By John Louis B. Benito, LPT, MA

The modern Filipino, through his or her utilization of advance technology, are more aware of what is happening beyond the Philippine border compared to generations before. Events such as their country’s conflict with China in the West Philippine Sea1 as well as every armed conflict across the world that caught OFWs in the middle made them pay attention to the international. Whether the Filipino we are referring to is working for the state or just an ordinary citizen, such awareness would mean that s/he renders opinions or ideas about the international phenomenon in which his or her collective is involved. The Philippines, in which they are a part of, then becomes an active member of the international community partially through such actions. This would also be the case even for those events that no Filipino would be involve so long as they have garnered an information about it. With all of these, the country essentially participates in the complexities of international relations. 

Scholars of International Relations (IR) may notice this prevailing trend or social reality and render a high regard for it or not. The reason may depend on their academic niche, theoretical leanings, or a research puzzle they may discover in relation. If there is indeed a regard, then an adherence towards critical posturing can also happen, perhaps an indigenization attempt. Such move is logical given that the Philippines is not that much highlighted in IR. Various questions will then follow. How can something and arguably as western as IR make sense to a Filipino and the Philippines? Shall we see Filipino ideas and actions in terms of the international through the lenses of existing theories of IR and other related school of thoughts or would a new paradigm help? Given these circumstances, for what and how then?  

A lot of questions to digest I suppose. But the practice of IR’s indigenization and its foci is nothing new in the practical world and the academe. Indigenization can be related to decolonization. Approaches related to decolonization have already existed in different parts of the world, particularly those states that have experienced colonialism and imperialism. They have tried to emphasize their own language and ways to advance their own brand of intellect and philosophies in understanding the international since they were sidelined for the longest time by their former colonial masters. Therefore, points about emancipation and justice are familiar tones to hear for this one.  

The Philippines can be a great subject for decolonization given its history. For the Filipinos essentially, considering that they are fond of owning something from the foreign like Roman Catholicism2, the indigenization of international relations discussions and events seems to already exist in their own means and ways. But in the academic institutions that are concerned to them as a national collective, the status quo is hanging in the balance. The phrase “hanging in the balance” is generous, as my observation renders me the conclusion that the concern for IR’s indigenization in the Philippines is almost non-existent. This role from the academe is crucial, as there would be no formally recognizable Philippine “brand” of IR without their analyses and rationalizations.  

Nevertheless, for the sake of intellectual pursuit, we can still infer that an indigenization of IR in the Philippines is still worthy to be pondered upon. Considering myself as a continuing student of the Social Sciences, the arduous attempts of indigenization in general of various Filipino scholars is a topic well-covered in our undergraduate classes. Although I am not a specialist or expert in the likes of Pantayong Pananaw3 and Sikolohiyang Pilipino4, I can still remember the passion of my former professors in honing our thinking with their frameworks or at least make us generally knowledgeable about them. These of course have their vocal supporters and critics also within the academe except for International Studies. Assuming that one from IR would take interest in making this as their niche or to rattle the discipline, there are three general questions to possibly reflect on: (1) What would the novel aspects of a possible theory be? (2) Who would want to pursue such endeavor? and (3) Will it provide new explanations and approaches for Philippine foreign policy? 

What would the novel aspects of the possible theory be?  

An introduction of a paradigm shift or even just a simple new angle in a discipline or field generally requires its ability to analyze, explain, and even recommend. If the process of IR’s indigenization in the Philippines will be successful, it must have a theoretical foundation. But what would be its novel aspects and the variables that it will consider? There is no answer for this one yet. However, the journal article of Dreisbach and Angeles back in 20195 emphasized a working framework to create a theoretical basis. They illustrated an indigenization from within and without to spearhead the process. This would also be the only attempt of Filipino IR scholars in indigenization that I know, and it only attempted to build the track and not to start the race. 

Despite no further effort existing so far, the working framework can be a good commencement to at least hypothesize what are the variables considered for a future theory. The process of indigenization requires an emphasis on the culture, behavior, philosophies, and language of the Filipino people. With appropriate methodologies, anyone who would make this an academic endeavor may find something novel or unique from the Philippines and their connection to IR. That is, if an IR scholar would want to.  

Who would want to pursue such endeavor? 

Every academic in IR, just like in any discipline of the Social Sciences, have their own biases tamed by facts and methods of objectivity. They have their own preferences defended by their own justifications and empirical evidence. In the case of the possible indigenization of IR in the Philippines, there is no significant number of scholars showing interest. I can only personally speculate as to why. Maybe they already find the existing theories sufficient to explain the Philippines in the international system. Maybe they just don’t find it interesting at all. 

Even so, we can still create an ideal candidate with qualifications and pinpoint the will to accomplish indigenization. The nationality and citizenship of the scholar matter. It only makes sense since no one can arguably provide better understanding about the Philippines and what they think about the foreign more than a Filipino. Regarding the will to accomplish on the other hand, we may consider the extremes to locate interest. The academe can be shaken by the material world it analyzes. So, we can say that the initiative may start from the unique constructs of a social collective about international relations within the country that scholars might notice. Emphasis on the word “unique” for this one is important, as it should be a definite outlier.  

Still the question remains. What is the reason behind as to why no IR scholar initiates this? If we are to observe the nuances of their focus, they are more bound to consider what is happening externally or on the systemic level. Not that they disregard domestic phenomena, but these mostly falls on the realm of anthropology, sociology, as well as psychology and history. For IR scholars, the use of the domestic lies on its relations with foreign affairs. Probably it would take an IR academic heavily devoted to other disciplines and fields of the Social Sciences to deeply theorize and build the foundations of the supposed indigenization. Someone who can also see the practical benefits of such move, like in policy making.  

Will it provide new explanations and approaches for Philippine foreign policy? 

International Relations has its own practical benefits as its foci can be dissected to International Security, International Political Economy, International Organizations, International Law, and International Development. Various international and state actors sought an IR specialist to create and recommend policies for their own strategic functions. For the Philippines, IR is an essential for its foreign policy. Therefore, in relation to the indigenization we are thinking about, the question of its ability to later provide recommendations and explanations to current affairs related to the Philippines would be vital.  

Of course, a theory must first be settled. This is the reason why I think it will be difficult if this endeavor would have any policy value. But one thing is for sure. For it to be a worthy one, it must be something beneficial for how this country plan its foreign relations.  

The Bigger Question and Picture 

Aside from the three questions we just pondered, an encompassing question takes precedence over them: is indigenization something that we should pursue? It is for academics, particularly Filipino ones, to decide if the answer would be yes or no to this normative question. Moreover, this is a question not only for the Philippines but for various states as well, particularly those that do not yield enough power nor influence. Zooming out then from our focus, it is important to ask whether it is valuable to have an indigenized theories about international affairs coming from scholars across the world. I understand the call for recognition for those that are not recognized. The lack of recognition for the perspectives of the minority is exactly why IR is branded as something that is only relevant to the western hemisphere, especially by those who adhere to postcolonial approaches. There could be a noble and intellectual purpose on learning other existing nuanced variables for the most pressing questions and problems in the contemporary world like poverty, climate change, migration, security, etc.  

On the other hand, maybe indigenized theories or attempts for such are no longer needed, for the experiences of the state and non-state actors they pertain to are already considered, categorized, or discarded in certain typologies and assumptions of other existing theories.  An example of this would be the neorealist’s point of view about war or security. As it focuses on the systemic level, whatever domestic occurrences within states are to be reserved no emphasis. This may sound as a snubbing point, but that is just an expected consequence of necessary discriminations.  

Another aspect to think about would be the citizens themselves and the state. Is there really a unique understanding from the ground or a need for one? Is there a distorted perspective to the point that they need an enlightening way of understanding international relations imbued with emancipation and justice? Or are they fine with the existing languages of IR and there is no need to rock the boat?  

For the sake of openness, I render an agnostic stance for this one. This article’s purpose is just to be an invitation for other academics to consider thinking about the idea anyway. The Philippines here is only a case, so the invitation is reserved for scholars of all nationalities and citizenships. In the end, whether this may result to a debate or a floundering, I have this belief that every single person in this world should be at least introduced to IR. This is an agenda worthy to be pursue not only in the Philippines, but also on other states that do not play a major role in the system. A small residence is still a residence that should matter and count in the global village. The people within should be familiar with the storylines despite the possibility that they are not the main characters. Whether the academe in the Philippines and other states pursue indigenization or not, what I think can generally be agreed upon is the importance that international affairs should be studied by everyone, and at least allow an individual to create a guided analysis about it. Only IR can provide that guided analysis.

About the Author

John Louis B. Benito, LPT, MA is a lecturer at the Department of International Studies of De La Salle University in Manila, Philippines. He earned his MA degree in International Studies, major in European Studies from the same university. His research interests and publications include International Migration, Critical Security, and Sustainable Development. He aims to contribute knowledge and directions in the academe and policy making circles about international relations well into the future. 

References 

1. Cornelio, Jayeel S. “Popular Religion and the Turn to Everyday Authenticity: Reflections on the Contemporary Study of Philippine Catholicism.” Philippine Studies: Historical and Ethnographic Viewpoints 62, no. 3-4 (2014): 471–500. https://doi.org/10.1353/phs.2014.0024. 
2. Dreisbach, Jeconiah Louis, and Roche Christine C Angeles. “‘HOME-GROWNING’ INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS in the PHILIPPINES: A PRE-THEORISATION.” Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 24, no. 2 (December 31, 2019): 91–108. https://doi.org/10.22452/jati.vol24no2.6. 
3. Morales, Rhisan Mae E. “Into China’s Rough Seas: Troubled Maritime Institutions in the West Philippine Sea – Implications for Philippine National Security.” Contemporary Chinese Political Economy and Strategic Relations: An International Journal 5, no. 1 (2019): 33–76. 
4. Pe-Pua, Rogelia, and Elizabeth A. Protacio-Marcelino. “Sikolohiyang Pilipino (Filipino Psychology): A Legacy of Virgilio G. Enriquez.” Asian Journal of Social Psychology 3, no. 1 (April 2000): 49–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-839x.00054. 
5. Reyes, Portia L. “Fighting over a Nation: Theorizing a Filipino Historiography.” Postcolonial Studies 11, no. 3 (September 2008): 241–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/13688790802226645.