Professor Zeus Salazar, the proponent of “Ang Pantayong Pananaw Bilang Diskursong

Pangkabihasnan” who was educated at the University of the Philippines (UP) and at the Sorbonne
elucidated “Pantayong Pananaw” as a descriptive concept which can pertain to any social collectivity
possessesing a relatively unified linguistic-cultural structure of communication and interaction with a sense
of oneness of purpose. His approach begins with the need to sustain a national discourse by distinguishing
how different historiographies relate to the formation of national and cultural identity.

The pangkayo perspective refers to the judgments made by external agents upon one’s culture, it is
also called ‘from-you-for-us’ perspective. In contrary with this is the pangkami perspective, or the ‘from-
us-to-you’ perspective which was initially supported by a group of intellectuals who were educated in
Spain. The pantayong pananaw on the other hand, means from-us-for-us; it claims that a native viewpoint
can be discerned only if one makes use of accustomed characteristics, knowledge and tendencies that is
understood authentically by the members of a local community. Using a language that is native to the
community is vital in attaining pantayong pananaw. Through a community’s culture and language, one can
effectively put into effect the meanings, concepts, and values of a certain community. Whence, language
plays a vital role in writing. Consequently, historians identified with pantayong pananaw speak and write
in Philippine languages so that the discourse is oriented toward local cultures and not to ‘outsiders’ and
their interests.

Salazar argued that Filipinos were more solicitous with foreign language and the views of
foreigners on them than of their own and I personally agree. It is evident that foreign influence has taken a
grip on our past and current circumstances. Filipinos back then (until the present day) finds it significant to
impress and to explain Filipinos to outsiders. It asserts how the composition of the Philippine history has
been done inside the norm of colonialism. Pantayong Pananaw conveys surviving studies of Philippine
history as characteristically flawed because of the prevalence of “Pangkaming Pananaw” in scholastic
studies. Western historians wrote the serial events on how Filipinos came to be and the westernized version
is what the Filipinos are taught in school. Using a different lense in exploring our history, specifically
through the from-us-for-us perspective of pantayong pananaw, one can comprehend how history is ought
to be written of which could emancipate the current mindset of Filipinos today.

However, weaknesses in Salazar’s arguments are also evident, particularly regarding

the exclusive use of Philippine languages in the means and discourse in forming a national culture.
Salazar’s firm rejection of concepts that do not emanate from Philippine languages is a closed attitude
toward concepts originating outside the local culture. Presupposing such as automatically ‘Western’ or
‘foreign’ hinders the prospect of appropriating these concepts within local discourse. Furthermore,
Salazar’s assertion that Marxist/Socialist perspectives are completely an “outsider’s discourse” because it
cannot assimilate the intricacies of Filipino cultural experience cannot be evaded. No one can dismiss the
factuality that local constructions of exploitation, class consciousness and class struggle emerged at critical
junctures of Philippine history. Such external influences in apposition within the local discourses can be as
powerful in the local context.

The writing of Salazar is satiated with extensive semantics which gives the impression of an
overbearing emphasis on hermeneutic methodologies and an underemphasis on empirical explanation. The
entirety of the article could have been more subtle than it was portrayed.

In addition to that, the questioning of dominant positivist perspectives by pro-indigenization

scholars is a notable venture. Whether such attempts are postulated upon essentialist notions of culture,
history and society should be evaluated. The author’s contribution to Philippine scholarship lies mainly in
his resolute refusal to reify Philippine history and cultural heritage. It had not only led to the unfortunate
tendency of closing oneself not only to useful external influences from other cultural experiences, but also
to the broader socio-economic realities that are at work within the society. However, despite criticisms with
the certain aspects of this frame of thoughts, it shall not invalidate its timeliness in justifying the course of
social sciences and humanities in the Philippines.