The Emergence of regional power centers
Although Spanish rule was administratively centralized, the members of the various religious orders enjoyed considerable de facto autonomy at the village (barangay) level, autonomy that increased with time. Until late in the Spanish colonial era, the parish priest was the sole Spaniards in more than half the Philippine villages, the only representative of colonial authority. Where present, the priest became “judge, mentor, landlord, and symbol of foreign power.” At the same time, local elites, whose power increasingly became a function of personal landownership, were able to consolidate their influence at the local and provincial levels.
In the Philippines, the regionalized pattern of growth in intra-Asian trade in the late eighteenth century and the explosion in trade with European and American markets in the mid nineteenth century unleashed powerful centrifugal forces, which have fostered fragmented social control and reinforced regional identities at the expense of a strong national identity. Anglo-American trading concerns, rather than the Spanish colonial regime, dominated the development of the Philippine export economy. With the opening of provincial ports to foreign trade after 1855, the Anglo-American trading houses were able to establish direct links with different parts of the archipelago, emphasizing distinct regional crops, and working with a variety of region-specific production systems.
Geography, colonial policy and the particular nature of commercialization of Philippine agriculture thus assured continued fragmentation of social control. This social organization limited, but did not eliminate the possibilities for concerted rebellion against the colonial power and hindered the emergence of Philippine nationalism. Furthermore, it played a prominent role in the undoing of the national revolution (1896-1902). Most important for our current analysis, this regional fragmentation of social control has frustrated the development of a centralized state organization capable of effecting nationwide redistributive reform.
In assessing the present-day capabilities of Third World states, Migdal highlights the role of colonial powers in shaping contrasting patterns of social control:
Of all distinctions in the local population these policies fostered, one stands out in its long-term effect on state-society relations. Colonizing rulers could either give preferential access to resources to many local indigenous leaders, each of whom could establish social control in only a circumscribed part of the society, or the foreigners could support those in a position to create central, countrywide institutions capable of forming an eventual, centralized state.
In the Philippine case, we would want to modify the thesis slightly, according greater recognition to international forces and powers distinct from the colonial power. The patterns of economic development and resulting social control that emerged in the nineteenth-century Philippines were arguably more reflective of the influence of Anglo-American trading concerns, and the relative weakness of the central colonial (Spanish) government, than of purposive action by the colonial power.
To Be Continued…
Although Spanish rule was administratively centralized, the members of the various religious orders enjoyed considerable de facto autonomy at the village (barangay) level, autonomy that increased with time. Until late in the Spanish colonial era, the parish priest was the sole Spaniards in more than half the Philippine villages, the only representative of colonial authority. Where present, the priest became “judge, mentor, landlord, and symbol of foreign power.” At the same time, local elites, whose power increasingly became a function of personal landownership, were able to consolidate their influence at the local and provincial levels.
In the Philippines, the regionalized pattern of growth in intra-Asian trade in the late eighteenth century and the explosion in trade with European and American markets in the mid nineteenth century unleashed powerful centrifugal forces, which have fostered fragmented social control and reinforced regional identities at the expense of a strong national identity. Anglo-American trading concerns, rather than the Spanish colonial regime, dominated the development of the Philippine export economy. With the opening of provincial ports to foreign trade after 1855, the Anglo-American trading houses were able to establish direct links with different parts of the archipelago, emphasizing distinct regional crops, and working with a variety of region-specific production systems.
Geography, colonial policy and the particular nature of commercialization of Philippine agriculture thus assured continued fragmentation of social control. This social organization limited, but did not eliminate the possibilities for concerted rebellion against the colonial power and hindered the emergence of Philippine nationalism. Furthermore, it played a prominent role in the undoing of the national revolution (1896-1902). Most important for our current analysis, this regional fragmentation of social control has frustrated the development of a centralized state organization capable of effecting nationwide redistributive reform.
In assessing the present-day capabilities of Third World states, Migdal highlights the role of colonial powers in shaping contrasting patterns of social control:
Of all distinctions in the local population these policies fostered, one stands out in its long-term effect on state-society relations. Colonizing rulers could either give preferential access to resources to many local indigenous leaders, each of whom could establish social control in only a circumscribed part of the society, or the foreigners could support those in a position to create central, countrywide institutions capable of forming an eventual, centralized state.
In the Philippine case, we would want to modify the thesis slightly, according greater recognition to international forces and powers distinct from the colonial power. The patterns of economic development and resulting social control that emerged in the nineteenth-century Philippines were arguably more reflective of the influence of Anglo-American trading concerns, and the relative weakness of the central colonial (Spanish) government, than of purposive action by the colonial power.
To Be Continued…
No comments:
Post a Comment