“Filipino/xness”

The multiple conversations I’ve had mainly revolved around the question of “Filipinxness” -what it was, who defines it, how it’s been constructed, etc. Thinking back to these questions and conversations, when asked to define “Filipinxness,” most respondents had a notable reaction -nervous laughter, a big sigh, and/or contemplation was provoked as they approached the topic. I recognize that this is a heavy question to ask directly and defining a concept succinctly is a difficult process, but their responses and reactions reveal their understandings of their identity. This question was posed to elicit the necessary thoughts to initiate the conversation.

The respondents each engaged the topic through various points of entry; some spoke to their interpretations of their Filipinxness, while others addressed the broad understanding of their ethnocultural identity. The recurring motif present between these individual insights is the overwhelming conclusion of the identity’s fluidity and nuance. Numerous factors play into the understanding of “Filipinixness” both individually and collectively, resulting in variations to this understanding. If there had to be a take away from these insights, it’s that “Filipinxness” is undefinable and a claim to an “authentic” Filipinx identity is impossible.

Alyssa Geniza provided her understanding of Filipinxness by describing it as a “confused identity.” When speaking to this point, they explained the process of mitigating the disconnect between the homeland Philippine culture and the diaspora. For them, confusion regarding their identity stems from the overwhelming effort to (re)learn the Philippines’ Filipinx culture and issues all the while coming to terms with their diasporic dislocation. This process of mitigation sometimes results in tension with regards to the Filipinx identity since claim and proximity are quantified by the cultural knowledge and/or physical proximity.