Dependency Theory 3

International Journals
SOCIOLOGY IN THE PHILIPPINES

Author(s): GEORGE H. WEIGHTMAN
Source: International Review of Modern Sociology, Vol. 17, No. 1 (Spring 1987), pp. 35-62
Published by: International Journals
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41420886
Accessed: 08-12-2018 19:08 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
International Journals is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
International Review of Modern Sociology
This content downloaded from 182.18.238.249 on Sat, 08 Dec 2018 19:08:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
SOCIOLOGY IN THE PHILIPPINES
GEORGE H. WEIGHTMAN
Herbert H. Lbhman College, New York
International Review of Modern Sociology 1987, Vol. 17 (Spring) : 35
Early Philippine sociology emerged out of a not too thor

mix of Spanish theoretical neo-Thomism and early Ame
methodological concerns with neo-positivism. Throughout m
of this century it has been directed and dominated by Amer
funding both in the colonial and post-colonial period. Conseque
in both its achievements and limitations, Philippine sociology
plays most of the characteristics of American sociology in exag
ted form. Weak in theoretical orientation, Philippine soci
has made spectacular achievements in quantitative research
sophistication of methodology. Similar to the situation in ma
other developing nations, the social sciences in the Philipp
display many of the features of premature technocratiza
After more than decade of the "New Society" , Philippine Socio
has not yet freed itself of American neo-colonial intelle
restrictions.
Any discussion of the development and present status of soc

the Philippines must start with the recognition of the cruc
quences of the Hispano-American colonial legacies, past an
American funding practices, the talents and caprices of a few A
social scientists, and present Philippine socio-political re
Consequently, sociology in the Philippines today manifest
characteristics of American sociology, some unique features of
and most characteristics of sociology in developing - or more p
- neo-colonial societies. What has been said of sociology ca
applied to the other social sciences in the Philippines. Indeed
tinctions are often quite blurred and several American anthrop
have had a profound impact upon Philippine sociology.
Assessments of the development of sociology in the Phil
have been rare and significantly have been done by Amer
Filipinos. (Weightman, 1975 and Hunt and Dizon, 1978. A
Dizon is a Filipino co-author, the style and ideological orie
reveal Hunt as the senior author.) Since they share common
36 INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF MODERN SOCIOLOGY
and institutional connections in the Philippines, differences in th

appraisals of Weightman and Hunt tend to reflect differences in ide
logical orientation, personalities, and writing styles. They both em
phasize the interplay in the Philippines of sociology, cultural anthr
pology, political science, social psychology, and economics. Similarl
they share a recognition of the crucial roles played by H. Otley Bey
and Frank Lynch. And as we shall later see, Chester Hunt is anothe
of the few Americans who have developed, molded, and direct
Philippine sociology.
In addition to Lynch and Hunt, there are a few foreign sociolo
gists (e.g., Wihelm Flieger and Francis Medigan, 1963 and 1976) wh
are so intimately connected with sociological research and teachin
in the Philippines that it would be misleading to exclude them from
discussion of Philippine sociology. Also, as one might have expecte
many Filipino cultural anthropologists (F. Landa locano, 1966
1969a and 1969b, Eric S. Casino, 1967 and. 1976, David B. Barad
1972, and Prospero Covar, 1973) have been vital components in th
institutional structures related to the development of sociology in the
Philippines.
Cultural Context for Past Development

The Philippines was one of the few areas of Southeast Asia sub
jected to Western colonialism before it had developed a central stat
structure intensively influenced by any of the great Asian religio
traditions (Hinduism, Buddhism, or Islam). In the pre-Spanish peri
no political system had matured to the level of a political state in t
usual sense of the term except in Sulu, where Islam had introduced the
notion of sultan, had begun the stratification of local chieftai
(i datus ) and had established the notion of a territorial state. An emerge
Muslim state in the Manila Bay area was destroyed by the Spaniard
Aside from the areas influenced by Islam, itself a late arrival,
political institutions were essentially an extension of kinship grou
usually small in numbers. These groups ( Barangay ) included economic
dependents as well as the major kindred. In the absence of oth
political structures, its leaders {datus) functioned as political leader
in a specific area. Social stratification was divided into three majo
categories or estates; the nobility (datus), the freeman (Maharlika
and the dependents and slaves. Dependency tended to be heredita
and included sharecroppers, indentured servants and out-and-out
slaves. Complicated regional variations and reciprocal obligatio
tended to soften these restraints. Spanish and later American colon
rule preserved and often intensified these relationships.
The Spanish conquest of most of the present day Philippines did
not so much transform as modify this essentially Malay society. A
SOCIOLOGY IN THE PHILIPPINES 37
analogy of the impact of the Spanish language

language may prove illustrative. Nearly thirty pe
the Tagalog language show Spanish origin. Con
the material and non-material realm are considera
language remains structurally a Malay-Polynesian
originally the Malay language spoken in the
has evolved into the national language - Pilipino, t
applied to Criollos and Spanish Mestizos). So too, Phil
considerably embehshed by Hispano Catholicism,
family and stratification system were, if anything,
the Spanish influences. Rather than the Hisp
Philippines, it might be equally correct to speak of t
of Spanish culture.
There never had been many Spaniards in the P
at the end of the nineteenth century, after a ra
contributed to the political unrest, they number
4,000). This limited number of Spaniards in the
native elite (the Datus) to take advantage of the
perpetuate their domination by emerging as the
During the last years of Spanish rule, this elite
and dominant in most spheres of social, cultural,
life despite alien Chinese competition. Almost cot
principalia were the ilustrados. This Hispanized lit
Malay mixed ancestry embodied many of the featur
officiai gentry class. They were the educated prod
friar run college in Manila. Already Manila which,
walled-city of Intramuras> manifested all the cha
"Primate Cities of Colonial Southeast Asia."
Thus, even before the American occupation in 1898, the forces
of change had begun the process of transformation of Hispano-
Malay society. Indeed, the American colonial regime seemed to acce-
lerate rather than introduce the processes of economic development,
differentiation, and 'modernization." On the other hand, many
Filipino nationalists argue that American rule distorted and prevented
these processes. (See Renato Constantino, 1977, for the most detailed
Filipino interpretation of Philippine-American relations). Certainly
the previous pattern of a favourable balance of a diversified trade
was ended, problems of landlordism and depressed tenancy were
intensified, and the separate Chinese community was enhanced and
almost frozen into an unassimilated position. (See Weightman, 1960
and 1970, Wickberg 1965).
The spread of an American modified school system, the presence
of a large (relative to the previous Spanish) colonial enclave, the
eventual mass communication revolution, and rapid economic growth
linked to American markets led to a rapid if superficial America

tion. For decades, the elementary and high schools used Ameri
textbooks, taught English as if it were the native language, prohibit
the speaking of Filipino languages on school grounds, and obser
only American holidays. (This failure of the early American col
officials to adapt or modify culturally is perhaps best symbolized by
huge fire place in the former residence of the High Commission
now the residence of the American ambassador.).
Nevertheless, the quantitative, if not qualitative, efforts of
American colonial experiment quickly spawned a small grou
middle-class protegees who were first dependent upon the Amer
for their training in the Philippines and for travel grants to Ameri
educational institutions. Later, they would be dependent upon t
same Americans for jobs in administration and education in
Philippines. Old Malay patterns of dependency were utilized
perpetuated from the earliest days of the American colonial reg
by both administrators and educators. At first-sneered at and patro
by the older Ilustrados for their boorish and pushy mannerisms
new middle class intelligensia had surplanted the earlier group by
late thirties. Some like Claro Recto long resisted, but finally Spa
writers and Hispano-Malay culture went into eclipse. (This pro
is dramatically set forth in Nick Joaquin's A Portrait of the A
as Filipino.)
Any hopes for an orderly transition to independence were dashed
by the twin disasters of Japanese occupation and American liberation.
When the Philippines achieved independence in 1947, most of the
universities, libraries, and museums were in ruins. The social sciences,
which had only begun to develop in the thirties, had to begin seemingly
all over again. However, as we shall see, the history of sociology in
the late colonial period reflects many of the characteristics of con-
temporary Philippine sociology. Patterns from the colonial past
persist in the present context.
History of Philippine Sociology

The history of Philippine sociology is even older than that of
Philippine cultural anthropology. Nevertheless, the personnel and
theoretical orientation of the latter have usually dominated those
of the former. While early serious sociological research contributions
were nil, the very survival of sociology under unusually unfavourable
circumstances remains some sort of achievement. Sociology encounter-
ed so many problems and came so close to experation so often that
an American observer noted, "The history of Philippine sociology
has been the history of repeated still births."
Interestingly enough, Hunt in his study of Philippine sociology has
tried to explain the "slowness" of development thu

reason for this delay is that sociology was not a commo
United States in the first twenty years of this centur
was given a low priority in American institutions of h
it is not surprising that it received a similar priority in
(Hunt, 1978, p. 100).
Such an explanation attributes more to the impact of
alism upon Philippine sociology than Hunt usually is w
This writer feels the dynamics to be more comple
parallelisms in the American educational context, t
important issues of theoretical conflicts and limit
among educational institutions, the subordination
cultural anthropology, and the perennial problem
endemic in a closed colonial context involving a
with access to financial and administrative powers.
Philippine sociology roots to two great but somew
Western cultural traditions : Spanish Catholic Neo-T
almost simplistic American empericism and pragmatism
in the early American period by a Protestant social eth
extent Philippine sociology has never recovered from t
dual inheritance. Little in either tradition would lend itself to an
accommodation to Marxist formulations.
The first course in sociology was offered at the Dominican Uni-
versity of Santo Tomas in 1896. By 1900 this Catholic university had
added courses in penology and criminology. However, even today
most of the courses offered at Catholic college other than the Ateneo
de Manila stress social philosophy. The dynamics are somewhat
complicated, but the Catholic schools have preserved the Hispa no-
French regard for sociological theory as such. Elsewhere the stress
is entirely on empericism, methodology, and problem solving.
The University of the Philippines was established as the "state
university" in 1908 by the American colonial authorities. Two of the
first members on the Philippine High Commission imposed very
personalistic models upon the new university. Jacob Gould Schurman
insured that the agricultural school would be a carbon copy of that
at his Cornell University. (To this day Filipinos who hope to specialize
successfully in rural sociology seek out degrees at Cornell University.).
The formal structure of the main colleges, Dean C. Worchester made
certain would be that of the University of Michigan. Joseph Ralston
Hayden in the thirties reaffirmed close ties with the University of
Michigan. (In later years, the University of Chicago and the East
West Center would eclipse all other rivals in cultural anthropology
and sociology.).
The intentions of their alumni spirits may seem commendable to
some, but the results were often intellectually deadening

productive of personalistic rivalries and intrigues amongst Ame
and Filipino social scientists. Colonial and neo-colonial men
would often impose models already outdated in American or inap
priate in the Philippines at any time. They would channel their
tegees to only their "home institution," and encourage the rese
of Americans from only their "home institution." This pattern is n
so pervasive in the social sciences today that it is of some signifi
to note that it started with the very beginnings of American co
rule.
Anyway, the American colonial educators began "bending their
twigs" early. The first sociology course offered at the University of the
Philippines was in 1911. The first and third presidents of this secular
state university were both American protestant missionaries. The
first sociology course was taught by the third president. Not too sur-
prisingly, the early courses were on social ethics, social problems, and
social pathology. With Catholic social theorists on one side and
Protestant social reformers on the other side, ordinary sociologists
in those early days were rarely able to stay out of the cross-fire. (In
the thirties, there was a prominant member of the Philippine Com-
munist Party in the chemistry department at the University of the
Philippines, but no Marxists in sociology or cultural anthropology.).
In the pre-World War II period, the one side and the other were
literally on a street - Padre Faure. On one side stood the University
of Philippines; on the other was the Ateneo de Manila, by then run by
American Jesuits. Today only the Ateneo Law School faces the
University of the Philippines Statistical Center, the College of Public
Administration, and the Population Institute on Padre Faure Street.
Most colleges of the University of the Philippines are now on the
Diliman campus in Quezon City. Ateneo de Manila with its Institute
of Philippine Culture is nearby on Loyola Heights.
Throughout its history, the University of the Philippines has been
linked in friendly rivalry or locked in bitter combat with the Jesuit
institution. (One's perspective determines one's interpretation.). As
with all other academic disciplines, this is also true of the social
sciences both in the past and today. To deny or ignore this situation
would be had history and worse sociology. Similarly, in the pre-
independence period American governmental and private funding
agencies tended to support the state university. Today, American
governmental and private funding agencies prefer Jesuit institutions
rather than nationalists, secular institutions.1
1This transformation in the late pre-war period was symbolized and dramatized by the
young philosophy teacher, Ricardo Pascual, who helped make the state university a center
What with the religious controversies and the tradi

interest in research, advances in sociology during th
War II period were slow. Sociology at the University of t
was combined with department of anthropology under
H. Otley Beyer. Sociology was subordinated to archae
logy, and cultural anthropology. This pattern of t
financial subordination to anthropology would be rec
history of Philippine sociology.
Despite such limitations, sociology benefited like histor
as now) from governmental regulations that made cour
pine Social Life" compulsory in the elementary and secon
Thus, a limited demand for sociologists was assured in tea
programs. In addition, sociology enjoyed a prestige am
that anthropology lacked. In part this reflected resen
patronage anthropology enjoyed among the Amer
administrator. In part, one fears that the prestige of s
pre-war era resulted from the fact that the sociologis
viously useless.
The image was that of a genteel ilustrado. Many people
life - particularly those with foreign degrees - felt that
tered" their field, and, therefore, they needed to do no m
(After all, they would reason, isn't that what a M.A. si
research tradition had rarely been installed. Those who ha
ed such a tradition were usually too overworked and u
to do much about it. (Even today these patterns ha
disappeared.)
Serafín Macaraig, one of the first Filipinos with a doctorate in
sociology, published the first Philippine sociology textbook in 1938.
It was a tremendous success; it sold well. In many ways it was quite
dreadful, but it was a beginning of a lucrative activity. In the post-war
Philippines, the writing of elementary text books is a major activity
in academic circles. New Governmental degrees under the New
Society have made these activities even more profitable and an area of
fierce competition (Not too surprisingly, Chester Hunt in his survey
of Philippine sociology in 1978 devoted more than two pages to an
evaluation of this aspect of sociological activity.).
American private and governmental agencies in the post war period
attempted to revitalize sociology at the University of the Philippines
by engaging yet another American cultural anthropologist, John De
Young. As usual, they equated the "problems" as personal: the un-
willingness or inability of H. Otley Beyer to develop sociology and to
for nationalism and anti-clericalism. Today, his former students occupy key positions
throughout the University of the Philippines System.
share power. They seemed not to grasp the obvious problems

American cultural anthropologists developing Philippine sociology.
Young seemed to grasp the problem. After achieving a separation
of sociology from anthropology and its merger with social welfar
De Young departed the country in 1952. Fortuitously, a Fulbright
Professor, Chester C. Hunt, arrived a few months later. (An amusin
autobiographical description of this period is provided by Hunt in
Philippine Studies Newsletter, Hunt, 1978b)?
These rapid changes at the University of the Philippines were paralle
ed by growth in the discipline of sociology throughout the Philippines
Mary R. Hollnsteiner writing of the development of all social scienc
notes, "Their genuine flowering came about in the 1950's when t
first batch of foreign trained Filipino social scientists began to return
and create a new image of their fields." (Hollnsteiner, 1974, P. 6).
Of course, these were not the first batch but they were the largest late
and best prepared group of returners. In the same articles Mr
Hollnsteiner speaks of "an intriguing by-product of this relative
new thrust has been the entry of women into many of the domina
positions."2 (Hollnsteiner, 1974, p. 2.)
With the enthusiastic pushing of Chester Hunt, the Philippine
Sociological Society was founded in August 1953. (As a forecast of
future disputes and rivalries, it should be noted that it has taken almo
a year for the constitution to be approved.). He helped establish th
Philippine Sociological Review during the same period. Hunt has o
served, "I understand now that Filipinos are a sensitive people to
critical of meddling foreigners, but fortunately at the time I was i
norant of this alleged cultural trait.." (Hunt, 1978, b, p. 5). On
should note the deliberate effort at that time - inspired by Hunt -
mirror at least in titles the American sociological equivalents : th
American Sociological Society and its official journal, the Americ
Sociological Review, (only later was the original model changed to t
American Sociological Association.)
With considerable perception some of the early Filipino membe
had argued that the group was still too small and too limited financiall
to support such undertakings at that time. Hunt's contributions
Philippine sociology were his recognition of the need for a profe
sional society and a professional journal and his achievement of the
goals. He failed to realize that without Filipino funding, the Soceit
the Review, and the discipline of sociology would all continue to
2Mrs. Hollnsteiner writes of a "female Manila Mafia" of social scientists which "in
cludes a Gelia Castillo, a Mercedes Concepcion, an Irene Cortes, a Gloria Feliciano,
Aurora Selayan-Go, a Patricia Licuanan, a Cristina Parei, a Josefa Saniel, an Edita Tan
and many others." One cannot but note the deliberate omission of Socorro Espíritu.
dependent upon American governmental and foundation

Thus, the discipline would still remain dependent upon a sma
of Americans - perhaps inevitably one American. Hunt h
rejected charges of American academic and intellectual neo-co
(see Hunt, 1978a) even while he admits that American fund
still determines what will be studied in the Philippines n
Americans but by Filipinos. Ironically in his attempts to free
from American supervision and its subordination to cultu
pology, Funt established a structure that ultimately perpe
patterns.
The whole idea of the Society and of the Review were, thus, im-
posed from above and from outside by "considerate" and "helpful"
Americans. (Richard Coller was a close associate of Hunt at this time.
Later Coller and I were officers of the Society and editors of the
Review during the most perilious times following Hunt's departure).
A former Society president observed in the mid-fifties of the American
founder,. . "He's run off and left us with that magazine!"
The task involved in the early years for mere survival required
vast, imaginative efforts. Elsewhere (Weightman, 1970 and 1975) I
have treated of the personalities and intrigues involved in the post-
war expansion of Philippine society. So here I only wish to note the
gradual transformation of the Society and of the Review in broad-
outline in order to avoid the confusion of detailed personalistic intrigue.
By 1955, leadership had passed from "social reformers" often connected
with the Protestant Establishment in mission schools to sociologists
at the University of Philippines - a period of U.P. ascendency. By
1958 the financial and administrative situation of both the society
and of the Review had become so desperate that the Society was re-
searched, helped or seized-depending on one's perceptions - by
sociologists and anthropologists connected with Ateneo and the various
Catholic colleges. When the "professional" Catholics (or what anti-
clerical elements at the U.P. termed "sectarians") gained control
those Filipinos who originally helped to establish the Society left,
were set aside, or were pushed out.
For more than a decade the Society and the Review were totally
dominated by the Ateneo group - specifically the cultural anthropolo-
gist, Frank Lynch. Gradually time did not heal all wounds, but it did
tend to bury and conceal. The growth of sociology in the country and
the increase of sociologists not directly connected with the old factions
have permitted bridge building a new modus vivendi which must
confuse new American arrivals.
Now the officers of the society and the members of the Board of
Directors usually consist of a number of personnel trained at Ateneo
and at the U.P. The Review, however, until his death in 1978, was
pretty much under the sole control of its editor, Frank Lynch. In a
tion, high status sociologists at the University of the Philippines av
active participation.3 Factional bitterness and suspicions are
very real. Given such a situation, the accomplishments of the So
and of the Review are doubly remarkable.
It must be emphasized and be reiterated that factionalism in
academic or professional group is not peculiar to the Philip
Sociological Society. It seems endemic to professional associa
in the Philippines and elsewhere. Dr. Carino in her study of profess
in the Philippines observes that there are usually at least two ass
tions competing for the same membership, carrying on similar activ
and attempting to enforce similarly worded codes of ethics
Philippine Sociological Society has avoided this pattern, but it
Carino's observation, "sometimes factions do not break off into diff
ent groups but remain in one association, representing a conti
tension within it." (Carino, 1973, p. 6).
As noted earlier, the Philippine Sociological Society has man
to remain the sole professional association for sociologists in
Philippines despite factional divisions. Presently its member
numbers more than two hundred members. Of course, many ant
pologists, many students, and former active members now abroa
included.4 Nevertheless, with the exception of a handful of sociolog
still resentful of their displacement, practically all sociologists and
anthropologists in the Philippines are actively connected with
society. Its now frequent public lectures tend to draw four hun
or more people to each program.5
The Philippine Sociological Review publishes a total issue6 of 1
copies - of which more than 700 are sent to paid subscribers. It is rig
regarded by many as the most professional of all the professional jou
on the academic disciplines published in the Philippines. Hunt in
provides an interesting content analysis comparison of the Amer
Sociological Review, the Philippine Sociological Review, and
'Particularly those trained by the philosopher, Ricardo Pascual, resent what the
as "foreign sectarians" entrenched in their positions by American funds. Currents of n
alism, anti-clericalism, and Marxism run deep. Social interactions, however is always
but "cool." Given the shortness of their stays and their cultural isolation, most Amer
governmental and private funders are often totally unaware of these social dynamics.
4. See (Hunt, 1978, p. 103, for a 1972 detailed breakdown ot its membership.
5. See Weightman, 1975, pp. 48-49, for a description of such lecture series.
6. It is usually, but not necessarily a quarterly, issues are onen co moinou, uve
more than twenty year history, it has changed its shape and format at least five times. I
combined issues in no fixed pattern, and it is now a year or so behind in publication.
lag creates situations in which articles carry footnotes from publications seemingly b
the quote was made ! However, these problems plague all Philippine journals.
Indian Sociological Bulletin.'1 In terms of subject ma

that the major difference between the ISB and the PSR
on community and ecology in the former and in the so
in the latter. He notes, "This difference may be explain
emphasis on village development in India and the
by what is called the Ateneo school8 to the developmen
concepts applicable to the Philippines." Stressing the
orientation of Philippine research, he reports that only
of the Philippine articles had no empirical data in t
1969 to 1973. (However, his India data is from 1952-6
non empirical data was twenty-five per cent). Significan
almost half (47%) of the articles published in the PS
by foreigners - mainly Americans.
Theoretical Orientations and Limitations

Philippine sociology has primarily not been theoret
Early conflicts among Catholic philosophers and Pr
activists did not encourage such a process. The natu
certainly never has permitted the development of conf
Marxist formulations. In his study of the developm
in the Philippines, Hunt (1978a, pp. 107-108) atte
why Filipino sociologists have not become revolution
However, he neither explains nor even notes the relative
ment of any type of sociological theory. This offspr
sociology displays most of the characteristics of hi
sociology: problem solving, action-oriented empirism
To the extent that there is any prevailing orientation
uated and modified form of functionalism. Essentia
this functionalism seems a dual legacy of decades
subordination to cultural anthropology and of a de
colonial and neo-colonial control. Even the so-called "Ateneo school"
concern for the development of social psychological concepts appli-
cable to the Philippines is but a minor variation on functionalism.
Less explicitly discussed in Philippine sociological literature than
functionalism but at least as important is neo-positivism. There is a
concern for data collection, mathematical analysis, and scientific
precision connected with very little theoretical insights. As P.A.
Sorokin (1956) noted in American; in the Philippines there is an em-
phasis upon "quantophremia." The stress has been on the creation
of technicians rather than theoreticians. Certainly this pattern is in
line with a similar situation in America, but, in "developing" societies
7. Hunt. 1978, a, p. 126-128.

8. Ibid, p. 126
this pattern becomes exaggerated. Preferring to a similar situation in th

Arab World, Edward W. Said (1978) was decried the danger of "und
going a premature technocratization" and has warned that such a
expertise might be harmful.9
Indeed, Robert S. Lynd, in Knowledge for What ? (1939) and Alfred
McClung Lee in Sociology for Whom ? (1978) both warn of a foim
empiricism totally divorced from a concern with social values. Lee
particularly outspoken of the dangers of "dehumanization and techn
cratization" of American sociology.10 Lee goes on to warn, "In doin
the biddings of organizational hierarchies or clients, these soc
scientists aid in the main those with the greatest stakes in plutocratic
control-centralization, in polluting industrial operations, in resour
consumption or destruction of a heedless sort .... "u
Philippine social scientists, especially sociologists, are even mo
vulnerable to such manipulation. Those with doctorates in sociolo
tend to be drawn into high positions in administration and burea
cracy. In government and education the sociologist is often more
bureaucrat or "technocrat" than teacher or even researcher.12
Some Filipino sociologists, generally junior staff members at th
University of the Philippines System, have expressed misgivings about
the dangers of sponsored research, have criticized simplistic empiricism
and have advocated research topics that would give support to tho
attacking "that special relationship" between American and th
Philippines and for those calling for drastic changes in Philippin
society. These views are often expressed in the open discussions of the
public lectures given by the Philippine Sociological Society. Borrowi
the title of an article by Howard Becker, "Whose Side Are We On
(1967), three young sociologists (Cynthia Banzon-Bautista, Randof
S. David, and Laura L. Samson) set forward this position in writin
(1977) five years after the imposition of marital law and the beginning
of the New Society.
Nevertheless, most Filipino sociologists have avoided any ideo-
logical orientation of any kind - especially Marxist. They are critical an
sophisticated enough to be able to recognize what will not be rewarded
9. Said writes, "True we have vast hordes of clever computer specialists and experts m
various industrial techniques, but even in this we are either consumers, or we simply se
the Western market economy, which needs valueless and politically neutral technocr
to run its international conglomerates" (Said, 1978, p. 8).
10. Lee, 1978, p. 81.
11. Ibid, p. 151.
12. In 1975 only one of the eleven Filipinos with doctorates at tne university oi tne
Philippines System was connected to the department of sociology. In a process that Ruben
Santos Cuyugan calls "sociological imperialism." the sociologists had expanded upward
and outward into many administrative positions.
by governmental (American and Philippine) and foun

The student-based demonstrations that swept the G
"college belt" in the late sixties and early seventies wer
coherent analysis of social realities and were witho
contact with Philippine sociologists. Hunt notes w
that when thousands of people suspected of subver
were detained in the first weeks of marital law in
there were no sociologists among them.13
As Luzviminda Francisco, A Filipino Marxist livin
has noted 'in practice American ideological hegemo
seriously challenged at a popular level." (1978, p. 53)
add at the level of the social sciences. Academics from the humanities
and from the physical sciences have "taken to the hills" (as Filipinos
often term "armed resistance") but never any sociologists or anthro-
pologists. A professor of English and a famed story writer like
N.V.M. Gonzales is more likely to read and quote from Frantz
Fanon than are most Filipino sociologists or anthropologists.14
Historically, it is not in the social sciences but in the humanities -
particularly English, History, Philosophy, and Spanish - where the
Filipino intellectual elite has exerted a profound influence upon society.15
Achievements of Philippine Society

Despite its weak theoretical foundations and its perennial problem
of dependency upon limited American financial sponsorship, the
achievements of Philippine sociology have been impressive quanti-
tatively and qualitatively. In sheer numbers there are more and better
trained sociologists in the Philippines than in any other Southeast
Asian country. Indeed, in numbers and quality of performance of its
sociologists, the Philippines compares quite favourably with Asian
nations the size of Japan and India.
The preparation of current Filipinos with doctorates in sociology
and the other social sciences occurred almost entirely in the United
States during the late fifties and the decade of the sixties. As the demand
for trained technicians and high level academicians lessened with a
corresponding decline in subsidized American funding, there has been
a decline in the number of recent doctorates in sociology granted to
Filipinos in America and Europe.
Concurrently there has been a continuing increase in Filipinos
trained to the masters level at the University of the Philippines System,
Ateneo de Manila, Sillman University (Dumaguete, Negros, Oriental),
13. Hunt, 1978a, p. 106.

14. N.V.M. Gonzales, 1973 makes repeated references to Fanon and Sartre.
15. See Weightman, 1970, for a fuller discussion.
Xavier University, (Cagayan de Oro), and University of San Carlos

(Cebu City). Attrition of Filipinos with American doctorates
in the social sciences has occurred through deaths, retirement
but mainly through a "brain drain" or "exchange" to the Unite
States and Canada.16 Most Filipinos in the social sciences now
agree that most sociologists for the future can and must be traine
locally. Costs, inappropriateness of training, and potentialities
migration loses rule out a continuation of previous practices of re
cruitment.
In addition to having established a base for self-generation of its own
cadres of future sociologists, Philippine sociology has achieved its
greatest successes in the applications of research methods to a Filipi
setting, demographic research and sophisticated statistical analysi
In the past, Filipinistas (i.e., Western scholars interested in Philippin
studies) were usually content in their research merely to replicat
previous American studies without much conceptual or methodologic
modifications for the different cultural context. It was upto thei
Filipino junior assistants, informants, and critics to adjust, modify
and develop such techniques like the survey method and participan
observation to the Philippine setting.
In spite of the many problems encountered, the survey method i
now often utilized in the Philippines. Besides academic surveys, the
has been an extensive development of public opinion polls and
market research. Mary Hollnsteiner (1961) and long time Philippin
resident Richard Coller (1960) have offered valuable insights into
problems associated with the application of the survey method to th
Philippine rural scene. The Philippine anthropologist, F. Landa locan
do (1969a, b and 1971) has been very effective in using the participa
observation technique in both the rural "barrio" and the urban "slum".
Sister Marie Donald and others at the Ateneo de Manila have stresse
an hierarchy among the poor of urban Manila. They have mad
outstanding studies of the poor, very poor, and the really destitut
poor.
Chester Hunt (1978 : 139) reports that American funding has
made demographic research and family planning studies the best
supported sub-specialities of sociology in the Philippines. Most Fili-
pino nationalists, leftists, and 'neutralists" resent the cause, but none
would deny the achievements. (Happily, increased funding for demo-
graphic research by the Philippine government may defuse the politi-
cally explosive aspects of such a pattern of dependence on American
sponsorship.) The Population Institute (under the direction of
16. Prominant among these have been Agaton Pal, Mario Zamora, and Anita Go
Beltran.
Mercedes Conception) of the University of the Phil

and the population centers at Xavier University (und
gan) and the University of San Carlos (under Wilhe
been the main loci of research in demography. However
of Philippine Culture at the Ateneo de Manila has
surveys dealing with aspects of social demography.
Dr. Mercedes Concepcion has done considerable rese
size correlated with other social characteristics (Con
and contracts between survey data and registration
cion, 1965). Because of lack of adequate statistics, P
graphers often have to gather most of their own d
Madigan (1972) made a detailed effort to document the
lity, mortality, and migration over a twenty years p
de Oro. Sampling procedures still leave much to be
most effective critics are those engaged in such rese
1973).
Rodolfo A. Bulatao (1975) directed a study on the value of children
to parents in Philippine culture as part of a six country cross study.17
Studies of the results of family planning agencies have not been as
numerous or as successful as one might expect in view of the vast
sums of money expended on them. Political, religious, and other
factors obscure such analysis. Free spending American foundations
pushing family limitations produce more heat than light.
Often overlooked, but of profound importance and of a high level
of sophistication, is Philippine research on migration - both internal
and external. Reversing the usual emphasis upon the "brain drain,"
Dr. Ledivina Y. Carino (1975) made a study of doctros who had chosen
not to migrate. One of the most insightful studies done on migration
was directed by a medical doctor, Dr. Jose Cuyegkeng (1970). Bello,
Lynch, and Makil (1969) in a study traced the brain drain in terms of
the migration of graduates of specific Philippine universities. Many
Filipinos participated with great effectiveness in the East West Center
Conference on Philippine Migration (1975).
Ricardo M. Zarco (1975), C.P. Parei (1975) of the Statistical Center
of the University of the Philippines System, Ledivina V. Carino (1975),
Josefina R. Cortes (1975) are but a few examples of Philippine social
scientists whose use of mathematical analysis can be compared favor-
ably with that done in America. Indeed, at the East-West Center Con-
ference cited earlier, the quality of their papers and the nature of their
presentations by the Philippine participants were usually the superior.
In the realm of social psychology the so called "Ateneo School"
17. The cross-national study covered South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, the Phili-
ppines, and Hawaii.
has been productive of generating much concern with a few k

concepts: Utang Na Loob, hiva, and Pakikasama. The concept o
Utang na Loob was originated by the American anthropologist
Charles Kaut, (1960). Kaut depicted this "debt of gratitude" as opera
tive only in specified social situations. However, because of she
volume of literature and controversy, it tends to be associated with
the "Ateneo School" - Jaime Bulatao (1964, 1968), Frank Lync
(1973), and Mary R. Hollnsteiner.
These concepts have been widely used in the Philippines. The
emphasize "conflict avoidance," a concern with politeness, hosp
tality, and what they call "smooth interpersonal relations."
This famous "S. I.R." has been criticized by those who stress a pan
Malay concern with status, place, and situational relationships. In-
deed, "inferiors" {i.e. those of lesser wealth, status honors and powe
are treated so abruptly, rudely, and with such distain that cynics derid
"S. I. R." as meaning "status insures respect."
The "S. I. R." conceptualization has been criticized because th
works upon which they have been based have many methodologic
weaknesses. Robert Lawless (1966 and 1969) rejected most of these
studies as methodologically unsound, because of poor sampling, us
of unreliable instruments and improper cross-cultural comparison
F. Landa Jocano (1966) totally rejects the notion that Filipinos are
particularly characterized by conflict avoidance. Nevertheless, despi
the merits of the criticism, these concepts of "S. I. R." have had a
considerable impact upon Filipinistas rather than upon Philippi
sociologists.
Primarily the Philippines is an agricultural nation. Consequently
there has been considerable research activity in rural sociology. With the
permanent departure of Agaton Pal (1963 a and b) to the United States,
Gelia Gastillo (1974b and 1975) remains the most outstanding teacher,
researcher, and writer in the field. In addition, the Institute of Philip-
pine Culture has produced a descriptive analysis of the major rural
reform efforts. (Rocamora and Panganiban, 1976). Socorro C.
Espíritu (1964) has done a considerable work on a compilation of
studies on community development. Victoria E. Raffaele (1970)
made a study which analyzed the situation of rural youth.
Of course many other Filipinos have made many contributions to
other aspects of sociology. Indeed, when Hunt (1978) treats of the ac-
complishments of sociology he treats them as little more than course
listings in a college catalogue of sociology: The Family, Demography,
Stratification, Research, Social Psychology etc. This, one feels, reflects
an awareness that the contributions of Philippine sociology so far
reflect an absence of theory with an emphasis upon empiricism very
much in the manner of its progenitor- American Sociolo
Special Problem Areas for Philippine Sociology

Certain features of the Philippine social science c
but not necessarily unique, problems for sociological re
ment. These include: (1) the special relationship of
to the academic environment in the Philippines. (2)
relationship" with foreign researchers, and (3) the pr
introduced in the Philippines since the imposition of
the inauguration of the "New Society" in September 197
Virtually all sociological research in the Philippines is
ed. Hunt (1978 : 109) has observed"
altogether congenial to research." Sociological r

trated in two main centers in Metro Manila {i.e
Philippine Culture at the Ateneo de Manila and t
Philippines System - Philippine Center for Adv
three smaller centers elsewhere in the country {i.e
Xavier University, and the University of San Ca
institutions with their own special problems are
tion of higher education in the Philippines.
In sheer number of colleges and in student
academic institutions plus the few elite Cath
surpassed by the privately owned proprietary scho
schools, which in business fashion operate for
sensitive to the label, "diploma mills." They are
teaching institutions with meager libraries, limited
overworked instructors, and large classes. (See E
et al., 1976).
The teaching load at most proprietary private
four hours. Although that is defined as the "m
twnety-four hours is "part-time." Such part-time i
by the hour.19 (A part time lecturer usually trie
than one school, and, thus, he often copes with
four hours of classes per week.) In one of the be
(the University of the East), the number of studen
courses in an academic year exceeds 8,000. H
only sixty undergraduate majors, and only six
programs in the academic years 1974-75. As one
as a massive concentration in the elementary and in
18. Unable to relate Philippine research to any theoretical

(1975) divided research by institutional centers - chiefly U. P. S
19. Under the best circumstances, a part-time lecturer wou
hour, an assistant, 15-20 pesos, an associate, 20-26 pesos, and a f
Needless to say virtually all such teachers are employed at the lo
The vast number of students in the introductory courses throug

the nation produces a lucrative textbook market. This dem
explains the great competitive interest in writing elementary te
In the past, and to some extent today, academic salaries have b
smaller at the prestige schools than at these proprietary schools. Re
changes at the University of the Philippines System have mod
this situation. Salaries have been raised, both relatively and abs
tely teaching loads have been reduced,20 and research potentia
have been enhanced. In order to compete with the U.P. System
other prestige institutes have been obliged to imitate these patte
Nevertheless, a career in teaching and research is still marked w
many vexations.
Competition for limited research funds (foreign and domest
have pitted these prestige institutions in inter-university and o
intra-univeristy rivalries. Social scientists at Silliman, Xavier, an
Carlos have long resented the paramount positions enjoyed by
Ateneo de Manila and the University of the Philippines System, whi
are both centered in Metro Manila, and the latter two have long
bitter rivals and competitors.
For its small size, the Institute for Philippine Culture (I.P
at Ateneo de Manila has done remarkably well. Recent projects
been funded by the Asia Foundation, UNESCO, the Ford Foundat
AID, U.S. Department of Defence, and various Philippine gov
mental agencies. (The Philippine government funds are for evalu
studies of government projects.) The very achievements of the
in obtaining so much funds have made it the target of co
derable envy and resentment.21 Over the years before his recent de
Frank Lynch built up considerable personal contact and influen
with American governmental agencies, foundations, and academ
institutions. Many Filipinos resented these personal connections w
put them at a disadvantages. They perceived it as a reminder of
recent colonial past and feared that Lynch was to post-independ
sociology what H. Otley Beyer had been to pre-independence so
sciences.
Until recently, lack of coordination and intra-college rivalry put the
University of the Philippines System (U.P.S.) at a further competi-
tive disadvantage with the I.P.C. in sociological research funding,
Virtually none of the U.P.S. staff with doctorates in sociology are
20. Twelve is the maximum, but nine is the most common.

21. It is foolish and almost deliberately misleading to argue as one foundation representa-
tive did with this writer that more American foundation aid is given to the U.P. System than
to the I.P.C. The latter is a small research agency concerned only with socio-anthroppligical
research, the U.P. System is a huge institutional agency engaged in research and teaching
in many disciplines and in quasi-goyernmental administrations.
connected with the university department of sociolo

administrative/teaching functions in the Institute
Institute of Mass Communication, Population Instit
Nursing, College of Public Administration, Rural So
Banos, and the central administration of the univer
separated, they were, and often still are, competitor
coordinated team seeking the limited research funds. Th
Philippine Center for Advanced Studies (PCAS) und
of a trained sociologist, Dr. Ruben Santos Cuyugan, for
nated activities. However, PCAS with its own chancellor
budget became yet just another powerful competitor at
Cuyugan took a leave, and in July 1979 the Centre w
Perennial problems of research at the U.P. System
persist. For long there had been no tradition or
attached to research. Those with advanced degrees
sociology are quickly tapped for jobs in governmen
least for academic administration. Even today, many
colleagues have no commitment or even interest in rese
their only serious, dedicated studies were individuall
doctorates in a foreign (the United States) land. The
experience and motivation for team research in
Perhaps, PCAS could have surmounted these proble
coordinated team research. Perhaps - but local riva
trooped to the foreign foundations with their real or fa
And in the traditions of the past, foreign sponsor
divided.
Until recently - and even now to some extent - much
research, teaching, and academic development have
shaped by American standards of scholarship. In th
and in the post-independence period, a very few A
times for all practical purposes - only one) have de
Filipinos should study what, in which American univ
long, and for what objective. Upon the return o
"pensionados", these same few Americans determin
would teach, what they would teach, and whether they
kind of research.
Of course this was all done in very informal ways in
mize "conflict avoidance" by wheeling and dealing
governmental agencies and private foundations. Su
not unknown in native American "grantsmanship")
22. The relationship of PCAS and of the U.P. central administration

apparatus and personnel of the New Society is too fascinating and com
here.
did not remain always the same Americans. No one is immortal,

political changes back in Washington, D.C. and in the academic w
both in the colonial and neo-colonial periods were not without t
impacts.
Incidently but crucially, those Americans interested in Philippine
studies (i.e., the Filipinistas) were usually dependent upon these
same governmental bureaucrats, foundation officials, and "consult-
ants" for grants, academic placement, promotions, approval of pub-
lications, and still more grants. Consequently, few Filipinistas have ever
spoken out (much less written) against such arrangements which
often offered many advantages to those with the proper academic
and personal connections. (Of course such patterns are so characteris-
tic of the American "academic jungle" that such criticism might have
been thought superfluous. Such criticism certainly would have been
impudent.)
Partly the colonial era domination of the social sciences by H. Otley
Beyer and the post-independence domination of sociology by Frank
Lynch were the results of circumstances beyond their control or
perhaps their desires.23 The shuttle type nature of American govern-
mental and foundation employment in the Philippines left little time
for many to develop long term committments to, knowledge of,
or integration into the local community. One does not have to accept
the "devil theory" of some Filipino critics to recognize that the in-
fluences of Beyer and of Lynch were great and - from the Filipino
perspective - excessive. Upon hearing of the death of Frank Lynch
on September 28, 1978, a prominent Filipinista wrote this writer,
"I cannot conceive of the Philippine social sciences without Lynch."
That is perhaps the greatest tribute and criticism that could be ascribed
to him.
Almost as deadening as the personalistic and financial straitjacket
imposed by the Filipinistas has been the sterile and limited orientation
imposed by an often second-string group of American social scientists.21
Modernization as a process was confused with industrialization,
equated with Westernization, and actually matched with Americaniza-
23. Both these men were conventional anthropologists. In the non-Western world., anthro-
pology has often been an hand maiden for colonialism. It is essentially irrelevant that Beyer
remained an American citizen while Lynch, the Jesuit, became a naturalized Filipinos.
Actually personality factors are also irrelevant. If the old funding practices persist, a new
"big white brother" will emerge to guide the "little brown brothers." Such a dependency
pattern is implicit in the neo-colonial context.
24. Area studies in American universities tend to be subordinated to tne traditional
disciplines. Southeast Asian studies are deemed less prestigeful than Last or South Asian
studies. Philippine studies are viewed as less glamourous than Indonesian studies and
the political clout of Indochinese studies.
tion. When Philippine patterns were ever perceived

American patterns, they were usually regarded (o
quely Philippine and fated to pass away - give
Rarely was an American pattern perceived as un
Nor was there much attempt to relate Philippine
Malay or greater pan-Asian pattern. Indeed, since
definition "Western academics with an interest in
they rarely knew much about other Asian societie
Earlier Filipinistas had lyrically expounded o
American rule for the peasant, pagan, and Moro
Only after it long became obvious that the landed ge
the most from American colonialism, has it now
among Filipinistas to speak of "compadre colonia
how the Philippine traditional elite had "manipula
well-meaning American colonial government.25 Few
that it may have been to the advantage of the c
encourage such manipulation and dependency.
Most political and historic studies by Filipinist
and to explain events by reference to the specif
personalities of American officials and of Phi
This orientation with its concern for detailed studie
duals became so pervasive and exaggerated in the l
sixties that one Filipina social scientist described
as the "Manila telephone book approach" to so
how the American values stressing individual actu
mising of denying group Concerns had been tra
studies".)
In general most American investigators or researchers were
interested in such a "quick score" (i.e., quick findings and quick de-
parture) that they hardly rate the designation, "Filipinista." Only a
very small number of Americans who have obtained grants to the
Philippines and/or have written their dissertations on the Philippines
even bother to register as interested in Philippine studies with the
Association for Asian Studies.
Many Philippine social scientists consider most American research-
ers to be exploitive and neo-colonial. Hunt (1978 : 115) writes "
complaints against foreign scholars have b

Philippines than in other countries." It woul
write "less effective." There is great resentm
belief that is so easier for Americans to get
Philippines than it is for Filipinos.
2S. See Owen, Cullinane, et al. (1971). This is not meant to
represents a great step forward. 'See Constantino (1968) fo
ment of thi< issue.
Often Filipino-American research collaboration involves a patte

of client-patron or even student-teacher regardless of the nature of t
qualifications or tasks of the researchers. Another serious critici
is that the American researcher "mines" the country for data, sh
the data abroad, and publishes the findings without much tangib
benefits for either the Filipino researcher or the Philippine societ
The American belief that such attitudes are held more fervently in
other Asian countries does not dismiss the validity of the Philipp
criticism. If their own society did not train Philippine social scientists
in "conflict avoidance," they certainly would have had to learn it
the American academic world while they studied abroad. They quic
had to learn that for potential American research funders "statu
insures respect" and "respect" insures getting grants.
As noted earlier, the pervasive financial and ideological depen-
dency of Philippine social scientists upon American governmenta
and private agencies for educational advancement and research fun
kept most of them quite aloof from the student agitation and urb
unrest that swept Metro Manila in the late sixties and early sevent
On the U.P. Campus, members of the English, Philosophy^ a
science departments were more given to quoting Marx, Lenin, M
and Fanon than those in the departments of sociology or anthro
pology. Even when student demonstrators seized the main U.P. campus
and burned the little platforms in every class-room that insured t
the head of the instructor would always be higher than those of
students, the social scientists remained detached - if not cool. Fina
order was restred and the little platforms returned.
While it is now becoming quite fashionable to deny it, in Septem
ber 1972 there were few groups who welcomed the imposition of
martial law more than those social scientists who had been trained to
be technocrafts and bureaucrats. Then (late 1972), it was wide
believed that the American embassy and conservative Catholic cler
had known about, if not approved, the imposition of martial law
fore time. Over time things tend to change. Almost as if a barn da
caller had called out a new dance sequence, now the American pre
and officials grumble about rights violations and the Catholic cler
unauthorized protest parades. Now, one is more apt to find "subversiv
literature on the campus of Ateno de Manila than on the camp
of the University of the Philippines. Such extreme reversals
enough to confirm the most cynical and jaded views of those Philippin
social scientists, given to a form of cheerful Philippine fatalism. T
reversal pattern lends itself to much joking among those Philippin
social scientists not beholden to either the old American ideologi
hegemony or the New Society. (Cynicism and secular leftist ideolo
pervade the campus of the main U.P. campus).
The political and economic aspects of the New

directly concern this paper. For, however, oppressiv
rule by Presidential decree might be, it has been th
paper that social science research was not free even bef
tion of martial law. Prior to the New Society, socia
virtually dependent upon American funding. Now
increasingly dependent upon Philippine government
the nationalistic perspective, this, at least, is a step f
the more ambivalent attitude toward the New Soci
intellectuals and the more hostile sentiments now articulated on the
campus of the Ateneo de Manila).
Barring a complete return to the discredited "Old Society" (which
none but a few rich refugees and some Filipinistas seem to desire),
one can expect that the New Society and any regime which succeeds
it will never again permit such complete financial and ideological
domination of Philippine sociology by foreigners. Whatever Filipi-
nistas and their Filipino retainers now feel, such a pattern of develop-
ment seems desirable and virtually inevitable. Old dependents may not
always be happy or the most accurate judges.26
Conclusions
Philippine sociology emerged in the early twentieth century an

managed to survive the very cross-currents which had helped cre
it. However, the strains from its early beginning have continued
plague it despite its continued growth. Its rapid development in th
past two decades in the area of empirical research while it remain
weak in theory contributed to an exaggerated pattern of "prematu
technocratization." This pattern has been observed in other develo
ing societies, but in the Philippines the prolonged subordination
American colonialism and later neo-colonialism intensified the. pr
cess. Bureaucrats and technocrats were produced more often than
social scientists.
The nature of American funding and training served to perpetua
dependency and to encourage factionalism. In turn, this persistance of
dependency and personalistic rivalries would then be cited as justi
cation for the need of continued American supervision and contro
Patterns copied from the model of American sociology were impos
26. This writer at a reception in late 1978 in New York City given by a private Americ
foundation heard some American-subsidized Filipino academic "junketeers" decry th
facts that the U.P. undergraduate course in comparative government now deals w
Asian neighbouring states rather than with America and that there now are as many no
American literature courses as there are courses in American literature. Such complaints
after years of colonialism and neo-colonialism, sound like welcomed news.
upon a society which did not need them and could not afford them
This continues as a current problem not as mere relic of the past
despite Pollyanna denials by those who ought to know better.
Pious affirmations notwithstanding, the attitudes of any American
officials, funders, and researchers have often been exploitive.
patronizing distain for Filipinos has often characterized the behavi
of many Filipinistas. Philippine sociology was often utilized as a ha
mainden for the advancement of American entrepreneurs. At bes
the Filipinos were often perceived as "little brown brothers" to b
guided and prepared for service. At worst, they were seen as me
carrion for "birds of prey." Critical American descriptions are di
missed as "personalistic", non-objective, or as referring so the pa
Such an interpretation is reenforced by a near total denial or ignoring
of any Filipino criticism that support such an appraisal. When on
Filipino critiques are even noted, they are explained away as polem
cal, Marxist, or mere "sour grapes". The devastating appraisal
Randolf S. David of the continuing captivity of all Philippine soc
sciences in Filipino (1977) has neither been answered or even acknow
ledged by Filipinistas or Philippine technocrats in the social scienc
Renalto and Letizia Constantino well summarized the neo-colonia
legacy upon all Philippine intellectual life when they wrote: (1978 : 335
"Of greater importance were the numerous scholarship grants an
fellowships from the U.S. government and private American found
tions which enabled talented Filipino students to study in the Unit
States and become fully oriented to the 'American way of life'. T
graduates of such programs became not only latter day Thomasit
propagating the American gospel but also and more importantly, t
committed to the American world view."
This writer would like to conclude by reaffirming a position h
previously stated. (Weightman, 1978 : 179).
"Aside from the politico-economic distortions imposed by American
guidance, direction, and control, Philippine sociology still fin
itself trying to escape from the intellectual straitjacket which sees
idealized American modern urban society as the sole model towar
which the Philippines is perceived as approaching, departing,
deviating. Certainly Malay or pan-Asian models would be mor
sensible and productive."
Political changes, time, pan-Asian currents, and the dynami
implicit in all developing societies may, hopefully, undermine th
intellectual, psychological and economic legacies of American neo
colonialism. The process- only beginning- still has a long way to g
REFERENCES
Banzon-Bautista, С., David, R.S., and Samson, L.L.

1977 Whose Side Are We Onl
The Sociologist in Contemporary Philippine Society. Cited in U.P. Newsletter 6.
Baradas, David B.
1973 "Ambiguities in Maranao Social Rank Differentiation," Philippine Sociological
Review , 21, Nos. 3 and 4, 273-279.
Becker
1967 "Whose Side Are We On?, Social Problems . 14 : 239-247.
Bello, W.R., Lynch, F. and Makil, P.O.
1969 "Brain Drain in the Philippines." in Modernization in the Philippines IV, I. P.C.
Papers No. 7. pp. 92-142. Quezon City. Ateneo de Manila Press.
Bulatao, Jaime
1964 "Hiya", Philippine Studies 12 : 424-438.
Bulatao, Rodolfo A.
1975 The Value of Children : Philippines , Hawaii. East- West Population Institute,
East- West Center.
Carino, Ledivina V.
1 973 The Role of the Professions in Philippine National Development; College of Public
Administration, University of the Philippines, (Mimeo)
1975 Why Doctors Don't Leave , Paper read at Conference on International Migration
from the Philippines, Honolulu, East- West Center.
Casino, Eric S.
1967 "Folk Islam in the Life Cycle of Jama Mapun." Philippine Sociological Review ,
15:34-38.
1976 The Jama Mapun , A Changing Samal Society in the Southern Philippines ,
Quezon City. Ateneo de Manila University Press.
Castillo, Gelia
1974 "The Dialogue between Social Sciences, Research, Policy and Action." Social
Science Information 2 : 4-6.
Coller, Richard W.
1960 Barrio Gacao : A Study of Village Ecology and the Schistosomiasis Problem .
Quezon City : Community Development Council. Reprinted in Espiritu and
Hunt (1964) : 642-651.
Conception, Mercedes
1964 "Some Socioeconomic Correlates of Completed Family Size." Philippine So-
ciological Review , 12 : 16-26.
1965 "Under-registration and Estimation of Births in a Philippine Municipality."
Philippine Sociological Review 13 : 227-231.
Constantino, Renato.
(prior to 1977e reference History of the Philippines )
1967 "Origin of a Myth", Graphic, April 17, 1968, reprinted by Erehwon, Manila,
Makati.
1968 The Making of a Filipino : A Story of Philippine Colonial Politics Malaya Books,
Quezon City.
1969 Veneration Without Understanding , Third National Rizal, Lecture, December
30, 1969. Reprinted by Erehwon, Manila, Makati.
1974 Identity and Consciousness: The Philippine Experience , Malaya Books, Quezon
City.
1977a A History of the Philippines : From the Spnaish Colonialization to the Second
World War , New York Monthly Review Press.
1977b "Westernizing Factors in the Philippines International Congress of Нипйш
60 INTERNATIONA L REVIEW OF MODERN SOCIOLOGY
Sciences in Asia and North Africa Mexico City, August 3-8, 1976. Reprint
by Erehwon Bookshop, Manila.
1978 The Philippines : The Continuing Part (coauthored by Letizia R. Constantin
Foundation for Nationalist Studies, Quezon City.
Cortes, Jossfina A.
1975 Correlates of Migration of Scientists Engineers and other Professionals fr
the Philippines to the U.S.A. Paper read at Conference on International mig
tion from the Philippines Honolulu. East-West Center.
Covar, Prospero
1973 "A Perspective on Revitalizai ion " Philippino Sociological Review 21 No.
283-287.
Cuyegkeng Jose
1970 "The Migration of Philippine Medical Graduates - Its Magnitude causes and
Solution." Paper read
- , International Macy Conference on Development, Migration and Medical
Manpower, Bellagio, Italy, October 1970.
Randolf S. David
1977 Ang Pagkagapos ng Agham , Panlipunang Pilipino (The capitivity of Philip
Social Sciences). UIAT ng Ikalawang Pambansang Kumpzrensya sa Sikolo
huyang Pilipino , pp. 93-100.
Espíritu Socorro and Hunt, C.L. (eds.)
1964 Social Foundations of Community Development : Readings on the Philippin
Manila Garcia Press.
Espiritu Socorro Hollnsteiner M.R.
et al.
1976 Sociology in the New Philippine Setting Manila Alemar-Phoenix Press.
Flieger Wilhelm and Smith P.C.
1975 A Demographic Path to Modernity : Patterns of Early Transition in the Phil
pines. Quezon City.
Population Institute of the University of the Philippines.
Fancisco Luzviminda
1978 "A Landmark work on the Philippines." A review of A History of the Philippines
by Renato Constantino. Monthly Review Vol. 30 No. 6 52-53.
Gonzalez N.V.M.
1973 "Moving on: A Filipino in the World" Foreign Values and Southeast Asian
Scholarship ed. by Joseph Fischer Research Monograph No." University of
California Berkeley 123-157.
Hollnsteiner Mary R.
1961 "Filipino Hospitality and the Hija Complex as Bias Factors in Research
Methodology," Reprinted in Espiritu and Hunt (1964): 652-654.
1974 "Social Sciences 1974 " Paper presented at the Science Forum of the Society
for the Advancement of Research NSDB. Science Pavillion April 22 1974.
Hunt Chester L. and Dizon D.
1978 "The Development of Philippine Sociology." Chapter II in Philippine Studies :
History , Sociology , Mass Media and Bibliography Northern Illinois University
98-232.
Hunt Chester L.
19786 "Reminiscences of an Early Fulbrighter; Philippine Studies Newsletter VII
No. 1 November 2-5.
Jocano F. Landa
1966 "Rethinking Smooth Interpersonal Relations." Philippine Sociological Review
14 : 287-291 .
1969 a The Traditional World of Malitbog. Quezon City Community De

Records Council.
1969 b Growing Up in A Philippine Barrio. New York Holt. Rhinehart and Winston.
1971 "Slum and Female Devients." Solidarity 6 : 28-41
Kaut, Charles
1961 "Utang-na-loob : A System of Contractual Obligations among Tagalogs."
Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 18 : 265-272.
Lawless, Robert.
1966 "A Comparative Analysis of Two Studies of Utang na Loob." Philippine
Sociological Review. 14 : 168-172.
1969 An Evaluation of Philippine Culture-Personality Research , Monograph Series
No. 3, Diliman : Asian Center, University of the Philippines, University of the
Phillippines Press.
Lee, Alfred McClung
1978 " Sociology for Whom ? New York, Oxford University Press.
Lynd, R.S.
1939 Knowledge for What ? Princeton, Princeton University Press.
Madigan, Francis C.
1972 Birth and Death in Cagayan de Oro : Population Dynamics in a Medium Sized
Philippine City. Quezon City, Ateneo de Manila University Press.
1973 "Birth and Death Rates from a Dual-Records System in the Philippines."
Philippine Sociological Review , 21 : 192-197.
Owen, Norman G. (ed).
1971 Compadre Colonialism: Studies in the Philippines Under American Rule. Michi-
gan Papers on South and Southeast Asia, No. 3, Ann Arbor, University of
Michigan.
Pal, Agaton
1956a "A Philippine Barrio: A Study of Social Organization in Relation to Planned
Cultural Change. The University of Manila Journal of East Asiatic Studies ,
5 : 333-486.
1956b "The People's Conception of the World," The University of Manila Journal
of East Asiatic Studies. 5 : 449-453. Reprinted in Espíritu and Hunt (1964);
390-398.
Parel, C.P.
1975 Foreign Trained Professionals in the Philippines , Paper read at Conference on
International Migration from the Philippines, Honolulu, East-West Center.
Raffaele, Victoria E.
1970 "A Study of Manpower and Employment of Youth in the Philippines." Develop-
ment Forum 2 : 19-33.
Rocamora, Eliseo and Panganiban, C.C.
1976 Rural Development Strategies: The Final Report , Quezon City, Institute of
Philippine Culture, (mimeo.)
Said, Edward
1978 "The Arab Right Wing," Information Paper No. 21, A.A.U.G. Reaction and
Counterrevolution in the Contemporary Arab World , 1-7.
Sorokin, P.A.
1956 Fads And Foibles in Modern Sociology and Related Sciences Chicago, Regnery
Press.
Weightman, George H.
1970 "The Philippine Intellectual Elite in the Post Independence Period" Solidarity ,
: V, No. 1., Jan., 24-31.
1975 "Sociology in the Philippines." Solidarity , Vol. 9, No. 7, Sept.-Oct., 43-58.
1978 "Comments on the Chapter on Sociology"; Philippine Studies History , Sociolog

Mass Media and Bibliography , Northern Illinois University, 178-179.
Wickberg, Edgar
1965 The Chinese in Philippine Life, 1950-1898. New Haven, Yale University Pr
Zarco, Ricardo M.
1975 Two Research Monographs Drug Abuse in the Philippines. Manila, Governme
Printing Office.

Dependency Theory 3

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Dependency Theory 3

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

International Journals

SOCIOLOGY IN THE PHILIPPINES

International Review of Modern Sociology 1987, Vol. 17 (Spring) : 35

Early Philippine sociology emerged out of a not too thor

Any discussion of the development and present status of soc

and institutional connections in the Philippines, differences in th

Cultural Context for Past Development

analogy of the impact of the Spanish language

linked to American markets led to a rapid if superficial America

History of Philippine Sociology

tried to explain the "slowness" of development thu

some, but the results were often intellectually deadening

What with the religious controversies and the tradi

share power. They seemed not to grasp the obvious problems

dependent upon American governmental and foundation

Indian Sociological Bulletin.'1 In terms of subject ma

Theoretical Orientations and Limitations

7. Hunt. 1978, a, p. 126-128.

this pattern becomes exaggerated. Preferring to a similar situation in th

by governmental (American and Philippine) and foun

Achievements of Philippine Society

13. Hunt, 1978a, p. 106.

Xavier University, (Cagayan de Oro), and University of San Carlos

Mercedes Conception) of the University of the Phil

has been productive of generating much concern with a few k

much in the manner of its progenitor- American Sociolo

Special Problem Areas for Philippine Sociology

altogether congenial to research." Sociological r

18. Unable to relate Philippine research to any theoretical

The vast number of students in the introductory courses throug

20. Twelve is the maximum, but nine is the most common.

connected with the university department of sociolo

22. The relationship of PCAS and of the U.P. central administration

did not remain always the same Americans. No one is immortal,

tion. When Philippine patterns were ever perceived

complaints against foreign scholars have b

Often Filipino-American research collaboration involves a patte

The political and economic aspects of the New

Philippine sociology emerged in the early twentieth century an

Banzon-Bautista, С., David, R.S., and Samson, L.L.

1969 a The Traditional World of Malitbog. Quezon City Community De

1978 "Comments on the Chapter on Sociology"; Philippine Studies History , Sociolog

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi