Familialism is Superior to Individualism

by Jose Rizal M. Reyes / poet-philosopher, Philippines / February 7–8, 2015

Tough love is not necessarily smart love. Tough love is often cited in conjunction with the American value of individualism. Individualism is a virtue in its own way — after all, we are supposed to develop our own individuality as part of our spiritual evolution.

But the Filipino way is family-centered — let’s call it familialism for lack of a better term. Familialism makes possible harmonious cooperation and role-playing among family members — enabling a family to produce and contribute a member whose chief concern is the community or the nation or some noble cause or profitless art.

Without familialism, which is helping one another to the point of sacrifice, many Filipinos would have been unable to leave the poverty and simplicity of their islands and barrios. Many Filipinos reached great heights of achievement because they have a family. Close family ties enable many Filipinos to elevate the social and economic condition of their families.

Bayanihan, the practice of the Filipino community of helping one another or of working together, is the wider version of familialism. Stated another way, familialism is the smaller and more intimate version of bayanihan.

It has been observed that Filipinos are clannish. And what is a clan but a family that has branched out? Like bayanihan, clannishness is also a bigger version of familialism. The main difference between bayanihan and clannishness is that bayanihan involves neighbors while clannishness involves relatives.

Bayanihan has variations in other parts of the Philippines. For example, the Bantoanon version is called “boliganan” (“helping one another”) and the term is applicable to both the family and the community.

Close family tie is not the monopoly of Filipinos nor of Asian countries in general. The practice has been pretty much pervasive in all parts of the world — at least prior to modern times. But as time went by, society progressed, cities grew large and values loosened. One result of this is that families became separated or broken even as individuals became atomized. Because Western nations were the first societies to progress materially, they were therefore the first ones to abandon the traditional practice of close family ties. But a similar phenomenon has been observed in non-Western countries that progressed and developed industrially and economically.

Familialism is one of the best insurance programs in the world. The parents take care of their young children and when the latter grow up, they take care of their aged parents. Older siblings help in funding the education of younger siblings. During times of disaster or bereavement, the family is there as well as more distant relatives, aside from the neighborhood. In times of wedding or other happier events, both kith and kin share the joy of the Filipino especially if there are lots of food prepared.

Of course, the government or some corporate sponsors may also provide for education, for scholarship, and for people interested in artistic or intellectual pursuits. The state may also provide legislated discount rates for senior citizens and home for the aged. But that could compromise artistic and intellectual independence in the case of the young; and there is absence of love and affection in the programs for the old.

Without close family ties and the support system that it provides, many individuals would be unable to fulfill their mission in life or their reason for being. This would result to a society with a lower level of civilization because if everyone would be busy focusing on material enrichment, nobody would play the role of poets, philosophers, artists, patriots and all kinds of calling that are not practical or profitable to pursue but which contribute immensely to the establishment of a glorious and more exalted society.

The truth is, without family solidarity and fraternal love, the Philippines would have been deprived of its national hero. Because Jose Rizal when he studied in Europe was utterly dependent on his family, especially on his only brother Paciano. The two brothers made a pact after the execution of the three Gomburza priests, one of whom was a personal friend of the older Paciano. They agreed that Jose would study in Europe for the sake of the country and Paciano would take care of the expenses.

(Facebook link: http://bit.ly/2kgD7r1)