Conversations on Sociology and Anthropology: Divergences and Intersections

CONVERSATIONS ON SOCIOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY: DIVERGENCES AND INTERSECTIONS This forum is the kick-off event of the commemoration of the centennial of the former UP Department of Anthropology and Sociology in UP Diliman

ABSTRACT 2021 marks the centennial of the founding at the University of the Philippines of the Department of Anthropology and Sociology. The two disciplines eventually became two separate departments in 1956-the Department of Anthropology and the Department of Sociology-and pursued diverging and intersecting paths in advancing the social sciences. To commemorate their joint institutional history, the two departments came together to organize three major activities in the year-long celebration: 1) a panel discussion on disciplinal divergences and convergences spearheaded by the Department of Sociology, 2) an online exhibit on the institutional history of the joint department spearheaded by the Department of Anthropology which is available for viewing from October 2021 to February 2022, and 3) a joint academic conference on the history and trajectory of anthropology and sociology in the Philippines to be held in March 2022.

The panel discussion entitled “Conversations on Anthropology and Sociology: Divergences and Intersections,”was held on July 16, 2021 and served as the kick-off event of the year-long commemoration. This event provided a forum for sociologists, anthropologists, and other scholars to reflect on the achievements, struggles, and evolution of the two disciplines as well as to discuss possible directions in the coming years.

Invited to the forum are prominent sociologists and an anthropologist who studied and eventually taught at said departments: Professor Emeritus Randolf S. David, Prof. Belen Tan-Gatue Medina, and Prof. Mary Racelis. During the forum, these scholars highlighted how both anthropology and sociology in UP have significantly changed from the 1950s and 1960s to the present.

Conversations on Anthropology and Sociology

1

In the past, they noted, both disciplines were heavily “western-oriented” or “Americanized”: not only were the dominant theoretical perspectives used for answering questions mainly imported from the US or Europe, the very questions anthropologists and sociologists were posing were mainly questions American or European scholars were posing to make sense of their respective societies. Fortunately, however, according to the speakers, this changed in the ensuing decades: UP-based anthropologists and sociologists not only began developing concepts and frameworks that were more grounded in the local situation, they also eventually started carrying out scholarly projects motivated by homegrown concerns or interests. Despite this, the speakers stressed, the challenge remains.

Anthropologists and sociologists in UP still struggle to assert their autonomy from powerful Western or northern orientations and they also still struggle to develop their own epistemic lens and categories. As for how sociology and anthropology could further develop in the country, speakers differed in their specific recommendations. David, for one, opined that scholars should rethink the way theory is used in the pursuit of research. Concerned that it could get in the way of analysis, he suggested that researchers should first “forget” about theory when they embark on their research projects—or at least find ways to not allow theory to “hamper” full understanding of reality.

All speakers nevertheless agreed with the need for continued research and for what Racelis called “engaged” scholarship—a task that requires continuing to critique the theoretical apparatuses and the underlying political and ethical assumptions that inform our study of society.

Panelists: Prof. Belen T.G. Medina Retired Professor UP Diliman Department of Sociology Prof. Mary Racelis Professorial Lecturer UP Diliman Department of Anthropology Prof. Randy David Professor Emeritus UP Diliman Department of Sociology Hosts: Athena Charrane Presto Frances Mae Ramos 2

[Start of Recording] 00:06 PRESTO, Ash: Good afternoon, everyone! I am Athena Charrane, or Ash Presto, an instructor at the Department of Sociology, and I will be one of your hosts for today.

00:14 RAMOS, France Mae: Good afternoon, I am Frances Mae Ramos, from the Department of Anthropology. I will also be hosting alongside Athena.

00:21 PRESTO: Thank you very much for being with us today! We are also live on the Sociology Department and Anthropology Departments’ Facebook Pages. So, here’s a huge shoutout to those who are tuned in on Facebook today!

00:33 RAMOS: Thank you for joining us, but before we start, may we just state a few reminders. First, kindly indicate your name and organization in your Zoom profile.

00:44 PRESTO: Second, please keep your microphones muted at all times.

00:50 RAMOS: Please be aware that the speakers and the organizers are recording this session and this recording may be made available for public viewings.

00:58 PRESTO: Please feel free to also share your comments and questions, even as in-session and the discussion is ongoing, through the Zoom chat box and Facebook comment section.

01:07 RAMOS: And lastly, please share your comments and insights from the forum using the hashtags #SocioProgresibo, #AnthroMakatao. Kindly set your posts to public so we can share them on our social media pages.

01:24 PRESTO: This 2021 both the Departments of Anthropology and Sociology are celebrating the centennial of their institutionalization [as an] academic unit in [the University of the Philippines] UP Diliman. Initially housed under one department—known as the Department of Anthropology and Sociology—the two disciplines formally separated in 1956 after three decades of being a single unit.

Conversations on Anthropology and Sociology

3

01:49 PRESTO: With the theme Anthropology and Sociology: Divergences and Intersections this forum is among the events lined up for our centennial celebration. Recognizing the shared history of Anthropology and Sociology, and the collaboration of the two academic disciplines up to this day, this forum will include a rundown, their achievements and struggles, as well as lessons from their shared and individual past.

02:16 PRESTO: To formally open the forum, may we call on Dr. Maria Bernadette Abrera, the dean of the College of Social Sciences and Philosophy, to deliver her opening remarks.

[Dr. Maria Bernadette Abrera’s Opening Remarks] 02:26 ABRERA, Maria Bernadettte: Magandang hapon po sa inyong lahat! Sa mga tagapangulo ng departamento ng Anthropolohiya, Dr Carlos Tatel Jr., at ng Deparamento ng Sosyolohiya, Professor Josephine Dionisio.

Sa mga kaguro mula sa mga departamentong ito at as buong kolehiyo, at sa mga natatanging panauhin ng pagbubukas ng program sa pagdiriwang ng sentenaryo ng department Antrhropolohiya-Sosyolohiya.

One hundred years in the life of an individual is a long time by current standards but in the life of an institution, it is only the beginning years.

Institutional histories usually label this stage as the period of establishment and growth.

The Department of Anthrolopogy, of course, had already marked its centenary in 2017. A 1957 article on the development on sociology in the Philippines indicated that the first course in sociology in UP was offered in 1911 but due to a lack of facilities and instructors, sociology was first organized as a section under the Department of Anthropology before it finally came into its own after the war.

The course in General Anthropology was actually taught in UP in 1914, three years after the Sociology course. But Henry Otley Beyer, as professor of Anthrology and Ethnology in UP—due to his influence—the Anthroplogy department was first founded under his chairmanship.

The university, of course, recognizes its origins in the American Colonial Period, which dominated its theoretical and methodological orientations. But the disciplines, the social sciences in particular, have made tremendous leaps especially with the various nationalist turns since the late 1960s.

It was in 2011, during the sesquicentennial celebration of Rizal’s birth anniversary, that I heard a Malaysian scholar say that he considered Rizal as the Father of Philippine Sociology because of the essay The Indolence of the Filipinos. He said this analysis utilized a sociological perspective. For this 4

launching activity of the Anthro-Socio Centenial, we are most fortunate and grateful for the participation of renowned professors from the discipline —Mary Racelis, Belen Medina, and Randy David—who will begin the conversations on the departments and their disciplines using the theme Divergences and Intersections.

Thank you to our guests. And to the departments of Anthropology and Sociology, congratulations!

06:01 PRESTO: Thank you very much po, Dean Abrera, and now, may we call on the chairpersons of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology for a short message. May we first hear from Professor Josephine Dionisio from the Department of Sociology.

[Short message from Prof. Josephine Dionisio and Prof. Carlos Tatel Jr.] 06:16 DIONISIO, Josephine: Maraming salamat, Ash. Magandangmagandang hapon po sa inyong lahat, lalo na po sa ating mahal na dekanong Abrera at sa ating mga pinagpipitagan na mga tagapagsalita ngayong hapon.

Natutuwa po ako na mayroon tayong mga panauhin sa ngayong hapon na maituturing na mga batikang sosyolohista at anthropolohista. Ganoon din namang nakikita kong kasama natin ngayong hapon ang ilang mga bata pang estudyante.

Let me just say a few words to welcome all of you this afternoon. Most of our departments’ founding faculty, from the discipline of anthropology and sociology, have already retired and some of them are already gone. A generation of notable Filipino sociologists and anthropologists is passing on the challenge of an anthropological and sociological imagination to a new generation of scholars. So, there is really a need for recollection of collective memory that could document our institutional history and our contribution to society.

The wisdom of our more senior faculty members and alumni need to be recorded as a precious part of our oral history. These are sources of inspiration and guidance for future generations of sociologists, anthropologists, and social scientists in general in UP (and not only in UP Diliman).

By critically examining our institutional history, we would be able to map out our institutional direction from a better vantage point. This centenial commemoration is our modest way of identifying the different ways through which our disciplines could continue to contribute to nation-building and the development of a critical practice. Maganda po ang porma natin ngayong hapon dahil ito ay nasa porma ng pagkukwentuhan, tanungan, at sagutan sa pagitan ng iba’t ibang henerasyon ng mga sosyolohista at anthropolohista.

Conversations on Anthropology and Sociology

5

Muli, magandang hapon po sa inyong lahat at maraming-maraming salamat sa inyong pagdalo.

09:01 RAMOS: Thank you, Chair Dionisio. May we also hear from Prof.

Carlos Tatel Jr. of the Department of Anthropology.

09:19 TATEL, Carlos Jr.: It is my pleasure to welcome you all, alongside Chair Jo Dionisio, and Dean Dette Abrera, to the kick-off celebrations of the centennial of the joint history of Anthropology and Sociology departments of the University.

Rarely has this shared history of the two disciplines been invoked in recent years, given the independent directions each department has taken. So, today we remember the pre-war Department of Anthropology and Sociology headed by H. Otley Beyer. The divergences the poster brings up are basic: the departments have their own set of faculty members and their own curriculum.

Today, we look back on those intersections, the time when we both shared a roof and curriculum—when our topical interests were more or less fused.

This commemoration 2021 is an opportunity to look at this period when Anthro and Socio shared not only a common institutional space but also grew alongside one another. But, it is growth, also that led us to cleave, as each department pursued theoretical orientations and teaching methods reflecting the priorities in their respective disciplines. Most of us would agree that we all are better for this separation. We acknowledge that our divergent tracks allow our studentry today to explore our respective epistemological pathways.

Anthro, for example, at one point, focused on race and evolution studies.

Socio, another, focused on social problems. However, we have not completely forgotten the intersections in moving forward. Socio-Anthro, or AnthroSocio, is the most widespread or popular arrangement or framework in the entire country, suggesting traditional and old ties with one another.

Join us, then, in celebrating these intersections for an entire year through three main activities, jointly organized by the two departments.

Thank you and congratulations to both departments.

11:46 PRESTO: Thank you so much po, Prof. Tatel. Now, without further ado, allow us to introduce our distinguished panel members for this afternoon.

Our first panel member is Prof. Randy David, an emeritus professor at the University of the Philippines Diliman, Department of Sociology, and also former Director of the Third-World Studies Program. He was a student of the UP Dept. of Sociology from 1963-1968.

12:16 DAVID, Randy: Hello, thank you.

6

12:22 PRESTO: Our second panel member is Prof. Belen Tan-Gatue Medina. Prof. Medina obtained her B.A cum laude and M.A degrees from the University of the Philippines, where she majored in Sociology. After which, she took postgraduate courses in Sociology, Anthropology, and Southeast Asian Studies at Cornell University as a Fulbright Scholar. She is a founding member and recognized honorary member of the Philippine Sociological Society, and also member-emeritus of the National Research Council of the Philippines.

12:58 RAMOS: Our last panel member is Prof. Mary Racelis. Prof. Racelis is a research scientist and is [a] former director of the Institute of Philippine Culture, School of Sciences, [at the] Ateneo de Manila University. She is [a] senior professorial lecturer at the Ateneo Department of Sociology and Anthropology. She is also a senior professorial lecturer at the University of the Philippines, Department of Anthropology. Prof. Racelis also taught in the UP Department of Sociology from 1997-2000.

13:37 PRESTO: Good afternoon po to our panel members. Now, we start with the questions we have for you po this afternoon.

13:49 RAMOS: Yes, do we proceed to Question 1 now, Ash? Are our panelists ready?

13:55 PRESTO: Yes, go ahead.

13:57 RAMOS: What was Sociology or Anthropology like when you were a student?

[Question: What was Sociology or Anthropology like when you were a student?]

14:09 PRESTO: Maybe we can start with Prof. Belen Medina. I believe she has a quick presentation for us this afternoon.

[Share Screen - Divergences and Intersections: Conversations on Anthropology and Sociology. Prof. Belen T. Medina. July 16, 2021] 14:34 MEDINA, Belen: I’m very happy to share with you my experiences as an undergraduate Sociology student. It was in the first semester of my third year that I took Sociology 11, the introductory course, as one of my social science electives. At that time, the two disciplines of Anthropology Conversations on Anthropology and Sociology

7

and Sociology were combined into the Department of Anthropology and Sociology which had only two faculty members–both anthropologists, Prof.

Marcelo Tangco and Prof. John De Young. I took the Sociology 11 section being handled by Prof. Marcelo Tangco. I did not know what Sociology was all about at first because there was nothing like that in high school, but I found the course very interesting and I liked it so much. In spite of the fact that I got a grade of only 2.25, my lowest compared to my other courses, where I got 1.0’s and 1.5’s, I decided to make Sociology my major because I like the subject matter: family, community, society, etc.

Soon after, on the second semester, the Board of Regents approved to separate the two disciplines, Anthropology and Sociology, upon the recommendation of Prof. De Young, who was then the chair, on the ground that there was a big demand for higher Sociology courses and a Sociology majors program. Prof. De Young also recommended the addition of social welfare courses to pioneer in this field which was not offered in any university in the country. Thus the new department became the Department of Sociology and Social Welfare. The Department of Anthropology stood by itself alone with Prof. Tangco as chair. Before the split of the two disciplines, the Department of Anthropology and Sociology offered a double majors course, as experienced by Prof. Fe Arcinas who was ahead of me.

Now that the two disciplines separated, I decided to take a few Social Anthropology courses to make Anthropology my minor. I found Social Anthropology very interesting, especially the topic of cultural traits and traditions of ethnic groups, very often referring to the so-called minority groups or indigenous population. I found out later, however, that Anthropology was not confined to indigenous and non-Christians but included also the Christian peoples, as shown by Prof. Tangco’s published monograph entitled Christian Peoples of the Philippines.

How about Sociology? What was Sociology like at that time? Up to about the mid 50’s, Sociology was approached with a social philosophy and social reformist orientation, as reflected in the courses on social problems and social pathology. Related to this approach was the view that Social Work was sociology in practice. Sociology then was problem-oriented. Thus, Sociology analyzed the problem and Social Work provided the remedy or solution, so the two disciplines fitted to be together in one department. The proliferation of ethnic studies of cultural communities at that time may be seen as an extension of this welfare concern.

The earliest Sociology courses were Introductory Sociology, Principles of Sociology, Social Psychology, Urban Sociology, Rural Sociology, Social Problems, Criminology and Delinquency, and Family. Prof. De Young as the lone faculty and head of the department had to tap lecturers, within and 8

outside the university, to handle the courses, such as. Prof. Honesta Guiang of the College of Education to handle Rural Sociology, Dr. Willoby Waterman, an American criminologist, to handle Criminology and Delinquency, and Prof. Elsie Hargreaves from England to handle Industrial Sociology.

The above photo of some of the faculty of Sociology and Social Welfare for 1952-53 shows standing from left to right are Dr. Richard Coller, American sociologist; Prof. John De Young, Chair; and Dr. Bartlett Stoodley, American Fulbright sociologist. Seated from left to right are Prof. Petra de Joya, social worker; Dr. Socorro Espiritu, sociologist; Prof. Maureen Nelson, social worker; Prof. Elsie Hargreaves, Industrial sociologist from England; and Prof. Arcinas who was a young instructor at that time.

This photo shows the student majors of the Department of Sociology and Social Welfare In 1952-53. Seated fourth from left is Prof. John De Young and sixth from left is Prof. Carmen Talavera, social worker handling the Family course. Seated farthest right is Prof. Arcinas. Standing 6th from left is sociology major Belen Tan-Gatue (myself)

Conversations on Anthropology and Sociology

9

The Sociology courses during my time were western-oriented because we did not have enough local materials or data. For example, in Urban Sociology, we took up theories of how cities grow and develop, but these theories were based on American experience. Even the course on the family, handled by Prof. Talavera who just arrived from the United States, emphasized the problems of the family in America.

We had a Research Methods course under Prof. De Young but it dealt more with qualitative research. There was mention of survey research but we didn’t go through all the different steps, such as sampling techniques, questionnaire construction, coding, and so on. So survey research was just mentioned in passing, but it was not put into practice. Ordinarily, in a Research Methods course, the student is required to present a research project that was done by him or her individually, but there was none. Moreover, we did not have any statistics course–no statistics at all–so the research methods did not include statistical analysis. This is the reason why, probably, during the time of Prof.

De Young when he was the chair and the lone masteral thesis adviser, most of the thesis done by the students were highly qualitative studies of certain racial and ethnic minorities in the Philippines. For example, we had John Griese, whose master’s thesis was on the Jewish community in the Philippines, Gabriel Fabella Jr. whose master’s thesis was on the Indian community in the Philippines, and George Weightman whose master’s thesis was on the Chinese community in Manila. So the emphasis was not quantitative but qualitative.

One more thing that is surprising is that we did not have a course n Sociological Theory at all! I took a Sociological Theory course only later at the graduate level when I was already taking my master’s degree, and that was handled by Dr. Benicio Catapusan, a sociologist invited from the Philippine Christian College.

10

This photo is about the Convocation sponsored by the U.P. Social Service Society, the student organization of Sociology and Social Welfare majors.

Conversations on Anthropology and Sociology

11

The late 50’s saw the beginning of a more scientific sociological viewpoint with research orientation. This new perspective was primarily an influence of American exchange professors and of Filipino sociologists who have returned from training abroad. Furthermore, systematic and empirical research was spurred by the establishment of research-funding agencies at the University of the Philippines such as the Community Development Research Council and the Social Science Research Council, aside from the support of American Foundations such as Ford and Rockefeller.

Above photo show the American professors who arrived during the mid 50’s, who stayed relatively longer than the other foreign professors, and made the most impact by way of developing both the undergraduate and masteral programs in Sociology. Left to right, are Dr. George Weightman, U.P. masteral graduate of Sociology who came back as a Fulbright professor; Dr. Chester Hunt, Fulbright Professor of Sociology who took over as Chair of the Department; and Dr. Richard Coller, a Sociologist who married a Filipina, raising ten children by her, and joined the Department on his own.

Dr. Chester Hunt revised both the undergraduate and graduate Sociology Curriculum and added new courses such as Race and Ethnic Relations, Social Movements, Demography and Human Ecology, inviting such wellknown authors and lecturers as Philip Hauser, Frank Lorimer, and Amos Hawley. He also initiated the writing and publication of a textbook, Sociology in the Philippine Setting with him as principal author, which became a best- seller for almost four decades with four revisions. He founded the Philippine Sociological Society, composed of social science professors from different colleges and universities, and the Philippine Sociological Review, its publication arm. Dr. Hunt and Dr. Coller embarked on various research projects and popularized the survey method, training the young faculty, as research assistants.

12

Above photo shows the four earliest Filipino Sociology faculty together with Dr. George Weightman. From left to right are Prof. Ofelia Angangco, Prof. Fe Arcinas, Prof. Belen Medina (myself), and Prof. Ricardo Zarco. The four of us were the earliest masteral graduates of the Department who were absorbed into the faculty right away. We formed the nucleus of the Department faculty for many years after the Fulbright professors left. So many other faculty came, joined us and left, but the four of us stayed in the department and did not leave until our retirement.

32:05 RAMOS: Thank you so much!

32:08 PRESTO: Thank you so much for the photos. They’re so heartening, especially from someone who took up Sociology in undergraduate years, to see photos of professors who told to me as a young student of Sociology.

Maybe we can also hear from our other panel members?—On how Sociology and Anthropology were during their student years?

32:35 RAMOS: How about we take the Anthro perspective, this time, Prof.

Racelis?

32:53 RACELIS, Mary: My first connection with UP Anthro was in 1956.

I had just had my second child and suddenly realized I could only talk baby talk. It then hit me, “My adult mind is deteriorating! I have to go back to school!” The very next day I went to UP to enroll for the MA in Anthro. My undergraduate major at Cornell University had been anthropology, and I loved anthropology.

After many wrong turns in the UP back-office labyrinth, I found the Anthro Department. Professor Marcelo Tangco was sitting there in his dark and gloomy den. When I appeared, he seemed surprised and asked, “Yes, what can I do for you?” “Well Sir, I would like to register for a Master’s degree in Anthropology.

Conversations on Anthropology and Sociology

13

To my students here who have heard this story before, my apologies.

But that encounter was a defining moment for me in coming to UP. “So”, he responded, “You want to take Anthropology?” I eagerly replied ”Yes!” “Why?” he asked. “Because I love anthropology. I was an undergraduate major at Cornell University.” He abruptly countered with, “Young lady, go somewhere else. There is no future for anthropology in this country!” I was taken aback and didn’t know how to respond.

Later, of course, I guessed that he saw I was interested in cultural or social anthropology. Probably he was simply conveying that the Department did not have much to offer there. Maybe I caught him at a bad moment but he absolutely discouraged me from taking a Maste’s in Anthropology. That brief encounter ended with his advising me to enroll in some other department.

I really didn’t want to go to sociology even though it had been my undergraduate minor. I was very turned-off by sociology at Cornell because it was so US oriented, so industrial society, very first-world-type sociology. It had no connection with anything in the Third World at that time. Development sociology was not even in their minds, and when that more applied version with international examples developed at Cornell, it was under the College of Agriculture, not Arts and Sciences.

So, I decided, I would not take sociology but shift instead to, can you believe, political science! I figured, “That course will at least have a focus on countries other than the USA.” Yet, even though I had a wonderful professor, Rex Drilon, who was a great political philosophy teacher, I soon felt that political science then didn’t have much theory. It was all describing national and international events when what I was interested in was people. They never, at the time, seemed to be thinking about ordinary grassroots citizens. So, very reluctantly I have to admit, after one semester I shifted to sociology.

Fortunately, and I’m happy to say that, my whole orientation to sociology— which had been negative because of my US experience—completely changed when I got into the UP Department of Sociology and Social Welfare. That was because, of course, of its faculty. My great teachers were mainly Professors Angangco, Arcinas, and Medina. I also had Virginia Paraiso for rural, Elsie Hargreaves for urban, and Fulbright Professor Paul Oren Jr. for Social Problems. They guided me and restored my faith in sociology.

The very first semester to my delight, Dr. Donn Hart, a cultural anthropologist from Syracuse University and a newly arrived Fulbright Lecturer in the Anthropology Department, was offering a five-unit field course in Cultural Anthropology. His own fieldwork has been done in Caticugan, Samar. I then registered for Anthro as a cognate.

14

It represented a turning point in terms of what I later became. There were seven of us in Hart’s class: Prospero Covar, Paula Carolina Malay (in Geography), Mario Zamora, Aleli Alvarez, myself and two others. When Donn Hart said anthropologists did fieldwork, he meant it. None of us had ever done any real fieldwork along ethnography lines before then. So, every Sunday, it was arranged. Paula Carolina Malay, who was from Obando, suggested her town as a good field site. It was still considered rural then and known as a fishing municipality near the sea shore. “Why don’t we go there if you want to do an a field study? So, Tawiran, the last barrio in Obando before Bulacan, Bulacan became our choice of community. In a way, we were also doing Rural Sociology.

We journeyed to Obando every Sunday of that semester for a holistically framed study of fishermen. (Gender concerns had not surfaced yet to substitute “fisherfolk” or “fishers” for fishermen.) Fishermen apparently came in many forms. Some worked at the fish ponds, which were very dominant in Obando.

Others fished small-scale in the rivers or along the shores, while those with motorized bancas went farther out to sea for a larger catch. The women also fished, however, often in the flooded fish ponds not yet affected by pesticides.

They caught frogs, small fish, snails, even shrimps. That enabled us to do a kind of ethnography of fishing in Tawiran. It was already clear then that these towns were being enveloped by Manila as part of urban sprawl.

And so we studied Tawiran holistically. Donn Hart introduced us to the Human Relations Area Files, then a new a coding system devised at the University of Chicago and including every topic you could imagine when you were studying anthropology or doing ethnography. He taught us how to classify our fieldnotes into systematic, easily retrievable categories. All of us learned a lot from those 5 units in one semester.

Although sociology was my major, my inclinations the entire time were very much in anthropology. However, since I took Rural Sociology but viewed farming communities through the lens of Peasant Society and Culture, the two disciplines came together in my mind even as their analytical frameworks differed. Peasant society as a concept made a lot of sense to me in the Philippines because it emphasized rural people framed by relations with state power. There was definitely an overlap with sociology though, especially on social theories of power.

Our class defied the traditional division of labor—that anthro studied indigenous people, while socio studied everybody else—the lowland Christian majority. In the 1950s, that was no longer true. Anthropologists were studying the majority society using tools also used by sociologists, namely, key informant interviews and surveys–but they saw people’s realities more qualitatively through a different lens, in particular, participant-observation within a Conversations on Anthropology and Sociology

15

holistic, cultural framework. Sociology, on the other hand, usually favored a larger and quantitatively oriented societal view. Today the similarities and differences become very clear when you go into the field and have to write a paper based on the evidence gathered. That is especially true if you are in the sociology department but taking an anthro course, as I was.

What made the two come together for me was that the newly created UP Community Development Research Council (CDRC) gave me a grant to do fieldwork for my thesis. Graduate students were encouraged to apply and so because I had been so involved in Obando, in barrio Tawiran especially, I decided that’s where I would do my thesis.

I therefore submitted a proposal to CDRC. Other applicants waiting with me to see whether we had won the awards were poli sci candidates in public administration, Jose V. Abueva and Benny Villanueva. Because we were from different fields, the multidisciplinary perspectives came to the fore. Moreover, we were all carrying out applied social science research. The government was going very heavily into community development at that point. PRRM, or the Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement, an NGO, had convinced the authorities that this was the way to go. It focused on health, education, livelihood and governance. As you know, PRRM still exists and is very active.

(Disclosure: I’m a member of the Board.)

The CDRC grants encouraged those of us coming from a social science theoretical perspective to focus on applications in our fields. Because we got to know others as CDRC scholars, we learned the value of interdisciplinary thinking. You had to focus on what you know from your own disciplinary training and how to put that knowledge into practical use alongside other disciplines—a new challenge.

That turning point is how I would reflect my experience as a social scientist able to span both disciplines—a sociologist trained in and affirmed by the proper MA degree, but an anthropologist by inclination and avid study.

The end result was my thesis, “The Dynamics of Power in a Philippine Municipality.”

What were sociology and anthropology like in the late ‘50s? The notion was that Sociology dealt with the larger society—with institutions. Sociologists do study people, are evidence-based, with people as respondents, whereas Anthropology say, yes, people are respondents but they are “my people.” It’s a bit colonial now to think that, but at the time, anthropologists were very committed to identifying with the people they were researching. You tried to see the people’s world through their eyes and in in greater depth while emphasizing also a holistic perspective.

Anthropologists tend to get very personally committed to the lives of people and their culture. “Why do they do that?” or “Why do they say that?”

16

From the beginning you are already supportive of the people’s own concepts of reality. Despite what appear initially to be strange differences from your own culture, the interaction calls nonetheless for respect of their culture. In anthropology, one says, “That’s their value set, that’s how they see things; you’re there to report that, trying to understand them from an emic perspective emphasizing their point of view.” That does not prevent you from analyzing that same evidence within a larger reality. Maybe my fellow speaker, Randy, can comment on this formulation. They may be stereotypes, but those were the stereotypes and realities of the time. Cultural Anthropology under Donn Hart was something new and exciting I guess the last thing I want to say in this historical account is that trained Filipinos were by the late 1950s returning from studies abroad with PhDs. Sociologist Ruben Santos-Cuyugan, arrived about ‘58 or ‘59 with a Ph.D. from Harvard and inherited me as his advisee because I didn’t really have one. Prof. Oren was helpful but in an unofficial way. Since mine was basically an applied anthropology thesis and Donn Hart had left. There was nobody really in sociology who felt comfortable supervising my research. Dr. Cuyugan who came in almost at the end of it, was nonetheless assigned to supervise my thesis, although I had already written the nearly final draft. He did help me fix up things and I did graduate with a Masters in Sociology.

So, to establish my own social science identity in terms of my official disciplinary credentials, I have an MA in Sociology and am thus a sociologist.

In actual orientation and in terms of the literature that I know, I’ve always been an anthropologist at heart. One foot is in sociology and one foot in anthropology—I straddle both but lean toward anthropology. For the “Doctor Racelis” title, I have had to rely on the honorary PhDs awarded by De la Salle University in 1975 and the Ateneo de Manila University in 2000.

In whatever ways people want to identify me, I figure, it’s up to them. Since we say “self-ascription is what counts,” I always reply, “Social Anthropologist,” when asked. I don’t identify myself as a sociologist, although others do, because, for one, I haven’t kept up with the sociological literature, since the last time I taught in that department in 2000. In contrast I stay immersed in the Anthro literature and anthropologically defined issues. That’s why, by self-ascription, I usually claim to be a Social Anthropologist.

To those of you, then, who wonder about the two disciplines we are highlighting today, my experience shows that you can be linked to both. It all depends on what you decide and how you manage to convince others through your work. Whatever, it is truly satisfying.

Thank you!

Conversations on Anthropology and Sociology

17

48:18 PRESTO: Thank you so much, Prof. Mary, for that very inspirational phrase. So, here, you can be both. Thank you also to Prof. Belen and Prof.

Mary for providing us with material sources in relation to your memory sharing—the photos, really, and your book, Prof. Mary. In relation also to, what you both mentioned about the discipline of Sociology being more western-oriented and more first-world-oriented during your time, probably, that is something that Prof. Randy, as the former director of the Third World Studies program, can also engage. So, Prof. Randy?

48:57 DAVID: Thank you. Good afternoon to everyone.

I was not a Sociology major when I entered UP as a freshman in 1961. I wanted to study Law, and Sociology was not one of the disciplines prescribed as a preparation for Law. Political Science was the preferred undergraduate major for those aspiring to enter law school. My original plan was to support my studies toward a law degree by working as a professional journalist. For this, I thought I needed to have a Bachelor’s program in Journalism.

The legendary newspaperman Professor Armando Malay taught a couple of journalism subjects, like news reporting and editorial writing, in the English Department. But, in the early 60’s, UP Diliman did not offer a specific course in Journalism.

The Institute of Mass Communications (later renamed College of Mass Communications) was set up only about a decade later with the arrival of Dr. Gloria D. Feliciano from the United States. One of the degree programs offered by the new institute was Journalism; but it was too late for me.

In my freshman year at UP, therefore, I found myself enlisted as an English major, even if the formal study of English Literature was farthest from my mind. I thought this was the best thing for me at that time if I wanted to work as a newspaper reporter.

At the Department of English, however, the core program was Comparative Literature. Filipino Literature was only a small component of its curriculum.

Indeed, looking back, I cannot recall which discipline or department in the University of the Philippines in the 1960s offered anything that explicitly focused on the culture, society, or history of the Filipino people.

Higher study, particularly in the social sciences, was mostly all foreign. It was as though to be considered a modern educated person in the ‘50s and the 60’s, you had to be steeped in everything Western. And Western basically meant American.

This Americanization of the university curriculum was even more pronounced in Sociology. I did not fully realize this until I shifted from English Lit to Sociology. I was already a junior then, just short of a year before earning my Bachelor’s degree in English, when I decided to move to 18

Sociology. The shift was mainly motivated by my desire to learn anything that had direct relevance to the life of ordinary Filipinos.

I thought that, perhaps, something that had to do with the study of society might be more appropriate to the career I wanted to pursue. But I wasn’t sure that Sociology might be the answer to my need.

So, I took the introductory course Sociology I as an elective. The instructor in that course was Professor Manuel Bonifacio, who I found to be an inspiring and down-to-earth teacher. The class employed sociological concepts to shed light on the nature of society and the dynamics of everyday reality. I enjoyed it immensely, and I felt encouraged to enroll in higher Sociology courses.

Compared to English Literature, I found Sociology quite easy. I could relate to it without much difficulty. When I finally decided to shift to Sociology, I chose Anthropology and Psychology as my minor subjects.

In Anthropology, I attended some of the occasional lectures of Dr. Otley Beyer though I never formally enrolled in his classes. He taught graduate courses and was in charge of the museum at the second floor of the Arts and Sciences Building. Always dressed in his white suit, he would engage students in conversation if they needed to have any artifact on display explained.

I had Dr. Mario Zamora, who was then head of the Anthropology Department, for Anthropology 1. I also remember being under the Visiting Professor Dr. Milton Barnett in a course on Social Anthropology.

Compared to Sociology, Anthropology had a smaller faculty and only a handful of majors. Some of the majors at that time—like Ponciano Bennagen, Rufino Tima, and the American student Robert Lawless—became my classmates in Sociology subjects.

In Psychology, three young professors deeply impressed me: Dr. Virgilio Enriquez, Dr. Fredegusto David, and Dr. Abraham Felipe. They all looked up to their mentor—the incomparable humanist and psychologist Professor Alfredo Lagmay, who later became my personal friend. This was well before the Psychology Department became the stronghold of Sikolohiyang Filipino.

In the early ‘60s, the Psych department was known primarily for its behaviorist orientation. Dr. Lagmay was a recognized direct intellectual descendant of the Harvard behaviorist Boris Skinner.

The psychology majors who became my classmates in some courses included Amaryllis Tiglao, Daisy Javier, and Aleli Rosales.

Most of my courses, of course, were in Sociology. And I shall forever be grateful for the mentoring I received from the Department’s first generation of Filipino professors.

Most of the American pioneers who established the Dept. of Sociology were gone by the time I entered the Department as a senior student. There were, however, occasional visiting professors. The one only I recall was a Conversations on Anthropology and Sociology

19

quiet American sociologist —Dr. Richard Willis, who taught a couple of major subjects. From time to time, some US professors who previously taught in the Department also came to visit. The most prominent of them was Dr. Chester Hunt from Kalamazoo, Michigan who, remained very sentimental about the department that he helped form.

But my main professors who encouraged me to be a sociologist, apart from Manuel Bonifacio, were Prof. Ofelia R. Angangco who was then the chair of the department, and Prof. Fe R. Arcinas, Prof. Ricardo Zarco, Prof. Belen T. Medina, and Prof. Mercedes Concepcion. They were the mainstays in the Dept. of Sociology, although Dr. Concepcion soon set up her own Population Institute.

What were the courses like? I took my Sociology 101 under Ric Zarco, and we used the textbook Introduction to Sociology by Broom and Selznick. I also had Zarco in the course on Deviance, where we were introduced to the work of Howard Becker and William Foote Whyte.

I took my first course in Social Organization under Prof. Arcinas who used George Homans’ The Human Group. She also taught Race and Ethnic Relations and Urban Sociology. Prof. Angangco taught a course on Industrial Sociology as well as Sociological Theory. The Industrial Sociology course focused on Elton Mayo’s theory of social relations in industrial settings. Dr. Concepcion taught the courses on Sociological Methods and Demography.

What’s very interesting is that, as students, we took this dominant strain of American Sociology in stride, believing that all emerging nations were headed in that direction.

In retrospect, I think it’s quite amazing how we were able to keep apart our intellectual immersion in American social science from our growing involvement in the Filipino nationalist ferment.

Like many of my contemporaries, I became a student activist in the mid’60s—seasonally demonstrating in front of the American Embassy against the American war in Vietnam, but also in radical opposition to the whole American influence over Philippine society.

Interestingly, I never looked at my own discipline, as the prime example of the Americanization of the Philippine educational system. I guess the reason for this is that one’s main concern as a student is to get good grades and to be able to graduate. Indeed, the real education that was happening (whether we were conscious of it or not) was out there in the streets, outside the classroom, even if we didn’t necessarily think of it as education. We were wont to regard it instead as part and parcel of our generation’s preparation for leadership roles in our young nation.

Looking back today at my sociological education in the University, I can’t quite believe how it was thoroughly alien. I think, for example, that I began 20

to think of Rizal’s The Indolence of the Filipino as a sociological treatise only after the Malaysian scholar Syed Hussein Alatas, in a lecture, had called Rizal “The First Filipino Sociologist.”

In spite of his being a modern and progressive individual, we never regarded Rizal as a social scientist, maybe because he was Filipino, and he was not educated in the United States. He was, in every sense of the term, a keen sociological observer of Filipino colonial society.

I would imagine, if one was doing a course on Sociology in the Philippine setting, that the essay Indolence of the Filipinos would have made a perfect introduction. That essay, which is essentially a vivid description of the lived experience of the Filipino peasantry under colonial rule, showed Rizal at the peak of his analytical powers. At the same time, it was a polemic that masterfully deconstructed the whole worldview of Western colonialism.

There was another pioneering Filipino sociologist —Apolinario Mabini.

When I read his works, I thought to myself, “If we are looking for a homegrown Filipino Sociologist, this is the one—it has to be Mabini.” He was brilliant in his analysis of what ailed the emerging Filipino nation—his deep understanding of the problems of the anti-colonial revolution, the mentality of the elite and of the concerns of the ordinary Filipino. Yet our generation of sociologists never thought of Mabini as a pioneer in this field. Even today, I don’t think Mabini is part of the readings in Sociology nor is Rizal’s Indolence of the Filipino.

As undergraduate Sociology majors, one of the core courses we had to take was Race and Ethnic Relations. Almost all our readings dealt with the problems of America’s Black people, the descendants of the former slaves.

Indeed, the course also touched on the Chinese in the Philippines and the marginalization of indigenous Filipinos. But these were issues that were not as central to the American problematic of race. So, again, I think it wasn’t for lack of substantive reference materials that we could not focus on what was “Philippine;” it was just that we could not get away from the textbook problems of American Sociology.

Clearly, what we were being taught was American society and its problems, using the terms and the epistemic lenses of American Sociology, as applied to a former American Colony. Of course, this should not have been surprising at all. UP, after all, had been a colonial institution from the very beginning.

The original intent behind its establishment was to produce and train Filipino leaders and Filipino bureaucrats who could take over the leadership of the country once the Philippines was granted its independence.

In that regard, we could say the entire University of the Philippines was an attempt to transplant the American university onto Filipino soil. I was told that the main Diliman campus itself was modeled after that of Cornell University.

Conversations on Anthropology and Sociology

21

And so were the curricular offerings of the various colleges and departments.

The Department of Sociology was patterned after the Department of Social Relations of Harvard, which was the reason Ruben Santos-Cuyugan was sent to Harvard for his Ph.D. The Department of Economics was patterned after the University of Wisconsin’s Department of Economics. The Department of Anthropology, I understand, was patterned after the Department of Anthropology of Cornell, and so on and so forth.

In effect, the Filipino educated elites were trained to think like Americans— to study and observe ourselves through American eyes. And to some extent, we still probably bear the legacy of that, of that kind of thinking which gives you not just the topics but also the problems that you are supposed to investigate, and the concepts and the ideas you are supposed to use. I guess, in the 1950s and 1960s, that kind of Americanization became more intense because of the start of the Cold War. The United States wanted to make sure that we would remain on the side of Western democracy— against the growing nationalist tide evident in the rest of Asia—which had chosen to become non-aligned. Indonesia, for one, was farthest from our field of view. Mind you, our orientation was very American, which basically meant we had nothing to do with our neighbors.

It was as if we could learn nothing from any association with, let us say, the biggest country to the south of the Philippines—Indonesia.

I went to the US and to Europe ahead—much ahead—of any visit to Indonesia. I discovered Singapore, Malaysia, and Thailand only when I was already teaching. We were part of the Southeast Asian community, yet we were very much out of it. We were the American outpost, and we remained as such for many years, including in our way of thinking.

In the late 1960s, just before I left for England for my graduate studies, there was a movement called The Movement for the Advancement of Nationalism or MAN. This was initiated by people like Lorenzo Tañada, Renato Constantino, and JBL Reyes. Jose Maria Sison and Francisco “Dodong” Nemenzo were the younger members of that discussion group. I and my wife Karina were designated to take notes because my father-in-law was part of The Movement for the Advancement of Nationalism. Karina, who was also a Sociology major, and I had just finished our undergraduate degree and we were preparing to leave for England. One of the topics that was extensively discussed struck close to my heart because it had to do with the Americanization of the University of the Philippines—in particular, the Americanization of its academic programs.

I was just a note-taker, but I became an unwitting informant. They were constantly asking, “what textbooks are you using in the study of Sociology?”

I could not think of any Philippine textbook, actually, that was written by a Filipino except the Introduction to Philippine Sociology. But even then, I have 22

to say I did not realize how my way of thinking had been totally shaped to fit the mold of American social science. I’m not saying this in criticism of my professors or of the university education that I got. It was just the way it was—a fact of life under a neocolony. Even my American professors were good people in that they were very devoted professors. But, like us, I think they were not conscious of the fact that they were participating in a neocolonial effort to remake Philippine society into a small version of American Jeffersonian democracy in this part of the world.

I realized this only when I was a graduate student in England. My professors were very surprised by my mastery of Parsonian theory, yet I had very little knowledge of its philosophical underpinnings. Neither did I have a solid understanding of the Philippine social structure. One of my first professors in Manchester was Peter Worsley, who actually introduced the term “Third World” into the literature of development. So, that kind of orientation. Academic sociology in England in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s became the battleground between the continental philosophy of Jürgen Habermas, Michel Foucault, etc. and American ethnomethodology and linguistic analysis.

By chance, I fell under the influence of the school of ethnomethodology because of the younger lecturers with whom I became quite close. I thus became more familiar with the works of Aaron Cicourel, Alfred Schutz, and Harold Garfinkel—the author of the path-breaking Studies in Ethnomethodology—than with, let us say, the works of Habermas or Foucault, etc. But, at least, the constructivist orientation of ethnomethodology was an alternative to Parsonian functionalism. I realized that even symbolic interactionalism and ethnomethodology, despite their focus on micro-settings gave us better tools to understand our own experience as a people, as a nation, and as a society from our own perspective—rather than just regard Philippine society from the perspective of American Social Science. One of the most important representatives of positivist theory in development studies was David McLellan’s Need for Achievement Theory, which offered an examination of Filipino values from the perspective of a desired modernity. The main thesis it promoted is that economic underdevelopment was basically a function of traditional values. This fitted in nicely with Parson’s Pattern Variable approach.

I started to introduce critical sociology into the department, not by deploying Marxist Theory but by using Symbolic Interactionism, Phenomenology, and Ethnomethodology.

It was only much later, after we established the Third World Studies Center in 1974, that Marx loomed before us as a source of valuable sociological insights. The point I am trying to stress here is that, perhaps, what is needed at this point is something akin to what the Palestinian-American scholar Conversations on Anthropology and Sociology

23

Edward Said did for Western Literature. In short, to do a postcolonial reading of the constituent elements of our own higher education, the concepts that pervaded Filipino higher education, our introduction to modernization— and to critique all this from the perspective of what we understand to be the needs of our people, the reality of the masses of our people. And to combine this with a structural reading of the evolution of Philippine society, from the precolonial times to the present.

To undertake an effort of this magnitude, we need not begin from zero.

We can start by reviewing all the theses and dissertations that have been written and submitted to the University in fulfillment of graduate degrees in the social sciences—plus all the essays and articles that have been published, let us say, in the Philippine Sociological Review and the Philippine Political Science Journal, etc. Such a review would be a productive starting point for a postcolonial critique of Philippine Social Science.

I know you may have many questions and comments, so I will stop here.

Thank you.

1:15:40 RAMOS: Thank you so much, Prof. David. That was very rich and interesting, actually. And if I may, after listening to the recollections of our three panelists, I think as an Anthropology major myself, it made it clearer and harder at the same time to, one, form an identity for the discipline that I am pursuing since, for example, there are so many influences in deciding what my inclinations are between the two. And in the end, does it really matter?

I felt like after hearing all the recollections, it’s the student that makes the discipline what it is to themselves, right?

Just as I try to synthesize what our panelists have said, I am also thinking of the other influences that may inform how we know Anthropology and Sociology especially if we major in either of the two.

So I would like to ask, as a way of opening the open forum, if there is any literature that stayed with you as a Sociology or Anthropology major?

What is the biggest influence in your chosen discipline? What or Who? What theoretical perspective or who is the writer or thinker that influenced you most in your chosen discipline? Perhaps any of our panelists could answer briefly.

[Start of Open Forum] [Question: What specific perspective from Anthropology or Sociology or which specific theory or concept or author influenced you during your career?]

1:17:30 DAVID: Let’s hear from Mary or Professor Medina.

24

1:17:42 RAMOS: Maybe it doesn’t have to be just one. It’s just that the literature sometimes defines how the student experiences the discipline itself.

It is also the literature that largely defines the curriculum of each discipline so, maybe it’s also a sort of a 101 course on the great thinkers we have to get to know if we are going to [continue pusuing] either of the two.

Prof. David, actually you mentioned quite a number of influential works that formed you as a young sociologist…

1:18:34 DAVID: Wala akong iisang favorite na author.

Siguro sa mga Filipino, let’s say, Mabini, was, to me, the most impressive observer of Philippine society and history; comparable, I would say, to Rizal.

Among the North American sociologists, I liked Erving Goffman very much. He’s very influential in the way I think of interpersonal relations. But my orientation, I think, leans very heavily on European writers. Marx is very influential to me, still. Particularly that short essay Preface to a Contribution to a Critique of Political Economy is, to me, the most sociological of all of Marx’s writings, as is Engels’ Origin of the Family and Private Property; also Engels’ [The] Conditions of the English Working Class [The Condition of the Working Class in England]. I like [Pierre] Bourdieu, I like Michel Foucault—I think Foucault more than Bourdieu. I like [ Jürgen] Habermas, and in the last fifteen years, I’ve been very much influenced by the German sociologist who was a student of Talcott Parsons—Niklas Luhmann. I think you might see some of these influences—and not to forget two other Germans, Friedrich Nietzsche, who is not a sociologist, and Max Weber. What’s interesting is that Max Weber and Nietzsche, actually, and Niklas Luhmann, I guess because they were all raised in German society, share many things in common. I have not realized until recently that Max Weber quoted extensively from Nietzsche. Even if you read some of the writings of Niklas Luhmann, it is a continuing dialogue with Nietzsche and with Max Weber.

Those, I think are the major influences of mine.

1:22:03 RAMOS: Thank you, Sir. Our Social Science 1 students are already taking note. How about Prof. Racelis?

1:22:13 RACELIS: By the time I graduated and then I joined this Philippine Culture and in those first two years you were really focusing on Philippine values, that’s when I wrote that article on reciprocity, and utang na loob, and all of that. But as I began to expand, the literature on peasant society and culture began to be very significant because that seemed to fit more what I was interested in and how you frame Philippine society of peasants in the Conversations on Anthropology and Sociology

25

context of the state. So, I guess that would be Eric Wolf who was an economic anthropologist—and, what’s his name, The Children of Sanchez?

1:22:58 DAVID: Oscar Lewis 1:22:59 RACELIS: Yes, Oscar Lewis. Then you had George Foster, who was also doing peasant society and culture. Then, partly because in the later years I shifted to Urban, partly because already I had, I think, five children, and I couldn’t really go out and do field research. I was supposed to do field research in Bicol and I finally told Father Lynch [that] I can’t go and spend time in Bicol [because] I have five kids [and] my husband is going to kill me, etc.

So, there happened to be a project to look at in Tondo in the late 60s. So he said, “why don’t you look into that?” And that really started the whole pitch.

So the first publication in an international book was from there on to show, and I wanted to show that the negative use of urban in Sociology—not even in the sense that you lose primary ties, [an] association of values coming to the picture, institutions—and what I wanted to show, from what I discovered in Tondo for sure, is that you have neighborhoods, barkadas, and fiestas, etc.

From the anthropological point of view, it was a very interesting insight. So I began to look at the urban literature, and that’s when, actually F. Landa Jocano, who had come back from Chicago with a Ph.D. in Anthro, who had been doing indigenous peoples’ research as we know, all of the country, but then when he moved to Sta. Ana and wrote from his urban ethnography, Urban as a Way of Life [Slum as a Way of Life]. Then, “urban” began to be acceptable because up to then, in Anthropology, you didn’t study urban. At most, peasant was already a big breakthrough from indigenous people. Then you begin to look at the urban literature which is plentiful.

But let me say that why I always loved Anthropology was, given the framework that Randy was talking about, the industrial American image including UP, that was not the case so much at UP [Anthropology]. Yes, of course, you read the American anthropologists, that was your main thing. But you read ethnographies from all over the world: from Africa, Latin-America, so I didn’t feel as constrained, I would say, or anxious, I think, as Randy— although we have perhaps political philosophies. I should remind him that after I published the first article on the City is a Way of Life [Slum is a Way of Life], or something like that in a book–[in an] international book—he and dear Karina, at some workshop, I’d say, really attacked me because they were into more the political. “You’re just describing ethnography as if everything has no conflict,” —the same issue that Oscar Lewis had to face also.

What I realized after that, I learned a lot from them, was I had emphasized that there are communities, there is a sense of togetherness, of neighbor26

ness, because of the negative use in Sociology at the time of urban poor communities. You have your personal input, and as an anthropologist, say “no, that’s the way they are,” but describe it and so on. I didn’t really bring in “what did it mean in the larger political context of poverty?” and so on, but now we talk about resilience.

I think the bottom line is basically what Randy is saying. In the end, you may be, even as an anthropologist, you tend to look at a certain type of communities but definitely, and we learned that you have to look in the larger context. And I guess the last thing that we say, he is an example and F. Landa Jocano of the generation who came back to the Philippines with an advanced degree from abroad, highly valued, who had to grapple with what does it mean to be a Filipino anthropologist. You can say for foreign anthropologists, always at that time, had to study another and other societies. But if you’re a Filipino anthropologist you’re studying your own society. Does that make you biased? How do you keep a distance, if you’re supposed to—and then of course, over time we’ve realized if you’re born in the city and you are from a semi-middle class community, you are almost as different from an indigenous person as may be American or European might be vis-a-vis that person. For that generation, the first generation coming back with advanced degrees from abroad, had to face the issue of “what is Filipino Sociology, [and] is there such a thing?” [or] “What is Filipino Anthropology, [and] is there such a thing?” But as a Filipino, how do I deal with this? And so the focus is very much on that generation to make a shift and it’s not so easy because we had been schooled largely in the context that Randy’s talking about. You begin discovering, only when you’re really doing the work, [that] something doesn’t fit, something makes you uneasy and you begin therefore to assert—what is your point of view as somebody from this country who’s looking into human behavior?

1:29:01 PRESTO: Thank you so much Prof. Mary Racelis for your sharing.

May we know hear from Prof. Belen? The question from Frances, Ma’am, was “What specific perspective from Anthropology or Sociology or which specific theory or concept or author influenced you during your career?”

1:29:40 MEDINA: Well my interest has always been the family and intergroup relations. For the family, of course, I did the textbook on the Sociology of the family because we don’t have any Sociology of the family that is based [in] the Philippines, on the Filipino family. Most of our references are American. Then the intergroup relations, my interest has been, well, it’s actually not racial, as Randy said, [but] it’s ethnic groups, for example, the plural society of Malaysia—among the three groups: the Chinese, the Malays, Conversations on Anthropology and Sociology

27

and the Indians. I also did a study of the Eurasians of Indonesia because the Eurasians, at the time, were discriminated against because they remind the Indonesian people of the cruelty and atrocities of the Dutch regimes, and so these Eurasians were identified as pro-Dutch; that sort of thing. I was also very much interested in Applied Anthropology. I took a course [at] Cornell on Applied Anthropology and it was very very interesting. I think one of the books there was Human Problems in Technological Change by Alexander Leighton, and it was very impressive because there were many factors, mostly cultural factors and social structure factors, which have to be understood before one can introduce—anything—any change, or any innovation—in any community. So, those have been my interest.

1:32:15 RAMOS: Thank you to our panelists. There are also other questions and comments in the chatbox, like from Prof. Jocano of the Anthropology Department. “Ma’am Mary,” he specifically addresses it to Prof. Racelis, “it seems that the project of decolonizing Anthropology and Sociology had started back then in the ‘60s and ‘70s, as many scholars began returning from studying overseas, as well as being driven by the need to develop materials addressing local issues.” Any reactions to that?

1:32:57 RACELIS: Fortunately, more Filipino sociologists and anthropologists were doing research—they were publishing, more journals were available.

One important distinction we should show in this history of Sociology and Anthropology is the creation of UGAT [Ugnayang Pang-Agham Tao]. When Ponce [Ponciano] Bennagen and a group of anthropologists finally got fed up with being grouped under the Philippine Sociological Society—even though it was a combined thing—but they felt there has to be a difference.

There’s another whole history there, you should get him on to discuss that.

But when UGAT was formed, many sociologists felt quite upset because it’s like your brother wants to cut himself off the family. But the fact is that really established that they are two separate, different disciplines. Since it was generated in UP, then the UP had to deal with that—the Sociology and the Anthropology Department. So there was a model, already. I got distracted, I forgot what was the first question? What was your initial question?

1:34:21 RAMOS: It was more of a comment from Prof. Jocano—he was just recalling the project of decolonizing Anthropology and Sociology. How it started—how it’s a movement that started in the ‘60s and the ‘70s. There were many scholars coming from their studies abroad and they were trying to apply all these things they gathered—these ideas they gathered outside—to local issues 28

So, was that your experience? Do you think that was the case in those times?

1:35:02 RACELIS: Let me just conclude that as more and more Filipinos began to do research in the Philippines, of course, you had more to quote from.

There was still, as Randy pointed out, a long-time resistance to attending to Southeast Asia. I remember the Ford Foundation develop these grants: Filipinos could study and get good grants to study in Southeast Asia countries [but] they could hardly get anybody to apply; Filipinos were not interested because, as Randy said, they were oriented to the U.S. kind of orientation. So that’s one little bleep there.

But look, even today, just yesterday, I was talking to a grad student, master’s, reading her thesis—this is not [Neen] in case she’s here because I just read her thesis, that’s not it, another one, actually this [one is from] Ateneo Sociology. Her literature review is very thorough on issues in the United States and Europe [but] very little in the Philippines. I said “where are your Flipino sources” [she said] “I couldn’t really find them” [so I said] “you better look because there’s a lot of stuff, you have to look for it.” That may be part of the problem, you know, it’s so easy to get access to [the] US [and] abroad stuff, much less here.

In Anthro, of course, we’re used to looking at what’s the African background, you sort of know who are the Latin Americans, so you kind of know. In Sociology, the Filipino authors are not so readily available online.

But now that you’re in an online type of Sociology now, perhaps that will change; the access to literature and what I call the grey literature, which is all that NGOs [Non-Government Organizations] do that they never publish but they’re all in little writings of their own, but that’s where the action is in communities. That literature has to come out too. And that’s where we get to your third question on what’s happening now, but I’ll stop there.

1:37:17 DAVID: May I say something?—With regard to the question of Prof.

Jocano. Well, of course, Pepe Jocano’s book Slum as a Way of Life is classic urban Anthropology that is really path-breaking, [it] taught us a lot about the worldview of the Filipino poor. But in terms of theoretical concepts, in terms of the idea of re-configuring an entire discipline, to make that discipline a bit more relevant to Filipinos, the truly path-breaking work was done by the late Ver Enriquez—Virgilio Enriquez—for Filipino Psychology. The kind of example defined by Sikolohiyang Pilipino, I was hoping would find echoes as it did in History and Anthropology, would find echoes in Sociology and Political Science and the other social sciences. Which is quite interesting because Ver Enriquez was my professor in Behavioural Psychology. He was a Watsonian Behaviourist; he was a behaviorist, a true disciple of Skinner.

Conversations on Anthropology and Sociology

29

He was a Behavioural Psychologist par excellence. And it’s interesting that it was against that training that he reacted, and the book that later came out as—what’s that title?

1:39:36 LLAGUNO, Jenny: Pantayong Pananaw 1:39:38 DAVID: No, no, no, before that. The original publication was Psychology and Colonial Liberation or something like that, it was a monograph 1:39:53 DIONISIO: Liberation Psychology 1:39:53 DAVID: Was it Liberation Psychology?

1:39:58 DIONISIO: From Colonial Psychology to — 1:40:00 DAVID: That’s the one, From Colonial Psychology to Liberation [From Colonial to Liberation Psychology: The Philippine Experience], where he was concerned with developing his own concepts [that were] appropriate to understanding Filipino reality in a way that could be, at the same time, be communicated to non-specialists who are Filipinos.

Maganda ang sinimulan ni Ver Enriquez. And later on, I think he was able to persuade his own professor, Fred Lagmay, to join him in that effort.

And, as I said, it found echoes in Anthropology with [Prospero] Covar, Ponce Bennagen, and the people who formed UGAT. And later on, in the Department of History, with the initiatives of Zeus Salazar and his own students.

My regret is that no one took that model of reconfiguring a discipline for Sociology—well, maybe to some extent, Clemen Aquino tried to do that, pero hindi nasundan eh. Mahalaga, importante rito, ang paggamit mo ng sariling wika in order to capture the sensibility of the Filipino reality and the Filipino community that you’re trying to observe. Hirap tayo sa Sociology sapagkat nanatili tayong captive ng English sa Sociology. Hindi katulad sa Psychology, I think sinundan nila ng talagang paggamit ng, at paglikha, ng mga bagong terms.

At ganyan din sa Anthropology nina [Prospero] Covar and the younger anthropologists. I don’t know if there’s still room for that, what do you think?

I think the younger students in Sociology might — 1:42:30 PRESTO: Thank you, Sir Randy, actually, we are now transitioning to that portion of the forum. So, we are having such a wonderful discussion so far, unfortunately, we only have limited time for tonight.

30

So, can I just make a quick announcement? Regarding the centennial celebration of the Sociology and Anthropology department, please await our upcoming online exhibit organized by both departments, and also the upcoming joint national conference also organized by both departments.

So, we now can only entertain one final question for tonight’s forum. I know that we have a lot of discussion going on in our Zoom chatbox and we also have viewers from Facebook live, so hi to our viewers tuning in via Facebook tonight.

So, we now would like to address our concluding question to our panel members, the question is: “What is your hope for the younger generation of Sociology and Anthropology students?” Today, we have a lot of undergraduate students tuned in via Facebook and Zoom right now. And also for us junior sociologists [and anthropologists] who just graduated some years ago.

[Question: What is your hope for the younger generation of Sociology and Anthropology students?]

1:43:54 RACELIS: Dr. Medina, you wanna start? If not, I will.

1:44:07 DAVID: Go ahead.

1:44:06 RACELIS: Well, my expectation, as some of you who have been in my class know, is to move Anthropology squarely into what we call “Engaged Anthropology,” which is, that the Anthropologist doesn’t do research about people but “with” people.

Of course, the notion is the community, or there is a particular group, that you, because of participant observation where you live there, you spend a lot of time with people, they get to know you [and] you get to know them, that’s all part of it, but your commitment is to knowledge-generation which is co-produced, co-implemented, co-benefitted, [and] co-created. That’s a trend that I certainly promoted very much in my classes here in UP, and the idea is that the student connects with a group that has a set of problems but maybe they haven’t figured [it out]—or often, if they’re organized, they [have] figured it out—and can you be of service to them.

So, they [student] define the framework of the research, they do research.

Research is getting information, knowledge-generation—but you work with them [the group], as their partner, and then you come out with some kind of report which is useful for them but which is useful for you because you can also write about it in a more complex way or, initially, as a feedback to the community. And I found that the students that I’ve had—who really have Conversations on Anthropology and Sociology

31

no choice because I make them, or encourage them, to take that pitch and make it possible for them to do so—have all been tremendously enthusiastic because—well not the first time—it gives them a sense that what they know as an anthropologist or sociologist, is of use [to] people who are in a more marginal situation, who can actually use it. So they feel useful but at the same time, because they’ve built up a bond of trust, people are very happy—they want to write about it somewhere else, they trust them enough that they can do it, although usually, we would check with them if it’s about them. So I have been moving in that direction, as some of you may know, and I hope that—it’s much harder in a way Sociology, I don’t know maybe Randy you can develop this also. Sociology looks at it as Public Sociology and the tendency is more— that Sociology should speak out to the larger society. And yes, that is certainly part of it, even in Engaged Anthropology you have the advocacy [to] use the information you have, which you worked up with people, to disseminate it to the wider world so they know what situation is there; you have to reinterpret for those outsiders. But Public Sociology, they’re very similar, but they’re, as far as I can tell, again, I may not know, they’re much less than anthropologists in being immersed in communities working with them. So, if not’s the case, I’m happy to learn otherwise. Thank you.

1:47:27 RAMOS: Thank you, Professor Racelis. Perhaps we could hear from Prof. Medina?

1:47:32 MEDINA: Our hope for the younger generation of Sociologists, I’ll just say that they should continue what they’re doing, the good work they’re doing. You see that as students get better every year, every year, every year, they get better and better, and I think we cannot ask for more. We are so very proud of them, many of our graduates are well-placed in the academe and other positions in the society. So, I think, it’s because [of] the training that they get, also, maybe we can say is excellent training. It’s a domino effect, actually.

From generation to generation, there is an improvement in the training. Also, I would encourage more research. [It] is very more important to have all these research findings disseminated and published. And also, I know that we have many sociologists who have been interacting not only within the country but also with other sociologists outside. They are members also of the International Sociological Society, for example, and they participate in conferences and they leave papers. Sociology has become international and I would congratulate them for being models and I would say, just continue your work. That’s my hope.

32

1:50:07 RAMOS: Thank you, Prof. Medina. And finally, Prof. David, your parting shot for the next generation of anthropologists and sociologists.

1:50:17 DAVID: I’m very hopeful and very happy with the present crop of Filipino Social Scientists—in Sociology, Anthropology, and Politics, and Psychology. I have taught sociological theory for more than three decades. It’s a very interesting field and you can follow it, it’s a good training for the mind.

But if you’re doing a thesis or a paper, or if you’re doing a study, I think you should forget muna about theory. You could read theory separately but don’t let theory hamper your understanding of the reality that you’re studying— which to me is a commentary, I intend as a commentary, on what we require our students to do. We want them to start every thesis or dissertation with a full description of the theoretical framework that they intend to use [but] how would they know if they have not yet gathered enough data from the field? How would they know what kind of theory would be appropriate? Let me give you an example—this is very funny for me because the first paper I ever published in the Philippine Sociological Review, I don’t know if Mary remembers this, was in 1967.

1:52:12 RACELIS: Cabo, right?

1:52:15 DAVID: The Cabo System, [the] Human Relations on the Manila Waterfront [Human Relations on the Waterfront: the Cabo System], which became also the subject of my master’s thesis, but I gave it as a paper to the Philippine Sociological Society and I was encouraged, by that time, to work it out as a paper for publication. Sabi ko, “why not?” It started with the theoretical framework furnished by George Homans—the distinction between the formal and the informal system—which is basically a Functionalist perspective talaga.

I was describing the Cabo System as an example of an informal system operating as a sort of “underlife” to the formal organization of the stevedoring labor organization. Looking back, to me, I was focusing on the wrong thing. I realize, looking at my material, that the more interesting subject matter might have been, at that point, were I not blinded by western theory, I should have looked at how the Cabo System was exploiting family relations, relationships of kin groups. The affection that members of the same kin group have for one another, the sense of mutual obligation that they have for one another, in order to be able to establish labor gangs on the Manila Waterfront so that they can be more productive from the perspective of the company. So, para bang, there is a lot of unpaid labor coming in here because the worker was, in effect, being subsidized by the family. I should have looked at the dynamics of the relationship between the family as a group and the working group that was Conversations on Anthropology and Sociology

33

operating out there in the field. To me, that might have been more interesting rather than labeling the informal system versus the formal system and so on and so forth. So, in a sense, the framework that I had used provided me with so many blindspots na hindi ko nakikita, [they] were staring right at me, right in my face, staring at me, but I could not notice them. The seen but unnoticed aspects of reality just because your epistemic lenses were interfering with your observation of reality all the time.’Yun ang tragedy ng pag-aaral, I think.

Coming back to the main thesis that I wanted to share with you today, I think there is a need for us to do, once and for all, a critique of Filipino Sociology and Anthropology, what we should have known, how might have done better.

And, I think for this next generation, which is more exposed to a variety of perspectives because of the internet—kasi noon talagang hiraman lang kami ng libro eh, very limited ang available textbooks atsaka mga journals, ni walang xerox [kasi] napakamahal ng xerox at that time. Now I think you can easily pirate digital copies from every part of the world. I imagine it is the right time to counter—kasi the Sociology that was taught [to] us, no fault of my teacher [who] were just part of the entire colonial experience, was actually a critique of Philippine society from the perspective of western modernity.

We should now do the opposite: we should critique the epistemic lenses, the theoretical perspectives which we have used to develop our discipline, which we have used to look at our own reality, and see how we could have studied our society in a different way; what lessons might we have learned?

Let’s go back to the phenomenology that Rizal, as Dean Abrera mentioned earlier, the kind of phenomenological analysis that Rizal did on the Indolence of the Filipinos is probably what’s needed. To look at our own experience and come up with our own concepts. Possibly, use more and more of our language so that we can communicate with the people we are studying. If it’s supposed to be an ‘engaged sociology’ as Mary suggests, then we should learn the language of the people we are engaging, and speak in those terms so that we can report our findings—about our country, about our society, about our people—to the people themselves.

Ayon. Salamat!

1:58:47 PRESTO: Thank you so much, also, Prof. Randy! It’s very heartening to be listening to all of these sharings and insights, especially as a young sociologist just worried and a bit anxious about the topics that I need to specialize [in]. This discussion really is making me feel the fact that Sociology is bigger than my own personhood and identities, and I only need to look back and hear about your rich stories to keep myself moving forward.

So, before we award the certificates of appreciation to our panel members, Prof. Mary, I think she would like to make a final comment.

34

1:59:31 RACELIS: Yes, simply because I know that you’re primarily students are now here and always, the fear is that “What kind of job can I get if I major in Sociology or Anthropology?” I can say, I think, with almost certainty that the field of jobs is opening up tremendously because there is now an awareness among, in policy circles, in government, in [the] private sector, that economics has really messed up the way the world is understood, especially those who look at market economics only. Apologies to much more progressive economists who are also out there, but because they have had the dominant world say, in framing international development or development policy and realized after years that it’s not working, doesn’t make sense in terms of people, those who run these programs are looking for sociologistsanthropologists because we know how to find out what people think and how they believe. But we have a good theoretical framework also so we’re not NGOs, although this is not to criticize NGOs, but we are people who are on the ground who empirically look at real people and talk about them and discuss them. Whether it’s for national involvement in development programs which now have to include the social—that’s our domain. International also, [in] the UN system, I worked in UNICEF for several years and I saw that especially because it’s cross-cultural, you’re an international officer and you work in many different countries, if you have an anthropological background especially, it’s a very significant contribution.

My last statement which some of my old students have also heard in Anthropology is, when the head of UNICEF in 19-whatever it was, I was already in New York working on community participation and women, said “I want to appoint you as regional director for UNICEF Eastern and Southern Africa.” And I said, “I don’t know much about [Africa], my field is Asia, not Africa.” He said, “you studied Anthropology, didn’t you?” and I said yes. He said, “well, that’s what I want. I want someone who has leadership qualities who knows something about culture, social change, [and] social movements because that’s what’s happening in Africa. That’s why I want someone with your background in Anthropology.” What could be more affirming, right? And it’s true that when I got there, my background in Anthropology and Sociology was really crucial to how UNICEF operated to the extent that I have stayed in it. So the future is very good. Not only in the academe, of course. But beyond that, for the people who have Sociology [or] Anthropology degrees, whether undergraduate or, of course, graduate is even better professionally, of course, I would encourage you to move into this field now that social media is also there and you’re very expert in that—you’re way ahead. Keep it, of course, always in such issues of social justice which we hope will always be at the bottom, and human rights which has always been a very

Conversations on Anthropology and Sociology

35

strong part certainly of Anthropology and to some extent Sociology. That’s what I wanted to conclude with.

2:03:10 RAMOS: Thank you, Prof. Racelis. I think jobs, the career, is really top of mind when we ask questions about what we would be studying in college so that was a very practical last message. So, thank you for that Prof.

Racelis. And also, we are reminded that there is a world beyond the academe for the anthropologists and the sociologists in the University. Ash? 2:03:37 PRESTO: So, at this point, may we now award a Certificate of Appreciation to our panelists. We are just waiting for our technical team to flash the certificate. [share screen certificate] This certificate of appreciation is proudly awarded to Prof. Belen Medina, Prof. Randy David, and Prof. Mary Racelis, for sharing their lived experiences in the journey of the two academic disciplines in UP Diliman during the Conversations on Sociology and Anthropology: Divergences and Intersections, held on July 16, 2021, via Zoom in commemoration of the centennial of the former Department of Anthropology and Sociology in UP. Thank you, thank you, thank you so much to our panelists for their time and generosity to share their insights and experiences tonight.

2:04:36 RAMOS: There have been a lot of leftover comments and questions in the chat section of zoom and we’re sorry we cannot accommodate all, but if you would like to email our panelists for your questions and you’re—you know just for a little back and forth with them—we suggest you do so. I think we’ll be giving out their email addresses? Are we doing that?

2:05:02 DIONISIO: And we will also be continuing this conversation throughout the rest of the year, culminating in the joint conference of the departments of Anthropology and Sociology towards the last quarter of the year.

The proceedings of this panel discussion, and hopefully, including the comments here in the chatbox and on the FB page of the Department of the Sociology will hopefully be included in a publication in the future.

And sana, mayroon tayong photo-ops. Kanina, ang peak natin is more than 90 and now more than 60 ang retain natin throughout the two-hour initial conversation. So maybe we could have a photo-op.

36

2:06:05 PRESTO: May we request our participants to turn on their videos for a photo opportunity.

[END OF RECORDING]

Conversations on Anthropology and Sociology

37

ABOUT THE PANELISTS Professor Belen TanGatue Medina obtained her BA (cum laude) and MA from the University of the Philippines where she majored in Sociology, after which she took postgraduate courses in sociology/anthropology and Southeast Asian studies at Cornell University as a Fulbr ight/Smith-Mundt scholar. She trained in the Sociology of Development at Delhi University as a UNESCO fellow, and obtained a Certificate in Social Research for Developing Societies (With Merit) at the University of London.

With a Ford/Rockefeller grant, she visited the University of California at Los Angeles and Irvine, Wright State University, University of Cincinnati, and Miami University for enrichment studies in the sociology of the family. She also visited the Chulalongkorn and Thammasat Universities, Rangoon University, the University of Malaya, the University of Singapore, and the University of Indonesia on an Asia Foundation grant for Southeast Asian studies. Professor Medina taught for more than fifty years at the Department of Sociology of the University of the Philippines in Diliman, where she served as chairperson twice. She is the recognized expert on the Filipino family and the author of the only textbook on the Sociology of the Family in the country, the Filipino Family published by the UP Press 3rd edition in 2015. She has published many articles and books and has read papers at sociological conferences in the Philippines and abroad. Professor Medina is an elected lifetime member of the Phi Kappa Phi International Honor Society and the Pi Gamma Mu International Honor Society in Social Sciences. She is a founding member and recognized Honorary Member of the Philippine Sociological Society and also Member Emeritus of the National Research Council of the Philippines.

Conversations on Anthropology and Sociology

39

Mary Racelis is a Research Scientist at the Institute of Philippine Culture, School of Social Sciences, Ateneo de Manila University, and its former Director. She is Senior Professorial Lecturer at the Ateneo’s Department of Sociology and Anthropology and the University of the Philippines Department of Anthropology, having also taught in the UP Department of Sociology 19972000. She has received two PhD honoris causa awards, the first from De La Salle University in 1975 (Social Sciences) and Ateneo de Manila in 2000 (Humanities). She combines both academic and advocacy interests by serving on several NGO Boards, most of which render partner support to organized urban poor communities. Her students in engaged anthropology have worked with these communities in the context of knowledge generation through co-production, co-implementation and co-benefits. Her research and consultancies with Philippine government and international organizations have focused on urbanization, urban informal settlements and community organizing for onsite upgrading or in-city relocation. She has written on gender, children, family, reproductive health, indigenous people, socio-cultural change and most recently, socio-cultural aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic. From 1983-1992 she was the Nairobi, Kenya-based United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) Regional Director, Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Office, after having served as the UNICEF Senior Policy Specialist for Family Welfare, Women’s Development and Community Participation in New York 1979-83. She returned to the Philippines to become the Ford Foundation’s Country Director 1992-97. At the invitation of former Secretary-General Kofi Annan, she became an active member in 2003-2004 of his Panel of Eminent Persons on United Nations— Civil Society Relations. She is proudest of her five children, 13 grandchildren, and 3 great-grandchildren.

40

Randolf “Randy” David is professor emeritus of sociology at the University of the Philippines Diliman.

He studied sociology at the University of the Philippines and the University of Manchester in England. He has authored five books and lectured in various universities in the Philippines and abroad.

After the 1986 EDSA people power revolution, he started a second career in media, hosting a multi-awarded public affairs TV talk show in Filipino from 1986 to 2003.

His column, “Public Lives,” has appeared in the Philippine Daily Inquirer since 1995. He has been honored for his contributions to the mass media, the social sciences, and education. He is the recipient of an honorary doctorate in humanities from the Ateneo de Naga University, the Ozanam Award from the Ateneo de Manila University, and, in 2019, the Grand Prize from the Fukuoka Asian Prize of Japan.

41

COMMITTEE MEMBERS Anthropology-Sociology Forum Committee: Asst. Prof. Samuel Cabbuag, Project Coordinator Ms. Athena Presto, Assistant Project Coordinator Asst. Prof. Herbert Docena, PhD, Assistant Project Coordinator Asst. Prof. Hannah Nario-Lopez, Copyeditor Ms. Raquel Galamgam, Admin Officer Ms. Erika Nario, Admin Assistant Anthropology-Sociology Centennial Celebration: Assoc. Prof. Josephine Dionisio, Convenor Assoc. Prof. Carlos Tatel Jr., PhD, Convenor