Emilio Congco

SA 101
1. Conflict perspectives examine society as that which is composed of numerous ideologies
which oppose each other, and these oppositions are the starting points of conflicts which arise
in that very society. These ideologies manifest themselves in the interests, beliefs, and value
systems of the people, and the opposing ideologies then overtly or covertly form tension
between or among these groups of people. It is when certain groups of people are grouped
together that there becomes a clearer classification of groups based on certain commonalities;
that is, stratification then occurs. Social stratification and social tension are key features in
conflict analysis.
Hollnsteiner uses Hulo, Bulacan, to represent the type of stratification which is
present in the Philippine municipality. Before delving into the description of the type of
stratification, it is best to first examine whether or not stratification is indeed present in this
place. As mentioned in the introduction above, stratification can be identified by first seeing
the presence of opposing interests or ideologies of different groups as well as the prominence
of some of these said groups. In the study, it is evident, either through political elites or local
associations (such as the Lions Club or the different women's clubs) that numerous groups
were formed on the basis of forwarding the interests of different alliances, alliances which
were formed either through kinship, marriage, reciprocity or compadrazgo (64). In terms of
the community associations (Chapter 4), there are even instances wherein another association
was formed since the minority in that group was not listened to. From here it is already easy
to see that there are already numerous opposing interests which are present in Hulo. In terms
of the prominence and dominance of the certain groups, this can be affirmed through the
presence of the intermediaries. According to the author, the intermediaries are those who help
the minority convince others with the resources which the minority needs to share their
resources to the minority in exchange for an unwritten debt system characteristic in
Philippine society which is utang na loob (85). By the very existence of a debt system of a
minority to the intermediary as well as to the group with the needed resources, one can
already evidently see a certain stratification in the existent social structure in this society,
since there are numerous interests and interest factions which are present in this singular
transaction.
Now that this social stratification is proven to be prominent, Hollnsteiner then moves
on to describe the type of social stratification that is characteristic in Hulo. Upon closer
examination, Hollnsteiner's analysis parallels that of Weber's analysis of social stratification,
that is, that social stratification can have many different bases, such as economic, cultural,
and political control or dominance. In Hulo, these three aspects are represented through the
economic elite, the community associations, as well as the political elite respectively. This is
not to say that these three groups are mutually exclusive. Following Weber's analysis once
more that there can be a combination and intersection of actors and circumstances (153),
many of the political elite are actually members of the community associations and the
economic elite. Why, then, must we clearly delineate these groups? This is because
Hollnsteiner also emphasizes that although there are intersections among the groups, there are
some instances where some members of one group are not part of the other group, yet are still
very much in the circle of acquaintances of those in the other group. Another reason is that
despite many intersections, Hulo's elites are already taking up roles which are beginning to be
differentiated, with business then becoming less dependent on politics (Hollnsteiner; Parsons
87). Despite the presence of three groups, Hollnsteiner still claims that this particular upper
elite group is still very much small in proportion to the population of Hulo, and that these
groups consist of the "small superordinate upper-structure," following the definition of
Hunter (155). Majority of the citizens of Hulo are then part of the "large subordinate under-
structure." According to the author, it is this small elite group that is responsible for forming
the decisions while it is the under-structure that implements these decisions. From here, we
can see that stratification does indeed occur, since the policies which are implemented are for
mainly for the interests of the elites who decide upon which projects are to be implemented.
What then is the basis for this stratification? What makes the elite able to mobilize the
large non-elite population of Hulo? According to Hollnsteiner, the reason why this
stratification is present is because the elite attempt to maintain power through forming greater
alliances (in relation to the non-elites). Another reason is that these elites what their own
alliance's interests to be forwarded (versus other elites). In other words, rationality guides the
elites into forwarding their interests through the methods of alliances and patronage. In terms
of mobilizing the large non-elite population, the author uses the recurring themes of utang na
loob and hiya (73). It is through doing favors for many people in exchange for future support
at the risk of losing face that the elites are able to coerce the large population of Hulo to
legitimize their hold of power in the locality.
In summary, the structure which is present is the elites (political, economic, cultural)
are able to control the large non-elite population while the elites constantly form alliances
with each other (either through compadrazgo, community associations, etc.) to forward their
own interests in the locality of Hulo. Hence, we could then see that tension does not only
occur between elites and non-elites but also among the elites themselves (such as the
traditional politicians (those who grew up in Hulo) and professional-entrepreneurial elites
(those who are more "metropolitan" and received formal education elsewhere) (89).
I personally agree with this stratification of Philippine society. At first glance, the
analysis of Hollnsteiner seems really complex and confusing, showing many intersections
(especially among the elite groups). But it is this very complexity that makes Hollnsteiner's
stratification more accurate, since she attempts to show that beyond the collective of the
"elite," the elite themselves also have their own interests to take care of, and that these
interests can easily be modified and merged into other interests through marriage and
additional alliances.
I also think this analysis is accurate because beyond the grouping based on wealth or
resource, this analysis also considers the stratification that transcends the elite and non-elite
boundary and in bound by the patron-client behavior. Through vote buying, being a kumpare
in a non-elite wedding, the elite can form a group or alliance with the non-elites so as to
advance his elite group ahead of the other elite groups. These intersections of groups show
that there are many ways in which society can be stratified, but what is common among all of
them is that they are all formed based on rationality and to gain greater power. This analysis
of Hollnsteiner is spot-on, as I think it can still be very much seen until today. Elites grouping
among themselves and against each other, and then grouping with non-elites so as to gain
power are all acts of rationality, and are all moves to gain more pawns in the power game.
2. It can be said that this study used a predominantly Weberian approach, although
throughout the study, there were references to the theories of other sociologists such as
Parsons. This Weberian approach was seen in the way the study was conducted as well as in
the content of the study.
Methodologically, Hollnsteiner attempted to utilize Weber's value-free sociology in
the sense that she attempted to suspend moral judgment and analyze the actions and
responses of her respondents to properly describe the power play which is present in the
Philippine municipality. This is seen in numerous instances such as when there was no moral
judgement in terms of the political strategies in attaining votes, objectively relaying the
methods in which the political elites attained these votes (such as vote buying and other
forms of coercion). There were also attempts of quantitatively measuring respondents'
attitudes towards political powers, as shown in her methodology in the whole of Chapter 8. It
is also through the discontinuing of the methodology of Chapter 8 that value-free sociology
can be seen; that despite the lengthy process which the author has undergone, the interview
has been discontinued because of the misformulated and uncontextualized questions which
she used. Also, the analysis which she provided were rooted in historical accounts, as shown
in the numerous examples which she mentioned in the study (such as the women's association
and the evolution of the Brotherhood of the Elite. It was through concrete examples and data
obtained from numerous interviews that the analyses were made, forming more balanced and
less subjective interpretations of Hulo's social milieu.
In terms of the study's content, numerous elements hark back to Weber's analyses of
society. Hollnsteiner actually utilizes ideal types in explaining how the elite (and even the
non-elites in Chapter 3) acted towards achieving greater power. In terms of this power, it can
be argued that the beginning point of gaining power for the elites was coercion. This coercion
was not by physical force; rather, it was through the traditional values of hiya and utang na
loob. The person subject to the elite was at the risk of facing shame from society and from
himself, then being coerced into forming an alliance with the particular elite. What is
interesting about the phenomenon of hiya and utang na loob is that these two traditional
Filipino values are used by the elite to actually coerce the non-elite to legitimize the prior's
power. From here, we can now see that from coercion, there is a gradual shift to authority
because of hiya and utang na loob (as embodied in patronage). However, this is not to say
that coercion becomes fully absent in the municipality of Hulo. Authority as a source of
power was more often than not only prominent between the elite and the non-elite. Among
the groups of the elites, however, coercion was still very much present.
According to the author, even the politicians are still very much influenced by those
without political positions because of their economic power. Because of the resources and the
networks which they can offer (or which they can remove from the support base of the
politician), these particular elites are still very much able to use coercion to attain power
(157).
In terms of the ideal types in authority, there were numerous instances of citing
charismatic authorities. Perhaps one interesting feature of charismatic authority is that
because this kind of authority is rooted on personality and passion, trust in the leadership can
easily die down. This phenomenon was actually cited by the author and was paralleled with
the Filipino concept of ningas kugon. According to the author, the lider of certain
associations are chosen because of his or her enthusiasm. Without great support from prestige
or enough accomplishments, the leader then will not be able to properly sustain his or her
position and the organization has a tendency to experience greater instability (130).
As mentioned above, Weber explains that there are numerous bases for social
stratification, and that there is a possibility for intersection. In terms of wealth, there were
landlords present in Hulo and were actually very influential even to the politicians.
According to the author, however, as time passed, this particular group became less engaged
in politics as they gained greater autonomy from the government (rise of neoclassicism).
Aside from the economic elite, there was also stratification based on status, and this
was most seen in the Hulo associations. According to Weber, this stratification is rooted on a
specific lifestyle which defines the group. There is exclusivity in these groups, meaning to
say not everyone can be a part of it. Hollnsteiner uses the example of Kapatiran ng mga
Maginoo, which was an organization exclusively for the politicians, but then evolved into an
organization which demanded "financial obligations" and its members should "exhibit the
finesse and fine-breeding usually associated with the group." This expansion to the upper
class showed the organization's exclusivity; and this is another example of a stratification that
is based on a type of lifestyle.
At this point, I will attempt to justify why the study leans more towards a Weberian
analysis than a Marxian analysis. Marx proposes that the working class should be able to
control the means of production while Weber focuses more on those who cannot access these
resources to be able to get a hold of such resources (and not necessarily control them).
Hollnsteiner, throughout the study, shows that there was unequal patronage in the different
areas in Hulo depending on the number of people who were actually closely connected with
the political elite (195). However, the author did not propose that this particular structure
should collapse and the power should be handed over to the non-elite. In fact, the author
stated that "Partisanship and factionalism need not be deterrents to action programs." (190)
What is important is the "realistic appraisal of the social forces in a community and the
gearing of programs accordingly." (190-191) From here, it can be seen that there is no direct
disapproval of the existent system which is embedded in Hulo.
In terms of social classes, Marx argues that the upper class expropriated the resources
of the lower classes to be able to keep their control; while Weber argues that it is through the
restriction of entrance in their social circles that the those in power are able to retain their
positions. According to the author, the traditional elite "never really depended on the local
community for their economic prosperity." (188) Their status as elite was then not the
product of the continuous exploitation of the local community in which they reside. Instead,
the author in the earlier chapter proposes that it is through the constant patron-client
relationships which the elite establish that they are able to informally say that they are in a
state and position of coercion, having different ways of acting than those of the non-elite.
3. The significance of social research is in its value added (Neuman). Perhaps the greatest
strength of the study of Hollnsteiner is that it was able to contextualize the theories of Weber
and Parsons in the Philippine municipality. This contextualization was the value added of the
study. In trying to analyze Philippine society in terms of the conflict theories, the theories are
further affirmed and deepened. In addition to this, concepts such as utang na loob and hiya,
which are Filipino values, were not forgotten despite the Western theories as frameworks.
The consideration of these Filipino values were crucial in providing a more accurate and
panoramic understanding of the power play that actually occurs in the Philippine
municipality.
Another strength in the study is its complexity and recognition of the numerous
factors which contribute to the power play in Hulo. Throughout the study, Hollnsteiner
constantly reminds the readers that there are many more factors and combinations of factors
which can actually take place, and that the examples mentioned are just select cases. This
recognition of the complexity of society and admittance of a certain level of uncertainty
doesn't seem like a strength at first glance. However, I see this as a strength precisely because
Hollnsteiner did not narrow down society for the sake of simplicity. This, in my opinion, is a
great example of value-free sociology.
Another strength of the study is that since the study began with historically and
culturally rooted values such as kinship, alliances, acquaintances, utang na loob, and hiya, the
milieu which the Philippines faces today are actually quite similar to that which Hollnsteiner
described. In a way, the starting chapters of the study are still very much a useful resource in
trying to explain certain phenomena occurring in the realm of Philippine politics and media
today (such as coercion, campaign methods, and the like). The historical and cultural
rootedness of the study allows, to a certain extent, for extrapolation and reference to
juxtapose with the Philippines' current milieu.
In terms of the limitations, I will begin with the limitations which Hollnsteiner herself
mentioned. In her study, she mentioned that there was a tendency that the people she had
interviewed might have said what she wanted to hear, and this is actually a common risk in
any social research (Neuman). Another limit is the hospitality-hiya complex. Just like what
Hollnsteiner mentioned throughout the study, the hiya complex could also affect the way the
answers could be delivered. These problems can be addressed by either increasing the sample
size or expanding the methodology to reduce bias (such as conducting focus group
discussions instead of individual interviews) (Neuman).
Aside from the methodological limitations mentioned by the author, another
limitation of the study is that it focuses on one particular Philippine municipality at a certain
time. Just as Weber claims that capitalism did not thrive in the East because there was no
Protestantism, there might be numerous factors present in a Philippine rurality in Luzon
which might not be applicable in the other regions in the Philippines. How could the
compadrazgo system, for example, be applicable to the Muslim south, since this system was
established on the premise of Catholic sacraments? In addition to this specific rural context,
the datedness of the text does not consider the new factors today. Despite these limitations,
however, what is important is the method in which the author analyzed this power play and
stratification. Aside from some commonalities which can still be used today (refer to the
strengths), the differences in culture as well as the innovations in time can be adjusted in
following the rigour in which Hollnsteiner conducted the study. The study's strength, then, is
not the content itself, but a handbook on the methodology in which we can analyze social
stratification in the Philippines.
Finally, another great limitation of the study if we are to analyze it in terms of Weber
are the concepts of hiya and utang na loob. Weber argues that quantitative and calculative
analysis is necessary for a value-free sociology. However, hiya and utang na loob are two
Filipino values which seem very difficult to quantify. How then, can we study degrees of
utang na loob and hiya in relation to levels of coercion and authority? The fact that these two
concepts were not quatified showed a bit of ambiguity and abstractness in the study. Perhaps
a solution to this is to operationalize these two concepts into measurable variables (Neuman).
Neuman, N. Lawrence. Social Research Methods: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches.