Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros99ArticlesCompadrazco and Delicadeza in Phi...

Articles

Compadrazco and Delicadeza in Philippine Political Culture

Compadrazco et delicadeza dans la culture politique philippine
Mina Roces
p. 29-52

Résumés

Cet article s’intéresse aux versions filipinisées des notions ibériques de compadrazco (parenté rituelle) et de delicadeza (noblesse des actes et importance de l’apparence de vertu publique dans les questions de conflit d’intérêt) dans la culture politique des Philippines tout au long du xxe siècle. La persistance de ces notions a dépendu dans une large mesure de leur adaptation à la culture dominante de “politique de parenté”, caractérisée par l’usage du pouvoir poli­tique au bénéfice du groupe de parenté. Le compadrazco se développa grâce à sa compatibilité avec la politique de parenté, tandis que la delicadeza, bien que préservée comme un idéal, fut marginalisée, à la fois dans le discours et la pratique.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

1Although the Spanish colonizers left the Philippines in 1898, the flowering of Filipino literature in the Spanish language occurred in the subsequent American colonial era (1903-1942) (see Alinea 1967, Mariño 1989: xix-xxv). In the 1920s and 1930s, the Philippines experienced a resurgence of Spanish cultural influences. This cultural blooming may have been the result of attempts by the Filipino ilustrado (European­ educated) elite to define itself in contrast to the American Other. Take, for example, delicadeza (here defined as scrupulousness, attention to ethics, a noblesse oblige attitude with caution regarding conflict of interest, genteel behavior, honor and moral uprightness in public office). This term was bandied about in conversations of the time to distinguish Filipino upper-class culture and etiquette from what was perceived to be American crassness or brashness.

2American political tutelage, which included civic education, democratic principles including elections and civil liberties, and the establishment of bureaucratic institutions, met resistance from traditional kinship dynamics. American governors-general and officials, as well as American scholars writing on this period in Philippine history, isolate compadrazco (ritual kinship) as the main culprit preventing the complete Americanization of the Filipinos. Were Filipinos resisting American attempts to democratize them? Curiously, despite their condemnation of compadrazco, the Americans utilized it themselves whenever it suited them. One American scholar identified this practice as “compadre colonialism” (Owen 1971; see also Cullinane 1984), through which the Americans created their own political proteges in their attempts to shape Filipino political culture in the American matrix.

3This paper explores compadrazco and delicadeza and their roles in the dynamics of Philippine political culture. Although these concepts have Spanish origins, they were reinvented as Filipino. The survival of these two concepts - one (delicadeza) a moral value and the other a very real social institution - would in the end depend on how they blended with or adjusted to the dominant traditional political dynamic of kinship politics (here defined as utilizing political power to benefit the kinship group). Kinship politics, which motivated family alliances to use power and politics to benefit the kinship group and build a ’socio-business’ empire, found it extremely useful to adapt compadrazco, which made it possible to extend the kinship group by leaps and bounds through ritual means.

4On the other hand, kinship politics eventually found little use for delicadeza. Delicadeza demanded much more than merely doing what is right and proper in a given situation. It stipulated that a public official be seen to be virtuous and above reproach. As an effort to impose ethical standards equally and across ail kinship groups (privileging none), it was inimical to kinship politics, which demanded that the kinship group be privileged over others. Delicadeza required proper ethical and moral conduct and scrupulousness from the entire society and particularly public officials. But what about the kinship group? From the perspective of the kinship group, there could be little benefit derived from the practice of delicadeza, except primarily as a discourse of critique to protest against those kinship groups that were seen to be too avid practitioners of kinship politics.

5It is important to separate delicadeza as a discourse from delicadeza as a practice. Since the 1920s or 1930s to this day, the media’s discourse on delicadeza usually has been a lamentation of its absence in practice. Only on very rare occasions did newspaper accounts praise a public official for being an exemplar of delicadeza. In fact, mention of delicadeza at all in the print media of the 20th century has been sporadic and fleeting. It also subscribed to a particular genre: The usual reportage consisted of a harsh criticism of a person’s alleged lack of delicadeza, followed by a reprimand, and then a bewailing of the general absence of delicàdeza from the public scene. Held up as an ideal in a society where kinship politics was the norm, delicadeza was marginalized. There were even distinct periods in 20th-century Philippine history where delicadeza experienced an almost complete discursive absence in the public sphere. During the Japanese Occupation and the Martial Law period (1972-1986), a censored press and wartime or authoritarian regimes inhibited criticisms of the behavior of public officials and/or kinship alliance groups.

6These two concepts, delicadeza and compadrazco, are different animals and should not be conceptualized as polar opposites. Delicadeza is an ideal value, a moral standard that demanded a yardstick of behavior from all persons, but particularly from politicians and public servants. In this sense, it existed in the abstract, moral plane, and this is why it is more often invoked as a discourse rather than observed in practice. It was something humans aspired to become. On the other hand, compadrazco operated at the very mundane level of daily rituals tied to rites of passage. It was a ritual kinship observed by all and often used as a vehicle from which to extend one’s kinship ties or kinship alliance group in a culture where interdependence is the necessary route to survival. Where delicadeza carries a valence of ‘good,’ compadrazco carries no moral valence.

  • 2 One example of such ‘essentializing’ of Philippine politics as solely motivated by kinship ties is (...)

7Although kinship politics has been identified here as the dominant dynamic in Philippine political culture, one should resist the temptation to essentialize Filipino political behavior as completely and solely motivated by kinship ties.2 I have elaborated on the reasons for the rise and fall of families through the ebb and flow of their access to political power (Maria Roces 1990). Far from endorsing a simplistic rendering of Filipinos operating under unchanging traditional codes, I have proposed that the unresolved conflict between two sets of values was responsible for the cyclical rise and fall of family alliances. The colonial period introduced a new dynamic into Philippine politics, with the modern ’nationalist’ idea that loyalty to the nation-state should be valued above loyalty to the family. This modern discourse generates conflict with the perceived primordialism of kinship politics. Western or modern ideas of democracy, of nationalism, of the predominance of the nation-state over the family, and criticism of the sins of corruption and nepotism have on occasion even triumphed over kinship politics at critical moments in Philippine history, as in the 1986 People Power revolution. This conflict between two discourses in post-war Philippines explains the cycles of administrations where one kinship group claims power and is overthrown because of charges of graft and corruption, only to be replaced by another regime riddled with the same failings. Filipino politicians who use the clearly modern rhetoric of loyalty to the nation-state to criticize others for graft and corruption might seem eminently ‘modern,’ and, indeed, exposing graft and corruption has been a characteristic trademark of politicians since 1945. Their behavior once elected, however, suggests an ambivalent engagement with modernity. Kinship politics and Western values, compadrazco and delicadeza, are merely idioms used in the dynamics of political and social action, that is, a form of rhetoric. To suggest this, however, is not to deny that Filipinos also utilize such norms as a reflection of sincerely held beliefs. In short, kinship politics and Western values are not fixed, immutable laws. Both are symbolic messages, discourses used by individuals in the ideological context of political relations and political actions.

8Delicadeza belongs under the rubric of Western values first practiced in the colonial period. Like nationalism, it implicitly demanded the sublimation of kinship group interests for the benefit of the entire society. In the American period, when kinship politics was first compelled to adjust to the shock of American rule and American political institutions, delicadeza was raised by the ihtstrado elite of the early 20th century, who wanted to put a curb on the flagrant kinship politics practiced by the new breed of Filipinos aggressively participating in the new democratic-style politics of the era. Displaying in the pre-war period the classic contest between kinship politics and Western or modern values, compadrazco or kinship politics clashed with delicadeza in the fight for supremacy between the Sajonistas (the Americanized, English-speaking pro­-American Filipinos who embraced American culture, as defined by Joaquin 1978) and the Hispanistas (the Spanish-speaking, ilustrado or European-educated elite). Appalled and threatened by the aggressive kinship politics practiced by the Sajunislas, who began to claim positions of political power and elite status, the Hispanistas fought back using the discourse of delicadeza. In the post-war years, delicadeza and the rhetoric of graft and corruption would be used in a similar fashion by rival kinship alliance groups. The use of the discourse of delicadeza, alongside with the practice of kinship politics, reflects the Filipinos’ ambivalent engagement with modernity. Some Hispanistas and post-war politicians, who raised the banner of delicadeza in reference to the behavior of rival kinship groups, were not averse to dispensing with the value when it suited them.

9But to point out that delicadeza was sometimes used by kinship alliance groups to criticize their rivals is not to declare that the use of delicadeza was mere rhetoric and rhetoric alone, or that it never represented sincerely held beliefs. To make this assertion would be simplistic and would succumb once again to an essentializing of Philippine political dynamics. What makes the study of Philippine politics so enthralling is precisely the complexity, the contradictions and ambivalence it exudes. Delicadeza remained the ideal value, a code to be aspired to, and certainly some individuals (more likely individuals rather than entire kinship alliance groups) abided by these principles once in a while. How does one explain the heroes of the Civil Liberties Union who sacrificed their lives during the Japanese Occupation or the activists during Martial Law who suffered torture for their beliefs? The militant nuns who epitomized activism during the Marcos dictatorship represented the woman as both moral guardian and purveyor of delicadeza.

10This paper explores compadrazco and delicadeza over almost an entire century, from the 1920s until the time of the present writing (1999). My discussion is therefore organized into distinct historical periods, which reflect the nature and practice of both concepts. The American colonial period is usually dated from 1902 until 1946, when the Philippines was officially granted independence. Within that period, the years 1935-1941 are referred to as the Commonwealth Era, when for the first time there was almost complete Filipinization of the government with a Filipino president and vice-president. The Commonwealth Era marked the final stage of democratic tutelage, as the Americans prepared to withdraw from their Southeast Asian colony. Between 1941 and 1945, World War Il ushered in an Asian colonial power, as the Philippines experienced war and military rule under the Japanese. Post-War Philippines could also be further classified into three phases. The Republican Era, from 1946 to 1972, is the first experiment in democratic institutions. In 1972, however, President Ferdinand Marcos declared martial law, destroying the fragile democracy and substituting it with strong-man authoritarian rule until he was overthrown by a coup d’etat turned People Power revolution in 1986. Since 1986, the restoration of democratic institutions ushered in a new phase of political history.

11The history of delicadeza and compadrazco and their engagement with kinship politics mirrors the above historical phases. In the authoritarian periods (World War li and Martial Law), delicadeza disappeared from the print media. When kinship politics reached its pinnacle in the Martial Law period, compadrazco became absolutely essential to families desiring to attach themselves to the only family alliance that could practice kinship politics - the Marcos-Romualdez alliance.

Compadrazco and Delicadeza

12Compadrazco, in its original Spanish definition, meant a form of ritual kinship in which persona! ties are extended through relationships of godparenthood at baptisms and weddings: When one accepts the role of godparent, one becomes fictive kin, a member of the extended family group. Whereas in Spanish Christianity the role of godparent was inextricably linked to that of ‘guardian of Christian morals,’ in the Philippine context there is less emphasis on the role of godparent as a spiritual guardian. In the Filipino kinship group, a godparent is obligated to look not only after the spiritual development of the child but also after his/her material well-being. The godparent becomes transformed into a patron, who may be asked to provide a job for the child in the future. The godparents and the parents of the godchild are also bonded in alliance to become compadres and be incorporated into the family network. Politicians and public figures, perceived as important patrons, become popular principal sponsors (godparents) at weddings. Thus, at weddings and baptisms, one commonly finds more than one pair of godparents officiating, and in some cases up to eight or ten!

13Compadrazco has been coopted by the dynamics of kinship politics for it provides the ritual vehicle from which to indefinitely expand the kinship alliance group, as it transformed outsiders into kin. While kinship politics is the main player, compadrazco, along with other Filipino values such as utang na Joab (debt of gratitude), hiya (shame), pakikisama (yielding to consensus), and palakasan (competition for favors), comprises the cultural baggage of this dominant dynamic. Thus, compadrazco is only one of the elements, albeit an essential one, in the practice of kinship politics or politica de familia. While the assumption is that political power provides access to resources which can enable one to build a business empire, the compadrazco system allows those who are neither wealthy nor influential to attach themselves to a major patron and transform them into malakas (strong or powerful persons). Blending well with the traditional methods of increasing kinship alliances to strengthen the kinship group, compadrazco was compatible with kinship politics.

  • 3 From personal communications by Dr. Florentino Rodao, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, June 1998; (...)

14Delicadeza, in the Spanish context, is defined as ‘acting with tact’ (being tactful or diplomatic), and acting with ‘delicateness.’ It is not directly associated with acting honorably in politics. But in the political arena, it is used particularly when one is criticized for falta de delicadeza (lacking in delicadeza) or falta de tacto (lacking tact), and both expressions are used synonymously.3 In this sense, delicadeza can be more closely associated with refinement. The term is commonly resorted to when referring to the absence of tact in politics or to undiplomatic behavior in a social milieu.

  • 4 Two prominent students of Philippine society and politics, one an anthropologist (Dr. Fernando Zial (...)

15The Filipinized version of delicadeza extended the Spanish meaning to include ethical behavior and the public face of being beyond reproach, particularly in matters of conflict of interest. It is closely associated with honor and behaving honorably in public office. One who has delicadeza is scrupulous to a fault. For example, if one were chairperson of a parish church fundraising and one of the prizes were given to one’s son, s/he should return it par delicadeza (for the sake of delicadeza). Like Caesar’s wife, one should not be seen to be privileging oneself. In a political context, if a congressman were aware that the government would be building a road in a given district, he should not go ahead and buy ail the land in the area, knowing the price of land would increase. A person privileged with inside information should not capitalize on it for personal gain; even more important, s/he must not even be suspected of such a thing.4

16As a discourse, delicadeza very likely gained currency only in the early 20th century. I have yet to find reference to it in the printed sources of the 19th century and it was not raised in the nationalist discourse of the 19th-century ilustrado class. The writings of Jose Rizal, Marcelo H. del Pilar, and Graciano Lopezjaena, for example, make no direct reference to it. In the best-selling book of the 1860s, Urbana at Feliza, where Father Modesto de Castro outlined the moral codes of conduct and etiquette appropriate for the urbanized Filipino, delicadeza is conspicuously absent. Covering a wide gamut of concerns from proper etiquette in social gatherings, like how to use a napkin or write a letter, to moral concerns, such as how to choose a spouse or deal with death, the book became the handbook on morals and daily conduct. There were instructions on katungkulan sa bayan - this refers to duties to one’s town, since the concept of Pilipinas or Inang Bayan (mother country) or Filipino did not appear till later - and pakikpagkapua tao (empathy for others), in which De Castro depicted the proper moral and ethical conduct expected in political office (De Castro 1860). Since the book’s audience included the cabezas de barangay (village heads) and gobernadorcillos (town mayors), also part of the new urbanized Filipino elite, there were distinct sections that deaIt with concern for one’s fellow man, charity, and obligations to one’s town. Written by a priest, the duties of the urbanized political elite were obviously encoded in moral terms.

17Delicadeza, which in 20th-century public discourse demanded impeccable ethical behavior in public office, would have been defined and endorsed in such a book, had the term delicadeza then been incorporated in the jargon of the moral conduct expected of public officials.

18Despite the proliferation of scholarly studies on Philippine social values in the post­-war era, which included utang na Joab (debt of gratitude), hiya (shame), and pakikisama (yielding to consensus), no in-depth study or deconstruction of the term exists. Oral testimonies suggest that the American era of the 1920s and 1930s was the period when delicadeza gained currency in the vocabulary of the ilustrado elite. Renacimiento Filipino, one of the few self-consciously pro-Filipino periodicals (while Philippines Free Press, The Philippine Herald, The Cable News American, and The Manila Times, prior to the mid-1920s and 1930s, were pro-American), makes no mention of it in the years between 1910 and 1915. Delicadeza was also conspicuously absent from the editorials of The Philippine Herald of the early 1920s (1920-1921), The Manila Times of 1919-1921 and 1945, and Philippines Free Press in the years 1918-1925 and 1935-1937. The 1930s seems the best period to examine it, as its use would lend itself to editorials and opinion columns, and it was only in the early 1930s that Filipino columnists began to grace the pages of newspapers.

19V.A. Pacis, writing in the 1980s, isolated the Commonwealth Era as the “heyday” of delicadeza, although he was vague about whether he meant delicadeza as a discourse or as a practice (Pacis 1985-86). Those columnists of the 1930s and early 1940s who discuss delicadeza refer nostalgically to a previous period (the late 19th century), implying that delicadeza was practiced more fervently then (R. Roces 1940). Based on evidence from newspapers and oral testimonies, we can suggest that the discourse of delicadeza first made its appearance in the public sphere in the 1920s or 1930s. But since the discursive genre included a nostalgic remembering of a bygone era when it was allegedly highly valued and meticulously observed, we may assume that it was most likely practiced by the ilustrados of the late 19th century prior to its semantic debut in the 20th century.

20Delicadeza can be cited as an exemplary case of an invention of tradition (Hobsbawm 1983: 1-14). When the word came to be used in the 1920s, it was claimed to have been the established norm in the previous century. Raised by the Hispanistas, delicadeza was ‘invented’ for two critical reasons: (1) to inculcate its principles as a value in political culture; and (2) as the self-conscious creation by one class - the ilustrado elite - of a ‘Filipino identity,’ for it defined the Filipino or the Hispanista group as distinct from Americans. (In this sense, it can also refer to a fracturing of identity between Hispanista/Filipino and Sajonista/Filipino, for the latter, by aping American values, becomes Americanized and no longer truly ‘Filipino.’) Hence, delicadeza appears during that specific period of the 1920s and 1930s, as a unique response to a specific historical situation. At this juncture in time, a new colonial ruler had implemented new political institutions and subsequently unleashed modern practices that encouraged some Filipino politicians to use political office for personal gain. The cry for delicadeza was an attempt by the Hispanistas to curb flagrant kinship politics. For this purpose, delicadeza was raised and given a genealogy extending backwards to the 19th century and 19th­century ‘tradition.’

The American Period

21It is the American period that introduced, for the first time, Filipino participation in local and national government. As part of the tutelage theoretically aimed at making them ready for self-government, Filipinos were gradually permitted to compete for positions far above the ranks of gobernadorcillo (town mayor) and cabeza de barangay (village head), the only political roles granted to them by the Spanish colonial regime. Elections were the means to political office and Filipinos were eventually able to run for Congress and later the Senate, and by 1935, for president and vice-president. In this new political game, kinship politics bloomed.

22Political education roughly began with the start of American colonial rule. All the basic American democratic institutions were introduced during the Taft era (1900-1913), the first decade of the United States’ presence. These institutions consisted of an electoral process, a civil service based on merit, an extensive judicial mechanism, a bill of rights, a functioning system of municipal, provincial, and national governments, a Filipino legislature, and a political party system. At the end of this period, Filipinos filled 71 percent of the public service positions, 99 percent of ail municipal government offices, and 90 percent of ail provincial posts (Cullinane 1971: 16‑17).

23American policy sought to impart the qualities of an ‘honest and efficient’ government by having the American governor-general police the actions of Filipino officials. In theory, in the area of local government, American provincial treasurers controlled the financial system and trained the municipal officials. The provincial governor was supposed to conduct projection visits to towns, armed with the authorization to suspend unruly officials on the spot. American provincial board members, in turn, applied pressure on Filipino provincial governors to take action against municipal officials suspected of misconduct (Cullinane 1971: 20-21). Alongside the creation of the skeleton of the civil service, the Americans also sought to inculcate the values of professionalism and responsibility in office. For the first time, Filipinos were told that “public office is a public trust,” a concept that was new and entirely in opposition to the customary practice that public office was a vehicle to be used for persona! and familial aggrandizement (Corpuz 1957: 171). In reality, at least at the local level, Americans found it difficult to exercise a firm control. Thus, Filipino officials had a freer hand than was originally intended, succeeding in operating in their own version of American democracy. Nonetheless, many cases were decided against municipal officials, after election protests and investigations of vote buying or misuse of public funds (Cullinane 1971: 29‑30).

24On the national level, political parties were organized and elections contested. Politicians in the higher echelons of the central government were increasingly given positions of greater responsibility as the process of ‘Filipinization’ accelerated, particularly in the regime of Governor-general Francis Burton Harrison. The American governor-general watched closely the behavior of the high-level politicians who worked with their American mentors. For example, when a scandal broke out in the Philippine National Bank, where privileged loans were granted to prominent politicians, the bank president Venancio Concepción was replaced by two American bankers (Stanley 1974: 240-247). The other appendages of democracy that were established in the Philippines were a free press and a civil liberties union. The American success at imparting democratic principles was best illustrated by the fact that the Civil Liberties Union was founded by Filipinos themselves, who wanted to protect the democratic principles of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and basic human rights (Abaya 1987: 2).

25There is ample evidence for the blooming of kinship politics during the American period. The problem with the American-authored contemporary accounts of the Philippine situation is that most of them envisioned the American regime as the savior that would deliver the Filipino tao (person) from the evils of the Spanish legacy of caciquism.

26N. RooseveIt pointed out that Filipinos were more interested in obtaining power and privileges than in carrying out the American political experiment: “They seized the spoils and divided them among their supporters and relatives” (RooseveIt 1926: 32). He argued that, among the Malays (here he especially referred to the Filipinos and Javanese), loyalty is strong to a person rather than to a cause: “This personal loyalty is one of the reasons why political unity is practically impossible either in Java or in the Philippines” (ibid.: 64). Critical of what he termed “the policy of overhasty Filipinization,” RooseveIt deduced that the problem with Filipino politicians was their monopolization of power by legal and illegal means for the promotion of their personal ambitions as “they made business out of politics” (ibid.: 24).

  • 5 Mayo disclosed that one Joan of $50,000 was made to Mr. Quezon without security, with the directors (...)

27A favorite incident cited by most accounts to illustrate the evils of Filipino corruption was the Philippine National Bank (PNB) fiasco. In 1918 a major scandal was exposed concerning the behavior of Filipino bureaucrats in the upper echelons of the PNB. The bank became a vehicle for patronage. The bank president, General Venancio Concepcion, brought with him “an extraordinary network of personal links” as he sought “to guide the bank, the economy, his friends, and his personal fortune through the heady excitement and risks of the wartime boom” (Stanley 1974: 240-241). Dummy loans were made to two of the bank’s directors on Concepci6n’s authority. Many of the loans, unquestionably unethical, were made to prominent political figures (ibid.: 244; Mayo 1924: 114).5

  • 6 Mayo cited an incident where the bank director Vicente Singson Encarnacion received a loan from the (...)

28Directors of the bank, for example, authorized large loans to companies in which they themselves were investors, with many of these loans financing personal consumption instead of encouraging production or commerce (Stanley 1974: 244; Mayo 1924: 109-111).6 From this behavior, the historian Peter Stanley deduced that “plainly, the bank had become a vehicle for elitist profiteering and back-scratching, an institutional reflection of the dyadic and familial character of philippine personal ethics” (Stanley 1974: 244).

  • 7 Mayo saw ail this as evidence of caciquism and its abuses.

29The American administrators were obviously appalled at such blatant corruption, which in the words of the Wood-Forbes report comprised “one of the most unfortunate and darkest pages in Philippine history” (RooseveIt 1926: 35; Mayo 1924: 109-115; Forbes 1928: 302-303).7 Clearly, what they perceived to be professional incompetence, mismanagement, or corruption, was in reality Filipinos operating according to the rules of kinship politics, where privileged positions were utilized for the enlargement of one’s family enterprise. What was so poignant about the experience was that the PNB debacle became the precursor of the pattern of political scandals that so characterized the kinship politics of the post-war years.

30The development of Filipino political parties from the turn of the century to 1907 revealed Filipino ilustrados engaged in kinship politics as they jockeyed for political positions in the new colonial regime. Building a more intricate web of persona! connections with local, provincial, and municipal leaders, as well as ties with American bureaucrats, became the new strategy for political power. By the time of the victory of the Nacionalista Party in the elections for the National Assembly in 1907, new venues for political power had emerged. Competition for governorships, for example, led to the formation of family alliances reinforced by compadrazco in the intense struggle for prominence in a province (Cullinane 1989: 241, 513‑514).

31In the midst of this scramble for privileges, the Hispanistas raised the cry for the observance of delicadeza, in an effort to police the actions of those Sajonistas (Americanized or pro-American Filipinos) who by the 1930s became known as the Modernistas (a term standing for ail who were for ‘progress’; see Joaquin 1978: 2733- 2744) but were practicing kinship politics. The front page of Philippines Free Press of 1935 attacked the modernista politician, who was seen as a crass individual only interested in persona (gain and in plundering the treasury. This undignified and immoral behavior was juxtaposed with that of Jose Rizal, the ideal Hispanista of the 19th century:

“What would Rizal say were he alive today to witness the current orgy of wild spending on non-essentials? What would the man who willingly sacrificed his fortune and then his life in the interests of his country say of the modern politician whose sole purpose is to get as much out of the treasury as he can? It takes neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet to answer those questions” (Anonymous 1935).

32In an attempt to issue ground rules for behavior in politics, the Hispanistas raised the banner of delicadeza. This, however, did not mean that the Hispanistas themselves were above kinship politics. They applied the yardstick of delicadeza to other families, though they themselves often abided by the dynamics of kinship politics.

33The Hispanistas, after all, were in the first quarter of the 20th century the dominant elite group in society. European educated, they looked down on American culture, which they perceived to be lacking the sophistication and refinement of European culture. The Americans’ code of behavior, which, for instance, sanctioned campaigning for oneself or one’s husband, was considered vulgar. In the 1922 elections, there were exclamations of horror at the fact that Mrs. Osias ardently campaigned for her husband (Joaquin 1978: 2736). As late as 1945, President Sergio Osmeiia, the last of the grand old men seen to be associated with the value of delicadeza, refused to campaign because he believed that it was not the dignified thing to do.

34In 1941, the columnist Rafael Roces, Jr. (aka Liling), though by no means a Hispanista - despite his Spanish background, he was educated at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana - described quite aptly the Hispanista view of ungenteel Americanisms:

“For the youth to vote intelligently is one thing; for the youth to risk life and limb doing the boogie-woogie is quite another. For the Filipino army officer to acquire the efficiency of the American army officer is one thing; for him to use American expletives in every sentence is quite another. For our women to go to universities is one thing; for them to move the location of their eyebrows as one moves the piano in a parlour is quite another.
“The typical Filipino character, as molded by our own native tradition and culture, is not quite the type that crashes into the newspapers in an age of traders and money lenders. But, perhaps, trading and money lending is not destined to be our contribution to the world. We have our own contribution to make. It is doubtful that we shall do so by merely trying to out­ American the American” (R. Roces 1941 b).

35It was this behavior, interpreted as American crassness, that was isolated as difference, as uncouthness, and as falta de delicadeza. Particularly because the ideal was the 19th­ century European elan associated with such ilustrados as Jose Rizal, it was one way the Hispanistas distinguished themselves from the American Other.

  • 8 In fact, one book by an American journalist writing on the Philippines is entitled In Our Image (Ka (...)

36The emergence of the Filipino as Sajonista after a mere two or three decades of colonial rule attested to the success of American influences in the Philippines. After all, the term ‘Filipino’ and the imagined nation ‘Philippines’ had at that time a relatively brief history – the Revolution against Spain occurred only in 1896. But before the notion of Filipinas could be disseminated throughout all corners of the archipelago, American educational policy and political tutoring began the process of transforming Linde Sam’s Filipino brown brothers into the Americans’ own image.8 The ilustrado elite, that comprised the Hispanista group, were in the late 19th century the primary shapers of Filipino nationalism and Filipino identity. The behavior of the new modern Filipino as Sajonista or Modernista, or more critically the Filipino as pro-American, compelled the Hispanistas to raise objections. The invocation of delicadeza became the new mantra; seen as the value that distinguished Filipinos from Americans, it elevated Filipinos into ‘superior’ moral beings. ‘Inventing traditions’ (although it has its roots in a Spanish past, delicadeza in the Philippines, I have argued, is a Filipino version distinct from the Spanish concept), the ilustrados were redefining ‘Filipino’ against the new forces of Americanization and modernity.

37Specific examples of the discourse on delicadeza in the print media were very rare, once again reinforcing the marginalized nature of delicadeza from the very beginning of the term’s use in the public sphere. In 1934 an editorial in a rather obscure periodical called Scandal, which unabashedly described itself as ’The Combative Weekly,” praised one Dr. Trinidad for refusing to accept reappointment to the board of trustees of the Sweepstakes because he had a high sense of “delicadeza”, a “very fine trait” the author lamented was “so conspicuously missing in many of our public officials” (Anonymous 1934: 1). In the same editorial, Dr. Trinidad’s laudatory action was contrasted with that of one Hermenegildo Cruz, the Director of labor, who, though condemned by the press as no longer fit for his position, continued to stick “clam-like” to his post. Keeping to the genre of delicadeza discussions, even though one official received praise, another was rebuked for a lack of dignity because he was seen to be “fighting for nothing else but his directorial chair” (Anonymous 1934: 1, 8). Mr. Cruz’s desire for personal power and status at the expense of his public dignity was censured by the author as falta de delicadeza.

38In “Lesson for Assembly,” Rafael Roces, Jr., praised the attorney Victoriano Yamson for his decision not to appear in the municipal court as long as he remained a member of the city board. Yamson’s conduct was contrasted with that of the majority of public officials who no longer adhered to perceived past virtues:

“The decision shows a sign of ‘delicadeza’ that has been conspicuously scarce not only in the City Hall but in the National Assembly as well. In recent years, the only act arising from a similar sense of propriety in the National Assembly was from one who refused to vote for the amendments on the ground that it involved a raise in salary for himself. That man, Hon. Ruperto Montinola, is now gone from this life, like many others of what one might refer to as the old school of thought on matters of ‘delicadeza”’ (R. Roces 1940).

39Roces ended the column with an emphasis on the fact that such a sense of dignity and propriety was rare in the modern politician of the day. While Yamson’s donation of his per diem to deserving poor students was interpreted as an act of generosity, his refusal to appear in the court was lauded as “an act of a public official with that sense of dignity and propriety now so rare in present-day political circles” (ibid.). It translated to an act “of a man who realizes the dignity of public office” (ibid.).

40A year later, R. Roces again praised another public official (Jaime de Veyra) for declining the appointment to a school textbook committee because his wife was the author of several school textbooks. Much of the column defined the precise concept of delicadeza and situated the height of its practice in the late Spanish era. Demonstrating in specific detail and through the De Veyra example that delicadeza demanded that a public official not only be virtuous but also be seen to be above reproach, it clarified succinctly how delicadeza was perceived in the American period:

“Here’s an example of that sense of ’delicadeza’ that so characterized the leaders of Rizal’s day, and which is today becoming less common. It is an example of rigid adherence to a code of honour imposed upon one’s self by a sense of noblesse oblige. It is an example of that care of avoiding not only wrong but even the appearance of wrong, the lack of which made it necessary for President Quezon a few weeks ago to issue an order prohibiting officials of government corporations and their relatives from participating in business deals with the corporation…
“To some public officials now, a norm of conduct is not wrong unless it clearly violates laws and regulations duly passed by the Assembly or duly issued by the President. They will commit acts unbecoming a public official so long as such an act has not been expressly prohibited.
“It is in this that Mr. De Veyra shows laudable adherence to old virtues. Anyone acquainted with him or his wife knows that neither he nor Mrs. De Veyra would take advantage of a public position for personal gain. Their reputation is enough to preclude suspicion. But Mr. De Veyra was not satisfied merely with the knowledge that he was doing no wrong but had to avoid even the appearance of doing wrong.
“He was impelled by a code of honour of which Rizal would approve” (R. Roces 1941 a).

41Such a ‘code of honour,’ though unwritten, evoked a higher order than American colonial laws and regulations. Roces was separating the modernista politician, who was law­-abiding but self-gratuitous, from the ilustrado with delicadeza.

42In his memoirs, General Jose Alejandrino reveals one anecdote about Jose Rizal, which clearly illustrates delicadeza in practice in the 19th century. Alejandrino himself was an ilustrado who knew Rizal and who was active in the Propaganda Movement in Spain and in the subsequent Philippine revolution. His story comes from another ilustrado, Dr. Baldomero Roxas, a fellow Filipino reformist in Spain:

“Dr. Baldomero Roxas relates that in 1889 in Paris he and other compatriots who used to eat together in a restaurant noticed that Rizal was worried because he had not received his pension on time. Yet at that time he had received a draft for one thousand pesos without any accompanying letter to indicate for what purpose the money was remitted to him. The draft being drawn in his favor, they told him that he could very well make use of it. Rizal promised to think the matter over, but on the following day he told them (Roxas and his companions) that, being in doubt for what object the money was sent, he had decided to remit the one thousand pesos to M. H. del Pilar just in case they were intended for the expenses of ‘La Solidaridad”’ (Alejandrino 1949 and 1987: 2‑3).

43Rizal was so scrupulous that, although he was worried about the present state of his finances, and despite the fact that the money was addressed to him, the very possibility that the funds might have been meant for the newspaper of the Propaganda Movement made him relinquish the sum to Del Pilar. Although the word delicadeza was not actually used, Rizal’s behavior epitomized its ideal in practice.

Post-War Philippines

44Kinship politics did not die out during the Japanese Occupation, though the wartime conditions and the authoritarian regime curtailed the amount of privileges and business success one could gain in such hard times. Since the press was severely controlled, there could be no criticism of kinship behavior, and the public discourse of delicadeza in the print media disappeared. After the war, the Americans exonerated a few chosen Filipino collaborators, who very quickly gained political office in the new independent Philippines. The return of the collaborators (seen to have exploited the Filipinos during the hard times unleashed by wartime conditions) was clearly a sign of lack of delicadeza. Talk of delicadeza was again sorely missing in the public media discourse of the early post-war years. Like during the American period, when it surfaced once more, it was in the context of political scandals, either to praise a politician for showing delicadeza (by resigning from a position because of perceived wrongdoing or, in a more positive light, for adhering to ethical decorum) or to bemoan its absence in the behavior of specific politicians.

45Once the Americans officially had left and the Philippines had become an independent republic, kinship politics came into its own. By the 1950s, kinship politics had become the dominant political dynamic. Family alliances jockeyed at election time in order to acquire the political power that opened the doors to special privileges, business monopolies, and preferential bank loans. As legislators, they could, for instance, write and pass laws to privilege their businesses over others; as local politicians, they made use of kinship links to those who could give them preferential loans or connections for lucrative business deals. Political power had the means of transforming the destinies of kinship groups, with the spoils of office creating a new class of millionaires of the post-war era. Just as landholding was the source of wealth and elite status in the 19th century, politics, and more specifically kinship politics, also became one critical passkey to the realm of the venerated elite.

46One of the most prominent families in the post-war period, the Lopez family, built its business empire through skillful deployment of kinship politics. With one brother in politics (Fernando) and one in business (Eugenio), political connections were used to build a vast business empire. Alliances with powerful scions through compadrazco certainly occurred, though such alliances are difficult to document fully. For instance, President Manuel Quezon was godfather to Eugenio’s daughter Presentación and to one of Fernando’s sons, but there must have been other ties of compadrazco with subsequent presidents and powerful politicians. It was the Lopezes’ vast resources, including their influence as sugar barons and their media clout (they owned The Manila Chronicle, radio stations, and later ABS-CBN television stations), that were called upon to make and unmake presidents. Fernando’s position as mayor of Iloilo, and later as senator and vice­ president, gave the family access to the acquisition of sugar centrales, and later even the Manila Electric Company. Similarly, other families, like the Puyats, the Rodriguezes, the Laurels, and the Osmeñas, to name a few, practiced kinship politics to varying degrees and, as a consequence, built successful business empires (see M. Roces, 1990, for a detailed study of kinship politics and the Lopez family).

47In this crass climate, delicadeza made infrequent appearances in the public sphere. In 1967, heralding the upcoming Constitutional Convention, Philippines Free Press raised the question of delicadeza in the matter of congressmen doubling as Constitutional Convention delegates:

“Thus, a member of the present Congress who has some sense of decency, a grain of delicadeza in him, need not be told to stay away from the Constitutional Convention which is expected to deal with amendments touching on congressional interests and reforms. An honorable congressman would volunteer to inhibit himself from even running for the Convention. But the reverse is true with our present crop of lawmakers. […]
“Even if there’s a way of overcoming the legal and constitutional bar against a Congress member participating in the deliberation of the Constitutional Convention without quitting their positions in Congress, the inherent conflict of interests should disqualify them from holding office in both entities” (Rama 1967: 78).

48Lamenting the absence of delicadeza in practice, the above account was typical of the public media’s discourse on the subject. In this case the conflict of interest was expressed in the actions of congressmen who, being in power, also intended to write the new constitution. The same article clearly identified not just the conflict of interest but also the conflict between delicadeza and kinship politics. Deconstructing delicadeza and its multiple meanings, the journalist Napoleon Rama in the following text argued (as R. Roces had done in 1941) that delicadeza went even beyond the distinction of legal vs. illegal. In other words, although an action was still within the ambit of ‘legal,’ it could still fall short of delicadeza. Legality did not prevent one from aggressively seeking personal profit beyond what is deemed morally right. Such violations of the delicadeza code of ethical conduct was considered ‘shameless’:

“Such a shameless shenanigan is cut out from the same cloth as the House budget that permits them to draw fabulous secret salaries, the law of their own creation that granted them a very special retirement fund until the Supreme Court nullified it as class legislation, the law, still existing, that allows them to run for any other elective post without forfeiting their seats in Congress, otherwise known as the legislator’s political estafa. Their constitutional proposals fall into the same shameless pattern.
“They have shown no compunction to vote unto themselves special privileges. They confuse public interest with private, even dishonest, gain.
“To argue against the twin proposals of Congress, one need not go into their legality or constitutionality. More than just a question of law, it’s a matter of delicadeza” (Rama 1967: 2).

49A letter to the editor of The Manila Times in 1971 demanded the abolition of Congress if there were any truth to the allegation that members of Congress took part in the immoral transfer and disbursement of a 26-million-peso fund. The author of the letter believed that the media exposure was the only way to address these wrongs. In his denunciation of congressmen he, too, raised the issue of delicadeza:

“The only positive action open to a member of the silenced majority is to challenge the integrity of our officials thru the mass media. Writing our [sic] Congressman is futile. I have done it several rimes, but to no avail. I therefore, not only propose but demand the abolition of the present lower house of Congress if there is any truth to the anomaly. How could our Congress now investigate any anomaly in the other branches of the government? For the sake of ‘delicadeza,’ I challenge our legislators to face reality. As far as I am concerned, Congress has lost its dignity and personality ” (Arellano 1971 ).

50Such a dramatic solution calling for the eradication of a legislative body composed of more than a hundred members nevertheless conformed to the strictest application of delicadeza. Because some undisclosed members of the Congress had been suspected of unethical behavior that benefited themselves financially, the resignation of ail members was one way to preserve the integrity of the whole body.

51In the Martial Law period, kinship politics was distilled to its purest form, as only one family (the Marcos-Romualdez alliance) could practice kinship politics. While in the earlier Republican period (1945-1972) families rose and fell as they accessed political power at election time, the abolition of the democratic institutions precluded any further competition between kinship alliances for power. Crony capitalism or the parcelling out of business corporations to the friends and relatives of the Marcos-Romualdez alliance epitomized the institutionalization of kinship politics. A close investigation of the individuals and family alliances of the crony group would reveal ties of compadrazco and close friendships between Marcos, his wife, and the new elite they created. Eduardo “Danding” Cojuangco, the foremost crony, was linked to Ferdinand Marcos through compadrazco ties (Marcos was godfather to Danding’s son Mark, so named after Marcos). Friendship was cemented through the ritual ties of compadrazco, the sole method, in this specific historical context, through which the Marcos­ Romualdez kinship group could increase its membership. Since it was the only family alliance that could practice kinship politics, any other family group that had aspirations for malakas (powerful) status needed access to this alliance, and compadrazco was the one potent, direct, and guaranteed way to achieve this.

52Because it was an authoritarian regime, complete with military repression and a censored press, it was not possible to criticize the power wielders without risking arrest and detention, even torture and death. Hence the unparalleled plundering of the country’s resources through crony capitalism - when some cronies became incompetent businessmen, Marcos bailed them out with government funds as well - was not criticized for a severe lack of delicadeza.

53Outraged by the excessive and exclusive practice of kinship politics by one kinship alliance group, a middle-class people-power revolution put an end to the Marcos dictatorship. Since then (1986), the political culture operates in a reworked version of the kinship politics vs. Western values paradigm that existed in the Republican era and had its roots in the American period. New family alliances and some resuscitated Marcos cronies now compete for political power and the economic privileges that come with it. Kinship politics still thrives and, by extension, so does compadrazco. But fifteen years of martial law and the resurgence of kinship politics did not completely obliterate delicadeza as an idealized social value, although it is rapidly disappearing as both a discourse and a practice.

  • 9 Chanco (1993: 5). See also Daza 1993, Anonymous 1993, and Almario 1993.

54In 1993, for example, a series of headline news articles and newspaper columns once again debated the issue of delicadeza. The debate was triggered by the resignation of Justice Hugo E. Gutierrez from the Supreme Court in the midst of allegations that he had faked authorship of a decision favoring the Philippine Long Distance Company (PLOT). Although the charges were never proven and despite his protestations of innocence - “I am innocent. My conscience is clear,” he said - Gutierrez feIt compelled to resign “for reasons of delicadeza (Lucas & Cruz 1993), as he stated in a letter to Chief Justice Andres Narvasa (De Guzman & Balana 1993). Although he was not due to retire until January 1996, he resigned because the reputation of the Supreme Court would have been tainted had he remained in office. His action received a lot of attention and praise from the media, which interpreted his resignation as a “selfless sacrifice of someone who regards the high court’s reputation superior to any persona! interest” (Chanco 1993).9

55As recently as 1998, newspaper articles were still employing the delicadeza genre of the American period. The columnist Manoling Morato, for example, asked “Where is delicadeza? in the actions of Supreme Court Justice Flerida Pineda Romero, who did not “inhibit herself” in a case involving her son (Morato 1998). He used the word ‘inhibit’ when implying that public officials should not have involved themselves in specific cases where there was a clear conflict of interest.

56In a letter to the editor, Perfecto R. Yasay, Jr., chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), criticized Ombudsman Aniano Desierto’s lack of delicadeza when he appointed Manuel Casaclang (deputy ombudsman of the Armed Forces) to investigate a complaint lodged by Yasay. In Yasay’s words, “Delicadeza dictates that the Honorable Ombudsman should allow the assignment of the case for investigation without his intervention (Yasay 1998). No lesser a figure than the new president Joseph Estrada accused Richard Gordon, chairman of the Subie Bay Metropolitan Authority, of not having delicadeza for refusing to resign despite the resolution of the Presidential Antigraft Commission’s recommendation to dismiss him because he was facing allegations of graft. President Estrada declared: “If he [doesn’t have] delicadeza, I’m sorry for him. We have all the legal basis to fire him” (Burgos 1998).

57In a paper reminiscent of the 1967 debate on delicadeza rebuking congressmen planning to run for re-election for doubling as Constitutional Convention delegates, the columnist Rene A.V. Saguisag in 1998 warned: Congressmen should not claim positions if they were instrumental in creating those positions in the first place. Recalling journalist Napoleon Rama’s deconstruction of delicadeza and the distinction between legal and moral thirty years earlier, Saguisag asked: “Where the law might not stop the administration and its nominee, can delicadeza? [...] In case of doubt, one should resolve it against oneself when delicadeza is concerned” (Saguisag 1998).

  • 10 For an in-depth discussion on the moral guardian as the image of female power in the Philippines, s (...)

58As an idealized social value, delicadeza still carries some cultural capital despite its extremely marginal position in the domineering world of kinship politics. Bet Rotfey’s doctoral dissertation on women managers in 1990s Philippines stumbled on delicadeza as an ethical value identified by informants in their perception of the ideal female manager or business leader (Roffey 1998: 133, 227). Perhaps because women have traditionally been culturally constructed as moral guardians,10 delicadeza, though not specifically a gendered concept, was raised by women themselves as an esteemed value.

59Complementing Rotfey’s findings, the WIN (Women Involved in Nation-Building) association isolated delicadeza as one of the values they hoped to reinforce in every woman, along with honesty and service. WIN even expressed some dismay that delicadeza was sacrificed in the crusade for empowerment (Maramba 1997).

60In 1986, Sergio Osmeña’s biographer, V.A. Pacis, indulged in nostalgia in an essay entitled “Where has delicadeza gone?” In his view, “The nation has lost delicadeza not only in its glossaries but, what is more lamentable, in its thoughts, conduct and acts” (Pacis 1985-86). The presence of human rights violations, tortures, atrocities, and a president (Ferdinand Marcos) who after twenty years in office believed he was indispensable, was ample proof for Pacis that delicadeza by the close of the Martial Law period was not only marginalized but practically forgotten (ibid.). In 1991, Senator Juan Ponce Enrile repeated almost the same sentiment verbatim when he admonished public servants for graft and corruption:

“The traditional values of delicadeza, of persona! integrity, of being above suspicion and of treasuring one’s sacred honor have been cast aside and replaced by an armor of arrogance or total disregard of and disdain for public suspicion and condemnation” (Emile 1991).

61Filipinos were aware that Enrile practiced kinship politics during the Martial Law period, as he was a powerful member of the Marcos alliance group. Thus, the appeal to delicadeza principles reflects Filipinos using the rhetoric of delicadeza although they adhered to kinship politics in practice. The disappearance of delicadeza both as a practice and as a discourse was observed with dry wit by the columnist Isagani Cruz:

‘“The trouble with punctuality.’ Anding Roces never fails to remind me, ‘is that no one is around to appreciate it.’ After Justice Hugo Gutierrez announced his retirement from the Supreme Court out of delicadeza, we can now turn that witty observation around. The trouble with delicadeza is that no one appreciates it because no one else has delicadeza…
“But Justice Gutierrez decided to retire, because he has delicadeza. That trait is so rare that so few of us know what it’s all about. After all, we have thousands of examples in our everyday lives of people not resigning out of delicadeza. For example, someone builds a mansion out of a mere government salary and nobody demands that he or she resigns out of delicadeza. People who made millions during the dictatorship regularly join parties - social or political - because they have no delicadeza (Cruz 1993).

62The presence of delicadeza at all in the public discourse of the 20th century reveals the constant tension between the dynamics of kinship politics and other values that seek to oppose it. Certainly kinship politics in its most extreme or pure form, epitomized by the crony capitalism of the Martial Law regime, has been judged as anathema and therefore harmful to the Philippine nation as a whole. The People Power revolution of 1986 occurred because the middle class, in particular, objected to one family alliance’s complete monopoly of power and the access to economic privileges that comes with it. A close analysis of the subsequent 1986 constitution (ratified in 1987) disclosed the real fear that kinship politics may again rear its ugly head, and journalists, lawyers, and Constitutional Convention delegates drew up clauses with intentions to block the formation of family business monopolies while imposing limits on the terms of local and national politicians. But kinship politics has succeeded in dominating political culture, although it has not completely eradicated nationalist sentiments. The lamentation that delicadeza may be disappearing as a practice derives in part from the conviction that the extreme kinship politics of the Marcos regime should not be the norm, and in part from the overall frustration due to the fact that kinship politics has managed to remain dominant throughout the 20th century. The frustration and unease may also be ubiquitous because most Filipinos are ambivalent about kinship politics. They tend to criticize kinship politics practiced by others but succumb to it when their own kinship group is concerned (see M. Roces 1990 & 1998).

63In Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew has redefined authoritarianism as an ‘Asian value’ in contrast to its polar opposite ‘democracy,’ which he classified as Western and, therefore, alien to Southeast Asia. Although Philippine political leaders have not consciously opted to take up the cudgels for Lee Kuan Yew’s debate about Asian values, ‘kinship politics’ can quite likely represent the Filipino version of it. Delicadeza held up here as a polar opposite - the antithesis of kinship politics - may be interpreted as ‘Western’ in this debate, although I have argued it had already mutated into a unique Filipino version of a Spanish value. Perhaps one reason why the Philippines has not become a major disciple of Lee Kuan Yew (as, for example, Mahathir of Malaysia has) is precisely this unresolved tension between kinship politics and delicadeza and other Western or modern values, such as loyalty to the nation-state, an entity above the kinship alliance group. Filipinos are ambivalent about this binary division and have not chosen to champion one exclusively over the other. Perhaps this may explain why no incumbent president (except Marcos) has ever been re-elected, as well as the dramatic oscillations between dictatorship and democracy in recent history.

Conclusion

64Will the future witness the disappearance of the value of delicadeza? The evidence seems to point in that direction. How can it survive into the next millennium, when for almost the entire 20th century it has already been marginalized in the dominant, aggressive world of kinship politics? Among Filipino expatriates overseas, delicadeza has been reinterpreted as a largely negative value. In Washington, D.C., self-reflexive Filipinos claimed that Filipinos do not help each other like Americans or ethnic communities do, because the curse of delicadeza makes it improper for those in high positions to favor their countrymen, for example, in job promotions (Coronel-Victoria 1985: 32, 40). While Americans or ethnic communities favored their own kind, it was argued, Filipinos because of delicadeza, did not. Thus, Filipinos overseas in the 1980s saw themselves as unable to succeed in the modern Western environment because delicadeza blocked them from achieving the twin modernist goals of progress and democracy. While the Hispanistas clearly saw Filipinos as above the Americans for they behaved with delicadeza, in the 1980s Filipinos in America were self-critical about not being crass enough! Thus, despite the shifting attitudes towards the value, delicadeza consistently becomes enmeshed in identity politics, called upon to distinguish the Filipino from the American Other throughout the 20th century.

65Obviously kinship politics adapts and discards practices to suit itself. In the American period, it coped with the shock of the introduction of American democratic processes. Finding compadrazco a useful practice for the benefit of kinship interests, kinship politics utilized it to compete in the new modern political system that spoke through elections and the democratic party machinery.

66Even the American colonizers, keen to impose democratic practices in the colony, also selectively availed themselves of the compadrazco dynamics. Once the Philippines gained its independence, compadrazco kinship politics expressed itself through the new democratic electoral practices. Rival kinship groups competed with one another at election time for the political offices that opened the doors to special privileges and vast economic wealth. Compadrazco then became the vehicle through which kinship groups could increase their support, strengthen their alliances, and thus make themselves better competitors in the battlefield of kinship politics. By 1972, compadrazco became so intertwined with kinship politics that it became difficult to separate the two. In the Martial Law period, democratic institutions were dispensed with and the kinship politics game experienced a change in rules. Instead of rival kinship groups competing for power through elections, only one family group held power and dispensed economic privileges. As the sole powerful kin group, the Marcos-Romualdez alliance expanded its base of support also through compadrazco. After Martial Law, democratic institutions were once again restored and kinship politics once again used elections as a vehicle to increase the power and influence of the kinship alliance group.

67Delicadeza is the nemesis of kinship politics. Starting from the American period, when kinship politics began to use democratic institutions as the vehicle for the competition for power, privilege, and resources, delicadeza has been raised as a way of policing the aggressive jockeying for power and privilege when it demanded ethical ground rules and moral behavior. But because kinship politics found little use for it (other than as a discourse with which to criticize rival families), it became marginalized in the dynamics of politics in the post-war era. During the Japanese Occupation and the Martial Law period, it completely disappeared from the public sphere. When it appeared at ail during the Republican era and in the post-Marcos years, it did so rarely and more likely only in the discursive form.

68Despite their Iberian origins, compadrazco and delicadeza were clearly Filipinized: They have mutated into different forms on Philippine soil, shaped in some ways by kinship politics. But the unresolved tension between kinship politics and Western values affects the fate of both. As long as kinship politics is the dominant political dynamic, compadrazco thrives, while delicadeza struggles to survive in the fringes. In this sense, the contest between compadrazco and delicadeza is a metaphor for the Filipinos’ engagement with current contesting institutions of political culture - between traditional kinship politics and the modern democratic discourse.

Figure 1 : Le Laos

Figure 1 : Le Laos

D’après Taillard 1989

Haut de page

Bibliographie

ANONYMOUS 1934 “Dr. Trinidad and Mr. Cruz,” Scandal, 29 December 1934, pp. 1, 8.

ANONYMOUS 1935 [Editorial], Philippines Free Press, 12 October 1935, p. 1.

ANONYMOUS 1993 “Delicadeza,” The Manila Standard, 3 February 1993, p. 8.

ABAYA, Hernando J. 1987 The CLU Story: 50 Years of Struggle for Civil Liberties, Quezon City: New Day.

ALEJANDRINO, General Jose 1987 The Price of Freedom, a translation from the Spanish by Atty. Jose M. Alejandrino of La Senda del Sacrificio (1949), Manila: Solar Publishing Corp., Filipiniana Reprint Series.

ALINEA, Estanislao 1967 “Philippine Literature in Spanish from the Literature of Protest to Efflorescence,” in Brown Heritage, Antonio Manuud (Ed.), Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, pp. 508-517.

ALMARIO, Manuel F. 1993 “The Hazards of Delicadeza,” Philippine Graphie, 22 February 1993, pp. 17-18.

ARELLANO, Rodrigo G. 1971 [Letter to the Editor], The Manila Times, 1 April 1971, p. 4. BURGOS, Jun 1998 “Gordon’s Stay at SBMA Dim,” Today, 28 June 1998, p. 12.

CHANCO, Boo 1993 “The Dilemma of the Supreme Court,” The Manila Chronicle, 4 February 1993, p. 5.

CORONEL-VICTORIA, Leandro 1985 “Delicadeza: A Curse or an Excuse?, Philippine Panorama, 17 November 1985, pp. 32, 40.

CORPUZ, Onofre 1957 The Bureaucracy in the Philippines, Quezon City: University of the Philippines, Institute of Public Administration, Studies in Public Administration, No. 4.

CRUZ, lsagani R. 1993 “Now is the Time For All Good People,” Starweek. The Sunday Magazine of the Philippine Star, 21 February 1993, p. 17.

CULLINANE, Michael 1971 “lmplementing the ‘New Order’: The Structure and Supervision of Local Government During the Taft Era,” in Compadre Colonialism, N. Owen (Ed.), Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Michigan Papers in South and Southeast Asia, No. 3, pp. 13-75.

CULLINANE, Michael 1984 “The Politics of Collaboration in Tayabas Province: The Early Political Career of Manuel Luis Quezon, 1903-1906,” in Reappraising an Empire: New Perspectives on Philippine­American History, Peter Stanley (Ed.), Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, Committee on American-East Asian Relations & Department of History and Asian Studies, pp. 59-84.

CULLINANE, Michael 1989 “Ilustrado Politics: The Response of the Filipino Educated Elite to American Colonial Rule 1898-1907,” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan.

DAZA, Julie Y. 1993 “The Gutierrez Decision,” The Manila Standard, 4 February 1993, p. 11.

DE CASTRO, Presbitero D. Modesto le. 18601 Pagsusulatan Nang Dalauang Binibini na Si Urbano at Feliza, Manila: J. Martinez.

DE GUZMAN, Roy S., & Cynthia D. BALANA 1993 “SC Justice Retires Over Scam Report,” The Philippine Daily Inquirer, 2 February 1993, p. 1.

ENRILE, Juan Ponce 1991 “Erosion of Delicadeza, Other Traditional Values Deplored,” The Manila Bulletin, 7 April 1991, p. 12.

FORBES, William Cameron 1928 The Philippine Islands, Boston & New York: Houghton Mifflin. HOBSBAWM, Eric (Ed.) 1983 Inventing Traditions, London: Cambridge University Press.

ILETO, Reynaldo C. 1996 Review of An Anarchy of Families: State and Family in the Philippines, A.W. McCoy (Ed.), in Asian Studies Review, 20 (2): 214‑219.

ILETO, Reynaldo C. 1999 “Orientalism and the Study of Philippine Politics,” in Knowing America’s Colony: A Hundred Years from the Philippine War, [three essays by] R.C. Ileto, Honolulu: University of Hawai’i at Manoa, Center for Philippine Studies, Philippine Studies Occasional Papers Series, No. 13, pp. 41‑65.

JOAQUIN, Nick 1978 “Pop Culture: The American Years,” in Filipino Heritage, Alfredo Roces (Ed.), Manila: Lahing Pilipino, Vol. 10, pp. 2733‑2744.

KARNOW, Stanley 1989 In Our Image: America’s Empire in the Philippines, New York: Random House.

LUCAS, Danilo, & Booma CRUZ 1993 “Justice Gutierrez Quits for Delicadeza, The Manila Times, 2 February 1993, p. 1.

MARAMBA, Asunci6n David 1997 “WIN at 10,” The Philippine Daily Inquirer, 6 November 1997, p. 9 Web site: http:www.kababaihan.org/win/win-at-10.htm.

MARINO, Pilar E. (Ed.) 1989 Philippine Short Stories in Spanish, 1900-1941, Quezon City: University of the Philippines, Office of Research Coordination.

MAYO, Katherine 1924 Isle of Fear, New York: Harcourt Brace.

McCOY, Alfred W. (Ed.) 1993 An Anarchy of Families: State and Family in the Philippines, Madison: University of Wisconsin, (enter for Southeast Asian Studies.

McCOY, Alfred W. 1995 [Letter to the Editor], Journal of Asian Studies, 54 (3): 810‑812.

MORATO, Manoling 1998 “To Inhibit or Not to Inhibit,” Today, 21 July 1998, p. 1. Web site: http://pji.journal.skyinet.net/7.21/opinion/op_morato.html.

OWEN, Norman (Ed.) 1971 Compadre Colonialism, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Michigan Papers in South and Southeast Asia, No. 3.

PACIS, Vicente Albano 1985-86 “Where has Delicadeza Gone?,” Mr. and Ms., 31 December 1985 to 7 January 1986, p. 25.

RAMA, Napole6n G. 1967 “More Congressmen Any one?,” Philippines Free Press, 28 October 1967, p. 78.

ROCES, Maria Natividad 1990 “Kinship Politics in Post-War Philippines: The Lopez Family, 1945-1989,” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan.

ROCES, Mina 1994 Review of An Anarchy of Families: State and Family in the Philippines, A.W. McCoy (Ed.), in journal of Asian Studies, 53 (4): 1322‑1324.

ROCES, Mina 1995 [Response to A.W. McCoy’s Letter to the Editor], journal of Asian Studies, 54 (3): 812‑814.

ROCES, Mina 1996 “Some Thoughts on Images of Female Power in Post-War Philippines,” Lila Asia Pacific Women’s Studies Journal, 6: 51‑67.

ROCES, Mina 1998 Women, Power and Kinship Politics: Female Power in Post-War Philippines, Westport, Co., & London: Praeger.

ROCES, Rafael, Jr. 1940 “Lesson for Assembly,” The Tribune, 13 March 1940, p. 4.

ROCES, Rafael, Jr. 1941a “Rizal Would Approve,” The Tribune, 19 June 1941, p. 4.

ROCES, Rafael, Jr. 1941b “Be Yourselves,” The Tribune, 11 October 1941, p. 4.

ROFFEY, Bet 1998 “Women and Business Leadership in the Philippines: A Study of Filipina Business Managers and Entrepreneurs,” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Flinders University of South Australia.

ROOSEVELT, Nicholas 1926 The Philippines, London: Faber & Gwyer.

SAGUlSAG, Rene A.V. 1998 “A Sense of Delicadeza, Today, 28 August 1998, p. 8.

STANLEY, Peter 1974 A Nation in the Making: The Philippines and the United States, 1899-1921, Harvard University Press.

YASAY, Perfecto R., Jr. 1998 “Ombudsman Sics Military Subordinate on SEC Chief,” Today, 10 September 1998, p. 8.

Newspapers

Cable News American (The),Jan.-March 1920

Manila Times (The), 1919-1921,June-Dec. 1945, Jan.-Dec. 1971

Philippines Free Press, 1918-1925, 1935-1940

Philippine Herald (The), 1920-1921

Renacimiento Filipino, July 1910 to June 1913

Tribune (The), 1935-1941.

Haut de page

Notes

1 I wish to thank Professor David Wurfel and two anonymous reviewers of Moussons for their insightful and constructive comments on an early draft of this essay.

2 One example of such ‘essentializing’ of Philippine politics as solely motivated by kinship ties is the anthology edited and introduced by Alfred W. McCoy (1993). In his introduction, McCoy hypothesizes that: (1) family oligarchies are a significant factor in Philippine history; (2) it is the relations between these families that influence Philippine politics; (3) elite family networks bring factionalism into the political arena; and (4) “interaction between powerful rent-seeking families and a correspondingly weak Philippine state has been synergistic.” Apart from the fact that the essays in the volume are about individuals rather than families, this model is a simplistic analysis that fails to explain critical features, such as the fact that every incumbent president was voted out of office between 1945 and 1972 (except for Marcos); and what about the EDSA ‘revolution’ of 1986 (EDSA stands for Epifanio de los Santos Avenue)? Should we insist that those who risked their lives by standing before armored personnel carriers were motivated by persona) or family politics? How then does 1992 presidential candidate Miriam Defensor-Santiago almost make it to the presidency with no family backing and little patronage resources? See my critical review of McCoy’s anthology (Mina Roces 1994: 1322-1324), McCoy’s response (1995: 810-812), and my rebuttal (Mina Roces 1995: 812-814). See also Reynaldo C. Ileto’s review of the same book (1996: 214-219), as well as his latest study (Ileto 1999), in which he criticizes McCoy’s Anarchy for being an orientalist text exhibiting “essentializing strategies” (Ileto 1999: 61).

3 From personal communications by Dr. Florentino Rodao, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, June 1998; and by Fernando Palanco, Ph .D. candidate, Universidad Complutense de Madrid. June 19 and 22, 1998.

4 Two prominent students of Philippine society and politics, one an anthropologist (Dr. Fernando Zialcita, Ateneo de Manila University) and the other a political scientist (Professor David Wurfel), have raised the issue of the relationship or similarity between delicadeza and hiya (shame). While hiya has been explored in great detail by a number of social scientists, no in-depth analysis of delicadeza exists. Although Zialcita is inclined to argue that delicadeza is another aspect of hiya (persona) communication, June 1998), I have not seen both words used interchangeably in any of the written sources where delicadeza appeared . When delicadeza is discussed, there is no reference to hiya whatsoever. At the same time, delicadeza more specifically refers to behavior in public office, while hiya could apply to a much broader range of social behavior.

5 Mayo disclosed that one Joan of $50,000 was made to Mr. Quezon without security, with the directors paying it once it was discovered by the examiner.

6 Mayo cited an incident where the bank director Vicente Singson Encarnacion received a loan from the bank in favor of Compania Naviera de Filipinas, of which he was both the president and a substantial stockholder. The Joan was for the purchase of three boats, which when liquidated lost money for the bank. The bank directors Singson Encarnacion, Vicente Madrigal, and Ramon J. Fernandez lent funds to themselves as stockholders in three companies. The bank president himself, General Venancio Concepción, loaned money to corporations where he was a substantial stockholder. This ail occurred despite Art. 35 of the Bank Act, which forbids the PNB to grant loans to members of the bank’s board of directors. In fact. many of the directors themselves were among the bank’s heaviest debtors.

7 Mayo saw ail this as evidence of caciquism and its abuses.

8 In fact, one book by an American journalist writing on the Philippines is entitled In Our Image (Karnow 1989).

9 Chanco (1993: 5). See also Daza 1993, Anonymous 1993, and Almario 1993.

10 For an in-depth discussion on the moral guardian as the image of female power in the Philippines, see Mina Roces 1996 and Chap. 5 of my book, entitled “Beauty Queen, Moral Guardian, Inang Bayan and Militant Nun: Images of Female Power in Post-War Philippines” (Mina Roces 1998).

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Figure 1 : Le Laos
Crédits D’après Taillard 1989
URL http://journals.openedition.org/moussons/docannexe/image/9094/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 81k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Mina Roces, « Compadrazco and Delicadeza in Philippine Political Culture »Moussons, 99 | 1999, 29-52.

Référence électronique

Mina Roces, « Compadrazco and Delicadeza in Philippine Political Culture »Moussons [En ligne], 99 | 1999, mis en ligne le 06 juillet 2022, consulté le 18 avril 2024. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/moussons/9094 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/moussons.9094

Haut de page

Auteur

Mina Roces

The author of Women, Power and Kinship Politics: Female Power in Post-War Philippines (1998), Mina Roces teaches history at the University of New South Wales, Australia.

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search