Lost Culture
Damaged Culture
By James Fallows
(Reaction Paper)
I agree with what James Fallows (1987) had said in his article “that culture can make a naturally rich country poor” because that is how the Philippine culture is now. It may not be as a whole, but the identity of Philippine culture has been lost for a long time now. We were influenced by too many external cultures. We were blinded by what the other countries have. Thus, we lost the focus on what we already have and what we could make out of those resources.
In the functionalist perspective (Schaefer, 2009), one essential part of the society is dysfunctional. And that is the attitude of the people towards their own country. The Filipinos are dependent on the countries we are allied with, especially the United States. We have somehow forgotten that in order to achieve stability or, more specifically, economic success, we should work together towards that and not the economic success of another country. It is simply saying, leaving behind the colonial mentality. And in the conflict perspective (Schaefer, 2009), this may be viewed as simply an effect of social classes. Since we are now considered to be a developing country, it is inevitable for us to be dependent on the developed ones. And that is because, in the interactionist perspective (Schaefer, 2009), we are becoming hopeless with our own capabilities, and the capabilities of our government.
As a Filipino, I must imbibe the idea of nationalism and relive the true Philippine culture by putting trust back to what I know our country can do and can be. And this shall come first in the support of local products, events, traditions, etc. If everybody would work for a better Philippines (meaning stable economy, commendable values system, and unwavering faith on future success), as what functionalists and interactionists (Schaefer, 2009) say, then it will never be too late for the Philippines to mend its damaged
By James Fallows
(Reaction Paper)
I agree with what James Fallows (1987) had said in his article “that culture can make a naturally rich country poor” because that is how the Philippine culture is now. It may not be as a whole, but the identity of Philippine culture has been lost for a long time now. We were influenced by too many external cultures. We were blinded by what the other countries have. Thus, we lost the focus on what we already have and what we could make out of those resources.
In the functionalist perspective (Schaefer, 2009), one essential part of the society is dysfunctional. And that is the attitude of the people towards their own country. The Filipinos are dependent on the countries we are allied with, especially the United States. We have somehow forgotten that in order to achieve stability or, more specifically, economic success, we should work together towards that and not the economic success of another country. It is simply saying, leaving behind the colonial mentality. And in the conflict perspective (Schaefer, 2009), this may be viewed as simply an effect of social classes. Since we are now considered to be a developing country, it is inevitable for us to be dependent on the developed ones. And that is because, in the interactionist perspective (Schaefer, 2009), we are becoming hopeless with our own capabilities, and the capabilities of our government.
As a Filipino, I must imbibe the idea of nationalism and relive the true Philippine culture by putting trust back to what I know our country can do and can be. And this shall come first in the support of local products, events, traditions, etc. If everybody would work for a better Philippines (meaning stable economy, commendable values system, and unwavering faith on future success), as what functionalists and interactionists (Schaefer, 2009) say, then it will never be too late for the Philippines to mend its damaged