Philippine Sociological Society

A Comparative Analysis of Two Studies on Utang na Loob

Author(s): ROBERT LAWLESS
Source: Philippine Sociological Review, Vol. 14, No. 3 (JULY, 1966), pp. 168-172
Published by: Philippine Sociological Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23892055
Accessed: 01-12-2017 00:36 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Philippine Sociological Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Philippine Sociological Review

This content downloaded from 202.125.102.33 on Fri, 01 Dec 2017 00:36:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
168 PHILIPPINE SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

mon law marriage by this also was lawyers,

Philippine not with
article.
such as Paras, p. 248, and sociologists, as
well as by writers in many countries, as a
The law speaks the s
descriptive term) isbuta social fact. Even
it is subject to dif
if a society does not legally recognize
pretation. I think it is
common law marriage, it must provide
here that we in the P
for children born to parents not legally
lawyers high status p
married, which is the
whenpoint I in
we left China made
1951, therein
weremy
article, and with which Prof. Juco agrees.
no practicing lawyers—law was one of
the first professions
Since I am not discussing to be abolished
either the in
Communist China. I
granting of citizenship to alien Chinese am sure Prof. Juco
and I are both grateful
nor what the law considers for our privilege
"proper and
of discussing
irreproachable conduct" both legal and other social
of petitioners, the
aspects of this
ether comments of Prof. Juco and other
may subjects
bein the
con
democratic
sidered as interesting, but environment of the Philippines.re
not directly
lated to the thesis of
I look my
forward article.
to meeting Prof. IJuco
stand
and
hope we may have
with Prof. Juco on favoring furthersolidarity
"the helpful con
of the family" in his
versation.article, p. 59, but

A Comparative Analysis of Two Studies on Utang na Loob

ROBERT LAWLESS
University of the Philippines
Diliman, Quezon City

In recent years the utang na loob

withcona sharpening of our critical outl
cept has generated much interestTwo
amongauthorative studies of utang na
students of Philippine culture. are
Several
Charles Kaut's "Utang na Loob: A
writers give it great importance System
in theof Contractual Obligation among
comprehending of the processes ofTagalogs"
social 2 and Mary Hollnsteiner's "Re
ciprocity
interaction.1 A greater understanding of in the Lowland Philippines."3
the principles and operations of utang
A preliminary reading of the two pa
na loob should be gained from reading
pers shows (A) striking similarities in
all the pertinent literature, but,fieldwork,
in addi (B) great differences in style
tion, a critical analysis and comparison
and tone, (C ) some seemingly direct con
of two highly respected studies should
tradictions, and, finally, (D) some com
plements.
yield an even greater understanding, along Our paper, then, will be di
vided into these four sections, each sec
1 Charles Kaut, "Utang na Loob: A Sys tion representing a critical follow-up of
tem of Contractual Obligation among Tagalogs,"
Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, Vol. 17, our first impressions.
No. 3, (Autumn 1961), p. 256: "Because the
system operates to define the limits of socially 2 Ibid, pp. 256-172.
meaningful relations among individuals and, to 3 Mary Hollnsteiner, "Reciprocity in the
a large degree, determines the nature of such Lowland Philippines," Four Readings on Philip
relations, its understanding is crucial to an un pine Values, Frank Lynch (ed.), Ateneo de
derstanding of bilateral social organization and Manila University Press, Second Revised Edi
some of its structural basis in the Philippines." tion, 1964, 22-49.

This content downloaded from 202.125.102.33 on Fri, 01 Dec 2017 00:36:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 JULY, 1966 169

Similarities in Fieldwork Differences in Style and Tone

Both Hollnsteiner and Kaut are an A discussion of style and tone will,
thropologists. Living in Bulacan, inofTa course, be very subjective, so, first, a
galog barrios probably not more statement than of our prejudices is required.
25 kilometers apart, they gathered their Above all, Hollnsteiner's work has less
data at about the same time: Kaut, 1956 depth than Kaut's.
to 1958; Hollnsteiner, 1959 to 1960. Holln
Hollnsteiner seems interested in cata
steiner worked in a fishing village 21
kilometers north of Manila; and Kaut, loging and listing, and then in describ
ing arbitrary situations; Kaut, in dynamic
in Barrio Kapitangan, Paombong.
processes and selected, representative ex
Explaining his method of obtaining amples.
data, Kaut writes, "The first few months
had involved much reciprocal gift-giving Beginning her paper with a gross as
and aid—on my part and on that of cer sumption, Hollnsteiner writes, "In the
tain people of the barrio, specifically my Philippines, where people are so concern
immediate neighbors and their kin—so ed about getting along with others" 6 we
that I had become an integral part of must understand reciprocity. Where is
an obligation network."4 Hollnsteiner her authority for saying Filipinos "are
makes no attempt to explain how she so concerned about getting along with
gathered her information or to explain others"? Perhaps here she missed the
her role in the community: as an out chance to cite Frank Lynch's "Social Ac
sider, as a participant-observer, as a na ceptance," a study whose conclusions
tive. This, in our opinion, is a serious about the Philippine emphasis on getting
omission, and even Kaut's short explana along with others are highly questionable.
tion is far from adequate.
Kaut makes no such assumptions, and,
In the physical sciences the scheme after describing the setting, he states his
of all experiments must be meticulously purposes:
reported, and in the behavioral sciences
psychologists and sociologists, at least, First, [this paper] is an attempt
must report in detail the design they use to lay the foundation for further ana
in gathering data. Operating perhaps with lysis and understanding of Tagalog so
ciety in particular and structurally si
a sense of self-righteousness, imagining
milar societies in general. Secondly,
they are gathering "pure" data with no and subsidiarily, this system of social
pre-prejudicing scheme or design or theo usages is presented to provide a primer
ry, the anthropologists usually present the on social behavior among Tagalogs for
reader with data as though it were ga of Western science. As many linguistic and an
thered by an omnipresent, all-seeing in thropological studies have shown, every culture
fallible Great Recorder, causing the reader selects and abstracts into its language, and
thereby into its thought patterns, aspects of
difficulties in evaluating the report.5 reality necessarily different from those that other
cultures select.
4 Kaut, p. 262. To describe one culture in the terminology
5 For a plea for tighter designs in accul of another seems to violate the anthropologists'
turations studies and also a plea for the wider own code of cultural relativity. We are each
prisoners of our own culture, and the anthro
use of the psychologists' tools in anthropological
studies, see George Spindler and Walter Gold pologists should be in the best position to
schimidt, "Experimental Design in the Study realize this. But anthropologists, so smugly point
of Culture Change," Southwestern Journal of ing out the ethnocentrism and the strait-jacket
Anthropology, Vol. 8, No. 1 (Spring 1952), pp. like theories of the other disciplines, seem blind
68-83. to the "disciplinacentrism' inherent in a science
Also, the anthropologist, of course, cannot that proclaims it can gather theory-free data
escape the trappings of his own language andand give culture-free interpretations.
the background of his training in the tradition 6 Hollnsteiner, p. 22.

This content downloaded from 202.125.102.33 on Fri, 01 Dec 2017 00:36:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
170 PHILIPPINE SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

the foreigner whocallswishes

"occasions in which
toutang na loobwork
live,
and interact with [them].7
is incurred and then she presents
He then explains athe description of situations through which of
organization
study, divided into thesetwo
obligations may be wholly or par
sections:
tially repaid."14 This entails an appa
In the first, I will outline the sys
tem in the abstract, as a model. In rently arbitrary listing of situations that,
the second section, I will try to show if it has any purpose at all, seems to
low the concept . . . operates ... in apologize to the foreigner (read, Ameri
a] barrio as it (1) reflects an under can) for certain aspects in Philippine
ying belief system and sanctioning culture: using poor relatives as household
system; (2) as it is internalized by the
individual; and (3) as it poses the help, the gift-giving maliciously seen by
structure and process of social orga Americans (and Philippine columnists)
nization.8 as graft.
Kaut's organizational scheme and fluent
presentation brings to light the inadequa The great differences in style and tone
cies of Hollnsteiner's treatment of the con then are Kaut's obvious incisiveness and

cept of utang na loob. loquacity over Hollnsteiner's less tightly

More on the level of scholarship, we
find that Hollnsteiner translates utang
na loob only twice: once as "debt of gra
titude" 9 and then later as "a debt in
side oneself."10 Both translations are in
adequate. Kaut translates it as a "debt
of primary obligation"11 and then gives
the term extensive linguistic treatment.12
We are much more satisfied with Kaut.
In general, Hollnsteiner does not place
"Utang na loob initiatory situations
utang na loob in its social setting, not
. . . between persons without biological
even in its cultural setting. Throughout
or ritual relationship [are] practically non
the paper she is weak in social structure
existent."10—Kaut.
and social organization. She gives a ra
ther unsatisfactory, superficial explanation
of "intra-family utang na loob"13 but
never attempts to explain how utang na
loob operates within the all-important
Philippine kinship bonds.
From her paper we receive the im
pression that utang na loob is an omni
present, mystical, all-embracing force per
vading the Filipino "soul".
After this very inadequate theoretical
presentation, Hollnsteiner begins what she
7 Kaut, pp. 256-257.
8 Ibid, p. 257.
9 Hollnsteiner, p. 23.
10 Ibid, p. 28.
"Kaut, pp. 256-257.
12 Ibid, p. 257.
13 Hollnsteiner, p. 31.
knit assumptions and not too specific
definitions.
Seeming Contradictions
"Utang na loob reciprocity is most
consciously generated when a transfer
of goods or services takes place between
individuals belonging to two different
groups."15—Hollnsteiner.
These two statements seem to be con
tradictory. The first difficulty is that Holln
steiner offers no description of the so
cial context in which utang na loob ope
rates. This sentence is the only state
ment that passes for an explanation of
social interaction, and it vaguely refers
to "two different groups." For a trained
anthropologist to use the term group with
out any suggestion of a definition borders
on incompetence. The word had been de
fined, haggled over and redefined in nu
merous ways by both anthropologists and
sociologists, and has been regarded by
14 Ibid, p. 33.
15 Ibid, p. 28.
16 Kaut, p .262.

This content downloaded from 202.125.102.33 on Fri, 01 Dec 2017 00:36:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 JULY, 1966 171

some as useless as the term race,17 But ippine society against Kaut's deeper, more
here is Hollnsteiner boldly using it, com contemplative picture—contrasts eventual
pletely undefined, and basing a key prin ly leading to contradictions—is their dis
ciple of utang na loob on the very idea cussions of superordinate - subordinate
of whether an individual receives a ser utang na loob relations, particularly land
vice or goods from someone "of his own lord-tenant relations. To Hollnsteiner this
group" or someone "not of his own is an eternal big guy-little guy relation
group." We begin to wonder about this ship, never changing, never altering;20
"group" when we notice that Kaut states whereas to Kaut:
that utang na loob initiatory situations Succeeding generations of an ori
outside of consanguineal, affinal, and ri ginal tenant-landlord relationship pro
tual kinship ties are almost nonexistent. gressively come to have less of a uni
Just what groups is Hollnsteiner refer lateral relationship than the first (or
ring to? initiating) generation. The mayari-may
saka (owner or the land-holder of the
Kaut goes on to say, "Attempts to land) distinction becomes a less uni
confirm utang na loob relationships with laterally emphasized one and emphasis
is placed on mutual obligations be
a distant relative also are fraught with tween owner and tenant, symbolized
possible danger since there are too many linguistically by one term applied to
unknowns on both sides." 18 From Holln both: kasama (companion).21
steiner we receive the impression that any Kaut always has the upper hand in
Filipino can establish utang na loob withthese contradictions, not necessarily be
any other Filipino simply by doing somecause he is always right—we are in no
thing for the others. Kaut, in fact, states position to determine this—but because
that a Tagalog will attempt to establishhis statements, showing a more mature
utang na loob only with someone in hisscholarship, are always firmly consistent
group, which Kaut defines as an "obligawith his well-laid theoretical groundwork.
tion network" set up on consanguineal,
affinal, and ritual kinship ties.19
Complements
Another example of Hollnsteiner's one Since we have mercilessly criticized
shot, two-dimensional picture of Phil Hollnsteiner in the first three sections of
this paper, we will, in this last section,
17 See Charles K. Warriner, "Groups Are
Real: A Reaffirmation," American Sociological endeavor to show where her study com
Review, Vol. 21, No. 5 (Oct. 1956), pp. 540-554. plements Kaut's, where she shows insights
18 Kaut, p. 263. Kaut points out (ibid, p.
260) that the potential gift-giver, in addition lacking in Kaut's paper, and where she
to ascertaining that the potential receiver is notes things of worth missed by Kaut.
within the giver's obligation network, must as
certain whether this potential receiver will be First, Hollnsteiner's paper is on reci
responsive and whether he will be capable of
repaying: if the potential receiver is forced to procity, not only on utang na loob, and
refuse the gift, this will lead to serious conse she investigated two other types of re
quences, for the refusal carries with it the im
plication that the balking receiver is directly ciprocity: contractual and quasi-contrac
insulting the frustrated giver and/or that these tual. Since Kaut's and her paper coin
two are not members of the same group, the
obligation network. But, according to Kaut cide only on utang na loob and since
(ibid, p. 269), "Refusal is rare on an overt the other two categories of reciprocity
level because to refuse is to insult and in
sults are serious matters. Rather, a verbal com seem not at all peculiar to Philippine so
mitment is made which the promiser has no ciety, we reviewed only what Hollnsteiner
intention of honoring as he feels that the per
son (usually a stranger or foreigner) has no wrote about utang na loob.
real right to ask for such a thing." We hear
of none of this from Hollnsteiner. 20 Hollnsteiner, p. 30.
19 Ibid., p. 260. 21 Kaut, p. 266.

This content downloaded from 202.125.102.33 on Fri, 01 Dec 2017 00:36:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
172 PHILIPPINE SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

In her discussion of occasions for re declines, there is a corresponding

ciprocity, Hollnsteiner makes an imporgrowth of uneasiness at being on the
debtor side of an utang na loob re
tant point that Kaut should have covered
lationship.24
in the second section of his paper:
Then again, Kaut may not have touched
The functions of festive occasions,
on this problem of whether an utang na
therefore, include not only the fulfill
ment of religious obligations, meetingloob debtor is happy or unhappy about
family and friends, distributing ofhis situation or whether he is conscious
wealth, and opportunities for statusly aware of it, because the problem may
climbing or reaffirming one's high stanot have presented itself under Kaut's
tus; they are also major means of reemphasis on the social context in which
paying one's social obligations, mandautang na loob operates; he puts the de
tory in Philippine culture, or at least
of indicating to the invited that one velopment of utang na loob relationships
recognizes an existing debt relationin three stages: initiatory, unstable fluc
ship.22 tuation, and a:
A second interesting point of Holln culmination of a long, intimate, and
steiner's that Kaut does not go into is active obligation association: complete
Philippine attitudes toward utang na loob: reciprocity of mutual support and aid
so that two individuals become com
Lest the reader get the impression, plementary utang na loob partners. In
however, that being an utang na loob this stage, one is never exclusively in
debtor makes one unhappy, it should debt to the other but, rather, they are
be made clear that this is not neces so-equally indebted (kautang na lo
sarily so where friends are concerned. ob).25
Each enjoys doing favors for the other
and is generally not conscious of the Hollnsteiner, in her presentation of
interplay of debt relationships. They static relations, fails to note anything of
are more than willing to emphasize this sort, and so her explanation ("Lest
their special closeness through recipro
the reader," etc.) is necessary.
cal favor-doing 'with no strings at
tached.' 23
Perhaps the major contribution of
This point needs more investigation, Hollnsteiner is in noting "the ambiva
placed against a good theoretical frame lent attitude many modern Filipinos have
work concerned with where anthropolo toward utang na loob."26 She says that
gists should draw the line on drawing with increasing acceptance of a cash eco
inferences: how much of any one con nomy there is an "increasing resistance
cept actually exists in the studied cul to the pattern of utang na loob recipro
ture and how much of it exists only in city."27 We agree with her that this is
the mind of the investigator.
worthy of further study.
Along these lines, Hollnsteiner ob
serves :
In summary then we'll say that Kaut's
study should be read for good scientific
Actual awareness of what each has data and expert interpretation, and Holln
done for the other or what each owes
the other comes most often with a stenier may be read as an impressionistic
study
veering toward a clearly one-sided ar brightened by some interesting and
rangement or a breaking-up of important
the insights.
friendship altogether. As the genuine
desire to be closely bound to someone24 Ibid.
25 Kant, p. 266.
22 Hollnstemer, p. 39. 26 Hollnsteiner, p. 47.
23 Ibid, pp. 40-41. 27 Ibid.

This content downloaded from 202.125.102.33 on Fri, 01 Dec 2017 00:36:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms