Você está na página 1de 15

Question Proposal:

“How can Filipinos gain social mobility?”

By: Chosen Abigail Beatrice M. Canlas

Mentor: Doug Munroe, Ph. D.

Submitted in partial requirements for the degree of

Bachelor of Arts and Sciences

December 2018

Keywords: social mobility, Filipino/Philippine studies, international political economy, postcolonial theory
My Question is “How can Filipinos gain social, economic and political mobility?” Growing up in the

Philippines with significant exposure to American media, I compared the opportunities I had with

peers from developed countries. I noticed differences in the quality of education, job opportunities,

access to resources, individual agency that resulted to differences in the amount of our upward social

mobility.

Why is it so difficult and expensive for me to apply for a tourist visa to the U.S., while U.S.

citizens do not have to apply when travelling to the Philippines? Why is it that there are more college

scholarships accessible to Americans than there are to Filipinos? Why is it that the Philippines is

cheap for the U.S., but the U.S. is expensive for the Philippines? Why does it seem much harder for

me to travel than it does for my peers from developed countries? Why do doctors and engineers

who graduate in the Philippines need to go back to school when they immigrate to the U.S. to

pursue their profession, but not the other way around? In fact, they are even looked up to because

they graduated abroad.

Coming to Quest University Canada, I noticed the advantages many of my peers from

developed countries had gained due to education and job opportunities they had access to in their

earlier years that I did not. This led to noticeable differences in our prospects in life such as in

submitting resumes for job applications. For example, an internship in one of the best tech

companies is a leg up in the industry. However, it so happens that many of them (i.e. Google,

Facebook) are based in the US and require a green card or citizenship which I do not have. Working

at Silicon Valley would require me to attain further education to justify the tech company to sponsor

and hire me. Because I would need to pass through more hoops, I felt like I had a disadvantage as

this limited my movement towards a career.

This situation is an example of discrimination based on nationality that greatly lessens not

just my chances in life, but of all Filipinos. These problems are not just personal troubles but public
issues that inflict a nation (Mills, 2000). My comparisons are examples where the social mobility of

all Filipinos is hindered while citizens of developed countries are favored. This social structure in

which we are currently moving in is a colonial framework. In order to answer my question, I will

study the social structure in which we operate in, the pathways available to Filipinos in order to

climb the social ladder, the barriers there are that citizens of developed countries do not have, and

what must be done to overcome these barriers.

In the remainder of this academic statement, I will talk about the social construction of

identity in the Philippines and Philippine history from the beginning of the Spanish colonial era until

the present day. I will then talk about class (income and wealth), education, language, culture,

religion, race and gender in how they were used as social machinery for social testing, selection, and

distribution of Filipinos within the Philippines and around the globe (diaspora) that led them to

becoming determinants of Philippine social mobility (Sorokin, 1998; Ancheta, 2006; Constantino,

2000). These determinants have been studied through the lenses of Philippine/Filipino Studies,

Critical Race Theory, Curricular Studies, Class Studies and Gender Studies and therefore included in

my scope. However, the list may expand in the duration of my studies because of the

multidimensionality of social mobility.

I will also look at how the different intersectionalities of identity play a role in Filipino social

mobility since the Filipino people is not a homogenous group (Crenshaw, 1991). Some Filipinos

have more social mobility than others and I would also like to study this. By no means are these the

only determinants of Filipino social mobility. Due to the complexity of this topic and the limited

time I have at Quest, I will not be able to tackle all of them.


Social Mobility

Social mobility first defined by Bernard Barber and quoted in Miller is the “movement

between one relatively full time, functionally significant role and another that is evaluated as higher

or lower… [it is] a process occurring over time” (1960, p.1). Access to resources and opportunities

such as good education and employment are some of the determinants of social mobility and are

used as a means for social testing and selection, “sieving” out individuals who do not fit certain

qualities that are approved of (Sorokin, 1998). The access can enable while the lack of access can

disable an individual to move upwards or downwards a social ladder where the hierarchy of positions

are conventionally predetermined in the society. It is important to note that social mobility is multi-

dimensional. Some examples are the economic, political and social orders (Lipset & Zetterberg,

1959; Miller, 1960). In the economic order, we can see change in income and wealth. In the social

order, this could be change in one’s social network like with gaining friends in ‘higher places.’ In the

political order, mobility could mean a change in representation in the congress, or an increase in

one’s agency to shape the world they are in. Implicit in my Question is the preference towards

increasing upward social mobility.

Who is the Filipino?

Historically, who is meant by “Filipino” has evolved (Quimpo, 2000). It has a long colonial

and discriminatory past with racial connotations. The name of the country ‘Philippines’ and name of

the people ‘Filipino’ both come from the king of Spain at the time, King Philip II. It was first used

in reference to pure-blooded Spaniards born in the Philippines during the Spanish colonial era, then

extended to the children sired by the Spanish with indios or natives of the Philippines, and then

certain indios who were hispanized and upheld colonial values were rewarded with positions of

power. Their offspring was a small group of educated elites called the ilustrados (literally, the
enlightened) whose families were rich enough to send them to pursue education abroad. Through

resistance, this was then furthered to encompass everyone born within the archipelago land mass

except for indigenous tribes, and then furthered again to include indigenous tribes who had not been

colonized but are located within the archipelago (Quimpo, 2000). The current definition of who is

considered a Filipino no longer holds the original intended meaning, and instead refers to those of

native descent.

Elements in Philippine Colonial History that limited the Social Mobility of Filipinos

In both the Spanish and American colonial period, race, gender, education and religion were

used as machinery to limit the social mobility of Filipinos in the production of power for the

colonizing force (Ancheta, 2006; Quimpo, 2000). The imposition of the colonizer’s social structure

placed the colonizer on top, making it so that social mobility was granted to those who were of the

colonizer’s race, language, religion and culture. Striving for the colonizer’s ideals meant greater social

mobility.

In order to gain qualities that led to greater social mobility, class and wealth were necessary

especially during the Spanish colonial era. In this period, the indios were not taught Spanish to keep

them ignorant. This made it so that Spanish and literacy was limited to the elite which was initially

determined racially. It was only those with families who could afford to send their children abroad to

be “educated” that could gain social mobility in the colonizer’s social structure.

In contrast, the Americans implemented a public schooling system to transform the Filipino

into a good colonial by turning them into “little Americans” (Constantino, 1978). English was the

language in schools they established in the Philippines. Constantino writes that the educated elite

ilustrado began to view being Hispanicized or Americanized to be the basis of becoming a good

educated Filipino (1978). The education system was designed to instill Christian and Western values
that made it seem that becoming more Spanish or American was better. This “colonial mentality”

was further reinforced by the financial and economic success that awaited those who Hispanicized

or Americanized. To this date, speaking English is a determinant of social mobility especially in

terms of economic success and social status. Indigenous values were eroded so that even when the

nationalistic spirit was stirred later, Filipinos did not have a culture to go back to.

The Christianized and Westernized ilustrados were used by the colonizer on their behalf to

enforce Western ideals onto indios who have not yet been colonized. For example, those who

adopted the Christian religion were favored and given more power and resources, especially to

subjugate the Muslims in the south. According to Quimpo, there is a significant section of Muslim

“Filipinos” objecting to these terms on the grounds of its colonial origin and ethnocentric bias of

the Christian majority and Philippine state (2000). The social mobility of these people is more

limited than that of the Christianized and Westernized majority. The racial discrimination Filipinos

experience is not a binary between whites and non-whites. The situation is more complex because of

the hierarchy established by the Spaniards and Americans within the Filipino community leading to

ethnocentric bias and colorism (Ancheta, 2006; Quimpo, 2000).

Another dimension of Philippine social mobility lies within foreign, labor and immigration

policy. In his essay Filipino Americans, Foreigner Discrimination, and the Lines of Racial Sovereignty in the

book Positively No Filipinos Allowed, Ancheta highlights three types of anti-Filipino discrimination

from the U.S. colonial period until the present day: “(1) the laws of immigration and naturalization

that have excluded Filipinos from formal entry and membership in the national community; (2) the

subordination of Filipino immigrants through citizenship-based discrimination and language based-

discrimination; and (3) the treatment of Filipino-Americans—even those whose family roots in the

United States go back several generations—as foreign-born and alien to U.S. society (2006).”
After the Philippines declared independence from Spain, Spain ceded the Philippines to the

United States of America for $20 million in the 1898 Treaty of Paris. Because the newly born

country did not have time to consolidate, the Filipinos were not able to throw off their new captor

who posed as an ally in the Philippine-Spanish War. Before granting the Philippines independence,

the Americans established government and educational institutions raising the new generation of

Filipino-Americans (Ancheta, 2006; Constantino, 2000). With the Filipinos operating under the

colonial framework, the Americans were able to control them according to their interests leading to

the major limitations in social mobility experienced by Filipinos today.

In the early 1900’s, the status of the Philippines as a colony of the U.S. allowed immigration

and the privileges that came with the status of noncitizen US nationals. With the Tydings-McDuffie

Act in 1934, the U.S. granted the Philippines commonwealth status which converted Filipinos into

Philippine nationals. This nearly eliminated Filipino immigration to the United States despite the

Philippines only being granted full independence in 1946. This can be seen as part of the chain of

measures to limit labor migration from Asia such as the China Exclusion Acts, the Gentleman’s

Agreement between the United States and Japan, the creation of the Asiatic Barred Zone and

national origins quotas limiting immigration from each Asian country to 50 per year (Ancheta, 2006).

The restrictions on the social mobility of Filipinos were regulated by U.S. immigration and labor

laws and were determined by the U.S. economy trends regarding the need for Philippines’ trade and

labor (Ancheta, 2006).

Even though it was the West that is responsible for instilling Western values in the Filipino,

they restrict the social movement of contemporary Filipinos towards Western aspirations. This

restriction occurs through race, citizenship, language, culture and religion-based discrimination.

Even if the Filipino’s nationalistic spirit is cultivated, the Philippines has been colonized for far too

long that indigenous values have been eroded and there is barely a culture to go back to
(Constantino, 1978). Quimpo writes that “Filipino nationalism” is contradictory term and that

Filipinos have been so Americanized that having a Filipino author of a history book does not

guarantee authenticity due to the Western-centric lens that Filipinos have acquired (2000). The

current social structure established by the West through implementing education and government

institutions are even propagated by Filipinos today (Constantino, 2000).

The last determinants of social mobility I will discuss are gender and sexuality. Manalansan

writes that these play pivotal roles through normative assumptions about family, heterosexual

reproduction and marriage (2006). This can be seen in the gendering of Philippine labor migration to

foreign countries. Although both men and women are deployed in equal numbers, men are

employed in production and construction while women mostly find domestic employment (Tyner,

1996). Tyner provides evidence of gender segregation in labor markets which leads to differential

access to public and private resources for men and women.

Aside from this, Parreñas, a prominent researcher of Filipina labor migration, transnational

parenting and diaspora, notes some effects of globalization and the rise of feminism in the West on

migrant Filipina domestic workers (2000). She claims that middle-class migrant Filipina women who

have the means to migrate experience “contradictory class mobility.” When they migrate to a

developed country, their income increases (upward economic mobility). However, the jobs available

to them are domestic and considered to be at a lower class compared to their job in the Philippine

context such as being an architect (downward class mobility). The lower class in the Philippines

usually cannot afford to migrate to developed countries creating an economic and class barrier for

the Philippine lower class. Furthermore, the labor migration enables the social mobility of women

from developed countries as they are ‘liberated’ from household responsibilities by the import of

Philippine labor. Parreñas, writes that women’s labor migration is perpetuating conventional gender

norms in the caring practices (2005). She extends her research and looks at the impact on the
migrant’s families. The importation of labor burdens daughters left in the homeland with greater

household responsibility (2009).

The importation of labor and the occupations accessible to migrant workers are influenced

by gender, class and race. This intersects with the rise of feminism in the West and how the colonial

framework influences the dynamic between Filipino women and women in the employing country. I

would like to bring into the liminal sphere that this is based on conventions of social hierarchy

where domestic labor is considered ‘lower’ than other kinds of labor such as being a doctor. The

social mobility of Filipinos within the colonial framework is highly complex with many nuances that

need to be further studied.

Rationale

There are several reasons why I am choosing to study this. Aside from my own personal

endeavor to overcome the barriers to my social mobility in order to pursue the things I love, this

Question seeks to investigate the lack of Filipino social mobility as a public issue that inflicts a

nation (Mills, 2000). I have long questioned this status quo and would like to study it extensively

since I and my fellow Filipinos keep bumping into barriers citizens of developed countries do not.

Additionally, unlike our European and Western counterparts, social mobility of Filipinos has

not been studied extensively. Although there is literature focusing on the discrimination Filipinos

face, there is no focused and comprehensive study on the impacts of these on Filipino social

mobility. There also needs to be further research on the interactions between the social structures

and economies of developed nations, and the dynamics of social mobility between Filipinos and

citizens of developed countries. I would like to contribute to this.

My Question is based on the belief that humans have the right to equal resources and

opportunity making it fundamentally liberal. Academia is one of the venues in which we can gain

knowledge by investigating and exploring the world through research and thought. This is also
where we can challenge the conservative power structures present today. I would like to follow

academics from other colonized societies such as Frantz Fanon, Paulo Freire and Kimberle

Crenshaw, learn from their examples and apply these lessons in the Philippine context.

Potential Keystone

I have two ideas for my Keystone. The first is to make a comparative analysis of social

mobility between Philippine citizens living in the Philippines versus their counterparts in the U.S. or

Filipino-Americans living in the U.S. I would like to compare the accessibility of typical jobs such as

nannying and fast food chain employment between these two groups and see the impact of the

differences in job opportunities in the early teenage years on the life prospects of these individuals.

The goal of this research is to empirically prove that the difference in social mobility between

Filipinos living in the Philippines and their counterparts in the U.S. is problematic.

The second idea is to create a visualization of the pathways and barriers of Filipinos. I would

like to use the methods of Design Anthropology to map out these pathways by marrying theory with

empirical data and data visualization to show the social mobility of different kinds of Filipinos, in

terms of race, gender, class, citizenship and religion. Design anthropology, being “the translation of

human values into tangible experiences,” has anthropological and ethnographical methods which

can be used to map Filipino experiences on the individual level. I will be focusing on social mobility

on the individual level as it trickles down from the systemic level. In order to determine the

pathways that are made inaccessible to Filipinos, I will make a comparative analysis with the social

mobility of citizens from a developed country as a basis to determine what has been made available

to Filipinos and what has not. I will then attempt to trace the root cause of immobility in these

pathways and identify strategic actions that must be performed to eliminate barriers.
Touchstones

 Social Mobility by Pitrim A. Sorokin

This book will give me the foundational understanding on social mobility.

 Neocolonial Identity and Counter Consciousness by Renato Constantino

This book is full of essays on cultural decolonization.

 Servants of Globalization: Women, Migration and Domestic Work by Rhacel Salazar Parreñas

This is one of the most notable works in Filipina migrant domestic work, gender and

migration.

 Positively No Filipinos Allowed edited by Antonio T. Tiongson, Jr., Edgardo V. Gutierrez,

Ricardo V. Gutierrez

This is a collection of works regarding issues Filipinos face today.

 Social Engineering in the Philippines: The Aims and Execution of American Educational Policy,

1900-1913 by Glenn A. May

This book writes about the beginning of the implementation of American-style education in

the Philippines that continues today.

 Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings that Formed the Movement edited by Kimberle

Crenshaw, Neil Gotanda, Gary Peller, and Kendall Thomas

I would like to learn from other races going through decolonization such as Latin American

and the Pan-African movement.

 Filipino Studies: Palimpsests of Nation and Diaspora by Martin F. Manalansan and Augusto

Espiritu

This is an anthology of current Discourses in Filipino studies.


Experiential Learning

For my Experiential Learning, I would like to pursue a Service Design Internship to gain

experience in the methods of Design Anthropology. One of the methods in Service Design is the

creation of customer journey maps which I would like to use for my Keystone in mapping the

pathways accessible to Filipinos. This is also an opportunity for me to get into the field of Service

Design and increase my own upward social mobility.

If these do not work out, other options are to pursue internships at the International

Organization for Migration, International Development Research Center or The Hotspot in

Downtown Squamish. I hope to complete my Experiential Learning this Summer 2019.


Course Plan

Here is my course plan for the remainder of my Quest journey. Included are foundation

courses that I have not yet taken and focus courses that have been listed on the slate. Some courses

that I want to take but are not listed on the slate are indicated below. In the blocks marked for

Independent Studies (IS), there were no focus courses applicable to my Question on the slate. If a

class appropriate to my Question comes up, I will take it instead.

Spring 2019
Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4
Microeconomics Evolution Democracy & Justice Comparative Political
Institutions

Summer 2019
Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4
Experiential Learning Spanish 2

Fall 2019
Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4
Scholarship Poverty Inequality Gender & Politics IS
and Development
(not on Slate)

Spring 2020
Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4
IS Data Analysis in R Qualitative Research IS
Methods
(not on Slate)

Summer 2020
Summer Fellows

Fall 2021
Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4
Keystone
I am taking Economics courses that look at the agent’s strategic actions and the effects of

the economic structures on human behavior.

 Behavioral Economics (already taken)

 Microeconomics

 Poverty Inequality and Development (not on slate)

The next three courses look at the current power structures and the dynamics within them.

Comparative Political Institutions looks at comparisons between countries as I would like to do for

my Keystone. Gender politics will help me look through the lens of gender, and Businesses-

Government Relations looks at how businesses and the government influence each other. This is

important for me to understand as American economy trends influences the Philippines.

 Comparative Political Institutions

 Gender Politics

 Business-Government Relations (already taken)

The courses below are for data analysis and research methods that I would like to use for my

Keystone.

 Statistics (already taken)

 Qualitative Research Methods (not on slate)

 Data Analysis in R
References:

Constantino, R. (1978). Neocolonial Identity and Counter-Consciousness. New York: ME Sharpe. Inc.

Constantino, R. (2000). The Mis-education of the Filipino. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 30(3), 428–444.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00472330080000421

Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against

Women of Color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039

Lipset, S. M., & Zetterberg, H. L. (1959). Social mobility in industrial societies. University of California Press

Berkeley, CA.

Miller, S. M. (1960). Comparative Social Mobility. Current Sociology, 9(1), 1–61.

https://doi.org/10.1177/001139216000900101

Mills, C. W. (2000). The Sociological Imagination. Oxford University Press.

Parreñas, R. S. (2000). Migrant Filipina domestic workers and the international division of reproductive

labor. Gender & Society, 14(4), 560–580.

Parreñas, R. S. (2005). The gender paradox in the transnational families of Filipino migrant women. Asian

and Pacific Migration Journal, 14(3), 243–268.

Parreñas, R. S. (2009). Transnational mothering: A source of gender conflicts in the family. NCL Rev., 88,

1825.

Quimpo, N. G. (2000). Colonial name, colonial mentality and ethnocentrism. Public Policy, 4(1), 1–30.

Sorokin, P. A. (1998). Social Mobility. Taylor & Francis.

Tiongson, A. T., Gutierrez, E. V., Gutierrez, R. V., & Gutierrez, R. V. (2006). Positively No Filipinos

Allowed: Building Communities and Discourse. Temple University Press.

Tyner, J. A. (1996). The Gendering of Philippine International Labor Migration*. The Professional

Geographer, 48(4), 405–416. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0033-0124.1996.00405.x

Você também pode gostar