I find it interesting to use a secondary data (YAFS 2002) to describe what I term as the ‘hypothetical istambay’. I call it ‘hypothetical’ because I base my argument on a main activity question, which did not include the question if the respondents identify themselves as istambay or not. Given this methodological limitation, I focused my analysis on producing the social profiles of these self-reported main activities, which are the following: (a) those who reported having no activity, (b) unemployed, (c) working, (d) unpaid family workers, (e) homemakers, and (f) students. Preliminary data analysis revealed that marital status, age, gender, economic status and youth’s education are the major social factors that explain the differences among these activities. And where do I locate my hypothetical istambay?
My profile analysis points to the unemployed, those with no main activity and the unpaid family worker as more likely constituting the Filipino istambay. With this I argue that there is not one type istambay but rather various types of istambay. This phenomenon is male-centered and its variation is implicated within the interacting dynamic of the youth’s economic status and educational attainment.
If my assumption is correct, I expect that the higher likelihood of exposure to multiple risks (smoking, drinking drug abuse and violence) could be found among these three groups. If this is indeed true in the YAFS data set, then my hypothetical istambay may not be just be a theoretical construct but rather have some bearing on the empirical social reality of Philippine society.
