 |
|
Introduction Since 2001, faculty from the different disciplines have been intent on making “ethnicity studies” as a niche of UP Baguio, then an emerging autonomous unit in the UP System. With support from the Cordillera Studies Center , the Ethnicity Studies Workgroup (ESWG) launched activities ranging from small group discussions, brainstorming sessions, a series of roundtable discussions to local, and national conferences on ethnicity studies. In their desire to ground their academic interests in the context of the Cordillera and Northern Luzon , a multi-disciplinary faculty team went on a research caravan to the provinces of Ilocos Sur, Abra, Kalinga, Cagayan and Nueva Viscaya. This endeavor produced voluminous papers, conference proceedings, published articles and papers, field reports and reflection papers. In reading these research outputs we now see a clearer picture of what we decided to call “ethnicity studies.” In this paper, I shall attempt to clarify the meaning, goals and achievements of ethnicity studies at UP Baguio based on the practical and theorizing activities of its faculty over the last four (4) years. I will also share with you the results of the planning workshop of the members of the Ethnicity Studies Workgroup that was held on June 29, 2005 . The workshop defined the major thrusts, components and activities of the workgroup for the next three years with the goal of transforming the Ethnicity Studies Workgroup into an Ethnicity Studies Program under the Cordillera Studies Center . What is Ethnicity? Most of those who write on ethnicity do not bother to define them. Some researches conducted at the Cordillera Studies Center may in fact be considered as ethnic studies, but they were not labeled as such by those who did the study. Let us briefly examine some definitions of ethnicity as it is being used in the social sciences. To begin with, ethnicity is “the process or phenomenon that underlies or gives rise to ethnic groups” (Eller, 1999:8). It is the “subjective symbolic or emblematic use of any aspect of culture (by a group), in order to differentiate themselves from other groups” (De Voss, 1975: 16). Furthermore, ethnicity is: The character, quality, or condition of ethnic group membership, based on an identity with and/or a consciousness of a group belonging that is differentiated from others by symbolic “markers” (including cultural, biological, or territorial), and is rooted in bonds of a shared past and perceived ethnic interests (Burgess, 1978: 270). All of these definitions agree that ethnicity has something to do with the classification of people and group relationships. They also point out the importance of consciousness or awareness of difference within these groups and those traits that they share (similarities) with other groups: who belongs to “us” who belongs to “them.” Thus ethnicity is also centrally concerned with culture, inasmuch as it relates with shared meanings through social interaction. Ethnicity is not fixed; it is always situational and socially-defined. As Stuart Hall argues: It must be the case that (subjectivity and experience) are constructed historically, culturally, politically and the concept that refers to this is “ethnicity.” The term ethnicity acknowledges the place of history, language and culture in the construction of subjectivity and identity, as well as the fact that all discourses is placed, positioned, situated, and all knowledge is contextual. (Hall, quoted in Aschroft, et. al., 1995, 223). These different notions of ethnicity reflect the persistent and dynamic theoretical debate among social scientists on how to approach the study of ethnicity. These schools of thought can be summed up into three: 1) primordialism, 2) circumstantialism or instrumentalism, and 3) social constructivism. In primordialism, ethnicity is perceived as a primordial phenomenon based on emotional connection to long-standing objective and fixed social characteristics such as blood ties, race, language, region, and custom (Eller, 1992: 72-73, underscoring mine). In circumstantialism or instrumentalism, ethnicity is not a fixed social identity and organization. Ethnic groups are formed and mobilized by specific social conditions and for specific social purposes which include, among others, minority status, discrimination, stratification, segregation and others (Bentley, 1987). Ethnic groups and their behavior are social products of collectiveness, cultures and circumstances. Social Constructivism (like circumstantialism) also posits that ethnicity and culture are not coherent. The boundaries of identities of social groups are loose and transcend other categories such as nation, race, gender and others. Thus social identities are flexible and negotiated. As Fischer argues, “ethnicity is something reinvented and reinterpreted in each generation by each individual.” (Fischer as cited in Clifford and Marcus, eds., 1986: 196). The variety of perspectives in the study of ethnicity contributes to the many reasons why ethnicity remains one of the greatest challenges to modern social and cultural theory as well as to political policy. Why Ethnicity Studies? There are several reasons why UP Baguio should continue to build on its track record in the area of ethnicity studies. UP Baguio is located in Baguio City in the Cordillera, a region marked by a plurality of ethno-linguistic groups. The eight (8) major ethno-linguistic groups or indigenous peoples’ in the Cordillera have been the focus of researches by UP Baguio faculty since its founding in 1964. This interest should be sustained more vigorously now, given the necessity of understanding the region’s relations to the national body politic. UP Baguio ’s mission statement, “service to the region and the nation” demands that UP’s research, extension and instruction be geared towards service to the indigenous peoples of the Cordillera and the rest of Northern Luzon . Our concern for the ethnic dimension of the lived social, economic, political and cultural experience of the peoples’ of the Cordillera and Northern Luzon is parallel with global trends particularly after the Second World War. In many third world societies emerging from colonialism, ethnicity had been not only one of the principal driving forces behind national struggles for independence, but also a source of internal tensions and conflicts in the post-independence period through the rivalries of different ethnic groups (Ericksen, 1993). The secessionist movement in Mindanao and the persistent quest for autonomy and the armed movement in the Cordillera are clear examples of “ethnic revivalism” or resurgence. These developments also show that ethnicity is no longer purely an emotional and cultural bond but an assertion of political power and identity, appealing to such rights as democratic representation, power-sharing and self-determination. Our experiences have shown that ethnicity in contemporary Cordillera and Philippine society is a complex reality that should be understood and analyzed in an interdisciplinary and comparative manner. The mode of inquiry draws from the humanities and the social sciences as well as cultural studies. Ethnicity should also be studied not as a static or isolated phenomenon but in its historical evolution in specific social contexts, local symbolisms and in its complex interactions with class and economic relations, with state power, and with gender relations. From: “Defining UP Baguio’s Niche/s,” a paper read during the U.P. Baguio Faculty Conferenceheld on January 30-31, 2006 at the Ridgewood Residence, Pacdal Road, Baguio City. Raymundo D. Rovillos, Ph.D. |