Kung Anu-ano Lang Ba Talaga?: The Evolving Definition and Image of Anik-aniks
What is anik-anik?
Language encapsulates the essence of culture, reflecting the shared identities and narratives that bind a community together in the use of their common terms. For Filipinos, the word “anik-anik” refers to many, mostly miscellaneous, things — “mga kung anu-ano.” Not transliterable into English, the terms knick-knacks, trinkets, scraps, clutter, or “this and that” arrive the closest but still lack the cultural context embedded within the Filipino term. For the common Filipino, anik-aniks are anything mundane but cherished items, “unexplainable treasures (Salazar, 2023),” objects that rarely catch the attention of those in their presence but remain equally valued. Beyond their literal meaning, however, anik-aniks are more than just material possessions: they reflect the deeply ingrained values and traditions of Filipinos. Whether it is our sentimentality, moving us to keep the wrappings and bags of gifts, the receipts of our purchases, the tickets from our travels, or the letters we’ve received, or practicality, seen in how incapable we are of discarding emptied quirky jars or containers, reusable plastics and papers, or trivial items we might not find a use at the moment, the concept of anik-anik remains a significant part of Filipino culture, providing an insight into the kung anu-ano of being one.
Along with culture, language is also dynamic, continuously being recontextualized throughout time — an inevitability the term “anik-anik” also faces. Recently, with the surge of the term in social media platforms like TikTok and X (formerly Twitter), it has been repopularized to refer to “aesthetically pleasing items bought from shops or found in blind boxes,” as De Pano (2024) concisely put it. Calling oneself an anik-anik enjoyer and showcasing keychains, figurines, pins, stickers, and other collectibles has become all the rage that teens and young adults bond over. While this trendier definition of anik-anik retained the sentimentality we attach, these anik-aniks are no longer mundane — they are now coveted items that people are willing to bid on and overpay to own. Although they bring happiness, they lack practicality, now simply best-prized ornaments that indirectly show one’s financial capabilities. They’ve become a symbol of wealth, an outlet for consumerism, not just mga kung anu-ano anymore.
How and why did anik-aniks change?
With socioeconomic disparities shaping the evolving definition and image of anik-anik, delving deeper into this shift becomes evermore essential to understanding what it entails for Filipino culture, identity, and society. Through this, we discover how these many, miscellaneous, things convey a bigger actuality than initially realized.
Before maximalism gained recognition as an art form, for Filipinos, it was first a way of life. Prof. Felipe M. De Leon, Jr. from the National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA) emphasized that “the common Filipino is a maximalist, filling up every available space with forms and things” (De Leon, 2011). Much like anik-aniks, maximalism is deeply rooted in and influenced by our cultural identity, born from our sentimental appreciation and nature and the need to connect. With maximalism exuding in the never-empty walls, cluttered drawers, colorful whatnots, and everything else able to coexist harmoniously, every corner of a common Filipino household tells a story. As shared by Kirsten Salazar in her article, specifically on Filipino maximalism, “We cherish the seemingly insignificant, integrating them into our homes as we continuously rebuild, incorporating mementos from generations past” (Salazar, 2023). Although maximalism remains present in Filipino culture, over the years, it has undergone a process called “artification” or “the transformation of non-art into art (Shapiro, 2007)”. Shapiro and Heinich (2012) in their article “When is Artification?”, artification involves a series of processes that interchangeably influence the transformation. When maximalism experienced artification, it transitioned from households to commercialization. While maximalism as an art form does not discredit its capabilities to possess artistic elements, the dominance of the upper class within the art world risks its nature of being within mundanity, a way of life, to diminish — something that anik-aniks are a testament to. Maximalism, therefore anik-aniks, is not just a mere accumulation of items, but now a sophisticated aesthetic reflecting wealth and capital.
There exists a distinct contrast in the definition and image of anik-aniks between the social classes, as reflected by the transformation of maximalism: collecting for leisure and collecting hoarding out of necessity. Anik-aniks always entail the collection of many “this and that” items, but these vary between classes, particularly the lower and upper classes. Thorstein Veblen, an American economist and sociologist, proposed “The Theory of the Leisure Class” which affirms this phenomenon. In chapter 4, “Conspicuous Consumption”, Veblen (1899) states that while the leisure (upper) class has the means to consume luxury products, and in contrast, the working (lower) class doesn’t, the consumption of these products is limited to them. With their financial capabilities, they can consume any product despite appropriation. Applying this theory to the evolving definition and image of anik-aniks, since the upper class has the financial means to consume and capitalize on anik-aniks, they also have the power to shape what anik-anik is. If the upper class collects anik-aniks for leisure, a hobby, or a display of wealth, for the lower class, collecting anik-aniks could be driven by necessity, a means of survival in economic hardship. This theory actualizes when observing how enthusiasts on TikTok or X refer to their imported charms and keychains, costly stickers, and one-of-a-kind items as “anik-aniks.” Technically, these items still fall under the definition of anik-anik, however, the danger lies when enthusiasts overlook the term’s history and significance, unknowingly partaking in using the term with elitist connotations and commodifying their practicality. While the upper class can afford to purchase their needs and wants at any given time, the lower class — the less fortunate — relies on their hoarded, stockpiled, stashed away anik-aniks.
Filipinos began collecting anik-aniks not merely for their aesthetics, but because keeping them helps preserve lasting memories and moments from their lives, becoming an undeniable part of our culture and identity. However, since anik-aniks have emerged from Filipino maximalism — having undergone artification — they also represent a fight for art not just for art’s sake. Collecting anik-aniks is an art form, as “artists are documentors of time, visually capturing life in various colors and forms that help us understand our history, culture, and experiences (Alip, 2024).” With the commercialization of anik-aniks, it erases an outlet for Filipinos to preserve and reflect our culture. The evolving definition and image of anik-anik show how vulnerable mundanity is amidst the growing socioeconomic divide and the dictating power of the upper class. Anik-aniks, despite being defined as “mga kung anu-ano”, is an underestimate of how much it entails on the state of our society. Seeing how structural inequality reshapes the definition and image of something as “mundane” as anik-aniks, it becomes even more crucial to spark educated discourse on these little things.
What value do anik-aniks hold and what do they entail?
In exploring the evolving definition and image of anik-aniks, we uncover how it reflects the socioeconomic disparity of the social classes through the artification (Shapiro, 2007) of Filipino maximalism, the contrast between collecting for leisure and hoarding for necessity, and the commodification of cultural identity. Although anik-aniks are deemed miscellaneous, rarely catching the attention of those in its presence, it uncovers the underlying intricacies of Filipino life. Whether someone uses the term anik-anik to refer to their mundane yet cherished items or coveted items, its purpose in Filipino culture and identity should never be treated as kung anu-ano lang — irrelevant, easily forgotten, insignificant. Since language reflects culture but always be dynamic, one element of anik-aniks that should remain constant is how it refers to the “unexplainable treasures” of Filipino identities and narratives.
References
Alip, J. A. B. (2024, February 25). Not just for art’s sake. Manila Bulletin. https://mb.com.ph/2024/2/25/not-just-for-art-s-sake
De Leon, F. M., Jr. (2011, July 29). Life as art: The creative healing power in Philippine culture. National Commission for Culture and the Arts. https://ncca.gov.ph/about-culture-and-arts/in-focus/life-as-art-the-creative-healing-power-in-philippine-culture/
De Pano, P. (2024, February 1). Anik-anikism: A peek into Filipino nostalgia and maximalism. Medium. https://medium.com/@pearlfdp/anik-anikism-a-peek-into-filipino-nostalgia-and-maximalism-c516b6b925bd
Salazar, K. B. (2023, October 3). At kung anu-ano pa: My personal take on the anik-anik discourse. Medium. https://medium.com/@kirstenbsalazar/at-kung-anu-ano-pa-my-personal-take-on-the-anik-anik-discourse-c199d7b6f7c6
Shapiro, R. (2007). What is ‘artification’? Sociedade e Estado, 22, 135–151.
Shapiro, R., & Heinich, N. (2012). When is artification? Contemporary Aesthetics, Special Volume 4. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273921770_When_is_Artification
Veblen, T. (1899). The Theory of the Leisure Class. Macmillan.
