by the kinds of experiences that we have.” [10]

3 Main Areas of Social Psychology
Social Influence

It is the way in which other people affect our behavior. It is a process through which the presence of others can directly or indirectly influence an individual. These are ways in which other people affect our behaviors through thoughts and actions. How we are raised by certain people to whom we interact can affect our behavior. It varies with Conformity, Compliance and Obedience.

Conformity which pertains to the changing of one’s own behavior to more closely match the actions of others, Several studies suggest that individuals will change their behavior to conform to those of the group. They can be influence by private vs. face-to-face contact Plus, the gender and culture. Compliance is the act of changing their behavior due to another person or group asking them to change. Particularly, it happened when there is absence of authority and power. Obedience is also a way of changing behavior at a direct order of an authority figure.

Social Cognition

It is defined as the ways how people thinks about other people and how they act toward other individuals. It varies because of attitudes which consist of the way a person feels and thinks as well a person behaves. Impression formation is also a part of cognition which is forming the first knowledge or judgment about a person seen for the first time. Attribution is the process of explaining self behavior or others. They use this to make sense of the social world through mental processes. [11]

“What was once called the objective world is a sort of Rorschach ink blot, into which each culture, lack system of science and religion, each type of personality, reads a meaning only remotely derived from the shape and color of the blot itself.”In this aspect of judgment of are beauty are based on the way we think about things. There is no universal concept or characteristics of people and object that are beautiful for them. Whatever we see around us is as much the sum total or our biases, thoughts and feelings as it reflects what physically exist. Those perceptions are active process of selecting, organizing and interpreting various bits of information so that we can create our reality. [12]

Social Interaction

It is a way of knowing the positive and negative aspects of behavior. It is the area of Social Psychology which involves interaction and relationship between people. It includes prejudice which happens when an individual holds an unsupported and negative attitude towards other members of the society. It also varies with discrimination as treating people differently because of prejudice. Liking and loving, aggression were also developed here. [13]

The liking and loving in our society known as interpersonal attraction is widely observed. Each one of us is attracted to some personalities in our society. It can be influenced and proved by the similarities, position, physical appearance and familiarity of both sexes [14] .

The nature of aggression involves hurting others. It has been defined as “any form of behavior directed towards the goal of harming or injuring another living being who is motivated to avoid such treatment.” (Baron and Richardson, 1993)

According to psychologists they have identified three types of aggression. Firstly, is the Person-oriented aggression wherein the main goal is intentionally hurt someone. Secondly, is Pro active aggression when an aggressive behavior is done to achieve some desired outcome like gaining possession of an object. Lastly, is Reactive aggression is the reaction of an individual to an aggressive act. [15]

In a positive way one of the best examples of pro social behavior is Altruism. It is a helping behavior that is costly to an altruistic person. It is a desire to help even there is no possible reward. It is always expected to depend on empathy. Empathy is the ability to share emotions and understand another person. [16]

Projects of Filipino Psychology

The first project is to develop indigenous psychological concepts. Ethnic concepts and theories can be translated into another language but deviations in meaning will occur especially with respect to location. There were some concepts that Filipinos exhibited and some foreign researchers tried to analyze and study. The first was the concept of Shame or “Hiya” which was studied by Frank Lynch in 1961. Sibley during the 1965 analyze this behavior. During 1981 Salazar studied it thoroughly and said that it was a complete societal feeling that is not only passive but also active. He showed the external aspects ” hiyain, ikahiya at manghiya” and also the internal aspect that involves the feelings and emotions like the act of “kahiya hiya and mahiyain”. The second concept was Fatalism or “Bahala Na”. Bostrom in 1968 was the first psychologist that become inquisitive about this Filipino behavior. He compared it with American Fatalism but in Filipino Psychology it has a different orientation. Before, Osias explained way back the 1940’s that “bahala na” attitude is the combination of fatalism and determinism.

On the other hand Lagmay corrected it and said that for him it is not about fatalism it is more of determination and courage to face unguaranteed times. Lastly, is the concept of “Utang na Loob” which was translated by Charles Kaut into English known as debt of gratitude. Enriquez disagreed and Holnsteiner gave his opinion that ‘utang na loob” is contractual. [17]

The second project is utilization of indigenous research methods. The role of Santiago and Enriquez in building a concept of Filipino oriented research was very important. They suggested a model to be used in research. The model will serve as a guide of researchers of indigenous ways. It was divided into two scales. First is used in knowing the idea and “diwa” of an member of a society. It includes “Pagmamasid”, “Pakikiramdam”, “Pagtatanung- tanong”, “Pasubok”, “Pagdalaw dalaw”, “Pagmamatyag”, ” Pagsubaybay”, “Pakikialam” at “Pakikilahok”. The other scale is for the researchers to know what will be the future or end of their study. They use several stages such as “Pakikitungo”, “Pakikisama”, “Pakikisalamuha”, “Pakikibagay” ,”Pakikisangkot” at “Pakikiisa”

The third project is to create an authentic and appropriate social scientific psychology. In the deeper analysis of constructing a real version of social psychology social behavior is a must. The society of Filipinos revolves smoothly because of their “Pakikisama and Pakikipagkapwa”. In dealing with both concepts it has been discovered that between the two “pakikipagkapwa” is more important for Filipinos. It has a more deeper sense and implication. It means treating other people as fellow man. In English the context was changed. The word “other” perceiving the self and other self in an individualistic way. [18]

The Bases of Filipino Psychology

Primarily, Prior knowledge of Psychology was the first basis of Filipinos for it involves important parts of Filipino Social Psychology. The knowledge of psychology “Babaylan” or “Catalonan” for the native Filipino people was an important part of Filipino Psychology. The “Babaylan” was the first Filipino psychologists. Aside from this were the prayers and whispers of various ethnic groups in the Philippines. Those were rich sources and stream of Filipinos’ prior knowledge of Psychology. We were also used in the psychology of the Filipino literature, even if it was expressed in oral or written way. It includes proverbs, stories and legends. The values and attitudes that Filipinos inherited were significant bases of Psychology. It includes most of Ethnic Psychology. [19]

Man and his Thoughts

The second is the basis of man and his thoughts and it denotes giving importance to man and his or her ideas. This is where Filipino Psychology and Psychology in the Philippines met. Filipino psychology was a part and always been a part of the world’s psychology. This basis has a clear influence of rational psychology that has been developed and improved in the University of Sto. Tomas. This was considered as traditional philosophy rooted in the ideas of Descartes and written works of Aristotle. Psychology is an aspect of Filipino Psychology as an academic discipline in some universities in the Philippines. [20]

Period of changing mind

It was the third basis because it is associated with Filipino personality. There were a lot of bases seen in this period. Particularly, this basis was evident in the written works of some Filipino writers like Pedro Serrano Laktaw and Isabelo delos Reyes. Even before the psychology of language was seen in written outputs produced by Filipinos. It somehow showed the shallow orientation of Filipino in terms of experiences in researching and conducting studies. Filipinos should not dampen their spirits instead they should hope for some improvements.

Period of giving value to societal problems

The time of giving importance to societal problems was the fourth basis because this serves as a witness of the society. Hartendorp is one of the American psychologists who become interested in our Psychology. The theory of Osias in 1940 is about the relation of language to the society and in connection of the knowledge of paralanguage in the actions of the individuals. However, his period is also the time of some Filipino psychologists. In such a way Filipino Psychology have this sure basis and it includes the works of Isidoro Panlasigui, Sinsiforo Padilla and Alfredo Lagmay who all gave importance to the acts and capabilities of an individual. [21]

Societal problems

Problems in the society were the fifth bases because it gave value for improvement and development. Aldaba- Lim is known for giving high value in societal problems. He often encourages Filipino psychologists to listen to the problems of the society. All doubts in his dedication will vanished if a person will examine all his efforts and contribution in some of his researches in Psychology. The period of Activism served as a witness of this basis.

Language, culture and Point of view

Language, culture and Point of view were the sixth bases because it is the most fundamental of all bases.Filipino language and dialect is very significant because it is a witness in the many studies conducted and translated into foreign language. The field must still use medium, system and ways to guarantee the wide scope of study. Regarding culture there are none or very few Filipinos who still doubt about the language and culture of the Philippines. According to some professors and psychologists there was this “acquiescence effect” in the can be seen in a scale used and answered by Filipinos. The American perspective was used in analyzing this. It must be done primarily in a Filipino oriented point of view. [22]

The Concept of Language

The concept of local language as a source of concept for Filipinos is a helpful tool because it gives a clear connection to their culture. Language is not just one effective way of communication but also a rich source of information. It is an affluent basis for the better understanding and orientation of culture. It is suggested to formulate a certain Filipino concept from the broader and wider scope it has. Language is the primary source in the study of Social Psychology of Filipinos.

The native language is a rich source of concepts meaningful for and significant to the local culture.” As a source of insight, some concepts were proven to be important in understanding the Filipino personality, worldview and behavior. Some of those were the concepts of “hiya”(shame), “utang na loob”(debt of gratitude) , “pakikisama”(yielding to the will of the leader or the majority, “bahala na” (fatalism) and “amor propio” (sensitivity to personal affront) which even some American psychologists attempted to study those.The problem with the token use of Filipino psychological concepts in the context of a western analysis is that it can lead to the distortion of Philippine social reality and can affect the education of Filipinos.It still preferable to use the language as a main resource. [23]

Most Filipinos speak Filipino, the national language; and English, the language for commercial and legal transactions. The Philippines is the world’s third largest English-speaking country, after the United States and the United Kingdom. Literacy rate is a high 96%.Approximately 111 languages and dialects are spoken in the country and most Manilenos speak at least one other dialect besides Filipino. [24]

The Concept of Kapwa

The concept of “kapwa” in Filipinos is an important aspect of Filipino social life. “Kapwa” is reflected because interaction among other individuals especially in the Philippines is an essential aspect of social life. Language reveals a lot about Filipino nature. For this reason, social interaction should be an evocative core of analysis in the process of classifying the concept of “kapwa”. The Filipino language in this notch, gives a conceptual division in several levels and modes of social interaction. Santiago and Enriquez identified eight in Filipino.

The Levels of Interaction

Interaction of Filipinos were categorized into levels namely pakikitungo (transaction/civility with), pakikisalamuha (inter-action with), pakikilahok (joining/participating), pakikibagay (in- conformity with/ in- accord with), pakikisama (being along with), pakikipagpalagayan/pakikipagmalagayang-loob (being in rapport), pakikisangkot (getting involved) and pakikiisa (being one with). [25]

The concept of Kapwa as a shared inner self turns out to be very essential psychologically and philosophically speaking. While “pagtutunguhan” (dealing with/acting toward) is another term which can be used to refer to all levels of interaction. Besides, pagtutunguhan also connotes the most superficial level of interaction: the level of amenities while “pakikipagkapwa” refers to “humanness at its highest level”(Santiago,1976) [26]

On the other hand aside from the concept of “kapwa” According to Russell, In 1922 there were several explanations in essay forms about the high Filipino Self Concept. One of the most ordinary is it being the character of race as Filipinos got from the Malays. In 1965 Fox said that this is a trait of Filipino culture that is paid to be in the social context because of its fortitude to produce close family ties. . [27]

The Concept of Human Interaction

The concept of Human Interaction includes the distinction between (Pakikisama or Pakikipagkapwa?) It is an essential part because it is very consistent in Filipinos. Aside from the good sides of interaction, previous work on Philippine values pointed our three evil characters in Philippine interpersonal relations. These are the “walang pakisama” (one inept at the level of adjustment); the “walang hiya”, (one who lacks a sense of propriety and “the walang utang na loob”, (one who lacks adeptness in reciprocating by way of gratitude.

In a deeper analysis some studies were conducted, It was argued that pakikipagkapwa is more important for Filipinos. According to Enriquez, in spite of the fact that western psychology works in the Philippines, the use of Filipino has led to the identification of the value “pakikipagkapwa” which is more important that pakikisama. The barkada (peer group) would not be happy with the “walang pakikisama” but the Philippine society at large cannot accept the walang kapwa tao.” Pakikipagkapwa is both a paninindigan (conviction) and a value. It includes all the other mentioned modes and levels of interaction. “Pakikisama” is a form of pakikipagkapwa but not the other way around. In fact “pakikisalamuha” is even closer than “pakikisama” in meaning to “pakikipagkapwa.” [28]

Application of Filipino Social Psychology
Filipino Culture

The Social, Political, Ideational dimensions are diverse into aspects which were exhibited by Filipinos. The study of the customs and beliefs of Filipinos serves as a function of social and economic dimension of Filipino culture. The Philippine culture is such very rich. It was very evident in the following ways. In courtship and marriage most of the Filipinos regard this as a process of love as a parental affair. The marriage is the family affair which is measured as a success based on the number of children. Filipinos also believe in ” Babaylans and Catalonan” which were said to posses supernatural powers to supplicate God. They were also fond of charms and they believe that when they perform their rites particularly on the Good Friday they will gain magical powers like anting-anting, lucky cards, stones and other stuffs. As a part of their social life they celebrate feasts to commemorate important events like Fiestas, Holy Week, New Year, Christmas and etc. It really played an essential role in the economic security and social solidarity of Filipinos. They are also known for their superstitious beliefs which are greatly connected to their rituals and ceremonies.

In connection to supernatural beings they follow these beliefs to avoid bad luck. It was seen in birth, illness and death which control the psyche of Filipinos. In religion when Christianity was introduced by Spaniards, it became a driving force to the life of the Filipinos. They were also thoughtful especially when someone is sick and in need. They are afraid of what other people might say. Some of their practices include giving dowry, carrying of guns, choice of padrino and carrying bow and arrows, sibat and kris. During the time of our ethnic groups’ laws were also made with regards to property ownership an settling arguments. [29]

Filipino Values

“Filipinos use values to fill the demand for democracy. “The Filipinos are known to be hospitable. But aside from this trait, there are many other values that the Filipinos possess which help them live harmoniously with their neighbors. These have also made the Filipinos appealing towards others due to their pleasant demeanor. The following are some of the Filipino values such as “Bayanihan” is the creation of an association with neighbors and helping whenever one is in disastrous need. “Close Family Ties” are something the Filipinos are well-known for. The primary social welfare system for the Filipino is the family. Many Filipinos live near their family for most of their lives, even as independent adults. “Pakikisama” or harmony, involves getting along with others to preserve a harmonious relationship. Hiya is shame and a motivating factor behind behavior. It is a sense of social decency and compliance to public norms and behavior. Filipinos believe they must live up to the accepted standards of behavior and if they fail to do so they bring shame not only upon themselves, but also upon their family. “Utang na Loob” or Debt of Gratitude, is owed by one to a person who has helped him great. There is a local saying: “Ang hindi marunong lumingon sa pinanggalinangan ay hindi makakarating sa paroroonan’, meaning, ‘One who does not look back o where he started, will no get to where he is going.”Amor Propio” is concern for self image. Filipinos believe that how they present themselves to others is an important aspect to be accepted in society. “Delicadeza” or sense of propriety refers to sensitivity regarding the limits of proper behavior or ethics in a situation. Filipinos try to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. “Palabra de Honor” or word of honor is very important to the Filipinos. They believe that one must keep their word whenever they make a promise for the person to whom one has made a promise will count on it.” [30]

Filipino Family

The study of Filipino Family is valuable because they value family relationship. In a traditional Filipino family, the father is considered the head and the provider of the family while the mother takes responsibility of the domestic needs and in charge of the emotional growth and values formation of the children. Children see their mot

“If people lived in total isolation from other people, there would be no reason to study the effect that other people have on the behavior of individuals and groups. But human beings are social creatures. We live with others, work and play with others.” We as Filipinos are full of extraordinary but amusing traits and attitudes. Filipinos love interaction and relationship within the society that is why we and the society are one.

It is important because it is about us, the Filipinos. The way we influence, think and influence others. Secondly, it can help in educating and providing awareness in understanding the nature of people and experience. Thirdly, problems that we are facing nowadays such as societal problems, can be solved purely but this requires shift in human behavior. Lastly, it is important because it aims to deconstruct the Filipino mind’s way of thinking. It will serve as an eye opener for each and every Filipino. We personally expect that through this study we can understand the nature and causes of Filipino social behavior.

The objectives of this paper are to know what gave rise to this field particularly its history? What are the concepts of social psychology associated with our daily life and what are its applications in the Filipinos. The scope and limitation of this study is within the context of the Philippines but some concepts were adapted from the West.

It started during the 1980’s. In the context of Philippine colonial education, Filipinos believe that scientific psychology came from the West. Murray Bartlett, an American established undergraduate psychology courses in the College of Education, University of the Philippines. American textbooks and English language were used as the medium of instruction. The good thing here is that literary writing was in Filipino language that was in dominance. Francis Burton Harrison’s policy of attraction was also introduced during this time. [1]

Early American Psychology in the Philippines and the colonial culture on Philippine Psychology was because of Agustin Alonzo. The Filipino term “psicologia” was already a part of layman’s vocabulary.The works of del Pilar, Jacinto and Pardo de Tavera were rich sources of psychological theories even though they were propagandists and not psychologists. Even Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo mentioned the term “Psicologos del verbo Tagalog” in his speech. They were not title holders in Psychology but they still have this innate nature. The English language and the American system of Education were the instruments used. During the twenties American psychology teachers were replaced by Filipinos. [2]

The Philippine objection to uncritical importation of Americans’ Psychological models challenged some of the Filipinos. The first attempt was done by Sinsiforo Padilla who took over from Alonzo’s position as a chairman at the University of the Philippines. Nevertheless, it was his colleague Manuel Carreon who took the cudgels for appropriate relevant psychological testing. On 1926 the Philippine Studies in Mental Measurement was published.Some understood part of Carreon’s message were modified to fit the Philippine context. “change-apples-to-bananas” [3]

3 Isidoro Panlasigui identified the new culture of Psychology. The third generation of American brainwashed Filipino psychologists like Panlasigui. Due to this, Panlasigui admires America and it was clearly showed when he wrote about the psychology of the Filipino as he fought for the colonial language to be used.

Alfredo V. Lagmay and his colleagues were sent to the United States not to neutralize the department. During that time, the Department of Psychology in the University of the Philippines was part of the College of Education. It was him to transferred it to the College of Liberal Arts. The U.P Department of Psychology was perceived as behavioral orientation form the 50’s up to early 70’s. His students continued some remarkable and significant studies in the field. [4]

The History and Lines of Filiations in Philippine Psychological Thought
Psychology-Academic

This aspect of psychology became part of university curriculum under Francisco Benitez during 1922. It was first taught in the University of the Philippines as a part of the education curriculum. During the year of 1954, Joseph Goertz established the Department of Psychology and used English as the medium of teaching. On the other hand, in the midst of its growth in Manila this discipline was also introduced as a course in the University of St. Louis in Cordillera. It was facilitated by Fr. Evarist Louis a missionary priest. [5]

Psychology-Academic Philosophy

However, Psychology-Academic Philosophy was established first at University of Sto. Tomas by Spaniards and improved by the Jesuits. This aspect was older than the aspect mentioned before. It started and founded in many universities like UST (University of Sto. Tomas) and other Spanish institutions like San Ignacio and San Jose. In such institutions the medical and philosophy courses started. The ideas and written records on that time were seen to be related to Psychology. In a deeper analysis those can contain the way of life before. It includes the language , how the “indio” perceive the concept of self ,its criticisms and the activities of the ancient civilization.

4Ethnic Psychology

The third aspect of Psychology known as Ethnic Psychology. It originates from the Filipinos and through the influence of other countries. It is not only older but also much complicated compared to the previous aspects. It has many strands to be entangled and one of those is the psychology that came from the Filipinos themselves. An indigenous psychology that is owned or influenced by other countries. The language is a cone attributing factor especially those activities that can show the collective experiences of Filipinos. [6]

Social Psychology

The study of Social Psychology is defined as a systematic study of the nature and causes of human social behavior. Primarily, its concern is about human social behavior. It includes a lot of matters regarding the individual’s impact on other people, the processes of social interaction and the relationship that exist between individuals in the society. It is not just concerned with the nature of social behavior but also with its causes. It relies on methodologies, findings, experiments and surveys. In asking what the study is all about its 4 main concerns were also considered as a means of knowing it clearly. Basically it is about the impact that one individual has on another, the impact that a group has on its members then vice versa and the impact of a group to another group.

In the context of the discipline in a working definition. Psychologists focus their attention in understanding the behavior of individuals within the context of society. It is primarily concerned with the understanding of the how and why individuals behave, think and feel as the way they do. In dealing with behavior we mean feelings and thoughts as well as overt actions.”

Consequently, it is defined as a scientific study of how a person’s behavior, thoughts and feelings are influenced by several factors that can be real or imagined in the form or the presence of others. The field looks at behavior and mental processes including the social world in which we exist, as we are surrounded by other whom we are connected and by whom we are influenced in so many ways. It focuses on influence. [7]

5An interview from Ms. Leslee Natividad from the Department of Social Sciences, University of the Philippines, Los Ba?”os

“First we have to define first what Social Psychology is soaˆ¦Social Psychology is the study of how individuals affect the society and how the society is affecting the individual .If we’re going to relate Filipino into that on how the Filipino is affected by the society that we have here in the Philippines and maybe in the world in general. Now the world and the Philippine society affect the Filipino individual. As a person, everything that we are experiencing around us. Things that we are seeing, things that we are hearing, things that are affecting each and every moment of our lives that is part of Filipino Social Psychology. All of our behavior is shaped by the kinds of experiences that we have.” [8]

3 Main Areas of Social Psychology
Social Influence

It is the way in which other people affect our behavior. It is a process through which the presence of others can directly or indirectly influence an individual. These are ways in which other people affect our behaviors through thoughts and actions. How we are raised by certain people to whom we interact can affect our behavior. It varies with Conformity, Compliance and Obedience.

Social Cognition

It is defined as the ways how people thinks about other people and how they act toward other individuals. It varies because of attitudes which consist of the way a person feels and thinks as well a person behaves. Impression formation is also a part of cognition which is forming the first knowledge or judgment about a person seen for the first time. Attribution is the process of explaining self behavior or others. They use this to make sense of the social world through mental processes. [9]

6 “What was once called the objective world is a sort of Rorschach ink blot, into which each culture, lack system of science and religion, each type of personality, reads a meaning only remotely derived from the shape and color of the blot itself.” [10]

Social Interaction

It is a way of knowing the positive and negative aspects of behavior. It is the area of Social Psychology which involves interaction and relationship between people. It includes prejudice which happens when an individual holds an unsupported and negative attitude towards other members of the society. It also varies with discrimination as treating people differently because of prejudice. Liking and loving, aggression were also developed here. [11]

The liking and loving in our society known as interpersonal attraction is widely observed. Each one of us is attracted to some personalities in our society. It can be influenced and proved by the similarities, position, physical appearance and familiarity of both sexes [12] .

According to psychologists they have identified three types of aggression. Firstly, is the Person-oriented aggression wherein the main goal is intentionally hurt someone. Secondly, is Pro active aggression when an aggressive behavior is done to achieve some desired outcome like gaining possession of an object. Lastly, is Reactive aggression is the reaction of an individual to an aggressive act. [13]

In a positive way one of the best examples of pro social behavior is Altruism. It is a helping behavior that is costly to an altruistic person. It is a desire to help even there no

7 possible reward. It is always expected to depend on empathy. Empathy is the ability to share emotions and understand another person. [14]

The Bases of Filipino Psychology

Primarily, Prior knowledge of Psychology was the first basis of Filipinos for it involves important parts of Filipino Social Psychology. The knowledge of psychology “Babaylan” or “Catalonan” for the native Filipino people was an important part of Filipino Psychology. The “Babaylan” was the first Filipino psychologists. Aside from this were the prayers and whispers of various ethnic groups in the Philippines. Those were rich sources and stream of Filipinos’ prior knowledge of Psychology. We were also used in the psychology of the Filipino literature, even if it was expressed in oral or written way. It includes proverbs, stories and legends. The values and attitudes that Filipinos inherited were significant bases of Psychology. It includes most of Ethnic Psychology. [15]

Man and his Thoughts

The second is the basis of man and his thoughts and it denotes giving importance to man and his or her ideas. This is where Filipino Psychology and Psychology in the Philippines met. Filipino psychology was a part and always been a part of the world’s psychology. This basis has a clear influence of rational psychology that has been developed and improved in the University of Sto. Tomas. This was considered as traditional philosophy rooted in the ideas of Descartes and written works of Aristotle. Psychology is an aspect of Filipino Psychology as an academic discipline in some universities in the Philippines. [16]

Period of changing mind

It was the third basis because it is associated with Filipino personality. There were a lot of bases seen in this period. Particularly, this basis was evident in the written works of some Filipino writers like Pedro Serrano Laktaw and Isabelo delos Reyes. Even before the psychology of language was seen in written outputs produced by Filipinos. It somehow showed the shallow orientation of Filipino in terms of experiences in researching and conducting studies. Filipinos should not dampen their spirits instead they should hope for some improvements.

8Period of giving value to societal problems

The time of giving importance to societal problems was the fourth basis because this serves as a witness of the society. Hartendorp is one of the American psychologists who become interested in our Psychology. The theory of Osias in 1940 is about the relation of language to the society and in connection of the knowledge of paralanguage in the actions of the individuals. However, his period is also the time of some Filipino psychologists. In such a way Filipino Psychology have this sure basis and it includes the works of Isidoro Panlasigui, Sinsiforo Padilla and Alfredo Lagmay who all gave importance to the acts and capabilities of an individual. [17]

Societal problems

Problems in the society were the fifth bases because it gave value for improvement and development. Aldaba- Lim is known for giving high value in societal problems. He often encourages Filipino psychologists to listen to the problems of the society. All doubts in his dedication will vanished if a person will examine all his efforts and contribution in some of his researches in Psychology. The period of Activism served as a witness of this basis.

Language, culture and Point of view

Language, culture and Point of view were the sixth bases because it is the most fundamental of all bases.Filipino language and dialect is very significant because it is a witness in the many studies conducted and translated into foreign language. The field must still use medium, system and ways to guarantee the wide scope of study. Regarding culture there are none or very few Filipinos who still doubt about the language and culture of the Philippines. According to some professors and psychologists there was this “acquiescence effect” in the can be seen in a scale used and answered by Filipinos. The American perspective was used in analyzing this. It must be done primarily in a Filipino oriented point of view. [18]

9

The Concept of Language

The concept of local language as a source of concept for Filipinos is a helpful tool because it gives a clear connection to their culture. Language is not just one effective way of communication but also a rich source of information. It is an affluent basis for the better understanding and orientation of culture. It is suggested to formulate a certain Filipino concept from the broader and wider scope it has. Language is the primary source in the study of Social Psychology of Filipinos.

The native language is a rich source of concepts meaningful for and significant to the local culture.” As a source of insight, some concepts were proven to be important in understanding the Filipino personality, worldview and behavior. Some of those were the concepts of “hiya”(shame), “utang na loob”(debt of gratitude) , “pakikisama”(yielding to the will of the leader or the majority, “bahala na” (fatalism) and “amor propio” (sensitivity to personal affront) which even some American psychologists attempted to study those. It still preferable to use the language as a main resource. [19]

The Concept of Kapwa

The concept of “kapwa” in Filipinos is an important aspect of Filipino social life. “Kapwa” is reflected because interaction among other individuals especially in the Philippines is an essential aspect of social life. Language reveals a lot about Filipino nature. For this reason, social interaction should be an evocative core of analysis in the process of classifying the concept of “kapwa”. The Filipino language in this notch, gives a conceptual division in several levels and modes of social interaction. Santiago and Enriquez identified eight in Filipino.

100The Levels of Interaction

Interaction of Filipinos were categorized into levels namely pakikitungo (transaction/civility with), pakikisalamuha (inter-action with), pakikilahok (joining/participating), pakikibagay (in- conformity with/ in- accord with), pakikisama (being along with), pakikipagpalagayan/pakikipagmalagayang-loob (being in rapport), pakikisangkot (getting involved) and pakikiisa (being one with). [20]

The concept of Kapwa as a shared inner self turns out to be very essential psychologically and philosophically speaking. While “pagtutunguhan” (dealing with/acting toward) is another term which can be used to refer to all levels of interaction. Besides, pagtutunguhan also connotes the most superficial level of interaction: the level of amenities while “pakikipagkapwa” refers to “humanness at its highest level” [21]

On the other hand aside from the concept of “kapwa” According to Russell, In 1922 there were several explanations in essay forms about the high Filipino Self Concept. One of the most ordinary is it being the character of race as Filipinos got from the Malays. In 1965 Fox said that this is a trait of Filipino culture that is paid to be in the social context because of its fortitude to produce close family ties. . [22]

The Concept of Human Interaction

The concept of Human Interaction includes the distinction between (Pakikisama or Pakikipagkapwa?) It is an essential part because it is very consistent in Filipinos. Aside from the good sides of interaction, previous work on Philippine values pointed our three evil characters in Philippine interpersonal relations. These are the “walang pakisama” (one inept at the level of adjustment); the “walang hiya”, (one who lacks a sense of propriety and “the walang utang na loob”, (one who lacks adeptness in reciprocating by way of gratitude.

110

11 In a deeper analysis some studies were conducted, It was argued that pakikipagkapwa is more important for Filipinos. In the Philippines we usually gave more importance to “pakikipagkapwa” than “pakikisama”. We probably want a person without pakikisama than a person without “kapwa tao”. Pakikipagkapwa is really important.It includes all the other mentioned modes and levels of interaction. In fact “pakikisalamuha” is even closer than “pakikisama” in meaning to “pakikipagkapwa.” [23]

Application of Filipino Social Psychology
Filipino Culture

The Social, Cultural and Ideational dimensions are diverse into aspects which were exhibited by Filipinos. The study of the customs and beliefs of Filipinos serves as a function of social and economic dimension of Filipino culture. The Philippine culture is such very rich. It was very evident in the following ways. In courtship and marriage most of the Filipinos regard this as a process of love as a parental affair. The marriage is the family affair which is measured as a success based on the number of children. Filipinos also believe in ” Babaylans and Catalonan” which were said to posses supernatural powers to supplicate God. They were also fond of charms and they believe that when they perform their rites particularly on the Good Friday they will gain magical powers like anting-anting, lucky cards, stones and other stuffs. As a part of their social life they celebrate feasts to commemorate important events like Fiestas, Holy Week, New Year, Christmas and etc. It really played an essential role in the economic security and social solidarity of Filipinos. They are also known for their superstitious beliefs which are greatly connected to their rituals and ceremonies.

In connection to supernatural beings they follow these beliefs to avoid bad luck. It was seen in birth, illness and death which control the psyche of Filipinos. In religion when Christianity was introduced by Spaniards, it became a driving force to the life of the Filipinos. They were also thoughtful especially when someone is sick and in need. They are afraid of what other people might say. Some of their practices include giving dowry, carrying of guns, choice of padrino and carrying bow and arrows, sibat and kris. During the time of our ethnic groups’ laws were also made with regards to property ownership an settling arguments. [24]

12

Filipino Family

The study of Filipino Family is valuable because they value family relationship. They have this behavior of close family ties. In an article written by Carlos P. Romulo entitled “What Filipinos have Done and are Doing to the Family”, The family will remain and prevail in spite of world cynicism and anxiety. The tradition must be preserved even in these modern times. He pointed out that this is one of the many serious challenges our society must face today. The people must also focus on improving and giving concern with our family life. It deserves the same amount of concern just like other sciences.

“The study of Phenomenology of the Filipino Family states that “In Philippine society, the family is the dominating influence with its value of socio-economic security. This value leads to an individualistic attitude towards one’s family which is manifested in doubt of hope, lack of commitment or lack of social awareness.”

The Future of Philippine Culture

The future of Philippine culture is still questionable. The Philippine culture is still standing despite some changes imposed and caused by colonizers. Is there a Filipino Psychology? Due to reason of great confusion of racial heritages, Filipino nation is full of differences and intertwined particular observances, creeds and traditions dominant in native groups. The making of a credible treatise on Filipino Psychology will require lots of analytic research. Any scholar who will try must sort out individual as well as social traits. Particularly, the native, dominantly native but colored by foreign influences and dominantly foreign adapted traits. It is not yet finished because the source and influence must be differentiated. [25]

13Marginalization of Filipino Identity

The hiding and denigrating of Filipino identity and values was sarcastically introduced by thanking Gov. Claveria who was the one who imposed in giving Filipinos surnames. In such a way the personality of Filipino was concealed in his very name. Felipe de Leon examined the way Filipino names describe the people and how names can hide Filipino identity. The disparagement of Filipino personality is continued and taught in schools reinforced by media. Remember the legend of Juan Tamad, the concept of Filipino time, Manna habit, to “talangka /crab mentality” and even innate criminality and distortion of Filipino squatters, barkadas, stupid yayas, maids and drivers. The Americans assumed that Filipinos were ethically mediocre and they should be educated in an American way because of their indolence. [26]

Marginalization of Filipino Literature

Marginalization of Filipino Literature was realized because of the concept that Filipinos did not have a body of literature which is not true. Filipinos might really be fortunate if they can escape the disparaging remark that Filipinos do not have an indigenous body of literature. The mere fact is that Filipinos have it. Similarly, they have written literature and unwritten oral tradition. Filipinos also enjoy not published outputs, but no less real and valid. A sense of psychological tradition apart from a published psychological literature.

14Marginalization of Filipino Theatre and Film

Marginalization of Filipino Theatre and Film is done by being refused as the world second big producer of film. The success of Filipino cinema and its influence on Philippine life and culture are grossly underestimated. The colonial responsiveness of the elite refuses to recognize the Philippines as the world’s second big producer of films. They cannot detain how a Tagalog movie can hold its own even against the most known popular grossed movies from Hollywood. They tremble in disbelief when confronted with the box office record of the original and authentic “Rambo” in person of Fernando Poe Jr. [27]

The generalization goes like this. We as Filipinos are thus faced with the questions about the mystery of our identity but through the study of Filipino Social Psychology we can unravel those. The study as a summary proves one thing and only one thing and that is the fact that even before, Filipinos have a rich culture and tradition. We have own knowledge and system but during the time of the colonizers they blot out all the memories of our cherished identity.

Nowadays, the Filipino concepts of “Language”, “Kapwa” and “Human Interaction” can be used as a means to improve better human relationship. The Application of Filipino Social Psychology is truly a reflection of what we are right now as Filipinos. It can be seen in the Social, Ideal and Cultural dimensions that we Filipinos are actually creating and improving from our history up to the contemporary period. The Filipino identity is marginalized but as long as we have this study to guide us it will

15

always make a point about Filipinos way of life that will lineate our past to our present and even to our future. This study can be a means in forging development. Development is not just concerned about progress. The logic must be it is about the Filipino people and for the Filipino people. Through, the help of this study we will become aware of the nature and causes of our attitude and behavior.

The problems that our country is currently facing can be solved purely by different ways but it requires shift in human behavior. Therefore, we must inculcate positive Filipino traits and values perhaps change the negative ones. In the end, it is not only us who will outlive the legacy of Filipino Social Psychology but even our children of tomorrow. Changes may occur but it will always remind us of who, what, when and where we are today as Filipinos.

Leisure, “used as an all-inclusive term to describe the meaning, conditions, functions, and opportunity complex in which recreation / play occurs” (Murphy, p. 22), and can thus be seen as a concept or study which only offers information about the way in which people spend their spare time, but is also actually far more intriguing and multifaceted. An interesting fact is that the term leisure “is derived from the Latin word licere or ‘to be permitted to abstain from occupation or service’” (Murphy, p. 24), thus showing the roots of leisure; being free from the physical and forced activities like labour. In this paper I will attempt to examine what precisely leisure entails and how it can be linked to identity formation, as well as depicting the developments in leisure as a concept throughout history. In order to do so, I will touch upon three remarkable periods of the past; first of all Ancient Greece as the era of the great philosophers, then the period around 1900 in Western Europe, and finally I will research the significance of leisure in today’s globalising world. Finally, to discuss the relationship between leisure and identity formation, I will incorporate the subsequent topics within each historical time frame;

The concept and ‘division/availability’ of leisure

The relation between work and leisure

The link between leisure and human development

The social differences between individuals and groups of individuals

After having discussed each time period in detail and having thus constructed a general timeline of leisure, I will round up with a conclusion hoping to have then found answers to the questions surrounding the notion of leisure.

Ancient Greece

Ancient Greece, which is generally considered as the period from “the Archaic period of the 8th to 6th centuries BCE to 146 BCE and the Roman conquest of Greece after the Battle of Corinth” (Amazines), can be seen as the era of the great philosophers who we still recognize today. Not only this is what makes Ancient Greece so fascinating, but this is also the period in which leisure as a concept emerged, with the “cultivation of the self interpretation developed by Aristotle (384 B.C. – 322 B.C.)” (Murphy, p. 23). During these days, leisure was seen as an activity used to seek the truth, and the understanding of the self. Contemplation was key, and it was considered a notion of being free, and of not being occupied with work or other commitments. But which exact activities did leisure entail then? I believe that Anderson puts it properly, though from the Greco-Roman perspective; “They learned music and played it and enjoyed the physical arts of war and sport. They were skilled in intellectual conversation, and that consumed much time. But they rarely had an interest in talking about handwork and ordinary labour or even cared to understand its meaning. In their way of life there was no hurry” (Anderson, p. 91). Thus, leisure was at the root of society and its culture, and paved the way for many great philosophers through intellectual discussions.

But for leisure to exist in the way it did in Ancient Greece as the time free from commitments or work, a distinction had to be made between individuals. This distinction was mainly to allow certain people to engage in leisure, while others were forced to engage in the opposite of leisure; labour and hard work. Or as Murphy puts it; “the aristocratic quality of the Ancient democracy gave the leisure class a tradition of taste and elegance which was maintained by the nobility” (Murphy, p. 24), consequently leisure was made possible for the privileged because slavery existed. The privileged used slavery as a way to express power and control, maybe even only for the sake of being in control over others. But “dominating and bossing others around, are among the first activities that humans, newly empowered, discovered and enjoyed for their own sakes” (Hunnicutt, p. 60), showing that leisure not only existed off contemplation and conversation, but also of horrid activities creating a division between groups of people. Still, “undoubtedly servants and women held in whatever degree of bondage, were able to understand the difference between the times in their lives when service was required of them, and other times when they were free to do more of what they wished” (Hunnicutt, p. 60). So, although leisure is mainly seen as a privilege for the higher classes of men, also the women and slaves experienced leisure to some extent. This shows that the availability of leisure differed depending on your class of gender, but that most likely everybody experienced it to some extend in Ancient Greece.

Therefore, leisure should be seen as key to human development. Not only did it pave the way for great philosophers and religious men, others also used it in connection to their identity as it is part of human nature. For the Greeks, leisure was used as a “cultural arena in which vital questions of human means and ends, of purpose and hence of meaning, have been addressed” (Hunnicutt, p. 58), and thus gave room to answer significant questions concerning life and human-beings since “man is a symbolizing, conceptualizing, meaning-seeking animal” (Geertz, p. 140). Leisure could be seen as a means to understand the meaning of life, and come to know and develop the self. Leisure thus led to identity and self-development through personal growth and freedom, since “the sign of an educated person was active leisure” (Hunnicutt, p. 64).

Industrial Revolution

After the Ancient Greece timeframe as previously discussed, “the leisure tradition established by the Greeks continued through the Middle Ages. The Liberal Arts taught in the universities, the understanding of work and leisure as means to ends, endured” (Hunnicutt, p. 67). And when the Industrial Revolution was ongoing in Europe, leisure was still present but significant changes were gradually taking place in its character and the influence it held in daily life. It could be said that a revolution in human history and leisure occurred when capitalism transformed the role of work, as “one does not work to live, one lives to work” (Pieper, p. 40). Then, work became a spiritual end in itself and was thought to answer the questions vis-a-vis leisure. It also started to take on a submissive role as it was used as a way to achieve and support the highest purpose; work. Subsequently, “work emerged out of the nineteenth century both as the basis of modern culture and as the glue that held societies together” (Hunnicutt, p. 69), and basically took over the role leisure held in Ancient times.

But even though work was key, the concept of spare time, and thus leisure, changed over time after the Industrial Revolution had left its mark. For example, farmers and factory-workers worked six ten-hours days from sunrise to sunset, and it was not until “the sixty-hour work week of 1900 shrank to thirty-nine hours by 1975” (Rosenthal, p. 11), that people possessed more free time to spend on leisure activities of one’s own choice. Even though they still had to work hard the work ethic gradually changed, people now possessed a day, and later even two, during which they were free to choose what to do. It was no longer the master who possessed free time and told his slaves what to do, the whole day, every day. More money was now being made, and thus being spend during those few hours or days the workers had off and activities related to sport, education, self-development, and entertainment started to rise. Also, the availability of more and cheaper goods due to the revolution led to an increase in the standard of living, and thus formation of identity. People were slightly and slowly more able to establish themselves as different from others, and to use goods to identify with.

Finally, “it was only in the nineteenth century that the real impact of steam would be fully felt” (Robinson, B). Steam changed the availability of opportunities, as well as leisure. Work was performed faster and more efficient, and changes also happened geographically as factories could now be located anywhere, as well as the workers. Transportation increased due to the invention of railways, and thus leisure opportunities surfaced since people could travel further and were no longer limited to the area they worked and lived in; horizons slowly widened.

The Ancient Greeks were able to see leisure as their ‘work’, but the workers from the Industrial Revolution could only participate in leisure and ‘non-work behaviour’ after their long days of labour. Not only the content and value of leisure changed, but also the impact it had on the individual. Since the Industrial Revolution, “Americans have inherited … a sociopsychological attitude which equates individual self-worth and productivity with working” (Murphy, p. 27), thus showing the influence work had on life and ones goals. The Revolution “created further interest in the individual in society and the responsibilities of society to them, together with the realization that the ultimate power within society is in the hands of those that are governed rather than the governing classes” (Ouedraogo, D). The working class, and thereby the individual and his interests became more important, and people had more choices related to identity formation as mentioned before.

Today’s globalizing world

The changes that took place in leisure in Ancient Greece and around the 1900s show its roots, but also the rudiments that have made leisure to be what it is today. Today, the twenty-first century, leisure still takes up an important place in many aspects of people’s lives and is still seen as “time free from work-related responsibilities” (Murphy, p. 27), as well as obligatory household tasks. More and more activities are now acceptable forms of leisure, and more money and time is dedicated to them. Also, due to globalization much more is possible, since the world is brought closer to our home. We now have internet, television, mass media and facilitation of travelling; anything is possible. Too see what function leisure holds in today’s society in relation to identity and development, I will look at it from the following perspectives; behavioural, psychological and social.

Behaviour in leisure should be “recognized as an expression of the individual’s total self; cognitive, affective, and motor domains are potentially engaged” (Murphy, p. 29). Thus, engaging in leisure is key to personal development since it touches upon many important aspects of the individual. Also, since behaviour is goal-directed, leisure can also be seen as “as direct result of goal-seeking” (Murphy, p. 29), and success or failure in such activities will strongly influence one’s mental and physical state, as well as future participation. Also, according to the French sociologist Joffre Dumazedier, “leisure fulfils three functions: relaxation, entertainment, and personal development” (Murphy, p. 30), again showing that leisure is key to self-development through exercising one’s capacities.

From the second and psychological perspective, leisure is also important for self-improvement, as “to leisure means to be oneself, to express one’s talents, one’s capacities, one’s potentials” (Murphy, p. 30), as stated by Neulinger. Leisure is a state of mind and being, since it is then that one is free to choose what to do and engage in what brings satisfaction, fulfilment and pleasure. Thus, from the psychological perspective, it would “tend to analyze leisure activities according to the needs they satisfy” (Murphy, p. 31), which can only be fulfilled during free time and not through achievement in work like during the Industrial Revolution was the case. Examples are “needs for sex, independence, understanding, getting along with others” (Murphy, p. 32).

The third perspective is that the social function of leisure, as the “most significant determinant of what one does in leisure is membership in a social group. Leisure is a means for establishing and sustaining intragroup solidarity” (Murphy, p. 32). Friendship and kinship are crucial determents here, and belonging to a social circle with common interests is what individuals aim at through leisure. This can be seen when people participate in sports, theatre, crafts, or other clubs organized to bring those together who are alike. This can also be through identifying with others with similar education, occupation, race, or income; some of the socioeconomic-demographic indicators.

What also plays an important role in leisure, is the newfound presence of choice in this globalizing world. So much is present and available when it comes to activities, resources, knowledge and goods that choice greatly penetrates our culture; it has “transformed not only how we live but also how we think and who we are” (Rosenthal, p. 1), through the presence of excessive choice. We no longer have to give something up in order to gain something else, we can now sometimes “have our cake and eat it too” (Rosenthal, p. 9) and now sacrifice les which made our wants become needs. We have embraced change, and the “necessity to travel down all of life’s branches is real to us” (Rosenthal, p. 9). Since we have excessive choice, our leisure has become so broad and open to our own preferences that we can maximize our own potentials through it. Also, since “one hour’s work buys six times as much now as it did in 1900” (Rosenthal, p. 12) we can spend much more on leisure, and thus again have to choose less and have more.

Today, we also develop ourselves through ‘serious leisure’, which is the degree of seriousness tied to an activity as “the activity involvement of these devotes shows a degree of intensity that is consistent with flow experience and a patterns of commitment that joins them with others in a unique ethos of shared meaning and perseverance” (Kleiber, p. 25). Leisure activities of this level can seem to work in some extent, but are free of choice and are therefore sources of “self-esteem, self-actualization, and other psychological and social benefits” (Kleiber, p. 25), showing the great link between serious leisure and development. Also, since leisure in today’s globalizing world is less linked to gender and race and more and more available to everybody, it can be seen as a true sources for self-development and identity formation.

Identity formation then takes place not only through serious leisure, but also through more general and simplified versions of leisure. For example, athletics perform sports as their work. For most, engaging in sport is a form of leisure that brings pleasure and self-improvement, but for a true sportsman this is his identity. He is a footballer, he is a rugby player, he is a dancer. Wherever he will go, this part of him will be at the roots of his other actions since he is so serious about it and cannot afford letting other types of leisure take away from what he has achieved; their “identification and commitment is evident in joining groups and sacrificing other aspects of life” (Kleiber, p. 25). This is the same for musicians, many band members identify with their job and consider the musician label to be indistinguishable from their identity.

Conclusion

Leisure can thus truly be seen as a source of self-development and identity formation. Even though leisure has gradually changed throughout the years and has even shown distinct characteristics during when comparing the timeframes, the core has remained the same; free time dedicated activities of one’s own choice used to better the self.

To conclude, most noteworthy is the part leisure took up in an individual’s life. In Ancient Greece, leisure mainly served as an activity that took up the entire day for the elite, whereas for the slaves it consisted of the little time free from the orders of the master. It was mainly used to engage in intellectual conversations, and plain activities like sports. During the Industrial Revolution this outlook changed, and work became most important and took over the role leisure used to hold in the lives of the elite; self-improvement was achieved through work and not leisure. However, this was also the period when the workers started to protest and managed to receive a better work-week with more free time in the weekend; time free to be dedicated to leisure since money was also more available. Finally, in today’s society leisure takes up an maybe even more important role and is still the time dedicated to activities free of choice used to develop the self. Thus, leisure has always played an important role and its nature has remained constant, while its use and availability has changed.

Introduction

The development of relationship between individuals in the society has continued to experience different challenges, which could either build then them or break them, depending on the way these issues are handled. One of these challenges arises from jealousy factor in these relationships. Notably, there are many relationships between individuals in the United States and across the globe which have dissolved or rather ‘broken’ as is commonly referred to as a result of jealousy. In addition to this, there are similar relationships which are struggling due to the same issue. This has prompted researches on the society with a particular focus on relationship to determine how jealousy affects them. In reference to Leahy & Tirch (2008), jealousy is one of the most serious problems encountered in romantic relationships and it led to depression, hopelessness, anxiety, anger, attempts to control, intimidation, and in some cases death (p.18).

Therefore, this research summary will analyze the impact of jealousy on romantic relationships. Note that, by studying on jealousy as a factor among human beings, its impact on the mutual existence of relationships will be assessed. This will be build up on different perspectives, including how the relationship of a child and a parent impacts the development of jealousy in her and its later effects on his or her relationships, together with gender, physical attractiveness, cognitive development, etc. Some of the effects which will be mentioned briefly include anger, depression, attempts to control, intimidation, and death.

Literature Review

Gender and Jealousy

In order to establish how jealousy affects relationship in the contemporary society, it is important to look first at gender and jealousy. Remarkably, the level of jealousy among the two genders, i.e. male and female play a vital role in elucidating on the place of jealousy in relationship and the problems which were encountered as a result (Sabini & Silver, 2005). To begin with, it is important to understand that there are numerous researches which have been carried out in the past and most of them came to a conclusion that both men and women were jealousy of one another in relationships. In other words, the cases of jealousy were found in both men and women.

However, as it was observed by Edlund & Sagarin (2009), there were different approaches, two to be specific which have been used in the past to test sex differences in jealousy but most of them produced inconsistent results (p.67). Therefore, using these approaches, it was found out that both genders had jealousy in relationships. Furthermore, tests were carried to determine factors which caused distress between both genders. It was realized that both men and women tend to have strong jealous reactions to sexual and emotional infidelity because both forms of infidelity were costly and they were likely to have been highly correlated with one another throughout evolutionary history (p.67). Penke & Asendorpf (2008) agrees with Edlund and Sagarin that the two evolutionary psychological hypotheses that men react more jealous than women to sexual infidelity and women react more jealous than men to emotional infidelity were inconsistent (p.3).

Physical Attractiveness and Self Esteem

Apart from examining gender and jealousy in general, Brewer & Riley (2009) studied the relationship between height and jealousy among men (p.477). This approach to examining jealousy in relationship allowed these researchers to introduce other factors such as physical appearance, apart from height. Notably, height indicated handsomeness and health among men and as a result, tall had a higher affinity to women as compared to short men (p.477). Specifically, tall men are less jealous than short men when faced with the prospect of a physically attractive and dominant rival (p.479). This was coupled by the fact that self esteem played a vital role in elevating the impact of jealousy on a particular relationship. Notably, DeSteno, Valdesolo & Bartlett (2006) argues that threats on self esteem could easily accrue to aggression in any particular relationship since is raised the jealousy levels (p.629). In other words, physical attractiveness and self esteem were vital components which determine up to a certain level jealousy that was experienced in a particular relationship.

On the other hand, women who were fairly attractive also reported low levels of jealousy in their relationships. Essentially, these women were found to possess a high potential of attraction which resulted in low levels of threats. As a result, there was a low level of jealousy. Importantly, just as height played an important role in revealing the jealousy levels among men, height also played a part in revealing the jealousy levels among women. In reference to Buunk et al. (2008), male height was found to be negatively correlated with self-reported global jealousy, whereas female height was curvilinearly related to jealousy, with average-height women reporting the lowest levels of jealousy (p.133). In consistent with this, jealousy in relationship was partly determined by the height of both the man and woman who were involved. This was particularly so since it was believed that height served as an outward sign of good genes and as a result, this raised the level of attractiveness (p.133).

The relationship of a child and a parent

Researchers and Scholar have also been particularly concerned with the relationship between the parent and the child and how this impacts the child’s relationships in future. Research has demonstrated that experiences in the early familial environment contribute to romantic relationship functioning, such that individuals who grow up in families characterized by nurturing parenting have higher quality romantic relationships as adults than do individuals who grow up with parents characterized as distant or cold (Rauer & Volling, 2007, p.495). In consistent with this, the parent’s treatment of one as a child determined the way the child grew up and how he or she developed perception towards other people and relationship. Remarkably, it was observed that one of the consequences of unfair treatment of the child was jealousy, which affected his or her relationship later on in life (p.498). The approach which is used by Rauer and Volling focuses on young adult and they explore concrete issues which affected young adults and their relationships with others. Similarly, these authors relate jealousy and self-esteem and argue that the two are inversely related.

Impact of Jealousy on Relationships

There are a lot of impacts which have been identified as a result of jealousy. To begin with, jealousy among individuals affected the overall relating process in any particular relationship as a result of the fact that the person(s) who was affected had unstable emotional balance. As a result, such person(s) was unable to control his/her emotional dimension leading to anger, depression, hopelessness, anxiety, etc. Fleischmann et al. (2005) argues that Jealousy is a common source of relational dissatisfaction, relational conflict, break-up, aggression and violence (p.50). In connection to this, jealousy served a destructive purpose rather than building in any particular relationship.

Cognitive Therapy

There are different solutions which have been proposed towards solving or rather easing the impact of jealousy on relationships in the contemporary society. However, the use of a cognitive approach has been perceived as one of the most effective in dealing with jealousy in relationships. According to (Leahy & Tirch, 2008, p.), cognitive-behavioral approaches to jealousy have focused on correcting or modifying dysfunctional interpretations or assumptions that give rise to jealousy (p.19). Therefore, these researchers propose an integrative cognitive-behavioral model as a way of treating jealousy. Therefore, they propose that a systematic approach must be followed to examine or rather identify the problem and then work towards getting the victim out of the jealousy trap. Notably, the integrative approach recognizes that thoughts, emotions, behaviors and relationships are all part of a single system and that interventions at all points can maximize therapeutic effectiveness (p.30).

Conclusion

Whereas jealousy is one of the most threatening factors towards a cohesive or rather mutual existence of relationships in the society, it is among the factors which have been studied or researched on the least. In this connection, this research summary examined jealousy in relationship and came up with the fowling conclusions. To begin with, gender, i.e. male and female played a vital part in controlling the level of jealousy among both men and women who were in a relationship (Easton, Schipper & Shackelford, 2007). Remarkably, gender and jealousy cannot be separated. Furthermore, the height and attractiveness of those who were involved also, either heightened or reduced the level of jealousy in such relationships. Speaking generally, there are various issues which contributed to the overall rise or fall in the level of jealousy among people in relationships. These are the physical attributes, emotional attributes such as perception of self or rather self-esteem, and childhood experience.

There are various questions which were not answered adequately by literature which was reviewed in this summary research. To begin with, the jealousy as it pertains to gay relationship was mentioned briefly but not critically analyzed to come up with firm conclusions. Moreover, whereas jealousy had negative effects on relationships, the literature failed to take note of the fact that there were positive attributes of jealousy which could assist in strengthening relationships. Similarly, the question of whether jealousy and human development has not been touched. Therefore, further research on gay relationships, jealousy and human development, and the positive effects of jealousy would contribute a lot towards understanding jealousy in relationships.

An Examination of the Advancement of Lesbian Theory & Criticism – America: 1950’s-1990’s.
Introduction

Lesbianism in American society is a concept imbued with social, political, legal, aesthetic and literary codes and conventions, whether considered in 1950 or currently. In the past half century, lesbianism has not only expressed itself as specific articulations of sexuality and lifestyle, but also of ideology and political aspiration. Sexuality has remained essential to conceptualisations of lesbianism in this time span, with its political formulations, societal censures, and social accommodations anchored to the vicissitudes of feminist theory and practice. American social and political morays which have prescribed female functionality in post World War Two years, have cast mainstream female identity in terms of motherhood, wifeliness and domesticity, a formulation of personhood deeply challenged by advancing lesbian ideology and praxis.

In this light, one of the significant threads of lesbian theory and criticism to be evaluated pertains to feminism’s examination of female identity in the past 50 years, and the status and reaction of lesbianism within this paradigm. This process encompasses events and issues pertaining to the biological, sexual and social validation of female gender, but also the intellectual development of modes of discourse pertaining to feminism and lesbianism, as a means of female empowerment, paralleled by considered or reactionary responses to wider societal trends.

So called second wave feminism, benchmarked by the Stonewall Riots at Greenwich Village in New York in 1969, targeted women’s liberation not only at the level of law, and concrete denotations of inequality and injustice, (akin to feminism’s first wave), but at the more visceral level of societal and political attitudes and values, including the ideological decoupling of female personhood from male sexuality.

Since the early 1990’s, the ideological and theoretical formulations of lesbianism have been advancing in disparate lines, at the bidding of post-structuralist or postmodernist discourses. Some of lesbianism’s intellectual impulses have focused upon notions of sexual and personal identity, and in spite of their intellectual sophistication have lost their momentum and coherence, collapsing into an “ambiguous polymorphy,”^[1] whilst attempting to dispense with unhelpful binary oppositional definitions of gender or sexuality. Conversely, an intellectual strength of third wave feminism and post 1980’s lesbian criticism has been the attention to personhood, the integrity of the self and the integration of public and private moralities.

Chapter 1

Homosexuality after World War I was broadly viewed as “an offence against the family and social expectations about gender.”^[2] A doctor’s post World War 1 contemporary observations noted that it was “improper to utter the word homosexuality, prurient to admit its existence and pornographic to discuss the subject.”^[3] The same doctor reflects the radical difference between American and European cultural and sexual values, implying that while Europe was perceived by Americans as decadent, European novels could discuss homosexuality openly within a European setting, yet American novels could not, since “if it existed at all, (as) our soil is unfavourable, our climate prejudicial, our people too primitive, too pure.”^[4] Furthermore, Fone contends that homosexuality had come to be seen as a “subversion of America itself.” ^[5] Fone also observes that since war is a “time of fear and upheaval-it produces a virulent, xenophobic strain of homophobia” tantamount to conceiving “sexual difference as a betrayal of American values”.^[6]

Retrospectively implicit among these anecdotal pre World War II dismissals of homosexuality, is the notable silence concerning any distinction between male and female homosexuality, or gay and lesbian sexual phenomenon. The grip of patriarchy was so overarching that lesbianism did not even feature as a notable offence against social sensibilities.

Be that as it may. The social discourse regarding lesbianism in the 1950’s was in part a response to the repositioning of women due to World War II. As war demanded heightened US defences and reconstituted the nation’s labour force, women formed the Women’s Army Corps (WAC) and were seconded to non-traditional jobs, accounting for one third of the work force. According to Kennedy and Davis, “World War II… had a tremendous impact on lesbian life, by offering lesbians more opportunities for socialising and meeting other women.”^[7] Since the war “gave more independence to all women… lesbians (were) more like other women and less easy to identify. Since all women were able to wear pants to work and to purchase them in stores off the rack, butches who only wore pants in the privacy of their home in the 1930s could now wear them on the streets.”^[8] Furthermore, in Buffalo women gained access to better jobs since productivity was heightened by war manufacturing. Since the male population of Buffalo was denuded for military service, lesbians had greater liberty to meet in public and pursue active social lives beyond hearth and home. Extensive social life revolved around “the proliferation of gay bars”^[9] and despite the “mere presence of homosexuals…interpreted by the State Liquor Authority as constituting disorderly conduct”,^[10] raids on premises were minimal in the 1940’s due to the shrewdness of business owners.^[11]

Concurrently, enlisted lesbians found a social space within the male world of military service since enrolment screening practices for lesbians entering the (WAC) were less stringent than for gay men.^[12] In this example, the lack of status for women in the military prior to the war resulted in ill-defined screening procedures for women recruits, matched by a choice to not investigate the sexual lives of women, as the goal was to optimise the war effort.^[13] The simplistic and binary designations of sexual orientation in the late 1940’s are noted by the comments from “a group of Marine Corps examiners at Camp LeJeune (who) advised their colleagues, “that women showing a masculine manner may be perfectly normal sexually and excellent military material.”^[14] By the late 1940’s however, “purging of lesbians from the military became increasingly problematic. Many women were forced to deny knowing any of their friends or marry gay men to pass as heterosexual.”^[15] Ominously, “mid 1950’s Navy officials secretly acknowledged that the homosexual discharge rate had become much higher for the female than the male.” ^[16]

When the end of the war brought a resumption of traditional family roles, there were no alternate social prescriptions for women apart from marriage, and enduring singleness subjected females to social disapproval, while the “aggressive harassment of lesbians and gays was connected to this glorification of the nuclear family and domestic sphere.Homophobia became a way of reinstituting male dominance and strict gender roles that had been disrupted by the war.”^[17] The 1950’s remained a social and political milieu of “severe oppression,”^[18] yet Roosevelt suggests the reduced harassment of gay bar culture and the desire of public lesbians to reach out to other lesbians, marked a “significant transformation in lesbian consciousness.” ^[19]

The emergence of tough butch lesbian sub-culture in the 1950’s, was, according to Roosevelt, a consequence of gay bar life and working class female job creation during World War II.^[20] Nonetheless, “alcohol, insecurity, and repression, in combination with the tough butch image, made fights among tough and rough lesbians a prominent part of the 1950s landscape which increased concern and attention from the larger culture.” ^[21]

Furthermore, the prominence of lesbians and male homosexuals holding positions within the American government agencies in the 1950’s was a matter of growing consternation, in light of the neo-conservatism and right wing extremism of this period. The political tirade against ‘un-American activities typified by the McCarthy led Senate committee inquiries and public hearings, not only felt virtue was found in the purging of communist allegiances and sentiments, but also coupled homosexuality and lesbianism with such perceived political aberrations. Politically enshrined deviance was aligned with sexually defined deviance. The 1950 congressional record addressed homosexuals in government, with congressman Miller of Nebraska addressing the House of Representatives. In an excerpt, Miller stated,

“I would like to strip the fetid, stinking flesh off of this skeleton of homosexuality and tell my colleagues of the House some of the facts of nature… Recently the spotlight of publicity has been focused not only upon the State Department but upon the Department of Commerce because of homosexuals being employed in these and other departments of Government. Recently Mr. Peurifoy, of the State Department, said he had allowed 91 individuals in the State Department to resign because they were homosexuals. Now they are like birds of a feather, they flock together. Where did they go? You must know what a homosexual is. It is amazing that in the Capital City of Washington we are plagued with such a large group of those individuals. Washington attracts many lovely folks. The sex crimes in the city are many.”^[22]

Miller went on to refer to the Sex Pervert Bill passed through Congress that he authored, exposing his jaundiced view of sexuality by alluding to the peril of homosexuals, as well as the ‘concession’ that “some of them are more to be pitied than condemned, because in many it is a pathological condition, very much like the kleptomaniac who must go out and steal.”^[23]

In addition to the homophobic cringe mentality epitomising the 1950’s which also applied to lesbianism, viewing any form of non-heterosexual sex as non-normative and therefore aberrant, prior to 2003, homosexuality (and by extension lesbianism), was “considered a disease, a sin (and) a threat to public order.”^[24] Further reasons why lesbianism was shunned by American mainstream society in the 1950’s concerns the belief that (in the absence of research to the contrary), sexual orientation was subject to change and able to be transferred.^[25] As such, a threat or fear existed that there was the possibility of an epidemic conversion from heterosexual to, homosexual, yielding a perceived need to ‘protect’ heterosexuals. Since homosexuals and lesbians were perceived to be engaging in indulgent, wayward and aberrant sexual behaviour by choice, rather than by predisposition, the persecution and stigmatization they received was not viewed as a breach of fundamental human rights. ^[26] Furthermore, another potent reason for the social and political aversion to lesbianism was the belief that heterosexual minors could become homosexual by way of seduction, justifying the protection of children and youth by means of criminal law.^[27]

Amnesty International’s recent statement addressing the decriminalisation of homosexuality globally, demonstrates that third wave feminist ideological battles (discussed later) are far from won. The paper makes the observation that “far fewer countries explicitly criminalise lesbianism than male homosexuality… as there (already) exists a raft of legislation to limit, police and control women’s sexual autonomy. (The writers’ explanation that), lesbianism is not generally subject to legal sanctions may be attributed to the absence of women from the public sphere and the resulting absence of awareness of lesbianism.”^[28] This “social invisibility”^[29] of lesbianism leads to some lawmakers denying that it even exists.

Miller’s attitudes not only exposed the entrenched criminalisation of homosexuality (and by association lesbianism), but the second social contrivance of lesbianism which coalesced in American culture in the 1950’s, namely its ‘medicalisation’, framing lesbianism as a social pathogen, rather than an issue of sexual difference and diversity, when compared with heterosexuality or monogamy. Such a pathological casting of lesbianism is foreseen in pre-1950’s homophobic stereotypes, where psychic differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals were fabricated – constructing the homosexual male as a deficit being without “will power, perseverance, and dogmatic energy.”^[30] These social postulations of male effeminacy merely mirrored manifestations of female ‘masculinisation,’ such as the butch bar working class lesbian sub-culture, already identified. Instead of current societal emphasis upon diversity and difference, the 1950’s construction of lesbianism underscored deficit and deviance.

Roosevelt draws attention to psychiatrists Henry & Gay duplicitous motives. Whilst formulating a committee for the Study of Sex Variants in the 1940’s, compiling case histories of over 300 lesbians, producing ‘Sex Variants: A Study of Homosexual Patters’, with the pretext of decriminalising lesbianism, in actuality, the hidden agenda was to legitimise the psychiatry profession, and as a consequence, medicalise lesbianism, merely replacing one construct of deviance with another. ^[31] Lesbianism remained an immoral practice in the USA until Illinois led the change with its homosexuality decriminalisation law in 1961.^[32] Prior to this time, “criminologists of the 1950’s depicted lesbian inmates as menacing social types which lead to a conflation between women’s prisons and lesbianism.”^[33] The shift to greater surveillance of lesbianism in women’s prisons was reflected in “U.S. popular and political culture in magazines, pulp novels, and movies where the, previously, comic and benign lesbian gave way to the dangerously aggressive lesbian criminal. By the 1950’s the term ‘women’s prison’ was synonymous with lesbian aggression,”^[34]casting sexuality as a potential signifier of membership of a “criminal underworld, losing class, race, and privilege.” ^[35]Such pulp novels as those published by Ann Weldy under the pseudonym Ann Bannon, included ‘Odd Girl Out’, (1957); ‘I Am a Woman (In Love With a Woman Why Must Society Reject Me’?) (1959); ‘Women in The Shadows’, (1959);‘Journey to a Woman’ (1960) and ‘The Marriage’, (1960); and Beebo Brinker (1962), the prequel to the first four books.^[36] The social limitations of same-gender sexuality identification are evident in the narrative outcomes of these early lesbian pulp fiction titles. “It was expected that the characters in a lesbian novel would never receive any satisfaction from a lesbian relationship. One or both usually ended up committing suicide, going insane, or leaving the relationship.” Describing the 1950’s as the hey-day of Lesbian Pulp Fiction, Bianco noted that while its boom was inspired mainly by publishers pitching successfully to straight males seeking titillation, oppressed lesbians found a private outlet and psychic survival through such writings denied them publicly by the censoriousness of 1950’s repressive American culture. Bianco noted the publicist’s irony, since while

“cover art of pulp novels always depicted ultra-feminine women, the ‘real’ lesbians in the stories were often tomboys or ‘bad girls’ who seduced innocent straight women. Reflecting psychological theories of the time, lesbian pulp writers often presented lesbianism as the result of a trauma, such as rape or incest. At the end, the innocent straight woman almost always returned to a ‘normal’ life with a man. If the lesbian protagonist wasn’t herself converted to heterosexuality, she usually became an alcoholic, lost her job, or committed suicide. Publishers insisted on these kinds of “moral” endings, condemning lesbian sexuality even while exploiting it. In this regard, lesbian pulps followed the formula of torment and sacrifice.”^[37]

As such, lurid and socially shunned fictionalisations of alternate sexuality merely reinforced the ethical and moral mainstream fabric of neo-conservative American culture. Anne Bannon, as she was publicly known, reputedly led a double life, a wife and mother who frequented lesbian bars on weekends in Greenwich Village, and strikingly only disclosed her authorship of her lesbian pulp fiction novels in the 1980’s, over two decades after they were published. In the view of Bianco, her works made a significant contribution to lesbian identity in the decade prior to ‘Stonewall’.^[38]

Theoretical perspectives on lesbian and alternate sexuality critical to the exploration of emerging critical paradigms of lesbianism in America in the second half of the twentieth century, do not merely address the enduring and at times overwhelming dialectical tension between mainstream heterosexual ideology and homosexual reaction; but the internal dialectic within the gay community and how it evolved and responded to dimensions of itself throughout this passage of social history. The butch/fem dialectic itself illustrates the politics of sex and psychology. An increase in sexual experimentation and practices, saw a sub-cultural practice emerge, whereby butch/ fem lesbian couples assumed strictly defined roles, the ‘stone butch untouchable’ finding sexual pleasure exclusively through giving pleasure to her fem, while the fem forbidden to reciprocate, was positioned within the codes of the relationship to only receive pleasure. While some critiqued this relational dynamic as a mere imitation of conventional masculine approaches to sex, others identified in butches “a discomfort of being (physically) touched rooted in their biology.There was also much importance placed on role distinction, an unwanted vulnerability involved in mutual lovemaking, the butch ego, and the butch’s ambivalence toward her female body. In the 1950s, Fems approached sexuality from a self-centred perspective…and lesbians who would not select a role, but changed roles,were derisively referred to as KiKis or AC/DC and were viewed with suspicion by other working-class lesbians.”^[39] That Butches apparently disliked switching roles, imposed such rigid relational rules and maintained such static notions of sexual identity, indicated that the delineation of sexual identity within this specific lesbian subculture, was just as restrictive and jaundiced a stance as the homophobic predilections of the 1950’s heterosexual community in general. The paralyzing dialectic of shame and shamelessness which more contemporary feminists have used to identify heterosexual impediments in the slow march towards sexual liberation^[40] is alive in the politics of sex and identity psychology played out in the binary relations of 1950’s butch/fem lesbianism.

While many look to the Stonewall Riots at Greenwich Village New York as the defining moment for the empowerment of the modern Gay and Lesbian Liberation Movement, others trace the serious beginnings to 1951 in Los Angeles. In the 1950’s gay protest remained largely “bland, apologetic, unassertive and defensive…(relying) upon ‘experts’- psychiatrists, and psychoanalysts, lawyers, theologians…who spoke about us, to us, and at us, but never with us.” ^[41] By 1961, the Homophile Movement, represented in the US by a mere half dozen organizations, yet by 1969, numbering fifty or sixty such proactive bodies.

The origins of the Stonewall Riots have their foundation in the “immigrant, working class neighbourhoods of New York…(where) gay sexuality was very much in and of the streets…due in part to the economic and spatial limitations of the tenements. Enclaves of lesbians interacted with their gay male counterparts, congregating in the speakeasies, tearooms and drag balls of Harlem and Greenwich Village during the 1920’s.”^[42] Furthermore, Greenwich Village’s “bohemian life tolerated sexual experimentation which conferred upon the area an embryonic stature of erotica unbound…lesbian and gay clubs in the Village were founded on the ‘Personality Clubs’ of the bohemian intelligentsia.”^[43] Writers commonly view Greenwich as a social space freed from the normal “social constraints” of modern life, a “sexual free- zone” and a homosexual Mecca for predominantly white homosexuals, as Harlem was for black people.^[44] The anonymity of the city had become accessible to post war military linked Americans, and the semi public spaces of night cafe and bar cultures, served to straddle the psychological and spatial divide between the privacy, domesticity and intimacy of the home, and the disclosure and defiance of public morality played out in the Greenwich domain. As Munt suggests, this cultural transition captured in Lesbian Pulp fiction, tracked “the lesbian adventurer inhabiting a twilight world where sexual encounters were acts of romanticised outlawry initiated in some back street bar and consummated in the narrative penetration of the depths of maze-like apartment buildings.” ^[45]Munt views Bannon’s heroines as mythologizing the “eroticised urban explorer.” ^[46] The value of Stonewall’s mythologisation is viewed “as a constitutive moment, while admitting its cultural fiction.”^[47]

Other signposts of lesbians claiming a small cultural space and some public domain in this ensuing decade indicated by Mathison & Fraher, included the formation of the ‘Mattachine Society’ in 1951 (founded to aid homosexuals in the process of chronicling their collective histories and mitigate against social persecution); the initial publication of ‘One’ Magazine in 1953; the foundation of the lesbian organisation ‘Daughters of Bilitis’ in 1955; and the subsequent publication of their first magazine titled ‘The Ladder’ in 1956. Additionally, the Kinsley Report published in 1957 claimed 10% of the population to predominantly homosexual, while in 1961 Illinois became the first US state to criminalise homosexual acts. The Stonewall Riots in Greenwich Village in 1969 were closely followed by a Gay Rally in Chicago in 1970.^[48]

Chapter 2

Betty Friedan’s ground breaking book titled ‘The Feminine Mystique’, encapsulated the inexplicable toleration of millions of American women in the 1950’s and early 1960’s that had exclusively devoted themselves to the mutual socially prescribed roles of wife and mother. Friedan’s thesis was that this wholehearted devotion carried a contingent cost and sacrifice beyond the conscious level of comprehension of countless women, oblivious to the enormity of what they were surrendering in the process, as well as the significant parts of themselves they were denying as a result of idolising domesticity. Friedan herself in 1994 retrospectively explained the term ‘feminine mystique’ as when “women were defined only in sexual relation to men – man’s wife, sex object, mother, housewife- and never a person defining themselves by their own actions in society.”^[49] She conceived of this conceptualisation of women as a stifling barrier to their wider participation within society and therefore as fully functioning human beings. It was the notion that this existential position of women was so unchallenged and so instinctively accepted that Friedan found to be so perplexing, provocatively couched by the feminist as a ‘feminine mystique’ to ridicule the notion that the socially contrived roles had acquired the status of an implacable genetic predisposition. Quidlen acclaims Friedan’s foresight in the book’s introduction, as she succeeded in scrutinising ways “women had been coaxed into selling out their intellect and their ambitions for the paltry price of a new washing machine…(seduced by) the development of labour saving appliances…(yet being) covered up in a kitchen conspiracy of denial.”^[50] Friedan empowered women with confidence to reconceptualise their problems’ origins, lying beyond her marriage or herself.^[51] Furthermore, Friedan was a keen observer of hypocrisy, contradiction and imbalance, with a caustic view concerning “a generation of educated housewives maniacally arranging the silverware and dressing to welcome their husbands’ home from work.”^[52]

Friedan as many other feminists and indeed lesbians was a strident advocate of the wider participation of women in society. Typifying ways women were alienated from mainstream society and disenfranchised by males, were prevailing attitudes towards abortion, public censure or ambivalence about a woman’s right to choose; the invisibility of sexual abuse, the lack of acknowledgement of more subtle forms of sexual harassment, as well as the economic and social disempowerment with relation to exit strategies for women to leave bad marriages. Friedan observes the 1990’s obsession with defining and crystalising female identity,^[53] explaining this as a logical extension of the break down of the feminine mystique and the empowerment of women. This obsession manifested itself through a surfeit of women’s identity literature and college courses in women’s studies. ^[54] By logical extension, feminism did provide leverage for the liberation of lesbians and the sexual politics associated with lesbianism, in spite of Friedan’s disconnect with lesbianism as a valid expression of women’s rights.

Friedan did identify menopause crises, sexual frigidity, promiscuity, pregnancy fears, child birth depression, passivity, the immaturity of American men, discrepancies between women’s tested childhood intellectual abilities and their adult achievements and the changing incidence of adult sexual orgasm in American women as issues pertaining to the emergence of a fuller identity and societal participation for women.^[55]

It is clear that there was little room in the consciousness of women to process the notion of their sexuality prior to the 1960’s sexual revolution, since women drew neuroses was the energy needed to juggle the conflicting roles between motherhood, domestic duty and work beyond the home and manage the personal and societal guilt which emerged from this 9at times) impossible process.^[56] The social and political discourse of the era lionized women who did not lose their man, and balanced service of males, children and home. The wider world was beyond their consciousness and matters of sexual identity were not part of the public domain. Friedan contends that femininity in the 1950’s was a social construction, which, if attended to faithfully, was the only means by which women could achieve contentment and fulfilment, having historically made the blunder of trying to imitate masculinity , instead of embodying femininity, which was deemed to be characterized by sexual passivity, nurturing maternal love and male domination.^[57]

Furthermore, the classification of the political domain as a male intellectual and practical bastion did nothing to facilitate women re-evaluating sexual politics and notions of political disenfranchisement in the 1950’s. In 1960, Friedan recalled that “a perceptive social psychologist showed me some sad statistics which seemed to prove unmistakably that women under age 35 years were not interested in politics.”^[58] Furthermore, a false dichotomy was embedded in American national consciousness regarding female sexuality, with no middle ground, namely, women were good who came to the pedestal and whores if they expressed physical sexual desire or sought such pleasure. This dichotomous paradigm disempowered women’s sexual liberation.^[59]While the feminine mystique succeeded in precluding women from considering their own sense of personal identity – who they were alone from husband, children and home,^[60] the former emphasis of genetic determinism shaped women’s outlook on the path of their lives- plainly, “the identity of woman is determined by her biology.”^[61] (Ironically, the same conclusion regarding lesbianism was not reached by American society for decades, prior to the 1990’s, lesbianism being widely viewed as deviant sexual conduct determined by choice rather than orientation.)

Friedan counters the Freudian explanation for the desire of women to depart from the domestic centre, namely the motive of ‘penis envy’ propagated by Freud. ^[62]Instead, she presciently identified the objectification of women as a societal flaw, “she was, at that time, so completely defined as object by man, never herself as ‘I’, that she was not even expected to enjoy or participate in the act of sex.”^[63] The gay and lesbian revolution gained momentum in the late 1960’s, infused the female with a sense of subjectivity, to counter this objectification, poignantly exemplified through the centring of the female orgasm, which emphatically declared that women were sexual beings, capable and entitled to experience sexual pleasure, rather than being victims of abuse or neutral ‘sideline observers’ of sexual activity while their husbands were actualising their virility through sex. While Friedan acknowledged that “Freudian thought became the ideological bulwark of American of the sexual counter-revolution in America”^[64]…defining the sexual nature of women, conversely Friedan speculated that an insatiable female sexual desire existed due to the vacuum created by the absence of larger life goals for woman. ^[65] While she countered Freud with this ex

The author conceptualizes development as ‘the gap between an exclusive concentration on economic wealth and a broader focus on the lives we can lead’ (p.14) emphasizing that the theory of development goes well beyond wealth accumulation and gross national product growth. The chapter examines the relationship between development and freedom, the way in which freedom is a component of development and an extensive view of ‘freedom’ encompassing both opportunities that people have and processes that allow for ‘freedom’ of decisions.

The main arguments of the author is that development should be assessed by ‘freedom’ of accessibility to factors such as social opportunities, health care, clean water, economic security, civil rights and political freedom. Lack of accessibility means ‘unfreedom’. Development therefore should mean that people can live the lives they want to live and precisely, how can a nation say in all entirety that it has ‘freedom’ when its citizens cannot afford the very basic necessities of life or fulfill the rights they are entitled to?

Sen goes on further to compare different views of poverty in both developing and developed nation by analyzing ‘freedoms’ through values, poverty and inequality, income and mortality, markets and freedom, tradition and culture. The author sees the process of development beyond economic growth or physical and human capital and concludes by linking the understanding of a broad view of the development process to the substantive ‘freedoms’ of people.

Sen’s write up contains intriguing views but he hasn’t mentioned what justifies his classification into these ‘freedoms’ i.e. experience of developing countries, factual historical evidence or how far ‘freedom’ has progressed within each context he identified. His definition is quite different from Rapley’s in which Rapley describes development as “more concerned with flexibility and adaptability” (Rapley 2007 pp 5) and so raises a question. Can development be measured only by individual happiness without economic growth and stability? Happiness, in my opinion is geared more towards Rapley’s definition and should be adapted into the process of economic growth.

Willis, K. (2005) Theories and Practices of Development. London. Routledge. p. 32-42.

Willis’ chapter 2 of theories and practices of development analyses development theories and practices and how these theories were attached to the economic, social and political theories that developed in Europe from the 18th century. Willis’s interpretation raises some interesting facts about historical development of theories and she divides her study into various theories.

The classical economists such as David Ricardo, an advocate of free trade and Adam Smith, in his famous book, Wealth of Nations ‘responded to the trade focus of economic policy at that time’ (p.32) when trade was a major factor of economic growth. Here, protectionist measures such as high tariffs were highly used by merchants.

Willis goes on to say Adam Smith was not in favour of this form of regulation and that it was harmful to the country’s economic growth. Instead, greater focus on production and division of labour which will be regulated by the ‘invisible hand of the market’ (p.33).

The Great depression of the 1930’s and other economic happenings gave rise to Keynes argument of the free market not necessarily a positive force but government intervention in the promotion of economic growth while postwar reconstruction period was a time to reflect on the economic crises that occurred at that time and provide solutions to their re-occurrence. This led to the creation of the Bretton woods institutions to assist in the promotion of ‘stable economic growth within a capitalist system’ (p. 36)

Willis describes the linear stages theory and makes emphasis on Rostow, the American economist and political theorist’s stages of Economic growth to development. Here, development was seen as a state where a large number of the population could afford to spend largely on consumer products and development was viewed as modern, moving from agricultural societies to an industrial economy. While she tries to decipher early theoretical ideas, Willis has not made clear linkages between some of these theories and how they have come to evolve in economic debates and discussions over time.

Chang, H., and Ilene G. (2004) ‘Reclaiming Development from the Washington Consensus’, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 27(2), 274-291.

The fundamental of this article is to correct the notion that there is no alternative to the Washington Consensus. The authors argue that ‘neoliberal policies have failed to achieve their goals in developing world’ (p. 274) and so discuss the major development myths for justifying neoliberal policies that have been harmful to developing world and perhaps as a complacency to the reader, possible alternatives to these policies.

These myths, evaluated individually, describe how these policies have lacked credibility. Myth 1; In contrast to the neoliberal policy success, the reality is that the policy has not promoted its main aim of economic growth. Myth 2; Developed countries gained success through free market policies whereas records claim they relied upon interventionist policies for development. Myth 3; Only neoliberal policies can succeed in today’s global environment whereas in fact there is evidence of ‘continuing institutional and policy divergence across national boundaries’ (p. 277) Myth 4; Discipline imposed by international institutions to keep them honest whereby placing policy making authority in the hands of these organizations. Myth 5; The East Asian model cannot be replicated when in fact most developed countries utilized this model. Myth 6; Developing countries should imitate the Anglo American model of capitalism which fared poorly in the economic boom of the 1990’s.

The authors went ahead to put forward alternative policies for faster economic development which includes the financial system providing adequate finance quantities for investment projects at appropriate prices, enforcing strict laws on new foreign loans incurred by domestic borrowers, defocusing on budget balance and maximizing FDI potentials to promote economic and industrial development in developing countries

While arguing for these policies, it will be sensible to note that economies are different and there can be no ‘best practice’ policy that everyone should use (Chang 2003). Policies for development should not be ‘fixed’ but depend on stages of development of a developing nation and other factors such as resource capacity, economic, political and social conditions.

Pender, J. (2001) ‘From Structural Adjustment’ to Comprehensive Development Framework’: Conditionality Transformed?’ Third World Quarterly, 22 (3), 397-411.

Pender reviews how the World Bank’s approach to development has changed over decades and brought about important shifts to its conditionality approach. In the light of new changes between the 90’s and today, the World Bank formulated a Comprehensive Development Framework, based on a relationship of partnership to replace its erstwhile structural adjustment lending (p. 397).

The author examines why the World Bank’s perspectives of development changed through different periods; In the 1980’s to early 90’s, GDP was used as a measure of development as the Bank was mostly concerned with rapid economic growth and sustenance for least developed countries (LDC) and the adoption of policies such as restriction of state spending, controlling inflation, commodity exports and privatization as factors to achieve development.

The 1990’s drew lack of confidence in these policies and there were strong doubts about its competence judging from the success of the Asian Economies that developed rapidly without the World Bank’s policy prescriptions. This informed the Bank to change its 1980 view about minimal state role in development and that ‘growth by itself is not enough’ (p 401). Thus in 1990, a formulation of an approach based on both ‘labour intensive growth’ and ‘widespread provision of basic social services’ (p.401). In spite of these alterations, there were criticisms that the Bank reforms were not aiding Africa’s growth but rather, increasing stagnant economies through the implementation of the Bank’s policies.

According to Pender, the Bank lost confidence in its policy framework in early 1995, with the Asian miracle and LDC’s failure and was forced to critique its own policies and re-orientate. This modification was experimented between 1995-1997 with ‘improvements in the understanding of economic development’ and poverty reduction as the central focus.

The author gives clear informed views of the process of policy change within the World Bank at different times but fails to analyze the impact of this new focus of poverty reduction and its success to the development of today’s third world countries.

Chang, H. (2003) Kicking away the ladder. Development Strategy in Historical Perspectives. London, Anthem Press. Chapter 1.

Chang’s analysis centers around one question, ‘How did the rich countries really become rich?’ He uncovers some myths about developed countries developmental experience and argues that developed countries did not develop through the same policies that they recommend to the developing world.

This pressure from developed countries to the developing world to adopt a set of ‘good policies’ that they adopted when they themselves were developing is faced with criticisms because ‘historical evidence suggests otherwise’ and goes on to say that they are trying to hide the ‘secret of their success’ (p. 2).

Some of these policies include liberalization of trade, privatization, restrictive macroeconomic policies and deregulation but facts show that most of the developing countries used export subsidies and industry protection, industrial policies that the WTO disapproves in the present world. The USA and UK were examples of ardent users of these same ‘policies’ frowned at in contrast to the free trade policies and free market they preach.

Chang quotes List, the German economist that ‘Britain was the first country to perfect the art of infant industry promotion’ which is the principle behind most countries journey to success (p. 3). He argues that developed countries, while alleging to recommend good policies to developing countries are actually trying to ‘kick away the ladder’ of their own economic development.

A conclusion is drawn on some methodological issues of David Ricardo’s neoliberal policies to Friedrich List’s infant industry argument that while developed countries preach Ricardo to developing nations, they actually pursued List’s policies in the past.

Although Chang did not confront and compare works of economic historians e.g. L.E Birdzell’s How the West grew rich in relation to his How did the rich countries really become rich to identify similar or different conclusions, his examination of historical materials to reach important and interesting conclusions is a contribution that is immensely valuable to the current debates on development that will evidently challenge contemporary policies and enrich development theory.