ASCOT Library Zabali Campus

Introduction. – Distribution of Filipino indigenous ethnic communities. – Typology of indigenous ethnic social organizations. – Pisan type of social organization. – Puro type of social organization. – Ili type of social organization. – Magani type of social organization. – Banwa type of social organization. – Comparative summary. – Conclusion. – Suggested direction for future research.

The materials on which this ooks is based were put together in 1982-83 as lecture notes and readings for my class in Philippine Social Organization at the Asian Center, University of the Philippines. I rewrote these notes with additional materials in 1991 for another course on Philippine Society and Culture. In 1994, I published part of these notes under the title Problems and Methods in the Study of Philippine Indigenous Ethnic Cultures.
In 1995, after my retirement, I worked on my notes again. I decided, however, not to add more data to my 1991 inventory. What I needed was a framework that would allow me to put order to the mass of ethnographic materials. For in going over these materials, I was confronted with the problem of how to account for the co-existence – sometimes geographically side by side – of the seemingly different indigenous ethinic communities, speaking different dialects, and having apparently different social organizations, traditional values, and beliefs and practices. How do we handle these diversities? Is it meaningful to lump these indigenous ehtnic groups together and treat them as one sociocultural unit – the “cultural communities” – as government policy-makers do today?
As I continued to work on the materials, I discovered that some communities share with each other certain basic instituions and beliefs and practices,nothwithstanding their geogrpahical distances and linguistic differences, more than they do wit other communties nearby. For example, the hunting and gathering groups, like the Agta of Nrthern Luzon, the Batak of Palawan, and the Ati of Panay, sahre similar social organization and other cultural practices. The rice-terrace agriculturists in Ifugao or Bontoc do not share the same social organization with the neighboring Gaddang and Ilongot. The Manuvu and Coastal Bagobo of Mindanao sahre with each other similar complex organizational structures, sets of religious rituals, and custom laws, but not with the Tiruray or Subanon, also in Mindanao. The Mangyan kaingin (slash-and-burn) agriculturists of Mindoro share similar kinship struacture and family organizations with the Sulod of Central Panay and the Magahat of Negros. The Isneg-Apayao and Gaddang of Northern Luzon share the warrior-leadership complex with the Agusan Manobo and Mandaya of Mindanao, inspite of geographical distance.
I discovered furthermore that it is possible to group the indigenous ethnic communities according to their shared similarities and patterned differences; that it is also possible to arrange them along a continuu of increasing organizational complexities and to locate the place of each one on it.
These methodological possibilities led me back to the once-exciting but now out-of-date frameworks of Fred Eggan and Julian Steward. These two scholars were able to simplify the study of American Indian tribes. Eggan used the method of “controlled comparison” to highlight structural similarities and differences among the Pueblo Indians in the Southwest United States. Steward used the concept of “levels of sociocultural integration” to define the boundaries of cultural adaptations among the Shoshonean-speaking Indians of the Great Basin. I integrated these two approaches into one framework and used it to simplify the study of Filipino indigenous ethnic communities and to have a wholistic view of their shared similarities and patterned differences.
The post-modernist anthropologists will certainly object to this conventional and “out of date” methodology. I anticiapte severe criticisms from them – in addition to their commnetaries on the inadequacies of ethnographic details for valid comparisons and remarkeble differences in ethnic community life for meaningful generalizations.
But if we have to have proper understanding of the nature and internal dynamics of indigenous ehtnic cultures, we have to begin somewhere. I find Eggan’s and Steward’s methodological and conceptual appraoches the most convenient strating points. Once the ethnic oragnziational boundaires – i.e., shared similarities and ddifferences – are identified and clarified, then we can move on to new appraoches in ethnic studies and in toehr areas of anthropological researches. We can even go on re-conceptualizing our community organizations and re-explaining our experiences within these systems.