A Worldview behind the Cebuano term "Uban and Kauban".

Sometimes the ordinary things can be a source of a new discovery, new thoughts and ideas, new worldviews. Despite of how common a thing could be, if given an ample time to ponder there will be new concepts that would emerge in it. Also, unconsciously people kept using these terms without knowing that at some sense it does mirror a worldview. With that, people in the Philippines, with their rich culture and tradition can be a source of an idea which reflects a worldview.

Philippines had been a cradle of diverse culture and tradition and one of the ethnicities which are situated in it is the Cebuanos. Cebuanos originated in the province of Cebu in the region of Central Visayas, but then later spread out to other places in the Philippines, such as Siquijor, Bohol, Negros Oriental, southwestern Leyte, western Samar, Masbate, and large parts of Mindanao (Cite). According to history Cebuano was first documented in a list of vocabulary compiled by Antonio Pigafetta, an Italian explorer who was part of Ferdinand Magellan's 1521 expedition. Spanish missionaries started to write in the language during the early 18th century (Bouqet, 2017).

Cebuano vocabulary is Austronesian in origin. It shares many words with Tagalog. As a result of Spanish influence, Cebuano also contains many words of Spanish origin, such as names of the days of the week and months. In addition, the language has borrowed words from Chinese, Arabic, and English (Robles, 2012). Today, the Cebuano language had evolve into more than just language. There are terms like ‘amping’, ‘puhon’, ‘kuan’, ‘gugma’ and many more.

One of the Cebuano words which fascinate me is the term ‘uban’ and ‘kauban’. These terms are widely used in a day to day conversation yet it depicts the reality to which we are in. Both of the terms seem to convey the same meaning but the additional syllable transformed the latter into a different term which has a different meaning. When used in a sentence the meaning would be much more evident for example: “asa man ang uban?” the general translation would be “where are the others”, on the other hand, the second term if used in a sentence would be “asa man ang imong kauban?” which means “where are your company/companions?”. Now, the term ‘uban’ would somehow portrait someone other than yourself that which are not connected with you. It just simply inquires about the other people, people that which on some sense are with you but not with you and has connection with you. In this state, our actions would be for ourselves and that our actions toward the other come back to us, just like the “Law of the I” concept of Levinas. On the other hand, the ‘kauban’ is something that much of a higher level in the sense that by means of company one possesses relationship other than that of just being other. Just like that of Levinas’ “Law of the other”as justified by the “face of the Other.” The “alterity,” or otherness, of the Other, as signified by the “face,” is something that one acknowledges before using reason to form judgments or beliefs about him. Insofar as the moral debt one owes to the Other can never be satisfied—Lévinas claims that the Other is “infinitely transcendent, infinitely foreign”—one’s relation to him is that of infinity. In contrast, because ontology treats the Other as an object of judgments made by theoretical reason, it deals with him as a finite being. Its relationship to the Other is therefore one of totality (Perpich, 2008). The relationship between a person and his/her ‘kauban’ is infinite. Therefore, the term ‘kauban’ depicts a more highly responsibility towards the other. It must then be understood the level of relationship of ‘kauban’ over ‘uban’ as a relationship of coexistence.

With the idea of ‘kauban’, we must then bear in mind to treat the others as ‘kauban’ and not as ‘uban’ for we are all interconnected and that our actions must not be directed towards ourselves  but to the other.