Talk:Utang na loob

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Utang na loob article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

nobots

|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081227090139/http://www.western-asian.com:80/understanding-asian-sensibilities/personality/reciprocity-utang-na-loob to http://www.western-asian.com/understanding-asian-sensibilities/personality/reciprocity-utang-na-loob

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 02:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Temporarily removed paragraphs due to concerns about article tone/writing style

In an effort to respond to the various tags on the page (

WP:TONE

and need for context), I am temporarily removing three paragraphs from the article.

The two paragraphs below were removed from immediately after the lede paragraph, and seem to have been added as a response to the statement in the article's original lede that "some scholars refer to (Utang na loob) as reciprocity." They seem to come from a reliable source, but given that they focus on a particular aspect of the subject, and no other aspects of the subject are not yet discussed in this obviously still very stubby article, it skews the wiki into a debate. I'm removing them for now, and also avoiding any mention of the term "reciprocity" until someone can write a better section on the "reciprocity" debate using the appropriate

WP:TONE

. This removal isn't about the content of the paragraphs. It's about the way the article cannot retain an appropriate tone if they stay in there.

Charles Kaut (1961) admitted that utang na loob is not uniquely Filipino; it can also be found in Washington, D.C. except that Americans value kaliwaan (direct exchange) more. To argue that utang na loob is solely a Filipino value is therefore misleading and dangerous. Utang na loob would be convenient in perpetuating the colonial status of the Filipino mind (Enriquez 1977) especially since the English-language interpretations of utang na loob as reciprocity happen to be useful in promoting the image of the colonizer as the benefactor. Kaut's 1961 study was misused and overdrawn without due regard to the dangers of reductionism when the interpretation of utang na loob, in terms of direct exchange of goods and favors, became the interpretation of utang na loob. Utang na loob is definitely not so gross and scheming as the pragmatic "you scratch my back, I scratch yours". Kaut also translated utang na loob into "debt of gratitude" but the mercantilist interpretation of the concept remained until it got tagged as "reciprocity".

Another social scientist, Hollinsteiner, pushed the erroneous interpretation even further by claiming that the interaction emanating from utang na loob is "contractual". While recognizing the significant role of "emotions" (her closest gloss to loob), she claims that the recipient is compelled to "show his gratitude properly by returning the favor with interest. De Mesa's (1987) analysis of utang na loob as a commitment to "human solidarity" is closer to the logic of Filipino behavior and Philippine language use. According to De Mesa, it functions prior to any reception of favor. It is used as a plea prior to any favor because utang na loob, the debt owed to another who shares a common humanity (loob), exists just because they are fellow human beings.[1]

I'm also removing the last paragraph because it's what wikipedia describes as editorializing. I'm not posting that paragraph here. If someone wants to add it back in the belief that it makes the article better, then they are free to do so, as long as they write using a neutral tone.

Obviously, this article is still in need of a lot of work, so I invite everyone familiar with the source material to please help improve it. Thanks and mabuhay (viva/long live). - Alternativity (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Enriquez, Virgilio (1992). From Colonial to Liberation Psychology: The Philippine Experience. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press. p. 66-69.

I don't think gratitude is an exclusively Filipino expression.

Values

What is the meaning of utang kabubut-on 175.176.85.185 (talk) 02:34, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Enriquez, Virgilio (1992). From Colonial to Liberation Psychology: The Philippine Experience. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press. p. 66-69.