Why we need our own psychology

By Noel Galon de Leon

I am not easily impressed by research that simply borrows theories from the West and applies them to Filipino experiences without careful examination. It is not because Western theories have no value. Many have contributed greatly to our understanding of human behavior. But the question we must ask is this: Are these theories truly explaining us, or are we simply forcing ourselves to fit into concepts created from a different history, culture, and worldview?

For too long, many academic studies in the Philippines have looked outward before looking inward. We often assume that knowledge becomes more legitimate when it comes from foreign institutions, foreign scholars, or foreign frameworks. Meanwhile, our own languages, traditions, memories, and everyday experiences are treated as secondary sources of knowledge.

This is where indigenous psychology becomes important. Indigenous psychology argues that understanding people must begin from within their own cultural realities. It recognizes that human behavior is shaped by history, language, relationships, community, and social conditions. It challenges the idea that one psychological framework can explain all people regardless of where they come from.

In the Philippine context, this conversation is strongly connected to Sikolohiyang Pilipino, pioneered by Virgilio Enriquez, which emphasized the need to study Filipino experiences using Filipino concepts, language, and perspectives. Sikolohiyang Pilipino developed from the idea that psychology should emerge from the experiences and orientations of Filipinos themselves, rather than simply adapting foreign ideas.

One of the most powerful contributions of this approach is the recognition of concepts such as kapwa, loob, pakikipagkapwa-tao, and other Filipino ways of understanding relationships and identity. These concepts reveal that the Filipino self is not always understood as an isolated individual. Instead, the self is deeply connected with others, family, community, and shared experiences.

This becomes even more meaningful when we look at places like Iloilo. To understand the people of Iloilo, one cannot simply rely on universal categories developed elsewhere. One must listen to the rhythms of local life, the stories carried through Hiligaynon and Kinaray-a, and the values formed through family, community, faith, migration, and history.

The Ilonggo experience is shaped by relationships. It is found in conversations across generations, in the language of care, in the ways communities remember the past, and in how people negotiate belonging. The meaning of respect, hospitality, silence, humor, and responsibility cannot always be captured by imported categories alone.

A researcher studying Iloilo must therefore ask deeper questions. How do people here understand success? How do families define responsibility? How do communities experience grief, celebration, conflict, and healing? How do language and place shape identity?

These questions cannot always be answered by simply applying a ready-made framework. They require listening.

The problem with careless borrowing is that it can create a situation where the Filipino becomes an object of study rather than a creator of knowledge. We become data instead of authors of meaning. Our communities become examples used to validate theories that were never originally created from our realities.

This does not mean rejecting Western knowledge. Indigenous psychology is not about building walls around cultures. It is about creating a more balanced conversation where different societies contribute to the production of knowledge. The goal is not isolation, but recognition that every culture has something valuable to teach about what it means to be human.

A truly meaningful research practice does not ask only, “Does this theory work in the Philippines?” It also asks, “What can the Philippine experience contribute to the world?”

Perhaps this is the challenge for scholars, educators, and researchers today: to move beyond imitation and toward creation. We need studies that are rooted in communities, that respect local languages, and that recognize ordinary people as holders of knowledge.

Because psychology is not only found in laboratories, surveys, and academic journals. Psychology is also found in conversations, traditions, memories, relationships, and the stories people tell about themselves.

If we want to understand the Filipino mind, we must first learn how to listen to the Filipino voice.

A society that does not create knowledge about itself will always depend on others to explain who it is.

And perhaps the most important question we need to continue asking is this: Who are we when we finally begin to understand ourselves through our own eyes?

***

Noel Galon de Leon is a writer and professor at the University of the Philippines Visayas, where he teaches in the Division of Professional Education and at UP High School in Iloilo. He is also the secretary of the National Commission for Culture and the Arts-National Committee on Literary Arts.