Compare and contrast the portraits of the pre-colonial Philippines, up

through the time of the early Spanish voyages (to 1565), presented by Scott
(“Filipino-Spanish Face to Face Contacts”), Junker, and Constantino. In
particular, explain the ways in which these scholars agree or disagree about
the complexity of the pre-colonial economy and the character of social
stratification and slavery. Evaluate their use of evidence and reasoning.
Which author(s) do you find most convincing? Explain why.

In light of the scope and length of the proposition, the theme will reflect on
the larger questions of social stratification and the idea of slavery.
Stratification is a complex idea to explore because of the polar frameworks
constructed by Constantino and Junker. It can be argued that Constantino
presented a more thorough analysis relying on methodologies rooted in the
realities of pre contact Philippines, while Junker's arguments are tainted
through the prism of spanish cultural hegemony that are historiographically
negligent, or misrepresentative at best. The very definition of slavery is
sensitive, specifically in context of the Philipines, which has a long and
arduous past with the word that it is not so keen to acknowledge. Slavery, it
shall be argued, in conjungtion with Constatino that it is a misnomer as an
institution, benign and non exploitative. The elements of exploitation is only
introduced to the Philippines by the Spanish and is a foreign import absent
from the economic and social values of pre colonial times.

Constantino argues that the barangays were societies in levels of transition

that ranged from primitive communal state to an Asiatic form of feudalism in
the Muslim South. He adds that from the least developed to the most
complex systems, were beginning to show signs of social stratification,
however not very rigid, which were a result of a post-communal
development. He notes that there was no artisan class and that most of the
inhabitants were self sufficient farmers, who also were part time craftsmen.
All made their own ornaments but the chiefs displayed a wider and more
valuable collection of trinkets. There was no separate group of literati in the
barangay although many individuals in the more advanced communities
could read and write. Constantino agrees with Horacio de la Costa that the
writing was mere a tool for sending messages, therefore indicating a low
level of technology and labor. Constatino quotes a passage from Legazpi to
contrast the perspective of a class society participant who could not
understand why systematic exploitation was not widespread. Legazpi did not
understand that the accumulation of wealth was not their primary purpose,
their concern was with living within their means. This becomes an important
concept later on, as Junker makes the argument that wealth was important
to them when it was not.

Constantino makes an important observation regarding the village chief as

not being an absolute ruler, but a farmer who exercised executive, judicial
and military functions as necessary. The chief gained his position initially by
valor and prowess, as those were essential to the survival of the community;
later it became more common practice to inherit the position, however if the
chief is not strong enough, other powerful kinship groups would likely take
over. He also discusses the role of freemen who assisted the chief in chores
that involved the welfare of the community such as rowing when the chief
was at sea and going to battle, while sometimes planting his field and
building his house. Even when they personally helped the chief, it was more
a token of appreciation for the services rendered by the chief to the larger
group. In essence, the duties and services of the chief were interconnected
with those below him and thats what made the system of reciprocity work
well for them. Constantino tackles slavery as having being misunderstood;
he defines the dependent class as "debt peons" who fell into dependence as
a result of being born to a dependent, being captured in battle or by failing
to pay a private debt or a legal fine. Those who committed crimes or were in
straitened circumstances also borrowed and became dependents. But unlike
the European experience, Constantino argues that the peonage was not
permanent and that release from dependence from possible by paying off
the debt. Thus the relative ease of manumission reflected the fluidity of
status dependent to commoner.

Loans were made with usurious terms because the exchange was made with
rice surplus, which could have been used to double the production in
harvest, thus to better represent the risk and sacrifice of the transaction, the
interest rate would reflect double the principal. He concludes that
stratification was not a rigid idea, as chiefs could be deposed, freemen and
members of chief's families could become dependent and debt peons could
become freemen once their debt is paid . Moreover, the dependence
underwent a form of servitude that was generally benign. Since there was
little wealth to mark differences, class status could not be expressed much.
In referencing Victor Clark, Constantino continues that the institution of debt
peonage cannot be equated to slavery as it existed in Europe. The domestic
slaves of the Moros were usually to be quite contented with their lot, and
would probably consider emancipation a hardship. Their duties are not
heavy, were in equal footing socially and were considered as minor sons
than slaves. The Moros did not regard slaves as wealth producers so much as
insignia of honor. Point also to be noted that the early Spanish chroniclers
were actually not describing pre-Spanish societies but those they came in
contact with several decades after Spanish occupation.

Junker is essentially parroting the earlier spanish chroniclers, who have

grossly misrepresented the social relations of the indigenous population. He
starts off by saying there is a well developed system of social stratification in
sixteenth-century lowland societies. He defines hereditary chiefs and his
small core of supporters as having birthright aristocracy or "elite" stratum.
Although chiefs did inherit responsibilities, the chief could just as well be
thrown out of power and his role certainly does not encourage elitism, as
much as it does service. Junker seems to have little reflection on the local
customs and reciprocity that was prevalent in the population, that the chiefs
and his supporters were serving the common good rather than the Euro
centric aristocratic model. He further misrepresents the chief in his narrow
definition as an political authority, war leader, judge and owner (?) of
agricultural products. As if the notion of private property was a common
theme of the time, he further extrapolates that the chief received
tributes/taxes, and requested services from agricultural labor, expeditions
and elite constructions. Its puzzling how many times Junker relies on the
words: elite, nobility, wealth, high status and chiefly--to convey his ill fated
argument. He seems to have little understanding of how a sustainable
economy does not create a exploitative class of his so-called "elites" who
generate income from "non-elite" for his ability to create "wealth". He seems
to be talking of a time far removed from the history he claims to represent,
yet presents as evidence chronicles they were themselves created as a post
response to colonization, not as the society originally functioned.

Junker's treatment of social hierarchy is troubling at best. He mentions that

intermarriage was not allowed for commoners with the elite, which
contradicts Constantino's account of master and dependent eating with each
other at the same table and marrying into the family of the master. Junker
mentions that the spanish notes claim of bodily ornamentation, as
representative of social class. Constantino argued that the difference in
clothing between the commoner and the chief were minimal; the chief would
sew his own cloth and the accounts of Diego de Artiega in 1567 suggest that
clothing was a huge problem in the island, made of wild banana leaves,
which are also scarce. So how can the eyewitness accounts of a ship captain
suffering from a great lack of clothing be matched with accounts written
much later by other writers of ornaments and jewelry worn by the locals be
taken without reservations? Junker's places slavery as a rigid, crude and
mandatory subordination exercise that does not fit well with the fluid identity
politics that Constantino imagined. Junker is stubborn with the idea of a
hereditary ranking system, and cites as his principal example, research
conducted by Alexander Spoehr, which shows larger size homes and
internally more complex structures than a commoner's home. He also cites
an example of certain ceramics that were imported as what he describes as
"socially restricted high-status goods". The connection between goods and
homes is unclear as he himself concludes that regional settlement studies
are poorly developed in the Philippines. Constantino had said that the
commoners would render services and gifts to establish a relationship with
someone superior, and that would also entail building a more elaborate
home by the freemen for the chief. That does not help establish an elite
culture, as expressed in the mind of Junker and the spanish authors who are
merely reverting to familiar European structures to pigeonhole unexplored
communitarianism.
In the end it is not a matter of which author is more convincing, rather which
author uses proper methodologies, reliable sources and synthesis of
information to come to reasonable conclusions. Junker might have been
distracted by spanish sources that do not comprehensively support the
evidence of historic Philippines, and the ideas he concludes from the little
research he cites is trivial to his original argument. By default, Constantino
creates a clearer, more unified idea of a sustainable economy of pre contact
Philippines that is consistent with what we know about the ideas of slavery
and stratification in the Philippines.