draft:
Kapaligiran,
Kalikasan at Katutubo: Reflections on some Tagalog words for nature and the
environment
Rainier A.
Ibana, Ph.D.
This essay
will show that some of the Tagalog words about nature and the environment
reveal the distinctive worldview of Tagalog speakers. We shall focus our
analysis on three significant terms: kapaligiran,
kalikasan and katutubo.
The word “kapaligiran” can be broken down and
analysed according to its four components: ka, pa, ligid, an. “Ka” is the
second person singular pronoun that refers to the other person with whom our
speech acts are addressed. When used as a prefix, it reveals the intersubjective
aspect of the world shared with others. The environment, therefore, is not
merely something that we can own by ourselves; it also includes others in the
same manner that we share a table (kalamesa) or a conversation (kausap). The
infix “pa” is used to solicit favours, such as when we say please or (paki) in
order to achieve our goals. The environment, therefore, is not something that
we can deal with without any form of solicitude. We do defer to the natural
world and offer ceremonial gestures when we pass by a place (“Tabi po”) as if
we are transgressing an on-going conversation between other parties. “Ligid,”
refers to the surrounding horizon that can expand or contract depending on the
breadth of our consciousness. It could be as narrow as our backyard or as
expansive as the universe itself. In the Visayan language, “ligid” is
equivalent to the word “libot” which also refers to one’s consciousness .
Tagalogs also use the rootword libot when they expand their vision towards the
whole horizon that includes the whole universe (sanlibutan). Finally, the
suffix “an” locates the scope of our finitude, such as when we say “kabukiran,”
or “kabayanan.”
Likas, the
rootword of the term Kalikasan,refers
to the inherent characteristics of objects that define their limitations and
possibilities. Art works, for example, are limited by the material that bears
the imagination of the artist. Sculptors usually imagine the possible form that
can be drawn from the material, such as a stone or a piece of clay, before
working on it. But artists adjust their composition according to the
limitations imposed by their raw materials. To overextend the possibilities of
the natural world would lead to artificiality and even grotesque forms of
organisms such as mutants that are incapable of reproducing themselves. The
same can be said about the limitations imposed by nature on agricultural and
industrial processes. The art of grafting branches to trees, for example, are
limited within a given species. As a Filipino saying puts it “kung ano ang
puno, siya ang bunga” (A tree is known by its fruits.) The discipline of Economics
reminds us also that excessive additional production inputs do not necessarily
lead to additional outputs and could even lead to unnecessary wastes as in the
case of fishes that get killed because of over population or overfeeding.
Our
contemporary experience of global warming trends merely exemplifies this
overextenson of nature's intrinsic limitations by our excessive carbon dioxide
emissions to the atmosphere. Nature has its own rhythms that humans must
harmoniously live with in order to survive. The cyclical patterns of planting
and harvesting seasons have become unpredictable today because of the wicked
anthropogenic transgressions that have increased the earth’s temperature.
The idea of
“Sustainable Development” or the task of meeting the needs of the current
generation without impairing the capacity of future generations to meet their
own needs (Brundtland Report ,1987), has been aptly translated into Filipino as
“Likas-kayang kaunlaran”(natural capacity for development) in order to account
for nature’s carrying capacity as the key component of sustainability. This
interpretation of sustainable development suggests that developmental projects
must be set within the context of the cyclical rhythms of nature instead of the
modern conception of development that relies on the linear exploitation of what
is erroneously perceived as nature's unlimited resources and the production of
excessive wastes that can be presumably dumped else where. The word
"likas" defines the limits of possible abuses that humans can inflict
on the natural world.
“Katutubo,” the Filipino word for
“native” is rooted in the word “tubo” or to grow. Its prefix“Ka”means growing
with others while the infix “tu” is an expression of progressive
intentionality. “Katutubo” therefore refers to an organism that grows along
with others. In contrast to the Latin etymology of the English word “native”
which means to be born (natus, nasci), organisms that have been transplanted
from other cultures can be accommodated as co-participants in an ecological
niche. The founding leaders of the Philippine revolution have in fact used the
word katutubo to refer “to everyone who grew up in these islands” including
their non-tagalog members.[i] Such an inclusive concept is applicable to our
contemporary concern for environmental ethics that embrace all earthlings that
grew up in the same planet.
The
contemporary meaning of the word “katutubo,” nevertheless, refers to the
indigenous peoples of the hinterlands who have been marginalized by lowlanders
and other migrants. Indigenous peoples, however, serve as reference points for
the hybridized identity of the majority of the Filipino people whose genetic
constitution has been recognized as one of the most diversified in the world.
Its national football team, majority of whom are mestizos, have fondly taken
the word “azkal” a name derived from hybrid street dogs (asong kalye) in order
to emphasize the virtue of hybridity. As a source of inspiration for Filipino
identity, indigenous peoples are then protected by legal instruments that
delineate their ancestral domain and their legitimate rights as fellow
citizens.
Indigenization,
however, is not only a biological process. It is also a cultural experience
that distinguishes human beings from other organisms. The difference between
the etymological origins of the English word “native” and the Filipino word
“katutubo”is instructive about the more inclusive character of the Filipino
world view that makes room for the processes of adaptation to and enculturation
with the nation’s natural and cultural environments. Being Filipino, therefore,
is not defined merely by the genetic constitution of one’s progeny but is also
constituted by a spiritual process of participation in the cultural and
linguistic practices of everyday life.
The
inclusive nature of Philippine society was eloquently articulated by the
founding members of the Filipino nation when they wrote in their Code of
Conduct that “Pure and truly highly esteemed, beloved and noble
is the person even if he or she was raised in the forest and speaks nothing but
his or her own language.” An analysis of our language, such as what we
have done in this essay, reveals the profundity of our distinctive
understanding of the world and an appreciation for the inclusive character of
our culture. As one frequent visitor to our shores puts it, “Despite problems
of poverty, the Philippines is a more embracing, more inclusive society in
Asia”.[ii]
[i]
Virgilio S. Almario, Panitikan ng Rebolusyon(g 1896) (Quezon
City: University of the Philippines Press, 1993), p. 156.
[ii][i]Cynthia Balana and
Marlon Ramos, “East Timor head breaks protocol to attend funeral,” Philippine Daily Inquirer, August 6,
2009, 15A.
