philippine studies

Ateneo de Manila University • Loyola Heights, Quezon City • 1108 Philippines

The Social Sciences in the Philippines:

Reflections on Trends and Developments

Maria Cynthia Rose Banzon Bautista

Philippine Studies vol. 48, no. 2 (2000): 175–208

Copyright © Ateneo de Manila University

Philippine Studies is published by the Ateneo de Manila

University. Contents may not be copied or sent via email
or other means to multiple sites and posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder’s written permission. Users
may download and print articles for individual, noncom-
mercial use only. However, unless prior permission has
been obtained, you may not download an entire issue of a
journal, or download multiple copies of articles.

Please contact the publisher for any further use of this

work at philstudies@admu.edu.ph.

http://www.philippinestudies.net
Fri June 27 13:30:20 2008
 The Social Sciences in the Philippines:
Reflections on Trends and Developments
Maria Cynthia Rose Banzon Bautista

This article constitutes preliminary thoughts on the development of the

social sciences in the Philippines. Drawing from previous assessments
by Filipino social scientists of the history and state of their disciplines,'
it presents in broad strokes some of the trends and turning points in the
growth of anthropology, economics, political science, psychology and
sociology, five of the six core social science disciplines in the ~ o u n t r y . ~
The article begins with a sweeping historical account of the growth
of the social sciences up to their institutionalization in the 1 9 6 0 ~fol-
~
lowed by a summative description of developments from the 1970s to
the 1990s3Developments are discussed in terms of influences on some
of the substantive and methodological concerns of the disciplines. The
paper concludes with the contributions of the social sciences to pub-
lic discourses, policies and practices.
It is important to note that watersheds in the evolution of the dis-
ciplines do not correspond neatly to the historical periods set in the
paper. Processes associated with particular decades may have begun
long before the period under consideration and may have proceeded
with significant turns in succeeding years. Mindful of this observation,
the periodization in the paper ought to be viewed as a convenient way
of contextualizing observed developments in the disciplines and the
social sciences taken collectively.
It is also important for the reader to treat this paper as an inchoate
and unfinished work, subject to continuing reformulation. Written on

The paper was originally published in The Social Sciences in the Life of the Nation, edited
by Virginia Miralao (1999). It is a more concise version of an original draft presented
at the Commission on Higher Education's National Centennial Congress on Higher
Education, Manila Midtown Hotel, 28-29 May 1998.
PHILIPPINE STUDIES

the basis of available documents, views and insights of resource per-

sons and the writer's observations from 1972 to 1999, the paper is cir-
cumscribed by the way developments in a few academic institutions
in Metro Manila are re~onstructed.~ It does not benefit from a compre-
hensive review of the practice of the social science profession in other
institutions like the Asian Social Institute, the University of Asia and
the Pacific, Silliman University and Xavier University. Nor does the
paper systematically consider developments in the social sciences in
other higher education institutions in the country, government bodies
and non-government organizations. Furthermore, the influences and
thrusts singled out in the paper do not adequately reflect the diverse
theoretical and methodological practices of individual social scientists
even in the focal institutions like the University of the Philippines
where the trends are most palpable.

Institutionalizing the Social Sciences:

From the American Colonial Period to the 1960s

The literature on the development of the social sciences in the Phil-

ippines explicitly traces the genealogy of the disciplines, except psy-
chology, to the works of pioneering thinkers or the teaching of
particular subjects during the Spanish colonial period. As ethnographic
accounts of settled communities at the time (Abaya, Lucas-Fernan and
Noval-Morales 1999, 1) Abaya considered the Eurocentric writings of
Spanish chroniclers like Pigafetta, Loarca, Plasencia and Chirino in the
sixteenth century as incipient anthropological works. Agpalo argued
that the systematic analysis of important aspects of Philippine politi-
cal theory by the intellectual leaders of the Philippine Revolution no-
tably Jose Rizal and Marcelo H. Del Pilar makes them the pioneers of
political science (Agpalo 1999, 199). Similarly, De Dios singled out
Gregorio Sanciano y Joson, who wrote a purely economic treatise to-
ward the end of the nineteenth century while taking a doctorate in
civil laws from Madrid in 1881 (De Dios 1999, 85) as the first local
economist. Abad and Eviota, on the other hand, root the beginnings of
sociology in the teaching of social philosophy, social ethics and penol-
ogy at the University of Santo Tomas toward the end of the century5
Although early thinkers, forerunners of disciplinal works and par-
ticular courses may have reflected the state of economic, political and
sociological thought at the time, anthropology, economics, political
science and sociology as academic disciplines with defined theoretical
 SOCIAL SCIENCES

and methodological perspectives did not exist in the Philippines before

the 1900s. The academic circles in the nineteenth century were oblivi-
ous to the need to document and understand the lives and identities
of different cultural groups in the country. They were not cognizant of
discussions on the scope and appropriate analytical tools for econom-
ics. For instance, neither the Methodenstreit debate between those who
espoused marginalist ideas and the historical school in Europe nor the
Marxist critique of hissez faire policies figured in local discourses (De
Dios 1999, 86-87). As for sociology, the new orientation in social phi-
losophy that passed off as sociological hardly challenged the transcen-
dental moral relationships that underlay a traditional view of the
world (Pertierra 1997, 5). Nor did it advance the discipline's secular
project of systematically finding explanations for a variety of social
phenomena in the real world.
The Philippine social sciences emerged as specialized disciplines
with the establishment of academic departments in the early American
colonial p e r i ~ dPatterned
.~ after American universities, the social sci-
ence departments in the country were created in different years. Since
ethnographic studies of Christian ethnic groups and non-Christian
tribes were already well entrenched in the colonial government bu-
reaucracy by the second decade of the 1900s, anthropology was the
first discipline to be instituted at the University of the Philippines, the
educational flagship of the new colonial order (Abaya 1999, 2). The
Departments of Sociology and Economics and of Political Science were
established a year after the Department of Anthropology in 1915 while
the Department of Psychology was instituted after eleven years
(Alfonso 1985,61-62).' The same year saw the establishment of a sepa-
rate Department of Economics in the College of Liberal Arts although
it was taken out of the College three years later to form the nucleus of
the School of Business Administration (De Dios 1999, 98-103). Sociol-
ogy merged with anthropology to become the Department of Sociology
and Anthropology in the same period. Both departments split four
decades later in 1963, two years before the Department of Economics
separated from the College of Business Administration and became the
School of Economics.
The return in the 1950s of a substantial core of Filipinos who pur-
sued graduate studies abroad stimulated the establishment of the
School of Economics, the split of anthropology and sociology into
separate departments and the growth of political science and psychol-
ogy. While courses in the disciplines covered in this paper had been
PHILIPPINE STUDIES

taught in the first few decades before World War 11, the social science
curricula attained prominence only in the postwar era (Hollnsteiner
1973,2). Moreover, the gradual shift in the perspectives and content of
the disciplines from legalistic studies of government as the principal
organ of the state to studies of political systems and institutions in
political science: from descriptive and historical approaches to eco-
nomic phenomena to the more analytical and quantitative economics
that took off in the 1960s (Gonzales 1997), from the view of ethnic
communities as other cultures to the linguistic, demographic and eth-
nographic studies of ethnic groups within one's own culture in anthro-
pology (Bennagen 1990, 2) from counseling psychology to psycho-
logical testing and the dominance of experimental methods in psychol-
ogy (Enriquez 1985, 149-57; Tan 1998, 5; Torres [forthcoming]) and
from a social philosophical or normative sociology to one based on
empirical research occurred in the three decades following the war?
The presence of a critical mass of trained social scientists did not
only lead to substantial revisions of the social science curricula. Be-
w a h g their small number in the face of increasing demands on their
professions, the first batches of returning scholars focused on the re-
cruitment of bright students into their respective disciplines. They also
organized professional associations that were dedicated to the de-
vdopment of the disciplinal fields. Out of the informal discussion groups
in the 1950s and 1960s arose four professional organizations (see table 1).
The formation of professional associations was a defining moment
in the history of the social sciences. Their founders and core members
were imbued with the commitment to build their respective disciplines
and form communities of professionals who eventually set the criteria
for membership into their ranks. In the process, they defined the na-
ture of their professions in the country. It is interesting to note, for
example, the evolution of the association of economists from the Social
Economy Association of the late 1950s that included other social sci-
entists to the Philippine Economic Society (PES) of 1961 that drew its
members exclusively from the new breed of economists schooled in
the emergent tradition of mathematical models and econometric analy-
sis.I0Similarly, the membership of the Philippine Political Science As-
sociation (PPSA) and the Philippine Association of Psychologists (PAP)
was drawn exclusively from academics in the discipline and/or prac-
titioners. But unlike PES with its dominant methodological paradigm,
the PPSA and PAP were less definite about the school of thought and
methodological position that defined their disciplines. The Philippine
 SOCIAL SCIENCES

Table 1. Major National Associations of Social Scientists and Professional

Jo-

Association Date of Founding Journal Date of

(incorporation) First Issue

Phil. Political 1962 Phil. Political 1974

Science Association Science Journal
Phil. Sociological 1952* Phil. Sociological 1953
Association ' (1963) Review
Phil. Association 1962,' Phil. Journal of 1968
of Psychologists (1962) Psychology
Phil. Economic 1962*** Phil. Economic 1962***
Society (1972) Journal
Ugnayang Pang- 1977**** Agham-Tao 1978
Agham Tao (UGAT)

Somes: Unless indicated, the source of all entries is Bulatao, et al. 1979, tables 9 and
11
* Panopio, Isabel (1996, 1)
Tan, Allen (1998, 1)
*** Sicat, Gerardo (1982, 18)
*-* Bennagen, Ponciano (1990, 13)

Sociological Association was by far even more liberal than the PPSA
and PAP in its acceptance of members from the other social sciences.
Since its formation in 1952 until the founding of the Ugnayang Pang-
Agham Tao (UGAT) in 1977, PSA had included anthropologists, a re-
flection of the substantive overlap of sociology and social
anthropology. Apart from anthropologists, PSA also drew members
from other social science disciplines and interdisciplinary fields of
study.
The professional associations formed in the 1960s were more than
academic clubs sharing common disciplines and passions. They
emerged in response to societal and institutional imperatives. As a case
in point, a founding member of the Philippine Economic Society re-
called in a Forum organized to reconstruct the history of economics in
the Philippines, that the need to develop appropriate measures to ad-
dress the balance-of-payments crisis in the late 1940s triggered the
formation of the PES." The debate between those in government who
espoused monetary discipline on the one hand and the new industri-
PHILIPPINE STUDIES

alists and exporters, on the other, underscored the need for profes-
sional economists who were not on the payroll of business. As a con-
sequence, members of PES took it upon themselves to facilitate the
education of future economists and the training of government person-
nel in the analytical tools of economics. Thus, when Gerardo Sicat
became the first Director General of NEDA, he recruited his staff from
the School of Economics and sent them back to the School for gradu-
ate studies.
As mark of the commitment of the social scientists to the develop-
ment of their respective disciplines, the professional associations pro-
duced journals as soon as they were established and took pains to
keep these publications alive. The journals served as venues for ana-
lytical articles and encouraged social scientists to conduct research and
disseminate their findings.12
The conduct of systematic research and the accumulation of a body
of empirical works in the disciplines distinguished the more profes-
sional social sciences of the postwar years from their less developed
state before the war. Institutions such as the Ford Foundation and the
Rockefeller Foundation facilitated postwar research by providing insti-
tution-building grants to Universities and research centers. Newly cre-
ated research units such as the Institute of Philippine Culture (IPC),
the Research Institute for Mindanao Culture (RIMCU), the Institute for
Economic Development and Research and Community Development
Research Council (CDRC) and the Center for Research and Communi-
cations provided additional impetus to social science research.
The fortuitous confluence of charismatic academic leaders with sig-
nificant following in their respective disciplines and the compatibility
of the representatives of new professional associations contributed to
the auspicious establishment of the Philippine Social Science Council
(PSSC), an umbrella organization of the professional associations
(Gonzales 1997). Since its formation in 1963, FSSC has galvanized the
social science community to undertake disciplinal and multidis-
ciplinary studies, generate resources for research and systematically
build the research capability of young social scientists. In hindsight,
one of PSSC's most valuable contributions to building the social sci-
ences in the country is the development of regional institutions. Its
regional trainees now constitute the faculty, researchers and adminis-
trators of key universities and government agencies outside Metro
Manila.
 SOCIAL SCIENCES

Heeding the Call for Relevance:

The 1970s to the Turn of the Century

The social sciences in the Philippines were colonial implants. Unlike

in the West where the disciplines originated, they did not emerge as
rational projects to make sense of concrete societal experiences, e.g., the
chaos and disorder wrought by the French and Industrial Revolutions
(Abad and Eviota 1981, 131-32). Instead, they were shaped by Ameri-
can social science although continental influences that have been inte-
grated by American social scientists into their thinking and practice
filtered in. The country's colonial experience, the American training of
the first batch of returning social scientists from graduate schools
mostly in the United States and the presence of American professors
in some of the new academic departments and research institutions
account for the dominant hold of American academic traditions. The
role of the University of Chicago in shaping the thrusts and approach
of Philippine anthropology, through the training of Filipino anthropolo-
gists who filled strategic positions in teaching and research, eloquently
illustrates the impact of American academia on the social sciences.
The American character of Philippine social science notwithstand-
ing, the first generation of Filipino social scientists returning from their
studies abroad in the 1950s and 1960s sought their relevance at the
outset to what they perceived to be the needs of Philippine society.
Unmindful of the American bias of their training and firmly believing
that the social science disciplines they trained for can contribute to the
country's development, the pioneers of the disciplines applied their
skills to the analysis of Philippine problems and rigorously trained the
next generation to follow suit. Economists, for instance, responded to
the shift in government's economic strategy towards greater planning
and intervention and the need of the business sector to anticipate eco-
nomic policy through research that went beyond economic history (De
Dios 1999, 98). By the 1960s, the predominant studies utilizing math-
ematical models and empirical testing were efficiency-oriented and
concerned with the allocation of resources to various sectors
(Mangahas 1982).
Political scientists, psychologists, anthropologists and sociologists
were as conscious of making the social sciences useful to the country.
Informed by modernization theories, and departing from the empha-
sis of traditional political science on the state and its organs, political
PHILIPPINE STUDIES

scientists in the 1960s were preoccupied with understanding and clari-

fying the country's political system and in~titutions.'~
Psychologists, as
the only social scientists with a recognized professional practice, inevi-
tably grappled with the need to develop appropriate and relevant
psycholo~caltests (Enriquez 1985, 155). Anthropologists, on the other
hand, continued their ethnographic research to further understand
cultural and ethnolinguistic groups in the Philippines while sociolo-
gists with anthropologists developed research expertise and generated
data on topics ranging from ethnic relations, social institutions, com-
munity studies and Filipino values.

The Search for Alternative Paradigms and Methodologies in the

1970s and the 1980s

Prior to the late 1960s and 1970s, social science discourses in the
country avoided areas of intense ideological debate. The thematic foci
of sociologists and political scientists, for instance, eschewed agrarian
unrest and the Huk rebellion. Not until the turbulent years, from the
end of the 1960s to the early 1980s, did this obvious silence receive
scathing remarks from Marxist-inspired scholars. For instance, David
assailed the ideological character of sociology (David 1979, 1-9). By
systematically focusing on the social and cultural aspects of Philippine
life without establishing their links to the wider political economic
structure, sociologists were criticized for masking the structural roots
of social ills and contradictions. Similarly, Nemenzo charged main-
stream political science as an intellectualized expression of bourgeois
ideology.14 Even the less legalistic and more institutional approach of
political writings in the 1960s was criticized for leaving unexamined
the foundations of the bourgeois social order.
Reflecting the worldwide disenchantment of younger scholars with
traditional social science perspectives, Marxism was one of two move-
ments that influenced the Philippine social science disciplines in the
1970s and the 1980s. The other movement advocated for the
indigenization of knowledge. It was less global, entailing networks of
scholars confined largely to postcolonial societies in the South. The two
movements reflected different intellectual projects that often contra-
dicted each other but in practice drew common adherents and sympa-
thizers. The relationship between Marxism and the indigenization
 SOCIAL SCIENCES

movement is akin to that between Marxism and the nationalist school,

which de Dios discusses cogently in this volume, i.e., close, but com-
plex and ambivalent (De Dios 1999, 94).
Depending on the theoretical position one takes within neo-Marx-
ist thought, i.e. the humanism of the Frankfurt School of Sociology or
the structuralism of intellectuals like Louis Althusser and Nicos
Poulantzas, Marxist critique of the social sciences consisted either of
debunking the ideological character of explanations of social reality or
unraveling the economic, political and ideological structures that de-
termine social conditions in a particular historical conjuncture. Un-
mindful of the differences in the notion of critique implicit in the two
strands of Marxism, Marxist intellectuals in the Philippines did not
bother about nuances in Marxist theory and applied both notions as
they engaged in concrete revolutionary struggles.15In the process, they
fomented debates that produced a plethora of documents on Philip-
pine political, economic and ideological structures in a postcolonial
context.16
Marxist focus on Philippine social structures and critique of West-
em social science as constituting ideological systems of cultural repre-
sentations imposed on colonial societies may partly explain the affinity
of some Marxist-inspired social scientists with the indigenization
movement. This movement aims to abstract and articulate a particu-
lar society's political, economic and social configuration and more
importantly, its cultural roots and identity. The movement's agenda
takes on greater significance in colonized societies where peoples' re-
alities have been externally defined and their own interpretations sup-
pressed. Against this backdrop, the movement seeks to contextualiie
social science knowledge in a particular culture by developing con-
cepts, theories and methods born out of the experiences of the mem-
bers of that culture. It is at this level of ultimate goals that the
indigenization movement, with its culture-bound theorizing and its
emphasis on the social construction of cultural and ethnic identities,
differs radically from the totalizing framework of Marxism and the
privileged conceptual status it gives to social class. Nevertheless, in
practice, activists within the social science community, who were once
engaged in the political and economic struggles of the movement,
have moved quite naturally to advocating for the indigenization of the
social sciences.
PHILIPPINE STUDIES

Marxism and the Philippine Social Sciences

The global rise of Marxism in the 1960s and 1970s, the prolifera-
tion of academic books on the subject, the declaration of Martial Law
in 1972 and the subsequent gains of student activism and the revolu-
tionary movement facilitated the spread of Marxist influence on the
Philippine social sciences. Of the five disciplines covered in this paper,
political science, sociology and anthropology were the most affected.
Given its substantive focus, political science could not ignore the po-
litical theory that inspired the growth of the Philippine left, which in-
cluded some of the discipline's prominent faculty and students among
its ranks.I7On the other hand, Weberian and Marxist-inspired schools
of thought had slowly eroded functionalist and positivist paradigms in
Westem sociology by the 1 9 7 0 ~rendering
~ the Westem-oriented disci-
pline in the Philippines more open to Marxist perspectives.
Marxist ideas were widely disseminated in political science and
sociology classes in Manila through publications written by public
intellectuals from these dis~iplines.'~ The Third World Studies Center
at the University of the Philippines, which provided a venue for dis-
cussing dependency theory, world systems analysis and the mode of
production debate, supplied the materials used in classes on compara-
tive politics, political dynamics, social and political thought, intema-
tional politics, sociology of development, political sociology, ideology
and revolution, rural sociology, the sociology of knowledge and the
theory courses. Despite the usual Western organization of introductory
political science and sociology courses, Marxist perspectives infiltrated
discussions of contemporary issues in these courses. At the University
of the Philippines, the faculty in these disciplines, regardless of ideo-
logical persuasion, dealt with Marxist ideas, if only because political
science and sociology attracted radical students at the height of the
anti-dictatorship m~vement.'~
Compared to sociology, anthropology did not seem to have been as
affected by Marxism. Marxist thought formally penetrated only one of
its sub-fields ecological anthropology, while Marxist perspectives were
formally integrated into the courses taught in sociology. Moreover,
anthropology's methodology remained intact whereas Marxism con-
tributed to undermining the strong hold of positivism on Philippine
sociology.
Upon closer analysis, however, Marxism profoundly influenced
Philippine anthropology, albeit indirectly. At the height of the anti-
 SOCIAL SCIENCES

Marcos movement in the 1 9 7 0 ~ Abaya's

~ historical account of the de-
velopment of the discipline noted how students like Lorena Barros,
now a heroine of the underground movement, called for an action-
oriented and transformative discipline. Questions regarding the ethi-
cal and political involvement of anthropologists in counterinsurgency
operations after the famous expose of Project Camelot further rein-
forced activism among anthrop~logists.~~ They supported the right of
indigenous peoples to resist development programs that tended to
erode the cultural and social spheres of their lives. In advocating the
self-determination of indigenous peoples, anthropologists allied with
the Marxist-inspired movement. For instance, the fight of the people of
the Cordilleras against the National Power Corporation's Chico River
Basin Project linked anthropologists to the Left. Their experiences in
the field contributed to the call for a reinvention of anthropology, the
organization of its professional organization in 1977 and the themes
that engaged them in the 1980s. The themes included the anthropology
of resistance; ethnicity and national unity; culture change and national
development; the Tasaday controversy; mass movements; human
rights and ancestral land; technology; power; and en~ironment.~'
In contrast to the influence of Leftist discourse on political science,
sociology and anthropology, Marxism hardly made a dent on econom-
ics in the Philippines. Although economists participated in shaping the
discussions of the Philippine left as well as nationalist discourses, these
were not reflected in the Philippine Economic ] o u m l . Nor did they fig-
ure significantly in the classroom. The closest documented expression
of the search for alternatives among adherents of the discipline was
Ricardo Ferrer's An introduction to Economics as a Social Science (Ferrer
1970). Criticizing contemporary economics for obliterating the social
content of the discipline as a science, Ferrer attempted to return to the
classical framework of "political economy where social relations is as
much the subject of economics" as all other topics of attention (Ferrer
1970, Preface).
In research, economists did not pursue studies on the structural and
political determinants of economic policy particularly on borderline
political economic issues and concerns such as foreign investments and
multinational corporation^.^ Marxist-inspired sociologists filled the gap
by pursuing political economic research in these areas.23
The limited effects of debates involving Marxists and neoclassical
economists in other parts of the world on Philippine economics are
due in part to the nature of the discipline. Of all the social sciences in
PHILIPPINE STUDIES

the Philippines and with few exceptions, in the world, economics is

the only one with an unequivocal paradigm in the Kuhnian sense. It
has generated consensus on the fundamental assumptions of method-
ological individualism and optimizing behavior. More importantly,
economics has achieved a methodological unity that is not found in
the other social science disciplines. As such, economists do not feel the
need to shift to other paradigms in pursuit of topics of interest. Neo-
classical economics to them is an eclectic framework, capable of ab-
sorbing into its corpus of ideas new insights derived from the use of
the discipline's analytical tools. Furthermore, economists in the coun-
try tended to be too preoccupied with absorbing and applying the
analytical tools to the Philippine situation to spend time on intellectual
pursuits like Marxist economics, which the gums of the discipline con-
sidered marginal.
Although psychology was not as theoretically and methodologically
unified as economics in the 1970s, it too was not affected by Marxism.
Except for historicist strains in theory, the essentially atheoretical
stance of behaviorism and positivist research on a variety of psycho-
logical topics such as prejudice, stereotypes, projective techniques and
introspective assessment tools, rendered psychology in the Philippines
impervious to the influence of Marxism in the 1970s and 1980s
(Bemardo 1999). Despite common threads between Marxist structural-
ist analysis and Freudian psychoanalysis, the marked differences in
levels of analysis between Marxism, with its focus on large social for-
mations, and psychology, with its concentration on the individual,
account for the negligible influence of Marxism on the discipline.
By the mid-1980s, Marxist influence on Phlippine social science had
reached its limits, remaining primarily at the level of discourse. Count-
less Marxist debates, discussions and publications in the 1970s did not
translate into scholarship that could have added rigor to Marxist con-
cepts or revised the theories in light of empirical observations. There
were no serious attempts, for instance, on the part of sociologists and
political scientists, to determine the convergence of Philippine politi-
cal economy and society with and divergence from other Third World
formations in Latin America, Africa and Asia. They did not incorpo-
rate a plethora of findings from various studies into Marxist analysis.
Nor did insights from the democratization process of the 1980s feed
back into Marxist theory and revise its formulations.
But the impasse in the development of Marxist scholarship in the
country is understandable. The dramatic end of the Marcos regime
 SOCIAL SCIENCES

and the beginning of the Aquino administration in the mid-1980s

opened up a challenging arena of struggle, drawing social scientists
and Marxist intellectuals into advocacy, policy or action-oriented work.
Developing Marxist scholarship was a luxury in light of the demands
and imperatives of social transformation. Moreover, funds for research
on Marxist topics and theoretical work were unavailable. Within a
short time, Marxist discourse gave way to the more domesticated in-
ternational discourses on civil society and transition to democracy
In fine, Marxism by the mid-1980s had failed to grow as a field of
scholarship. The collapse of the socialist bloc further undermined the
influence Marxist ideas enjoyed at the height of the anti-dictatorship
movement. Nevertheless, Marxist-inspired social scientists have contin-
ued to draw from Marxism, recasting its insights into the more plural-
ist discourses of the 1990s.

The Indigenization Movement and the Social Sciences

Intersecting with Marxism, the nationalist movement of the 1960s

and 1970s intensified the indigenization efforts in the country. But
unlike the tacit acceptance of the Western orientation of the social sci-
ences in the 1950s and 1960s when social scientists resolved to apply
their analysis to Philippine realities, shedding the colonial legacy of the
disciplines was an explicit goal in the 1970s and 1980s. Those who
spearheaded the movement participated in anti-West discourses on
indigenization in Asia and other parts of the Third World.
How far did the second wind in the indigenization efforts in the
Philippines go? To answer this question, it is necessary to unpack the
concept of indigenization that has been understood and used differ-
ently by members of the social science community. Khrisna Kumar's
(1976) aspects of indigen~ation,2~ which correspond to three levels of
the process, is a useful handle for assessing the nature and extent of
indigenization in the social sciences. For Kumar, indigenization pro-
ceeds in three phases

structural indigenization or the institutionalized and organized ca-

pabilities of a nation for the production and diffusion of social sci-
ence knowledge;
substantive indigenization or the focus of a nation's research and
teaching activities on its own social institutions, conditions and
problems; and
PHILIPPINE STUDIES

theoretic indigenization or the construction of distinctive conceptual

frameworks and metatheories reflective of the world views, socio-
cultural experiences as well as perceived goals of Filipinos.

Assessed in relation to Kumar's aspects, the Philippine social sci-

ences had achieved structural and substantive indigenization by the
1970s. Even economics, which has been claimed to resist
indigenization, had a core of competent economists focusing substan-
tively on the study of Philippine problems (see Pertierra 1996, 8). In
contrast, theoretic indigenization by the late 1970s and 1980s remained
a goal for sociology and political science while anthropology and psy-
chology had begun to move deliberately toward it. Economics, with its
unified paradigm, did not even consider setting such a goal.
At the height of the movement to debunk the Western orientation
of the social sciences, the community was divided over the strategy for
achieving theoretic indigenization. One approach, exemplified by
Sikolohiyang Pilipino, a multidisciplinary movement that started in psy-
chology, viewed theoretic indigenization as a conscious and constant
search for indigenous frameworks, concepts, theories and methodolo-
gies. A second approach did not see the need to consciously discover
Filipino perspectives but saw theoretic indigenization as the outcome
of competent social science research in the country. For proponents of
the latter approach, the establishment of a research tradition in social
inquiry, made alive by critical exchanges among social scientists, will
eventually contribute to the development of local paradigms (Gonzales
1990, 119).
Straddling the two approaches, a third view recognized the need to
develop social science frameworks, concepts, models and theories that
acknowledge historical and cultural specificities but accepted the ne-
cessity of organizing inquiries along Western notions of applicable
analytical frameworks while historical and culturally-bound frame-
works have not supplanted traditional paradigms (Miranda 1984, 78).
This approach considered the identification of the limitations of tradi-
tional Western paradigms and the unmasking of their outright distor-
tions of social phenomena as critical to the long process of constructing
indigenous perspectives.
The most notable developments toward theoretic indigenization in
the sense of distinctive concepts, perspectives and metatheories oc-
curred in anthropology and psychology. Nationalist fervor, the shift in
the discourse of Western anthropology toward cultural criticism and
 SOCIAL SCIENCES

the intense soul-searching among Filipino anthropologists speeded up

the process of shedding the discipline's colonial legacy.25The conscious
agenda of decolonizing anthropology in the Philippines led to the cre-
ation in 1977 of the UGAT, a network committed to rethinking the
discipline's identity, its constructs for understanding the Philippines
and its peoples, and the rules of accountability and engagement that
should bind anthropologists (Abaya 1999). It also led to a search for
alternative theories and methodologies grounded in local cultures.
Covar's work is a case in point. It is an attempt to develop a cul-
ture-bound anthropology. Pagkatao, translated roughly as personhood,
is posited in his writings as the anchor of anthropology and discover-
ing the cultural processes that enhance and shape it is the discipline's
primary agenda. Covar reveals the linguistic ramifications of the con-
cept and develops its dimensions metaphorically using the image of
the banga or earthen jar (Covar 1993, 12). The difficulty of translating
the basic concepts and ideas inherent in the metaphor is to be ex-
pected. In Covar's framework, a truly culture-bound anthropology is
imbedded in the language of the discourse. Outside the language, the
essence of the metaphor is bound to be lost.
Drawing inspiration from ethno-science or cognitive anthropology,
Enriquez developed Sikolohiyang Pilipino (Filipino Psychology), a school
of thought that privileged the emic or "native point of view" over the
etic or "researcher's viewpoint" (Abaya 1999). Sikolohiyang Pilipino (SP)
was posited as a "new consciousness reflecting Filipino psychological
knowledge that has emerged through the use of local language as a
tool for the identification and rediscovery of indigenous concepts and
an appropriate medium for the delineation and articulation of Philip-
pine realities" (Enriquez 1990, 124). Ventura describes the features of
SP in greater detail. Apart from recognizing language as a basic vari-
able in personality, testing and social psychology, SP is concerned with
studying individuals in their natural settings and rediscovering the ties
of psychology to other disciplines and branches of knowledge in order
to arrive at culturally-appropriate explanations of Filipino behavior
(Ventura as cited by Enriquez 1990, 160). But apart from being an at-
tempt to formulate indigenous psychological theories and develop
methods, SP was essentially a form of resistance to the hegemony of
Western paradigms. Its ultimate agenda was the liberation of psychol-
ogy from its Western origins (Torres 1998).
Sikolohiyang Pilipino exerted tremendous influence on Philippine
psychology in different parts of the country. It produced a plethora of
PHILIPPINE STUDIES

works that offer an alternative to traditional psychological writings in

the Philippines. Torres credited SP with other significant achievements.
They include the refocusing of explanations of Filipino personality on
indigenous values, of which kapwa is the most noteworthy; the impor-
tance given to the linguistic specificity of behavioral patterns; the ac-
ceptance of explanations of Filipino behavior emanating from other
disciplines; the development of new procedures and categories for
studying Filipino behavior and the use of the Filipino language in
spawning culture-bound concepts and procedures (Torres 1997,17-37).
Recent literature has noted some problems with the indigenization
of psychological knowledge along the approach and methods es-
poused by SP. In an incisive article, Sta. Maria (1996) criticized
Enriquez's method of "plucking indigenous terms that contrast with
foreign interpretations" and elevating these to the level of values. She
noted that SP formulated local concepts that may be consistent with
the idea of a liberating psychology but which were not necessarily
drawn from empirical investigations. Methodological issues such as
the cultural uniqueness of the methods and their behavioral and atti-
tudinal nuances and the lack of integration between method and con-
tent led Sta. Maria to highlight the need to further contextualize SP
within Filipino cultural and historical experience. In addition to Sta.
Maria's critique, Torres argues that the key concepts of the school of
thought are rooted in Tagalog, the language of lowland Christian Fili-
pinos in Central and Southern Luzon (Torres, ibid).
Despite its weaknesses, Sikolohiyang Pilipino represents the most
advanced attempt at theoretic indigenization among the social sciences
covered in this paper. But apart from this movement and Covar's
work in anthropology, it is important to note that the initiatives toward
theoretic indigenization were not confined to psychology and anthro-
pology. Agpalo's pioneering work in political science is noteworthy
(see Agpalo 1972). Taking off from the metaphor of Pandanggo sa llaw,
a folk dance which requires balancing lights, Agpalo elaborated on the
subtleties and dexterities of Philippine politics. He eventually linked
his insights to the larger paradigm of the Pangulo regime. Based on a
metaphor of the human body, Agpalo posited a political hierarchy in
which the nation's leader is a h to the ulo or brain. Since the system
is assumed to be organic, he further argued that the leader is consen-
sually chosen.
While Agpalo's metaphor was quite extended, the agenda of devel-
oping indigenous concepts did not take off in political science. The
 SOCIAL SCIENCES

discipline was caught in discourses of political development in which

Marxism figured significantly. Moreover, the increasingly more articu-
late Marxist discourse in political science rendered Agpalo's model of
Philippine politics, constructed at the threshold of the highly politicized
academic environment of Martial Law, conservative and irrelevant.
By the 1 9 9 0 ~
efforts
~ toward theoretic indigenization had resulted in
indigenous concepts, recommended methods and procedures for doing
field-based social science research in the Philippines and a range of
application^.^^ However, there was no apparent attempt in the litera-
ture to link concepts and develop indigenized theoretical frameworks
and perspectives. Studies in Sikolohiyang Pilipino, for instance, tended
to be descriptive (Bemardo 1998). On the other hand, the plethora of
analytical and descriptive research organized along Westem-oriented
paradigms had not been culled for theoretical insights and integrated
into local paradigms.
Although the development of Marxist scholarship and indigenized
social science was limited, the two movements that influenced Philip-
pine academia in the 1970s and 1980s left their indelible mark on the
orientation of the social sciences in the country. Subsequent activities
of most social scientists reflected the value they attached to linking
scholarship to the amelioration of Philippine conditions. Since the
imperatives of pursuing relevant concerns put premium on policy or
action research, significant theoretical work was relegated to an indefi-
nite future, accounting for the atheoretical character of research or the
absence of theories developed by Filipino social scientists. Further-
more, their demand for relevance oriented social science writing to a
Philippine audience, explaining why competent Filipino social scien-
tists, with the exception of economists, have not been as concerned
with publishing in international j o u m a l ~ . ~ ~

From Polarization to Pluralism and Convergence in the 1990s

Intense debates between contending schools of thought and meth-

odological positions preoccupied the social sciences in the 1970s and
1980s with the exception of economics. Questions regarding basic goals
and perspectives and the methodological issues posed by Sikolohiyang
Pilipino divided psychology. In political science, Marxism challenged
the structural functionalist and systems approaches to political devel-
opment with which the modernization theories of Samuel Huntington,
Lucien Pye and James Coleman, among others, had affinity. Similarly,
PHILIPPINE STUDIES

Marxist and phenomenological thinkers contended with structural-

functionalism and systems theory in sociology. While anthropology in
the Philippines was not divided into contending schools of thought, it
was nevertheless engaged in a collective redefinition of its directions
against the taken-for-granted colonial standpoint of the 'other' as ob-
ject of study.
By the 1990s, theoretical attempts to integrate opposing perspectives
and levels of analysis blunted the polemical exchanges of the 1970s
and early 1980s. For instance, with each encounter, sociology moved
closer to achieving some integration of perspectives. The rapproche-
ment of conflicting positions is reflected &I Giddens' theory of struc-
turation that combines political economy's focus on structures with the
symbolic interactionist and Weberian sociologists' emphasis on human
agency. Synthetic theorizing is also manifested in the Marx-Weber
model of society and the macro-micro links that connect micro theories
emphasizing the contingency of the social order and the centrality of
individual negotiations to macro theories of social structures (Banzon-
Bautista 1994, 7-49).
The level of theoretical and conceptual convergence that enlightened
Philippine sociology in the 1990s had not been achieved in political
science, psychology and anthropology. However, there seems to have
been greater tolerance in the last two decades for divergent perspec-
tives and modes of doing science in these disciplines. Psychology, for
instance, has incorporated insights gained from research in Sikolohiyang
Pilipino into the discipline's growing body of knowledge. In recent
years, it has also been characterized by the coexistence of competing
views, i.e., behavioral and experimental positivist approaches, phe-
nomenological perspectives and postmodern feminist discourses
(Torres 1997, 17-37).
Opposing perspectives in political science have converged in the
areas of international relations, political dynamics and comparative
politics. The categories of international discourses and their adoption
into the language of Filipino social scientists facilitated their coming
together. As a case in point, both Marxist-inspired and functionalist-
oriented political scientists have begun to utilize a common vocabulary
coming from a discourse on governance that underscores democrati-
zation and the significance of civil society. The recent convergence of
political scientists working in the area of international security and
those working on development further illustrate some degree of rap-
prochement. In the last decade, the concept of security has begun to
 SOCIAL SCIENCES

transcend its military connotations, encompassing the domains of po-

litical economists or scholars focusing on development issues (e.g.
environmental issues, peace and conflict resolution). As a consequence,
political science by the 1990s, like psychology and sociology, encour-
aged a plurality of perspectives and concerns that now include the
postmodem deconstruction of the discipline's taken-for-granted core
concepts such as power or the nation-state.
At first blush, it would seem that postmodemism, while influential
in literary circles in the Philippines, has not affected Philippine social
science as significantly as in the West. In a country where relevance to
concrete social conditions has been a significant criterion for concep-
tualizing social science issues and problems, one can logically assume
that understanding the origins, context and elements of social phenom-
ena in order to address policy questions or specify practical solutions
is a major concern. As such, the task of the social sciences is to arbi-
trate between diametrically opposed views on the basis of rules of
evidence. This task requires simplifying complex issues for approxi-
mate and tightly argued answers that are privileged over others.
Against this frame, the postmodemists' affirmation of multiple reali-
ties and acceptance of divergent interpretations as having equal foot-
ing, without distinguishing the interesting and the plausible from the
ridiculous and the absurd, would not seem to have a receptive audi-
ence among Filipino social ~ c i e n t i s t s . ~ ~
But upon closer examination, postmodern influences are recogniz-
able in Philippine social science, with the exception of economics. In
the first place, strains of postrnodernism as a category used to encom-
pass a wide range of perspectives "that reject epistemological assump-
tions, refute methodological conventions, resist knowledge claims,
obscure all versions of truth and dismiss policy recommendations" is
not new to the social sciences (Rosenau 1992, 3). Alternative philoso-
phies and schools of thought that influenced the disciplines as early as
the late 1960s such as existentialism and phenomenology reflect ele-
ments of postmodernism. But granting postmodernism the status of a
'new and different cultural movement that is coalescing in a broad-
gauged reconceptualization' of what is experienced and explained, its
influence on the social sciences is apparent, albeit less prominent than
in the West. Take, for instance, the case of anthropology (5).
Unlike sociology, psychology and political science, which experi-
enced polemical exchanges among opposing schools of thought in the
1970s, anthropology had been more tolerant of the diverse perspectives
PHILIPPINE STUDIES

of its adherents even in the decade of contention. The collective angst

of anthropologists at the time united them in a bigger cause, strength-
ening their acceptance of plurality within their ranks. After soul-
searching for almost a decade, Philippine anthropology emerged with
a redefinition of the discipline, from one aimed at writing a master
narrative of the distant "other" that has served the interests of social
control to a dialogue between the ethnographer and the subject. To put
it in Abaya's words, the "other is almost but not our selves and much
more besides their othered identities."
Whether anthropologists label their work as postmodern or not, the
discipline's determined efforts to shift out of privileging the ethnogra-
pher as author have made its practitioners even more sensitive to the
voices of indigenous peoples who are now "speaking in their own
tongues in tones unheard of before." Abaya articulates the implications
of this shift for the discipline.

It is about time we spoke with them (the "others") as colleagues and fel-
low makers of culture and gather a rich harvest of mutual learning, of
shared but not common speech, of a rhetoric contingent on difference
and differential politics (Abaya 1999, 9 parenthesis mine).

The result of dialoguing with the 'others' of anthropology is the

democratization of knowledge among indigenous peoples and the
larger society. Bemagen expresses this desired outcome succinctly in
words resonant of the postmodem spirit.

It seems to me that all the "Others" of the social sciences are claiming
authorship of knowledge production. It is probably more evident in
anthropology because of the sharper and multiple differences between
academic anthropologists and their traditional subject matter-peasants,
workers, urban poor, women, youth and children, etc., which are social
sciences' traditional subjects. Kami ang higit nu nakakaalam sa aming
kalagayan at problema is becoming more insistent than ever. If the aim of
the social sciences is both to understand and transform the world then
the claim of the others for self understanding and self transformation
sends to academics a signal for them to rethink their adaptive strategies
to help ensure their

Anthropology's redefinition of ethnography makes it easy to under-

stand why anthropologists have problematized the rules of the re-
searchers' engagement in the field or why participatory research has
 SOCIAL SCIENCES

become more sigruficant to the discipline. The development discourse

of the 1980s and postmodem influences opened up anthropology to
participatory modes of research.
In hindsight, the discourses of the 1980s facilitated the convergence
of methodologies in the other social sciences. The resulting plurality of
perspectives and the integrative discourses of the last twenty years
have tempered the polemics between positivist social science with its
penchant for generalizations and quantification and the interpretive
and phenomenological traditions that underscore the significance of
language and meaning in social constructions. Thus, the convergence
of perspectives was paralleled by an eclecticism of methods. Proof of
this is the way sociology and psychology, the most positivistic of the
social science disciplines in the Philippines, have allowed for a com-
bination of quantitative and qualitative analytical techniques in formu-
lating arguments. Triangulation of data has been accepted, if not
tolerated, by the staunchest positivists in the two discipline^.^^ On the
other hand, the more qualitative social sciences have been more open
to quantification. Political science has exposed its students more and
more to survey research while anthropology has begun to appreciate
the usefulness of quantification for summarizing context variables in
the sites of ethnographic studies.
Inspired by postmodem perspectives, feminist research methodolo-
gies for exploring subjectivities have widened the range of methods
available to social scientists. More than the previous decades, the 1990s
witnessed the full development and acceptance of qualitative social
science methodologies. Unfortunately, this has not been accompanied
by sigruficant developments in quantitative social science. Unlike eco-
nomics, which has kept up with the analytical tools of the discipline,
sociology and psychology have not incorporated mathematical devel-
opments in their fields with as much commitment as the economists.
In fine, the plurality of methods favored the growth of qualitative
versus quantitative social science, eroding the significance of positiv-
ism in the social sciences as a philosophy of science and methodologi-
cal orientation.
The convergence of methods and perspectives in the 1990s was
enhanced by the increase in opportunities for multidisciplinary re-
search. Such research has been particularly fruitful among political
scientists, sociologists, anthropologists and psychologists. Although
economists have broadened the scope of their concerns to include is-
sues such as those in governance, the dominance of the neoclassical
PHILIPPINE STUDIES

paradigm and insignificance of institutional economics in the Philip-

pines constrain the collaboration between economists and other social
scientists. With the exception of surveys and opinion polls, potential
multidisciplinary research involving economists and political scientists,
for instance, would rest on the latter's acceptance and understanding
of game theory. The same is true for sociology. Successful collabora-
tions between sociologists and economists in other parts of the world
have utilized frameworks consistent with neoclassical formulations
and mathematical modeling procedures.
The perceived difficulty of collaborating with economists who have
a unified methodology led Bello to advocate the establishment of a
department of "critical economics." He conceives the proposed depart-
ment as less deferential toward the market "less methodologically
obsessed" and more attuned to the dirty complexity of reality that "is
slipping through the filters" of economists (Bello 1997, 63). The depart-
ment Bello envisions would convene social scientists engaged in politi-
cal economic research along an alternative development agenda. In
many ways, it is reminiscent of the original motivations behind the
establishment of the Third World Studies Center.
Bello's critique of neoclassical economists and implicit judgment of
their capacity to collaborate fruitfully with other social scientists in
political economic research overlooked an important dimension of
multidisciplinary work. Given the diversity of theoretical and method-
ological positions within and across social science disciplines,
multidisciplinary research will thrive when like-minded social scien-
tists are given the chance to work together. The minimum requirement
for a multidisciplinary research to succeed is acceptance of negotiated
research frameworks, methodologies and ideological positions. It may
be difficult to expect neoclassical economists to work with critical so-
cial scientists but it is possible to imagine them working along with
other social scientists who share their domain assumptions regarding
the area and methodology of the study. Similarly, it is easy to imagine
individual economists who accept the premises of other social scien-
tists regarding politics and economics, working closely with them on
critical research. Crossfertilization of ideas and openness to the per-
spectives and methods of colleagues from other disciplines are more
likely to occur when collegial groups of scholars work together within
a common framework.
With an increasing number of social scientists conducting collabora-
tive research, the areas of overlapping concerns will expand and ben-
 SOCIAL SCIENCES

efit from the synergy of social scientists coming from different disci-
plines. These areas would include governance and politics; environ-
ment and health; culture, language, ethnicity and identity; poverty
research; and urban studies, to name a few areas. A s new
multidisciplinary areas are created, the traditional social science disci-
plines in the Philippines will reinvent themselves by redefining their
problematique and lenses for viewing social phenomena.

Social Science Discourse/Practice and Public Policy

The polarization of perspectives and methodologies in the late 1960s

and 1970s and their convergence in the succeeding decades have their
parallels in social science practice. The partisan discussions among
social scientists on the issue of working with government during Mar-
tial Law was eventually replaced by an openness to critically collabo-
rate with policymakers after the restoration of formal institutions of
constitutional democracy in 1986. At the height of authoritarian rule,
social scientists exchanged polemical barbs. Those who worked with
the Marcos administration were accused of legitimizing its dictatorial
designs and the crony capitalism it fostered. On the other hand, those
critical of colleagues who worked with government were charged with
hiding in their ivory tower, unmindful of pressing societal problems.
The regime change in 1986 blurred the great divide. The democratic
space created by the change justified the involvement in policy re-
search and advocacy of those who once opposed interfacing with the
Marcos government. Since many of the critical social scientists of the
1970s worked closely with sectoral groups and non-government orga-
nizations (NGOs) in the movement against the Marcos regime, they
pushed for the participation of these groups in governance and linked
u p with them. The subsequent collaboration of academic social scien-
tists and social science-educated development workers in NGOs au-
gured well for the articulation of development discourses and
successful advocacy of particular positions on salient issues.
The social science discourses that filtered into the language of policy
and the vocabulary of media after 1986 e.g., neoliberal political
economy, democratization, devolution, participatory and sustainable
development paradigms, antedated the regime change. They emerged
in the international literature in the 1970s and the early 1980s and
were refined in the practices and struggles of various movements and
PHILIPPINE STUDIES

organizations. The Philippine social science community opened up to

these discourses after 1983 in the course of addressing the succession
of political and economic crises in the aftermath of the assassination of
Senator Benigno Aquino. But the vacuum created by the dramatic tran-
sition to a new government in 1986 was what facilitated the articula-
tion of some of these discourses in the state's policy framework. For
instance, it accounts for the success of the country's economists in in-
tegrating and institutionalizing the neoliberal framework of
privatization, liberalization and deregulation into the policies of the
Aquino administration. The framework has since guided the Ramos
and Estrada governments.
While some elements of the social science community celebrated the
influence of their colleagues in economic policy, they also cautioned
against government obsession with economic growth to the detriment
of human development goals. Forming international and national net-
works, they successfully advocated for the articulation of poverty al-
leviation and human development targets in the state's Medium-Term
Development Plans and the incorporation of theoretically or empiri-
cally-based inputs into approaches and action plans in different levels
of government such as the Integrated Approach to Local Development
Management (IALDM) and the Philippine Plan of Action for Children
(PPAC) (see Briones 1998; De Dios 1998).
Social scientists also contributed significantly to the shaping of
policy and programs on the environment, health and women. Working
closely with non-government organizations and govemment agencies,
they played a part in crafting the current policy thrust and program on
social forestry through research inputs on the upland population (see
de 10s Angeles 1998). Social scientists studying the environment also
pushed for the reform of the country's resource information system.
In health, significant improvements in program monitoring and
implementation are attributed to research and advocacy networks in-
volving academics, NGO workers and medical professionals at the
Department of Health. In particular, the success of women's groups in
pushing for the institution of specific reproductive health programs
attests to the synergy of social scientists, NGO advocates in the
women's movement and government agencies. On a broader plane,
such synergy accounted for the significant gains of the women sector
in the legislation of its concerns and their incorporation into govem-
ment programs.31
 SOCIAL SCIENCES

The manifestations of the social scientists' influence on policy and

program formulation in various areas of national life noted above con-
stitute a small sample of contributions that deserves a separate assess-
ment. Nevertheless, this discussion would be remiss if it does not
mention some of the direct and indirect inputs of social scientists to
democratic governance and the shaping of public discourse in recent
years.
In response to the need for monitoring government efforts to ad-
dress social concerns like poverty and education, social scientists have
developed and refined indicators of human development (HDIs) and
minimum basic needs (MBN) through networks of social science advo-
cates in academe, key government institutions, NGOs and the private
sector (see de Dios 1998). The indicators have since been used to sen-
sitize local government officials to human development issues. Since
1997, provinces have been ranked along the HDIs. Those with the
highest ranks or the greatest change through the years have been
properly recognized to encourage local officials to attend to issues
beyond economics. Apart from the HDIs, the monitoring of minimum
basic needs in selected municipalities has raised the local population's
awareness of their conditions along specific indicators and the services
they can demand of their officials. All told, the use of both the HDIs
and the MBN indices is intended to impact on the expectations of the
citizenry at the local level, and hopefully, on the future terms of elec-
toral politics in the country.
While human development indicators are familiar to provincial of-
ficials and to officials and citizens of selected municipalities, the public
at large remains unaware of them. This is not the case, however, for
well-publicized surveys and opinion polls particularly on national
political leaders and the public's perception of their performance.
Miranda's account of the role of surveys in political debates is particu-
larly i n ~ t r u c t i v e . ~ ~
On publicly-acknowledged high saliency and/or great urgency issues,
some social scientists are currently able to influence the course of pub-
lic policy by directly communicating survey findings to the highest
authorities in briefings regularly provided the President and his Cabi-
net both chambers of Congress and other major government agencies.
Post-Marcos political administrations have become sensitive to public
opinion and popular sentiments particularly as these readily reach and
are magnified by an exuberant media. By way of an illustration, in Oc-
tober 1995, President Ramos no less responded energetically to the rice
PHILIPPINE STUDIES

crisis when survey findings indubitably showed that Filipinos were

holding him directly responsible for the rice shortage..Other govern-
ment officials now cite public opinion surveys in many instances, from
justifying their proposed agency budgets in Congressional hearings to
defending specific agency programs and even, at times, taking media to
task for the latter's alleged disinformation and sensationalism..Arguably
the greatest impact of survey research or more specifically public opin-
ion surveys is registered in the choice of public officials through the
electoral process. Less than 15 years ago, it was possible to assess elec-
toral contests and their probable results without once using the word
"survey." Since 1992, "public opinion polls," and "surveys" have
become part of the standard vocabulary of anyone who would presume
to analyze national elections in this country (Miranda 1998, 1-5).

The controversies generated by the results of electoral surveys fur-

ther heightened public awareness of social issues and social science
methodologies, e.g., the survey methodology. Social scientists, who
write columns in daily newspapers or host television shows, have
contributed to this awareness by clarifying the issues involved. The oc-
casional differences in views and perspectives of social scientists-cum-
columnists or television commentators highlight the heterogeneous
character of the social science community.
The fundamental differences and divisions within this community
make it difficult to generalize about the impact of the social sciences
on public policy and discourses. For the gains from one theoretical and
ideological perspective constitute negative effects for contending posi-
tions. Social scientists critical of globalization, for instance, have as-
sailed government policies that derive from the neoliberal paradigm
the economists in the country worked hard to integrate into existing
policy frameworks. While proponents of these opposing perspectives
have not clashed within academic circles in the years of convergence
and pluralism, recent public statements printed or aired in media have
been quite intense. Whether they will translate into vigorous social
science debates on development discourses reminiscent of the decades
of polarization remains to be seen. The outcome would depend upon
the economic and political struggles among contending forces that
embody divergent global, national and local interests. After all, the
practices of social scientists in the last three decades that have defined
the development of Philippine social science as a whole have been
shaped by the contingent affinity of historical forces and intellectual
influences.
 SOCIAL SCIENCES

Notes

The author is grateful to Eufracio Abaya, Leonora Angeles, Clemen Aquino, Allan
Bernardo, Emmanuel de Dios, Emmanuel Esguerra, Elizabeth Marcelino, Felipe
Miranda and Elizabeth Ventura for their inputs. While the information they provided
or their insights figure in the paper, the resource persons are not responsible for the way
their views are woven into the text. Nor are they responsible for the conclusions and
possible errors of interpretation.
1. For an overview of the history and state of the social sciences in the early 1980s
see Caoili (1984). For assessments of teaching, research, extension, research
dissemination and use until the 1980s see pages 86-215 of Samson and Jirnenez (1983).
For an assessment of the social sciences in the University of the Philippines, see Castillo
(1994). For the most recent reflections by different social scientists on their respective
disciplines, see the papers in this volume
2. History is the sixth discipline. Since its discourse merits a separate discussion, it
is excluded from the coverage of this paper. At its establishment in 1963, the Philippine
Social Science Council recognized 13 social science disciplines namely, history,
anthropology, economics, political science, psychology, sociology, demography,
linguistics, statistics, geography, mass communication, public administration and social
work.
The disciplines break naturally into three groups: the first six are the traditional core
disciplines; the next four are to some extent peripheral disciplines that may have grown
out of the core disciplines or that straddle the boundaries between the social and
physical sciences; the last three ace largely applied areas (Bulatao et al. 1979, 62).
3. The summative description glosses over important developments with less visible
but probably more profound impact on each of the disciplines. This is one of the major
limitations of the paper.
4. Ateneo de Manila University, de la Salle University and the University of the
Philippines.
5. Abad (1981, 132) citing Macaraeg who in turn was cited in Hunt and others.
Sociology in the Philippine Setting. Manila: Alemars Publishing House and Catapusan,
Benicio. Development of sociology in the Philippines,' Philippine Sociological Review, 3-
4 (July-October) 52-57.
6. Anthropology was introduced in the Philippines even before the creation of an
academic department at the University of the Philippines. By 1901, the colonial
government had already established the Bureau of ~ o n l ~ h r i s t i a n - ~ r itob eexplore
s the
origins and characteristics of the people of the Philippines for purposes of colonial
control.
7. See Tan (this volume) for a chronology of the development of psychology in other
schools; Agpalo (1996 and 1998) for political science; Panopio, Isabel. 1996 for an
indication of the development of sociology in schools outside UP and Metro Manila;
Abaya (this volume) for anthropology and de Dios (this volume) for economics.
8. In his discussion of the history of political science, Agpalo (1996) noted the
prevalence of the view established by George Malcolm and Maxirno Kalaw that the
discipline's central concern is the state and its principal organ. Agpalo counterpoised
a
an alternative view in 1965, one that adopted sociological approach.
9. Panopio (1996) noted that in the mid-1950s, the topics of the Philippine
Sociological Society centered on the nature and scope of sociology. Some of the
PHILIPPINE STUDIES

professors of sociology at the time clearly possessed a more social philosophical

orientation.
10. See Sicat, 1982 and de Dios, 1999 for a discussion of the evolution of the
Philippine Economic Society from the Philippine Economic Association initially
composed of Amado Castro, Benito Legarda Jr., Quvlco Carnus Jr., Jose Femandez J t ,
Armand Fabella. Later the group expanded to include Joachim Ahrensdorf, Thomas
McHale, Sixto Roxas, Fr. Michael Mc Phelin, Oscar Lopez, Felix de la Costa, Onofre
Corpus and Juan Ponce Enrile.
11. From the transcripts of the Forum held on January 30 at the Philippine Social
Science Center. The forum was part of the Fourth National Social Science Congress (pre-
Congress 1).
12. Other journals that emerged in the next decade served as additional outlets for
social scientists. For instance, economics is served by the Philippine Review of Economics
and Business and the Journal of Philippine Development (formerly NEDA lournal of
Development). It should be noted that the regularity of the issues became a problem in
later decades.
13. Machado, Kit. 'Philippine politics: research 1960-1980: areas for future
exploration.' In Hart, DOM (ed). Philippine Studies, Political Science, Economics and
Linguistics'. Occasional paper No. 8 (de Kalb, Illinois: Northern Illinois University
center for Southeast Asian Studies, 1981) as cited in Caoili (1984, 70).
14. Nemenzo's remarks in the third national conference of the Philippine Political
Science Association in 1977 as cited by Agpalo (1996) p. 396.
15. The humanist notion of critique called for a negation of existing structures and
fonns of consciousness that prevent the full development of the humsn potential.
Asserting an epistemological bmak between the y o u n g ~ a r xwho espoused ahumanist
.
proiect
, and the older Marx who developed a science of historv, structuralist Marxists
advocated a notion of critique as unraveling the system of determination that accounts
for what exists.
16. See, for instance, the Third World Studies Center's Marxism in the Philippines
(1984).
17. The influence of Marxism on political science may not have been as strong in
other parts of the country. Considering the lag and background of political science
teachers in the region (many are lawyers) Machado's observation that textbooks on
Philippine government and politics prior to 1972 remained basically descriptive,
utilizing a historical and legal approach, may have applied even in the post-1972
period. op cit. as cited in Caoili (1984, 70).
18. The public intellectuals included Francisco Nemenzo, Randolf David, Alexander
Magno and Temario Rivera. Note that the influence of Marxism in sociology was less
apparent in the publications of the period. Marxist articles did not figure significantly
in the issues of the Philippine Sociological Review. Nevertheless, David's Marxist-inspired
critique of sociology and advocacy of the dependency model of development fomented
discussions and drew a following among younger sociologists.
19. It is important to note that while the public intellectuals from among the
University of the Philippines' Faculty of Political Science and Sociology were quite
influential in mainstreaming Marxism into their disciplines, Marxists did-not dominate
either the Departments of Political Science or Sociology. Majority of the faculty was
non-Marxists.
 SOCIAL SCIENCES

20. Funded by the Advanced Research Projects Agency of the US Army, Project
Camelot was designed to develop a general social science model that would make it
possible to politically influence social change in developing nations. Some of the
researchers involved in the Project did not fully appreciate the political implications of
their efforts to study the potential sources of political dissidence in particular countries.
It is alleged that information from Project Camelot was utilized to bolster the military
dictatorship in W e , generating strong reactions from the social science communities
of Latin America and other regions. The controversy led to the premature termination
of the Pro)eb.See Horowitz, Irving Louis. The Rise and Fall of Project Olrnelot. Studies in
the Relationship Between Social Science and Practt'c~lPolitics (1967).
21. The Tasaday controversy revolved around the authenticity of a tribe of primeval
cave dwellers supposedly discovered by Manuel Elizalde. The 'ecological find' turned
out to be a hoax.
22.Alonzo and Canlas (1981,55). The authors, however, noted Jurado's paper on
the political economy of labor-capital relations as an exception.
23. See for instance, the research in the Third World Studies Center on foreign
investments and multinational corporations in the export crop sector.
24. Kurnar, Khrishna, 'Indigenization and transnational cooperation in the social
sciences'. Paper presented at the conference on Emerging issues-in Cultural Relations.
Honolulu 9-10December 1976 pp. 1-26 as cited in Bennagen (1990,B).
25. Bennagen (1990,4) cites Taylor's Primitive Cultures (1881) and Diamond's 'A
revolutionary discipline' Current Anthropology. 5(5):432-37 as the seminal works for the
soul-searching among Western anthropologists.
26.The applicatio& of Sikolohiyang~~ili$nohave been in clinical work and business.
27. This situation is bepnmg to change. With globalization and the University's bid
for competitiveness, there is increasing pressure on the social science community to
communicate with colleagues abroad and meet international standards.
28. For an enlightening discussion of the issues of postmodemism in the social
sciences, see Rosenau (1992).
29. B e ~ a g e n Ponciano
, as expressed in a personal communication to Abaya in
Abaya (1999,10).
30. In the triangulation approach, everything is material for constructing the
ultimate reality from various perspectives and arrangements of time (Lagmay 1985,
189).
31. The gains of women's research and advocacy networks in public policy are
chronicled in the documents of the University of the Philippines Center for Women
Studies.
32.The Social Weather Stations Inc. pioneered in opinion polling and has been able
to sustain a survey research capability for quarterly s w e y s W a n d a 1998).

References

Abad, Ricardo and Elizabeth Eviota. 1981. Philippine sociology in the 1970s:
Spinning out of the colonial cocoon. In Social science research activities in the
Philippines, edited by L. Sicat et al. Tokyo: Institute of Developing Economies.
PHILIPPINE STUDIES

Abaya, Eufracio, Maria Luisa Lucas-Fernan and Daisy Noval-Morales. 1999.

Changing terms of engagement: A review of the history of anthropology in
the Philippines. In The social sciences in the life of the nation, vol. 1, edited by
J. Miralao. Quezon City: National Academy of the Philippines and the Phil-
ippine Social Science Council.
Agpalo, Remigio. 1999. Political science in the Philippines, 1880 to 1998: A
history of the discipline for the centenary of the First Philippine Republic.
In The social sciences in the life of the nation, vol. 1, edited by J. Miralao.
Quezon City: National Academy of the Philippines and the Philippine So-
cial Science Council.
. 1996. Adventures in political science. Quezon City: University of the
Philippines Press.
Alonzo, Ruperto and Dante Canlas. 1981. A survey of economic research in
the Philippines: 197Cb1979. In Social science research activities in the Philippines,
edited by L. Sicat et al. Tokyo: Institute of Developing Economies.
Banzon Bautista, Maria Cynthia Rose. 1996. Lessons from history. In Empow-
erment and accountability for sustainable development: Toward theory building in
the social sciences. Quezon City: Philippine Social Science Council.
. 1995. The Philippines: Reflections on the development of social sci-
ence." In Social science in Southeast Asia: From particularism to universalism,
edited by N . S. Nordholt and L. Visser. Comparative Asian Studies 17.
Amsterdam: W University Press.
. 1994 . Reflections on Philippine sociology in the 1990s. Journal of Phil-
ippine Development 38 (1-2).
Bautista, Victoria. 1998. Pag-uugnay ng adbokasya ng palisi sa gawain ng
siyentipikong panlipunan: Isang pagninilay. Paper presented at the National
Social Science Congress N's Pre-Congress 111 on Philippine Social Sciences
and Public Policy and Practice, 22-23 May, Philippine Social Science Center.
Bello, Walden. 1997. Thoughts on the response of Philippine education to glo-
balization. In Globalisasyon, nasyonalismo at edukasyon. Proceedings of the 1997
Faculty Conference, College of Social Sciences and Philosophy. Puerto Azul,
Cavite, 14-15 November.
Bauzon, Leslie. 1982. Perspectives in contemporary Philippine Social Science
research: History, political science, public administration and geography. In
PSSC Socinl Science Information (October-December).
Bennagen, Ponciano. 1990. The indigenization and Asianization of anthropol-
ogy. In Indigenous psychology, edited by V. Enriquez. Quezon City: Akademya
ng Sikolohiyang Pilipino.
Bernardo, Allan. 1998. Reflective practitioners, scholarly teachers and socially
responsible researchers: On mindful growth and becoming in Philippine
psychology. Paper presented at National Social Science Congress N's Pre-
Congress I on The History and Development of Social s e n c e Disciplines in
the Philippines, 29-30 January, Philippine Social Science Center.
 SOCIAL SCIENCES

. 1997. Psychology Research in the Philippines: Observations and Pros-

pects. Philippine Journal of Psychology 30: 38-57.
. Brillantes, Alex. 1998. Local governance and social science discourses
in Philippine politics and governance. Paper presented at the National So-
cial Science Congress w's pre-Congress I11 on Philippine Social Sciences and
Public Policy and Practice, 22-23 May, Philippine Social Science Center.
Briones, Leonor. 1998. Human development policy and the social sciences.
Paper presented at the National Social Science Congress IV's Pre-Congress
I11 on Philippine Social Sciences and Public Policy and Practice, May 22-23,
Philippine Social Science Center.
Bulatao, Rodolfo, Abraham Felipe, Andrew Gonzales, FSC, Consuelo
Gutierrez, Mariano Obias, Bonifacio Salamanca and Zelda Zablan. 1979. A
Profile of Philippine social scientists. First Southeast Asian Workshop of
Social Scientists. Quezon City: Philippine Social Science Council.
Caoili, Olivia. 1983. The social sciences in the Philippines: A retrospective
view. In First national social science congress: Toward excellence in social science
in the Philippines, edited by L. Samson and C. Jimenez. Quezon City: Univer-
sity of the Philippines Press.
Carifio, Ledivina. 1980. Research under martial law: The tasks and responsi-
bilities of Filipino social scientists. Philippine Sociological Review 28.
Castillo, Gelia. 1994. The social sciences in the UP System: A commentary on
mission, vision, goals and objectives. In UP in search of academic excellence, by
Gemino Abad et al. Quezon City: Center for Integrative and Development
Studies, College of Public Administration and the University of the Philip-
pines Press.
. 1974. The dialogue between social science research, policy and action.
In PSSC Social Science Information. August.
Covar, Prospero. 1993. Kaalamang bayang dalumat ng pagkataong Pilipino
(lekturang propesoryal). Dr. Jose Cuyegkeng Memorial Library and Morma-
tion Center, Manila.
David, Randolf. 1984. Philippine sociology in search of an alternative para-
digm: Trends in Philippine sociology. Diamond Jubilee Lecture Series. De-
partment of Sociology, University of the Philippines.
. 1979. The social sciences in the Philippines: A critique. Paper pre-
sented at the seminar on the Philippines and the Third World, University of
the Philippines.
De Dios, Emmanuel. 1998. From Sanciano to Encamacion: Footnotes to a ge-
nealogy of economics in the Philippines. In The social sciences in the life of the
nation, vol. 1, edited by J. Miralao. Quezon City: National Academy of the
Philippines and the Philippine Social Science Council.
. 1998. The human development network: Policy research and advocacy
in a lateral mode. Paper presented at the National Social Science Congress
PHILIPPINE STUDIES

IV's Pre-Congress 111 on Philippine Social Sciences and Public Policy and
Practice, 22-23 May, Philippine Social Science Center.
De 10s Angeles, Marian. 1998. Philippine environment and natural resources
management: Perspectives from environmental economics. Paper presented
at the National Social Science Congress IV's Pre-Congress 111 on Philippine
Social Sciences and Public Policy and Practice, 22-23 May, Philippine Social
Science Center.
Enriquez, Virgilio. 1990. Toward a liberation psychology. In Indigenous psychol-
ogy, edited by V . Enriquez. Quezon City: Akademya ng Sikolohiyang
Pilipino.
. 1985. The development of psychological thought in the Philippines. In
Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Isyu, pananaw at kaalaman. Manila: National Bookstore.
Ferrer, Ricardo. 1970. An introduction to economics as a social science. Quezon
City: Malaya Books.
Gonzales, Andrew, FSC. 1996. The future of the social sciences in the Philip-
pines. In PSSC Social Science Information. July-December.
. 1990. hdigenization of the social sciences: A red herring? In Indigenous
psychology. Quezon City: Akademya ng Sikolohiyang Pilipino.
Hollnsteiner, Mary Racelis. 1973. The state of the social sciences. Philippine
Social Science lnformation 1 (1).
Javier, Emil. 1998. Science and technology policy and the social sciences. Pa-
per presented at the National Social Science Congress IV's Pre-Congress 111
on Philippine Social Sciences and Public Policy and Practice, 22-23 May,
Philippine Social Science Center.
Lagmay, Alfredo. 1985. Western psychology in the Philippines: Impact and
response. In Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Isyu, pananaw at kaalaman, by A. Aganon at
A. David, RVM. Manila: National Bookstore.
Lamberte, Exaltacion. 1998. Issues in monitoring life beyond economics: Im-
plications for the practice of social science in Public Policy. Paper presented
at the National Social Science Congress IV's Pre-Congress III on Philippine
Social Sciences and Public Policy and Practice, 22-23 May, Philippine Social
Science Center.
Lamug, Corazon. 1999. Toward a Filipino sociological imagination. In The social
sciences in the life of the nation, vol. 1, edited by J. Miralao. Quezon City: Na-
tional Academy of the Philippines and the Philippine Social Sdence Coun-
cil.
Makil, Perla and Chester Hunt. 1981. The impact of martial law on sociolo-
gists in the Philippines. PSSC Social Science Information. January-March.
Mangahas, Mahar. 1982. Perspectives in contemporary Philippine Social Sci- -
ence Research: Economics, demography, social work and statistics. PSSC
Social Science Information (Odober-December).
Mercado, Cesar. 1982. Perspectives in contemporary Philippine Social Science
research: Anthropology, linguistics, mass communications, psychology and
sociology. PSSC Social Science Information (October-December).
 SOCIAL SCIENCES

Miranda, Felipe. 1998. Democratizing methodologies in the social sciences:

Survey research in the contemporary Philippine context. Paper presented at
the National Social Science Congress IV's Pre-Congress I11 on Philippine
Social Sciences and Public Policy and Practice, 22-23 May, Philippine Social
Science Center.
. 1998. Summary thoughts on social science discourse and public policy.
Paper presented at the National Social Science Congress N's Pre-Congress
I11 on Philippine Social Sciences and Public Policy and Practice, 22-23 May,
Philippine Social Science Center.
Panopio, Isabel. 1996. The history of the Philippine sociological society. Un-
published.
Pertierra, Raul. 1997. Explorations in social theoy and Philippine ethnography.
Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press.
Porio, Emma. 1998. Participatory/people-centered development: A social sci-
ence discourse in Philippine politics and governance. Paper presented at the
National Social Science Congress IV's Pre-Congress 111 on Philippine Social
Sciences and Public Policy and Practice, 22-23 May, Philippine Social Science
Center.
Racelis, Mary. 1989. Lessons from history. Empowerment and accountability for
sustainable development: Toward theoy building in the social sciences. Quezon
City: Philippine Social Science Council.
Rocamora, Jose Eliseo. 1998. Political Discourse in post-Marcos Philippines.
Paper presented at the National Social Science Congress IV's pre-Congress
111 on Philippine Social Sciences and Public Policy and Practice, 22-23 May,
Philippine Social Science Center.
Rosenau, Pauline Marie. 1992. Post-modemism and the social sciences. New Jer-
sey: Princeton University Press.
Samson, Laura and Carmen Jirnenez, eds. 1983. First national social science con-
gress: Toward excellence in social science in the Philippines. Quezon City: Univer-
sity of the Philippines Press.
Sicat, Gerardo. 1982. The early years of the Philippine economic society. Phil-
ippine Economic Journal no. 51 21(5).
Sicat, Loretta. 1981. An overview of the social science research activities in the
Philippines. In Social science research activities in the Philippines, edited by L.
Sicat et al., Tokyo: Institute of Developing Economics.
Sta. Maria, Madelene. 1996. Is the indigenization crisis in the social sciences
resolved in sikolohiyang Pilipino? Layag l(1).
Tan, Allen. 1999. Philippine psychology: Growth and becoming. In The social
sciences in the life of the nation, vol. I., edited by J. Miralao. Quezon City: Na-
tional Academy of the Philippines and the Philippine Social Science Coun-
cil.
Ruperto Alonzo and Alex Brillantes. 1989. Social science and economic
recovery: Papers and proceedings of the national social congress 11, 24-26,
November 1988. Quezon City: Philippine Social Science Council.
PHILIPPINE STUDIES

Torres, Amaryllis. 1997. Methods, mind or meaning: Shifting paradigms in

Philippine psychology. Philippine Journal of Psychology 30: 17-37.
Torres, Amaryllis. 1989. Environment, society and development: Philippine
report on social science perspectives and sustainable development. In Em-
powerment and accountabilifyfor sustainable development: Toward theory building
in the social sciences. Quezon City: Philippine Social Science Council.
Third World Studies Center. 1983. Marxism in the Philippines. Quezon City:
Third World Studies Center, University of the Philippines.
Villacorta, Wilfrido. 1990. Western influences on social science in the Philip-
pines. In Indigenous psychology, by V. Enriquez. Quezon City: Akademya ng
Sikolohiyang Pilipino.
. 1981. Survey of studies on Philippine politics: 1970-1980. In Social sci-
ence research activities in the Philippines, edited by L. Sicat et al. Tokyo: Insti-
tute of Developing Economies.