HIST114 LE1 PDF - Study Guide, Module 1

Study Guide: HISTORY 114 First Long Examination MODULE 1 INTRODUCTION Required Readings: Gealogo, Francis Alvarez. “Looking for Claveria’s Children: Church, State, Power, and the Individual in Philippine Naming Systems during the Late Nineteenth Century.”...

Study Guide: HISTORY 114 First Long Examination MODULE 1 INTRODUCTION Required Readings: Gealogo, Francis Alvarez. “Looking for Claveria’s Children: Church, State, Power, and the Individual in Philippine Naming Systems during the Late Nineteenth Century.” (2010) On 21 November 1849, Spanish Governor-General to the Philippines Narciso Claveria issued a decree that a catalog of family names (Catálogo Alfabético de Apellidos) should be compiled for Filipinos to adopt. The aim of the decree was to put administrative order in the Philippine naming system, utilizing Spanish surnames, as well as indigenous words related to things like plants, animals, minerals, geography, or arts to be adopted as Filipino surnames. The result was the organized systematization of the Philippine naming system that has been viewed by some historians as Hispanicizing Filipinos by giving them Spanish surnames. Key Lessons: Distinguish between learning history and thinking historically; familiarize yourself with the six Historical Thinking Concepts introduced by Peter Seixas. 1. Establish historical significance - “How do I decide what and whose stories to tell?” - Significant events include those that resulted in great change over long periods of time for large numbers of people. Significance depends upon one’s perspective and purpose. A historical person or event can acquire significance if we, the historians, can link it to larger trends and stories that reveal something important for us today. 2. Use primary source evidence - How do we know what we know? - The litter of history —letters, documents, records, diaries, drawings, newspaper accounts and other bits and pieces left behind by those who have passed on — are treasures to the historian. These are primary sources that can give up the secrets of life in the past. - The ability to not only analyze history as bones or remnants of the past, but also be able to give blood to it as we learn to empathize and put ourselves in the historical narrative where it happens. 3. Identify continuity and change - One of the keys to continuity and change is looking for change where common sense suggests that there has been none and looking for continuities where we assumed that there was change. - We evaluate change over time using the ideas of progress and decline.  4. Analyze cause and consequence - In history, as opposed to geology or astronomy, we need to consider human agency. People, as individuals and as groups, play a part in promoting, shaping, and resisting change. - People have motivations and reasons for taking action (or for sitting it out), but causes go beyond these. - Causes are thus multiple and layered, involving both long term ideologies, institutions, and conditions, and short­term motivations, actions and events. Causes that are offered for any particular event (and the priority of various causes) may differ, based on the scale of the history and the approaches of the historian. 5. Take historical perspectives - Taking historical perspective means understanding the social, cultural, intellectual, and emotional settings that shaped people’s lives and actions in the past. At any one point, different historical actors may have acted on the basis of conflicting beliefs and ideologies, so understanding diverse perspectives is also a key to historical perspective taking. 6. Understand the ethical dimension of historical interpretations - Taking historical perspective demands that we understand the differences between our ethical universe and those of bygone societies. We do not want to impose our own anachronistic standards on the past. - Historians attempt to hold back on explicit ethical judgments about actors in the midst of their accounts, but, when all is said and done, if the story is meaningful, then there is an ethical judgment involved. WHAT IS CULTURAL HISTORY? Required Readings: Fass, Paula S. “Cultural History/Social History: Some Reflections on a Continuing Dialogue.” (2003): 39–46 Social and cultural history have always been related to each other in strategic ways, correcting each other's blindspots and blunders, while they have also emphasized different elements of the past and pursued different methods (p. 39) The emergence of cultural history in the 1970s and 1980s and its subsequent dominance was in part a response to the perceived limitations of the social history perspective of the previous historiography. In describing the behavioral tendencies of social groups and emphasizing normative behavior, often in the abstractions of numbers and charts, social historians had moved beyond an elite-dominated political paradigm, but had ignored  both the uniqueness of individual experience and the ways in which social life is created through politics and culture. (p. 39) Cultural historians sought to bring some life back into the exploration of the lives of ordinary people and to open them up to arenas of freedom and choice. By the mid 1980s, cultural historians were drawing upon beliefs about the agency of ordinary people that social historians such as Herbert Gutman and Eugene Genovese had emphasized, but drew away from the way agency was attribute to participation in predefined group (p. 39) Increasingly, cultural history looked to what anthropologists called "liminal" experiences, and to adopt the "post-modern" perspective on identity as fluid and changing. As social historians played into the politics of identity of the 1980s, cultural historians turned to deconstructing identity altogether, and attributing to the past some of the willfulness of contemporary culture. (p. 39) The problem with Social Historians In the increasingly hostile atmosphere of the 1980 attacked for too often assuming what needed to be proved - that social categories were experientially meaningful, and that categories drawn from one period applied to others. And they were accused for adopting the dominant perceptions about subaltern groups, such as women and racial minorities. (p. 40) The rise of Cultural History as a response As social history's problems became clearer, cultural historians began to provide ways to meet some of the challenges this posed. They turned to an exploration of broader cultural forces, such as the media or underlying gender patterns, while also attempting to highlight individual experience. They returned to narrative forms to convey the unexpected and complex texture of experience, and they emphasized how narrative gave form and meaning to experience. (p. 40) Many of those who turned to the lessons of cultural history hoped to loosen the grip of sociological determinism and its static results, to return history to the unexpected and unintended, while keeping the lens open to the more ordinary folk who had been invited into the historical picture by the work of social historians of the previous generation. Cultural historians also wanted to open the historical aperture to groups and individuals who often lay even beyond the sights of social historians because of the perceived normative limitations created by social history and its reliance on normative curves and central tendencies. (p. 40) Problems that plague Cultural History Fass once asked a very capable student whose subfield was the history of gender and sexuality, what some of the major changes were in sexuality in the twentieth century. His answer included a good discussion of what he had learned about homosexuality (especially as it became a category of self-identification), and a little bit about (female) prostitution. He had nothing at all to say about contraception, the sexuality of youth and adolescence, the nature of male-female relations in the family, or issues relating to fidelity-adultery, disregarding the experiences that shape the subject matter. (p. 42)  Two problems of cultural history: (p. 43) 1. Methodological - Cultural history has become concerned with ferreting out areas of culture that were once made marginal because they were statistically small and cultural historians have been eager to show how the categorization and treatment of deviancy reflect the dominant cultural paradigm. Attached to this methodology is also political reason. This ferreting out also legitimizes the fringe and denies the privilege of the center (hence the hesitation to study sex with children) 2. Political reason - The means by which the center is and is not studied - Cultural historians’ methods tend to be hermeneutic and they can therefore literally build a mountain around a molehill and that molehill can lie on the periphery of the subject. Social historians were often accused in the past of giving the illusion of certainty, because their conscious use of theory together with systematic evidence gave off an air of positivism. No more than others do most social historians suffer from the arrogance of illusion. (p. 43) In response to the perceived misplaced certainty of social history, we suffer today from the reverse as cultural history threatens us with fuzziness, inexactness, and analytic solipsism of grand conclusions positioned on erratic data. I want to be clear about what I mean by these terms. As cultural history has moved away from categorizing people and assuming that they operate from within those categories, and toward examining the larger practices through which people are enculturated by some hegemonic power, the differences that were once captured (p 44) As they try to compensate for the social historical tendency to speak about group behaviors as if groups actually behaved (which they sometimes actually do), cultural historians have also turned to techniques of micro-narratives and micro-analysis. Thus, while social historians too often write as if the individual can be represented in the normal curve of the group, cultural historians act as if the experience of many can be captured in the one or few cases that can be brought fully under the microscope of cultural analysis. By bringing individuals back into view, cultural historical methods remedy the philosophical problem created by social history, but not the empirical issues involved. (p 44) In no small part, the attraction of cultural history for many is that it allows for a release of imagination, often by providing us with real people and their puzzling lives, and imagination is always a tonic for research-driven people. But what historians are most in need of today is imagination as disciplined imagination. And nowhere is this discipline more available than in the questions, methods, and devotion sources that were the glory of social history in its prime. (p 45) Burke, Peter. Cultural History: An Interdisciplinary Approach. (2024): 87–96 Lucien Febvre once wrote (Febvre 1953: 32) in his usual imperative style, ‘Historians, be geographers. Be jurists too, and sociologists and psychologists’. Like other histori- ans, he borrowed concepts, models and theories, usually concepts rather than theories in the strict sense of a set of connected propositions.  It is of course much rarer for historians to lend concepts and models to their neigh- bours than it is to borrow them. Only three examples come to mind, all of them, curiously enough, from the Anglophone world. The first is the idea of ‘moral econ- omy’, launched by Edward Thompson (1971) and taken up by anthropologists such as James C. Scott (1976), working on Indonesia, as well as by some economists. The second example is Eric Hobsbawm’s ‘invention of tradition’ (1983) A third example comes from the history of science. Thomas Kuhn, a physicist turned historian, offered a famous theory of scientific revolutions (1962), generalizing about cycles of change and introducing the concept of ‘paradigm’, which was taken up by sociologists among others. What I call ‘borrowing’ (while Paul Ricoeur and Michel de Certeau described it as ‘appropriation’), should of course be treated as problematic. 1. In the first place, it needs to be selective, choosing the tool that fits the job, the concept that fits the question the borrower is asking. 2. In the second place, it needs to be critical (testing rather than simply applying what is borrowed). 3. In the third place, borrowing requires adaptation, a kind of cultural translation. 4. Finally, we have to recognize the limits to borrowing, the possible incommensurability between different disciplines, their contradictory assumptions or aims (Scott 2012). The ‘Social Turn’ - In the 1960s, the ‘social turn’ came to include a social history of culture, inspired by Marxism while remaining open to alternative approaches. In Britain, a discussion of the relation between culture and society by a Marxist professor of English Literature, Raymond Williams (1958) was influential on historians (on Burke 1972, among others). Edward Thompson’s famous study of the making of the working class (1963) was criticized by some fellow-Marxists for what they called its ‘culturalism’, since it dis- cussed folksongs and urban rituals as well as factories and trade unions (in return, Thompson criticized his critics for ‘economism’). - The 1970s were the moment of two more turns, one towards anthropology and the other towards psychoanalysis. Historical anthropology was practiced at around this time in Paris by Jacques Le Goff and Jean-Claude Schmitt, in Princeton by Natalie Davis and Robert Darnton, in Oxford by Keith Thomas and Alan Macfarlane, in Bologna by Carlo Ginzburg and in Moscow by Aron Gurevich. ‘Historical anthropology’ is of course an oxymoron, since anthropologists define their discipline by a method, fieldwork, which is not available to students of the past - The anthropological turn underlay a number of studies of popular culture published at this time (Thomas 1971; Burke 1978; Muchembled 1978). Another neighboring discipline, folklore (later known as ‘ethnology’), which was relegated to the fringe of the academic world in England, was taken more seriously by cultural historians elsewhere,notably Scandinavia(Lof̈grenandFrykman1979). - The 1970s were also the time of a gradual turn towards psychoanalysis. In France, building on an older tradition of psychologie historique, they included the  polymath Michel de Certeau, who joined the seminar of Jacques Lacan, and the Russian specialist Alain Besançon (who later recanted). The ambivalent discussion of psychoanalysis in the work of the polymath Michel Foucault probably encouraged the growth of inter- est by historians - In the 1980s, a turn towards literature became visible, preceded of course by Hayden White’s Metahistory (1973) with its provocative description of historical writing as a form of fiction and its creative borrowing of the concept of ‘emplotment’ (or as Paul Ricoeur called it, mise en intrigue). White’s ideas took some time to be digested by professional historians, to the extent that they have been digested at all. What was noticeable in the 1980s, in anthropology as well as in cultural history, was a new interest in close reading, in viewing the documents found in archives as literary artifacts with their own form of rhetoric, as well as a revival of interest in narrative on the part of historians themselves. - On the literary side, a rapprochement with history was part of the programme of the American movement known as ‘the New Historicism’, which both preached and practiced attention to social and cultural contexts. A centre of interest in the group was the English Renaissance (Greenblatt 1980). When the New Historicists borrowed concepts, those concepts tended to come from theorists such as Foucault, Bourdieu and Erving Goffman rather than from historians, but the two groups collaborated in the foundation of the journal Representations in 1983. - The same landmark year saw the publication of two books destined to exert a long influence over both social and cultural studies, Imagined Communities, by the political scientist Benedict Anderson, and the Invention of Tradition, edited by Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger - The 1990s were the age of the cultural turn, inaugurated by Roger Chartier’s essays on cultural history (1988) and Daniel Roche’s study (1989) of the culture of clothes in the following year, the date of a collective volume on The New Cultural History (Hunt 1989). - This was also a time when some cultural historians were turning – or returning – to sociology. They were inspired in particular by the work of Pierre Bourdieu, especially his concepts of ‘symbolic capital’ (Griessinger 1981), ‘distinction’ (Clunas 1991), and ‘habitus’ (Füssel 2007). - Looking backwards, the 1980s and 1990s appear to be a kind of golden age of cultural history. By the end of the century, a volume had appeared entitled Beyond the Cultural Turn (Bonnell and Hunt 1999), but this was not sufficient to stem the flow. Turning now to the promise and the problems of the 21st century, I should like to point to two trends: 1. One might be described as a renewed rapprochement between history and psychology (or more exactly different psychologies) and the other as 2. a ‘natural turn’.  The Natural Turn - The phrase ‘natural turn’ may remain of some use as a way of linking three recent trends in historical thought and writing, all of which involve interaction with new neighbours, in particular with ecology, neuroscience, and biology. 1. Ecology - Historians of the environment obviously require a knowledge of ecology, but they also need to know about geology, botany, climatology, and other disciplines from the so-called ‘hard’ sciences. 2. Neuroscience - Just as an interest in memory led some historians into dialogue with experimental psychologists, an interest in the history of emotions has led others to conversations with neurosci- entists. 3. Biology - centred on the idea of the co-evolution of humans and animals (Russell 2014). What is new is the emphasis on the agency of animals and even microbes as part of what is known as ‘non-human history’. The term ‘co-evolution’ is a reminder of the recent revival of interest in the idea of evolution among historians and sociologists. 4. Finally, at the level of synthesis rather than that of monographs, the recent rise of ‘Big History’ (Christian 2004) is encouraging historians to draw on astronomy, geol- ogy, and other hard sciences by extending the old term of ‘universal history’ from the history of the world to that of the universe, beginning with the ‘Big Bang’. Problems to “borrowing” - One is insensitive borrowing, without paying sufficient attention to differences between disciplines in both aims and methods, thanks to what Joan Scott, writing about psychoanalysis and history, has called the ‘incommensura- bility’ between the two. - Another serious problem, in my view at least, is the increasing fragmentation of historical studies. This fragmentation is the dark side of a positive trend, the escape from what Fernand Braudel called the walled garden of history. - The problem is that some historians become so much absorbed in their dialogue with scholars in another discipline that they lose touch with the main body of histor- ical studies. In this respect they resemble neighbours who gossip over the fence and neglect what is going on in their own house. Solution - As so often happens, the solution to a problem sooner or later generates problems of its own. The alternation of problems and solutions is a more realistic vision of the history of history, or the history of knowledge in general than the rival visions of accelerating progress and inevitable decline. In the case of the natural turn, the story is only beginning. Burke, Peter. From Cultural History to Histories of Cultures. (2008) “Moments” / Geography Traditions Scholars 1. The German Moment Hermeneutical Tradition; Schleiermacher (18th - 19th) Visual arts, literature, culture (hermeneutic tradition), Within this tradition there was Warburg (Warburg an implicit emphasis on "the" Institute), history of "culture". This Cassirer (the individual tradition did not come to a and the cosmos), sudden stop at the end of the Panofsky (iconological 1920s, but it had increasingly approach) to compete with alternative ways of doing cultural history. 2. the Anglo-Hungarian Marxist; Lukács moment (1920s) Warburg an approach to culture Antal focussing on its relation to society Marxist historians of culture had and still have to walk an intellectual tight-rope, criticized from one side by other cultural historians for an overemphasis on social and political factors and from the other by other Marxists for taking culture too seriously. 3. The French moment Annales School of thought; Bloch (1920s) Febvre What Lucien Febvre and Marc Bloch called "collective representations" or sometimes "mentalities" were for them a way of linking culture (in the sense of literature and ideas at least) with the rest of society.  4. Western / North Primitive cultures; Geertz American (1940s) Freud This American style of cultural Bakhtin or as it was sometimes called Turner "symbolic" anthropology Focault placed a strong emphasis on human freedom, inventiveness, and subjectivity, in reaction against the determinism or better the different determinisms of the previous generations, Marxian or structuralist.43 The idea of the cultural ‘construction' of society, of social classes, of gender, and even of the body became popular in intellectual circles. 5. Ibero-American / Neo-marxist, decolonization; Gilberto Freyre Latin America (1960s) Fernando Ortiz Subaltern studies, history from below, The point is that each approach has something to offer which the others cannot. Each has its own weaknesses, perils or excesses which the others help correct. Some ideas cannot be reconciled, notably cultural unity and shared meanings (stressed by Panofsky, say, and Geertz etc) with cultural diversity and conflicts between meanings (emphasized by Thompson and Sahlins). All the same, each idea can be reformulated more subtly thanks to awareness of the other. Key Questions: 1. What are the limitations of social history, and how did they contribute to the rise of cultural history? 2. How is ‘culture’ defined, and what key components are included? 3. In what ways does cultural history function as an interdisciplinary field, and which disciplines does it incorporate? 4. How do Burke’s five ‘moments’ in cultural history enhance our understanding of the field, and what critiques exist for each moment? IS THERE A ‘CULTURAL HISTORY’ IN THE PHILIPPINES?i Required Readings: Bautista, Maria Cynthia Rose Banzon. The Social Sciences in the Philippines: Reflections on Trends and Developments (2001) Institutionalizing the social sciences:from the American Colonial Period to the 1960s - The literature on the development of the social sciences in the Philippines explicitly traces the genealogy of the disciplines, except psychology, 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 considered the Eurocentric writings of Spanish chroniclers like Pigafetta, Loarca, Plasencia and Chirino in the 16' century as incipient anthropological works. - The Philippine social sciences emerged as specialized disciplines with the establishment of academic departments in the early American colonial period.' Patterned after American universities, the social science departments in the country were created in different years. - The return in the 1950s of a substantial core of Filipinos who pursued 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 psychology. While courses in the disciplines covered in this paper had been taught in the first few decades before World War II, the social science curricula attained prominence only in the postwar era - The presence of a critical mass of trained social scientists led to the organization of professional associations that were dedicated to the development of disciplinal fields. - 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 (PES) recalled in a Forum organized to reconstruct the history of economics in the Philippines," that the need to develop appropriate measures to address the balance-of-payments crisis in the late 1940s triggered the formation of the PES. - As a mark of the commitment of the social scientists to the development of their respective disciplines, the professional associations produced journals as soon as they were established and took pains to keep these publications alive. The journals served as venues for analytical articles and encouraged social scientists to conduct research and disseminate their findings. - The fortuitous confluence of charismatic academic leaders with significant 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 of the professional associations  Heeding the call for relevance: the 1970s to the turn of the century - The American character of Philippine social science notwithstanding, 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. - 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 emphasis of traditional political science on the state and its organs, political scientists in the 1960s were preoccupied with understanding and clarifying the country's political system and institutions. - Psychologists, the only social scientists with recognized professional practices, inevitably grappled with the need to develop appropriate and relevant psychological tests. - Anthropologists, on the other hand, continued their ethnographic research to further understand cultural and ethnolinguistic groups in the Philippines while sociologists with anthropologists developed research expertise and generated data on topics ranging from ethnic relations, social institutions, community studies and Filipino value 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 - Reflecting the worldwide disenchantment of younger scholars with traditional social science perspectives, Marxism was one of two movements that influenced the Philippine social science disciplines in the 1970s and the 1980s. The other movement advocated for the indigenization of knowledge. - Marxist scholars in the Philippines did not bother about nuances in Marxist theory and applied both notions as they engaged in concrete revolutionary struggles. In the process, they fomented debates that produced a plethora of documents on Philippine political, economic, and ideological structures in post-colonial context. - The global rise of Marxism in the 1960s and 1970s, the proliferation of academic books on the subject, the declaration of Martial Law in 1972 and the subsequent gains of student activism and the revolutionary movement facilitated the spread of Marxist influence on the Philippine social sciences. - Political science, sociology, and anthropology were the most affected. - Given its substantive focus, political science could not ignore the political theory that inspired the growth of the Philippine left, which included some of the discipline's prominent faculty and students among its ranks.' On the other hand, Weberian and Marxist-inspired schools  of thought had slowly eroded functionalist and positivist paradigms in Western sociology by the 1970s, rendering the Western-oriented discipline 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 disciplines. - Despite the usual Western organization of introductory political science and sociology courses, Marxist perspectives infiltrated discussions of contemporary issues in these courses - Compared to sociology, anthropology did not seem to have been as affected by Marxism. Marxist thought formally penetrated only one of its subfields--ecological anthropology, while Marxist perspectives were formally integrated into the courses taught in sociology. Moreover, anthropology's methodology remained intact whereas Marxism contributed to undermining the stronghold of positivism on Philippine sociology. - Upon closer analysis, however, Marxism profoundly influenced Philippine anthropology, albeit indirectly. At the height of the anti-Marcos movement in the 1970s, Abaya's historical account of the development of the discipline noted how students like Lorena Barros, now a heroine of the underground movement, called for an action-oriented and transformative discipline. Emphasis on anthropology of resistance, ethnicity and national unity, cultural change, ancestral land, etc. 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. - Khrisna Kumar's aspects of indigenization (as cited in Bennagen [1990:8]), which correspond to three levels of the process, are useful for assessing the nature and extent of indigenization in the social sciences. For Kumar, indigenization proceeds in three phases 1. structural indigenization or the institutionalized and organized capabilities of a nation for the production and diffusion of social science knowledge; 2. substantive indigenization or the focus of a nation's research and teaching activities on its own social institutions, conditions and problems; and 3. theoretic indigenization or the construction of distinctive conceptual frameworks and metatheories reflective of the worldviews, socio-cultural experiences as well as perceived goals of Filipinos. (Sikolohiyang Pilipino) From polarization to pluralism and convergence in the 1990s - At first blush, it would seem that postmodernism, 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 conceptualizing social science issues and problems, one can logically assume that understanding the origins, context and elements of social phenomena in order to address policy questions or specify practical solutions is a major concern. As such, the task of the social sciences is to arbitrate between diametrically opposed views on the basis of rules of evidence. - The convergence of methods and perspectives in the 1990s was enhanced by the increase in opportunities for multidisciplinary research; Multi-disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Social Sciences Proponent Key tenets Relation to Cultural History Pantayong Pananaw Zeus Salazar Pantayo over Pangkami Pantayong Pananaw (Western/Colonized centers on a mindset) culture-centric indigenization Ang pantayong pananaw imperative, fostering ay isang buong (ibig sabihin, di watak-watak the Filipino language na) diskursong as the medium to pangkalinangan o combat the pangkabihasnan, ang western/colonizer pinakakatangian ng isang perspective formerly kalinangan o dominant in kabihasnang may Philippine history and kabuuan at kakanyahan. historiography. Batayan siya, samakatuwid, ng pagkakaisa ng isang grupo ng taong may sariling wika-at-kultura. Pantayong Pananaw” as a descriptive concept can pertain to any social collectivity which possesses a relatively unified and internally articulated linguistic-cultural structure of communication and interaction and/or a sense of oneness of purpose and existence Pilipinolohiya Prospero Covar Mula ang katagang Pilipinolohiya serves Pilipinolohiya sa as an avenue to dalawang salita: Pilipino examine Filipino at lohiya. Batay rito, thought and society nangangahulugan ang rooted in a genuine Pilipinolohiya bilang sistematikong pag-aaral and accurate ng F/Pilipinong representation of kaisipan, kultura, at Filipino culture and lipunan. the complexities Binibigyang-diin sa deeply embedded artikulong ito ang within culture and pagka-F/Pilipino bilang society. bunga ng karanasang F/Pilipino sa pamamagitan ng ilang halimbawa kaugnay ng mga larangan ng kaisipan, kultura, at lipunan. Sikolohiyang Pilipino Virgilio Enriquez Sikolohiyang Pilipino is Malaya at an endeavor by Filipino mapagpalayang psychologists to develop Sikolohiya; a psychology rooted in national identity. This initiative not only Sik Pil proved the enhances understanding possibility of building of Filipino culture but also contributes to a foundations that will more comprehensive reconnect the global psychology. By Filipinos with their aligning with the specific identity and give focus needs and aspirations of on Philippine social Filipinos, Sikolohiyang problems. It is aligned Pilipino ensures its to the tenet that mind relevance and and culture are effectiveness (Marcelino inseparable and 1990, 108). mutually constitutive, meaning that people iThe Americanization of Philippine education led are shaped by their to the assumption that culture and their Americans brought culture is also shaped psychology to the by them. country. Philippine institutions operate Sik Pil attempted to within the English liberate Philippine language, resulting in psychology from Filipino scholars not neocolonial only learning American psychological  psychology but also a concepts. Being a new culture; ultimately mapagpalayang lacking the ability to sikolohiya, it formulate theories based prioritizes Filipino on FIlipino experience. indigenous perspective Even with the in its cultural assumption, local component, freeing psychology emerged Filipinos from the from the Babaylans. So, power of its colonial aside from trying to past and neocolonial formulate indigenous present. theories and methods, SP was a “new Enriquez also consciousness” explored traditional reflecting Filipino psychological knowledge through local knowledge from text and a “native point indigenous practices. of view”. By detaching from the Western perspective, he highlighted the importance of integrating essential elements of Filipino psychology that are unique to the customs and beliefs of Filipinos. The diverse theoretical-practical engagements upon the research on Sik Pil also extended new spheres on cultural studies such as the lives of untenable ordinary Filipinos. Key Questions: 1. What were the ‘context’ of the Philippine society and the disciplines of the social sciences in the early 1960s to 1970s? 2. What could a sixth moment in cultural history look like in the Philippines, and how might it reshape existing frameworks? 3. How did Pantayong Pananaw, Sikolohiyang Pilipino, and Pilipinolohiya emerge in the 1970s, and what connections can be drawn to cultural history? WIKASAYSAYAN Required Readings: Afable, Patricia O. A Brief Linguistic and Historical Note About "Kanyaw" (1999) Nolasco, Rocardo. Ang Pinagmulan ng Salitang ‘Bayani’? (2001) Key Questions: 1. How does language shape and inform Philippine cultural history? 2. What methods are effective for analyzing language in cultural history? 3. How did Afable and Nolasco’s words provide on how words is an essential historical evidence? AUSTRONESIAN-SPEAKING WORLD Required Readings: Abrera, Maria Bernadette L. “Bangka, Kaluluwa at Katutubong Paniniwala” Ambrosio, Dante L. “Balatik: Katutubong Bituin ng mga Pilipino” Salazar, Zeus A. Ang Babaylan sa Kasaysayan ng Pilipinas Eugenio, Damiana L. “Philippine Folktales: An Introduction” Paz, Consuelo J. “Ginhawa, Kapalaran, Dalamhati,” Introduction Villan, Vicente, and Kristoffer Esquejo. “Introduksyon. Pangangayaw: Ang Pangingibang-Bayan at Paghahanap ng Ginhawa sa Kasaysayan at Kalinangang Pilipino” Majul, Cesar Adib. “An Analysis of the 'Genealogy of Sulu'” Lasco, Lorenz. “Mga Kadahilanan Kung Bakit Wala Tayong Malalaking Gusali o Templo Noong Dating Panahon” Key Questions: 1. What theories explain the peopling of the Philippine archipelago? 2. What are the key principles of the Out of Taiwan Model, and how does it explain the spread of Austronesian-speaking peoples? 3. What common maritime practices and belief systems are shared among Austronesian cultures? 4. How does understanding Austronesian expansion enhance our appreciation of Philippine cultural foundations? IMPORTANT REMINDER Don’t forget to review the basic information from your group’s assigned readings! Always check the bibliographic entries, identify the main thesis statements, consider the sources and research approaches, summarize key takeaways, and reflect on how each work enhances our understanding of Cultural History in the Philippines. Good luck!