[X] "Agrobiodiversity and Monoculture Homogenization in Agri/Culture" (UP Forum, 2011). [X] "The Fight for Education as Dress Rehearsal" (UP Forum, 2011). [--] "Community Sterilization and the Cataclysm" (UP Forum, 2012). [X] "Pamana at Pagkalinga ng mga Inang Makabayan" (UP Forum, 2012). [X] "Beyond the Bark: Reexamining our Roots" (UP Forum, 2012). [--] "Enabling Law Disabling 'Small Dictatorships'" (UP Forum, 2013). [--] "Power Switch: Reconsidering Renewable Energy" (UP Forum, 2013). "Indigenous Research: Settle to Unsettle, Learn to Unlearn" (UP Forum, 2014). "Fortun, Forensics and the Yolanda Aftermath: Recovery, Storage, System Restore, Repeat" (UP Forum, 2014). "General Education at Globalisasyon: Isip, Salita at Gawa Para Kanino?" (UP Forum, 2014)
magbabago ang listahan sa bawat post. simulan na natin.
Indigenous Research: Settle to Unsettle,
Learn to Unlearn
The
method of learning, unlearning, relearning[1]
for literacy and pedagogy may also be employed as the mantra for research and
knowledge production. Scholars of indigenous studies and other related disciplines
shall unlearn and relearn, if they intend to dismantle the master’s house with
the master’s tools, to build a house anew; or, even if they simply want to
mitigate their marginal status by merely renovating the master’s house, where
they informally reside.
To this day, there remains a
complicated and contemporary variant of a master-slave relationship that oils
the academic machinery. More often than not, modern knowledge products from
cognition factories were manufactured by extracting raw materials—whether
tangible, such as mineral resources, or intangible, such as knowledge— from
indigenous repositories, with neither regard nor respect from the dwelling
indigenous communities. All these plundering performed in the name of reason,
science and civilization. Then, trans- and multi-national processors refine
in/tangible resources for the grand design of the hegemons and their cohorts.
Despite its potential to be a neutralizing tool of powers-that-be, indigenous
studies shall serve as a venue for resistance, where the ones branded irrational, pagan, savage, claim what
is theirs, and engage with ethnocentric researchers that impose labels and
universalize truths.
Upset, Unsettle: Ingestion and
Indigestion
It
is inevitable to mention terms such as benevolent
assimilation, white man’s burden,
manifest destiny and other
justifications for colonization, in tracing the roots of indigenous studies.[2]
The assumed superiority of scientific thinking starts all the way back, when
westerners decided to “civilize” the natives and “liberate” them from
superstitions.
Ethnocentricism, Euro- and Ameri-
centrism in particular, has been circulating the bloodstreams of the
universities since the establishment of the colonial education system, hence
our mentality has been imbibing the ideological biases of our masters. For
instance, the Spaniards demonized our ancestors as pagans, while the Americans
ostracized them as illiterates—and some of us bought the demonization and
ostracism the colonizers sold. Institutions established by colonial masters—the
church and the public school system—worked against our people.
Participants of the workshop
organized by UP Baguio and Tebtebba, “Reflections on Indigenous Studies and
Research: Taking stock of lessons from the field,”[3]
convened to collectively resist the objectification of indigenous people
studied for the perusal of science, thus the inquiry whether the
indigenous-scientific dichotomy is “true” and mutually exclusive, among other
questions[4]
that oblige leaders and intellectuals to be excited and unsettled.[5]
Instinct or common sense,[6]
tells us something is either black or white, that anything is either one or the
other. But beyond different tints of gray areas or middle grounds exist other
hues of possibilities, especially since the current epoch somehow provides
venues for discourses that were once subdued.
The three-day workshop synthesized[7]
the inquiries raised which include
the nature of ‘indigenous studies’ as a
discipline; indigenous way(s) of knowing, worldview(s) and the appropriate
research methodologies; the roles of intellectuals in advancing indigenous
studies; and the way forward for indigenous studies.” Inadvertently, the
participants seem to settle with the definition of indigenous studies as “field
of inquiry which focuses on issues affecting people/s (and their descendants)
who on account of colonization (and its consequences) have become historically
differentiated and disadvantaged people/s, have suffered/are suffering
injustice/s, have been prevented from determining their lives and future, and
how their societies will develop.
However, opinions regarding the idea
of determining an indigenous person
vary. Among the different factors considered in defining indigenous identity
are biological inheritance, historical differentiation, and indigenous
worldview,[8]
qualified by
(a) a non-anthropocentric orientation where man
is merely a small part of the order of things; (b) the primacy of collective
goals over individual goals; (c) the ‘earth-rootedness’ of human beings given
their reliance on nature for their livelihood, subsistence, and survival; (d)
an orientation towards environmental protection and responsibility instead of
environmental exploitation; and, (e) an innate preference for harmony or
balance among all living things.
Though the indigenous worldview
share “common” features, it does not follow that indigenous groups share one
culture—as culture is place- and time-specific, and cultural practices “are
often products of years of experience, of adaptation, adjustment, and
modification.” Thus, the movement for indigenous rights is never static. The
struggle, according the synthesis paper, evolved “from arguing for
communitarian or collectivist ideals versus individualistic goals in the 1970s
and 1980s, to asserting indigenous peoples’ rights within a liberal framework
and clamoring for better arrangements indigenous peoples within the modern
nation-state thereafter.”[9]
Moreover, the Philippines’ “shift in usage from cultural minorities to indigenous
peoples reflects the evolution of the indigenous rights discourse.
(emphasis added)”
The research methodology for
indigenous studies shall blur “the dichotomy between the researcher and the
object of research,” i.e the indigenous community shall be “an associate of the
researcher and an active participant in the research process.” Thus, “the
conduct of research, apart from being community-based, is also
community-sanctioned and community-sensitive.”
First among the three themes that
emerged during the workshop involved the notion of binary categories.[10]
Regarding another dichotomy, that of the academic and the activist, “the
consensus among the participants was to foster engagement and forge alliances
instead of creating and fueling tensions;” while, in dealing with institutions,
the indigenous are encouraged to engage.[11]
Thus, in general, the workshop suggests the rejection of instituted binary
black-and-white positions and the exploration of a probable half-way rendezvous
points, i.e. compromises or gray areas. The second theme considers the
participants’ inclination of advocating indigenous studies as if it were a
“fight,” while the third theme calls for transcending theory by putting ideas
into practice.[12]
Reset and Resettle: Interrogation
Since
the academe hosts dialectical debates, it is also expected to encourage
formations of forces that combine and ones that contend,[13]
in the neutral, value-free pursuit of knowledge and for the sake of research.
However, Smith writes, “research has a significance for indigenous peoples that
is embedded in our history under the ‘gaze’ of Western imperialism and Western
science” and it has “not been neutral in its objectification of the Other.”[14]
Knowledge produced through the colonization of the indigenous people benefits the
West and, “in turn, colonize[s] us in what Ngugi wa Thiong’o calls colonization
‘of the mind.’” Thus, Cunningham calls for decolonization of research. She
said, “[Scholars] should not produce knowledge and keep it in a library,” as
there should be a way for the knowledge to return and to be of purpose to the
community.[15]
The call for internationalization
and globalization—as if it were to connect all humanity into one community
committed to advancement of mankind, with facilitating institutions—is another
matter, which is quite contrary to decolonization and, eventually, sovereignty
and liberation. The key term is human,
whose meaning is determined by the ruling power. Qualified humans get to enjoy
the fruits of research, science, art and culture. “Humanizing” the savage has
been the hobby and advocacy of the so-called liberators, and they ended up with
the other end—dehumanization. Sole commitment to knowledge (even cultural)
production, as if it were neutral, tends to bring forth scholars “who in the name
of science and progress still consider indigenous peoples as specimens, not as
humans.”[16]
Consequently, indigenous theorists,
such as Reinaga, resorted to ambidextrous reflexes, to ward off strange,
foreign thoughts. He said: “Capitalism is the right hand and Communism the
left. With both hands the white man strangles the indigenous nation, slaving us
and nature to machines.”[17]
Reminiscent of the impact of the Zeus Salazar’s indigenization project,
Pantayong Pananaw (for-us-from-us[18]
perspective), Reinaga’s indianismo was seen as problematic, even myopic; yet,
like Salazar’s brainchild, it can never be plainly dismissed because of its
impact on thought production. Lucero[19]
explores how Fanon’s anti-colonialism somehow shaped Reinaga’s indianismo, and
just like Salazar’s ideas, these thoughts would later be critiqued, in an
effort to engage in discourse and to advance in theorizing. Bolivian president
Evo Morales, Latin America’s first indigenous president, acknowledges Reinaga’s
influence, while maintaining a staunch anti-imperialist stance,[20]
which is, needless to say, anti-capitalist.[21]
Consistent with its predatory nature
(but deodorized through terms such as post-colonialism,
economic independence, tribal development, progress, etc.),[22]
imperialism, currently euphemized as globalization,
threatens indigenous cultures and identities. Makere writes, “Beyond the
homogenizing influence on material forms of culture is a more fundamental and
profoundly significant issue, that of the homogenization of world views and
constructions of reality and the loss and commodification of indigenous
knowledge.”[23]
More than a fight, it seems
indigenous studies exist in a war-torn field, thus the necessity of
indentifying allies and enemies, even in the academia. Criticality shall
therefore remain upon analysis of claims fashioned by perceived allies. A
healthy skepticism shall be observed, as superficial democratic spaces and
apparent consensus shall be scrutinized and queried. The aforementioned shift attributed to Kymlicka, for
instance, seems to normalize or naturalize the status quo. By implying that
working within the institution is the destined trend of indigenous movements,
Kymlicka seems to legitimize the power of the modern nation state and to
suggest the oppressed—indigenous or otherwise—are left with no choice but to
negotiate within its instituted (neo)liberal framework.
According to Konig,[24]
Kymlicka’s “morally and politically opportunist” leaning towards “liberal
culturalism, a doctrinal variety able to unify nationalism and
multiculturalism,” enforces hegemony. Look back at our country’s policies, such
as the Mining Act of 1995, which was later reversed[25]
in favor of the transnational (read: foreign) mining corporations, giving them the freedom to mine minerals and to plunder other
resources, at the expense of the indigenous peoples. With these goings-on, the shift away from the indigenous peoples’
basic “communitarian” rights, such as that of self-determination and of
ancestral domain, is illusory as the struggle for collective rights remains
relevant. The partiality of liberal political norms towards the property-owners
who wanted to overindulge in more property has been violating already
dispossessed people—indigenous or otherwise.
Since the colonial[26]
until the current neocolonial times, people of our third world country,
especially the indigenous, are being ransacked, with the help of the military.
In the recent experience of the Tumandoks,[27]
catastrophic land-grabbing never takes a break, even after the devastation of
one of the most powerful, literal typhoons–both of which displaces the people,
the former however aggravates the latter. Moreover, the military is also
instrumental in impeding the education of indigenous children,[28]
somehow rendering the Department of Education’s bandaid solution of allocating
fund for basic indigenous education.[29]As
if annual national education budget cuts weren’t enough, a look at the
indigenous peoples’ situationer prepared by the UN itself,[30]
and the accompanying education crises among many other problems, and reality
stares us right in the eye.
Bolivia’s
attempt to transform education, [31] with the help of social movements,
intellectuals and think tanks,[32]
shows that despite the relatively progressive government, radicalizing education
takes time, and the process is never a walk in the park. The possibilities of
indigenous pedagogy and experiments in advocating intercultural education[33]
remain a relevant area of concern in indigenous studies.
In essence, one shall proceed into
education with caution, as it functions as a double-edged dagger. Scholars
shall remain critical with every acquired knowledge and never settle for
anything absolute, because education is the most seductive[34]
aspect of western imperialism. The “power to narrate or to block other
narratives from forming or emerging, is very important to culture and
imperialism, and constitutes one of the main connections between them,”[35]
and among the points where the formal/academic and the informal/folk meet is
the intersection of indigenous studies.
Education, especially instituted
ones, is a technology of domination,
yet, despite being “the primary tool for the submerging of indigenous peoples’
highly developed ‘inner’ ways of knowing under a layer of colonizing
ideologies,” it may also be a site for
resistance.[36]
To resist the oppressive educational institutions, “indigenous peoples who are
impelled to coexist within neoliberal state formations” must face the call “to
re-embed (…) principles[37]
at the core of indigenous educational movements, organizational structures and
economic aspirations,” as doing “otherwise is to become active participants in
the processes of imperialism.”[38]
[1]
Many articles (e.g. http://www.forbes.com/sites/margiewarrell/2014/02/03/learn-unlearn-and-relearn/)
have been attributing the popular quote to philosopher and futurist Alvin
Toffler, but some sources refute the attribution (e.g. http://www.visualturn.com/post/31366647863/the-illiterate-of-the-21st-century-will-not-be).
“Learning, unlearning, relearning” also recurs as a catch phrase in works
written by professors and intellectuals advocating critical pedagogy (http://www.freireanpedagogy.org/CriticalPedagogy2.htm).
[2]
“Arguably, the way indigenous peoples have been used as objects of research has
been appropriated by colonizers and ruling elites to justify colonization and
domination, contributing to the perpetuation of racism and discrimination
against indigenous peoples,” according to “Concept Paper for an International
Seminar-Workshop on Indigenous Studies,” received via email from the
organizers, the Cordillera Studies Center, University of the Philippines Baguio
and Tebtebba Foundation, Inc.
[3]
See news article about the workshop, “UP Baguio, Tebtebba host Indigenous
Studies Workshop.” UP News. Quezon
City: UP System Information Office. Volume 34, Number 7-8. July-August 2013.
pp.9 & 23.
[4]
In their concept paper, organizers posed the questions: “Is the dichotomy
between Western Knowledge and Indigenous Knowledge a true dichotomy? Can one
think ‘scientifically’ and yet be open to an indigenous worldview? Does the
adoption of Western epistemologies, ontologies, and methodologies really entail
the wholesale rejection of their indigenous counterparts and vice-versa? Or, is
the indigenous way of knowing also a valid way of knowing in addition to the
western way?
While
cognizant of the limitations of Western Knowledge, many mainstream academics
and researchers wonder whether the adoption of an indigenous worldview is still
possible for one trained in Western-based knowledge systems, especially for one
not generally considered an ‘indigenous person.’ Can a non-indigenous person do
indigenous studies? What happens when the indigenous becomes the center of
study by academics, advocates and activists? How can indigenous peoples and
academics work together to enhance the dialogue, cross-fertilization and
connections between indigenous, traditional knowledge systems and scientific
knowledge?
What
are the emerging indigenous (non-Western) epistemologies? Are they changing and
challenging the ways of knowing the world?
These fundamental questions had challenged and inspired the organizers
to gather prominent scholars, advocates and activists to a seminar-workshop on
indigenous studies. What lessons have indigenous researchers learned in
pursuing their research activities with their own communities?”
[5]
From the welcome remarks “Promoting Indigenous Studies in Higher Education”
delivered by Dr. J. Prospero De Vera III during the International Workshop on
Indigenous Studies at the Legends Villas, Mandaluyong.
[6]
Common sense pertains to “the uncritical and largely unconscious way of
perceiving and understanding the world that has become ‘common’ in any given
epoch,” as mentioned in p.625 SELECTIONS
FROM THE PRISON NOTEBOOKS OF ANTONIO GRAMSCI. Quentin Hoare and Geoffrey
Nowell Smith, eds and trans. ElecBook: London. 1999. Transcribed from the
edition published by Lawrence & Wishart: London 1971. Guido Liguori’s
“Common sense in Gramsci” discussed various uses of the term “common sense” in
the Gramscian corpus and concluded that though meanings vacillate, “common
sense is something to supersede rather than conserve” (p.133). From Perspectives on Gramsci: Politics, culture
and social theory. Joseph Francese, ed. Routledge: New York. 2009.
[7]
Dr. Alejandro Ciencia of the Cordillera Studies Center generously sent a copy
of the summary of the workshop’s synthesis paper, which was used as a primary
source for this article, along with the cited UP news article.
[8]
Quoting at length from the synthesis paper: “One can identify at least three
tendencies when it comes to defining ‘indigenous peoples.’ There was the
tendency to speak of indigenous identity as a product of biological
inheritance, i.e., that it is inherited from one's parents. Hence, a person whose parents are indigenous
persons is consequently also an indigenous person. Another tendency among some participants was
to regard indigenous identity as the product of historical differentiation,
mainly as a consequence of colonization. A third (and possible alternative to
the two mentioned above) is to understand indigenous identity as involving an
indigenous mindset or worldview/cosmovision, marked by a deep sense of
connectedness to the environment, to the community, and to all living things,
both visible and invisible.”
[9]
The synthesis paper cites Will Kymlicka’s remark in Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction, 2nd edition.
Oxford University Press: New York, USA. 2002.
[10]
Quoting at length from the synthesis paper: “Scholars and advocates of
indigenous studies often find themselves
dealing with binary concepts - e.g., western positivist knowledge versus
non-western indigenous knowledge; state versus indigenous peoples; top-down
approaches versus bottom-up approaches; academia/university-based scholarship
versus activist/advocacy work; neutrality (research for its own sake) versus
positionality (change-oriented research).”
[11]Quoting
at length from the synthesis paper: “As to the relationship between indigenous
peoples and the state (and other state-based organizations or institutions like
the United Nations), there was general agreement that engagement was the way
forward for indigenous peoples.”
[12]
Quoting at length from the synthesis paper: “The second major theme – and this
is alluded to above - involves the tendency of the participants to see the
advancement of indigenous studies as something similar to a struggle or a
fight. (…) The third key theme emerging from the discussions was the commitment
to go beyond theorizing and pursue action. Consistent with the second theme of
advancing indigenous studies as a struggle is the idea that it requires
concerted action. Apart from the calls for engagement with the state and
state-based institutions, with universities and other sectors of society, there
was the specific concern for promoting education among indigenous peoples and
awareness among non-indigenous populations. The special concern for education
has resulted in a variety of proposals – e.g., the creation of non-conventional
schools for indigenous peoples, curricula for indigenous peoples and courses on
indigenous studies in mainstream universities, accreditation of indigenous
schools, the adoption of interculturality in universities, promoting the use of
indigenous language or mother tongue in schools, etc. “
[13]
The synthesis paper also mentioned that since the (battle)field of advocating
indigenous studies is seen as a struggle, there were “references to “allies” or
“friends”, “enemies”, “arenas of conflict or struggle”, “strategies”, etc. “
during the forum.
[14]
Linda Tuhiwai Smith. Decolonizing
Methologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. Zed Books Ltd: London UK and
New York USA, University of Otago Press: Dundin NZ. 1999. p.39
[15]
Also mentioned in the “UP Baguio, Tebtebba…”
[16]
Decolonizing methologies… (1999). p56
[17]
"For the Incas, there was a sacred balance in the world, one which men had
the duty to preserve - the balance between man, nature and cosmos," he
wrote. Capitalism is the right hand and Communism the left. With both hands the
white man strangles the indigenous nation, slaving us and nature to machines.
There's nothing they [Europe] can give us that we didn't already have before
the Spanish came. Only their culture of death." From Viewpoint: A new
nationalismBy Rodrigo Vazquez http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7035944.stm
[18]
“from-us-for-us,” as translated by Ramon Guillermo, who, among many others,
wrote a critique of Salazar’s project. See Pook
at Paninindigan: Kritika ng Pantayong Pananaw (UP Press 2009). Like most
critiques, Guillermo suggests trajectories for Pantayong Pananaw in “Exposition,
Critique and New Directions for Pantayong Pananaw,” which may be accessed at: http://kyotoreview.cseas.kyoto-u.ac.jp/issue/issue2/article_247.html
[19]
Jose Antonio Lucero. “FANON IN THE ANDES: Fausto Reinaga, Indianismo, and the
Black Atlantic.” International Journal of
Critical Indigenous Studies. Volume 1, Number 1. University of Washington.
2008.
[20]
http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/archive/bolivias-morales-slams-united-nations-imperialism/
[21]
See Vladimir Lenin. “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism.” Selected Works: Volume 1. Progress
Publishers: Moscow. 1963. pp667-766
[22]
“Is this imperialism? No, we are told, this is post-colonialism. This is
globalization. This is economic independence. This is tribal development. This
is progress. Others tell us that this is the end of modernism, and therefore
the end of imperialism as we have known it. That business is now over, and so
are all its associated projects such as decolonization. People now live in a
world which is fragmented with multiple and shifting identities, that the
oppressed and the colonized are so deeply implicated in their own oppressions
that they are no more nor less
authentic than anyone else.” (Smith, 97)
[23]
Makere Stewart-Harawira. New Imperial
Order: Indigenous Responses to Globalization. Zed Books: London UK &
Newyork, USA, Huia Publishers: Wellington, NZ. 2005. p18
[24]
Thomas König. “The Hegemony of Multiculturalism: A Comment on Will Kymlicka’s
Theory of Nationalism.” Politicka misao.
Vol. XXXVIII, (2001), No. 5, pp. 48–61. Faculty of Social Sciences, University
of Göttingen
[25]
Alejandro N. Ciencia, Jr. “The
Philippine Supreme Court and the Mining Act Ruling Reversal.” East West Center Working Papers, Nov 29,
2006. http://www.eastwestcenter.org/sites/default/files/private/IGSCwp029.pdf
[26]
E. San Juan, Jr. US Imperialism and
Revolution in the Philippines. Palgrave Macmillan: New York. 2007 (p.xxiii)
[27]
See the news article: http://bulatlat.com/main/2014/01/25/tumandoks-unite-on-common-platform-against-land-grabbing-mega-dam-military-harassments/
[28]
This incident shows a full pledged violation in althusserian terms—as
ideological state apparatus (ISA) and repressive state apparatus (RSA)
explicitly collaborates. See the news article: http://bulatlat.com/main/2014/01/31/army-presence-halted-lumad-school-classes/
[29]
See news article: http://www.philstar.com/education-and-home/2013/06/13/953333/deped-allots-p100-m-improve-indigenous-peoples-education
[30]
The State of the World's Indigenous
Peoples. Published by Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division
for Social Policy and Development, Secretariat of the Permanent Forum on
Indigenous Issues, United Nations: New York, 2009. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/SOWIP_web.pdf
[31]
Live Danbolt Drange. “Power in Intercultural Education: ‘Education in Bolivia –
from Oppression to Liberation?’” Journal
of Intercultural Communication ISSN 1404-1634, issue 15, November 2007.
Prof. Jens Allwood, ed. Norsk Lærerakademi / School of Religion, Education and
Intercultural Studies, Norway.
[32]
Rafael Loayza Bueno with Ajoy Datta. “The politics of Evo Morales’ rise to
power in Bolivia: The role of social movements and think tanks.” RAPID research and policy in development.
Overseas Development Institute, London UK: March 2011.
[33]
Also mentioned and advocated by Cunningham in the “UP Baguio, Tebtebba…”
[34]
As mentioned and elaborated by Njoki Wane in “[Re]Claiming my Indigenous
knowledge: Challenges, resistance, and opportunities.” Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society. Vol. 2, No.
1, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Canada:
2013, p.101: “Nwawa (1997) argues that, of all aspects of Western imperialism,
the one that Africans found most seductive was Western education. Other
scholars such as Said (1994) and Ngugi (1986) demonstrate how education is
interwoven with politics and culture to create and sustain systems of
colonialism and domination. Ngugi has written on what he calls the ‘cultural
bomb’, or the intellectual and spiritual tension we feel when torn between
Western and Indigenous education.”
[35]
Edward Said. Culture and Imperialism.
Vintage books: New York. 1993. p xiii
[36]
New Imperial Order…, p.80
[37]
New Imperial Order…, p.200. Makere
mentioned Maori academic Manuka Henare’s “spiral ethics for life,” and other
principles elaborated in the book, but in the context of this article, perhaps any principle held dear will do.
[38]
New Imperial Order…, p.201
No comments:
Post a Comment