Alfred W. McCoy
Group C
• “…elite families can be seen as both
object and subject of history, shaping and
being shaped by the processes of
change.” (p. 1)
• She described the family as…
“the strongest unit of society, demanding
the deepest loyalties of the individual and
coloring all social activity with its own set
of demands" (p. 1)
• “…the country’s elite were small, alien
element –either rural feudal landholders
or urban bourgeoisie.” (p. 4)
• “Even a cursory survey of the country’s
past indicates that in the Philippines, as in
many Latin America settings, a weak state
and powerful political oligarchies have
combined to make a familial perspective
on national history relevant.”(p. 7)
• The Philippines has a long history of
strong families assuring social survival
when the nation-state is weak.
• After the independence in 1946, the
Philippine central government effectively
lost control over the countryside to regional
politicians, some so powerful that they
become known as warlords.
 Indeed, the state itself has recognized the
primacy of the family in Philippine society.
 In Philippine politics a family name is a
valuable asset. Along with their land and
capital, elite families, as Jeremy Beckett
argues in this volume, are often thought to
transmit their character and characteristics
to younger generations. Although new
leaders often emerge through elections,
parties and voters seem to feel that a
candidate with a “good name” has an
advantage.
• Article 216 of the Philippine Civil Code states
that “The family is the basic social
institution which public policy cherishes
and protects.”
• In article 219 the state admonishes its officials
to respect the family’s primary responsibility
for social welfare. “Mutual aid, both moral and
material, shall be rendered among members
of the same family. Judicial and administrative
officials shall foster this mutual assistance.”
(p. 7)
• Article 2, section 12, the Philippine
constitution of 1986:
“The state recognizes the sanctity of family
life and shall protect and strengthen the
family as a basic autonomous social
institution.” (p. 7)
• “The Filipino family… protects its members
against all kinds of misfortunes since the
good name of the family has to be
protected. “
• Robert Fox described the Philippines as
an “anarchy of families.”
• Marcos era
“There is little separation between the
enterprise and the household, and it is
often difficult to discern larger ‘segments
of capital’ divided along coherent sectoral
lines” (p. 8)
• In Philippine politics a family is a valuable
asset along with their land and capital,
elite families (Jeremy Beckett).
• In elections, for parties and voters the
candidate with a “good name” has an
advantage
• • Philippine political parties usually have
acted as coalitions of powerful families.
• Elite Filipino families often perform a broad
range of economic, social, and political
functions. Not only does Filipino culture
articulate strong beliefs about the family in
the abstract but individuals, as both
leaders and followers, are influenced by
kinship concerns in making political
decisions.
• Two key elements seem to have contributed
most directly to the formation of powerful
political families:
a. the rise of “rents” as a significant share of the
nation’s economy
b. a simultaneous attenuation of central
government control over the provinces
• Within the literature on political economy, the
theory of “rent seeking” best explains the
economic relations between the Filipino elite
and the Philippine state.
• Practice of bilateral descent is a central
characteristic of Filipino kinship
• Bilateral kinship “produces overlapping,
egocentric networks,” fostering societies
“characterized by vagueness and
ambiguity if not by disorder.” (Jurg
Helbling)
• “The Filipino type of kinship group is,
therefore a generational cooperate group
devoid of lineal or vertical continuity but
expanded horizontally within each
generation with ego as the central figure.”
• In political terms, the word family does not
simple mean household, as it is defined
narrowly by demographers, nor does it
mean kinship, as it used more broadly by
ethnographers.
• Under the Republic (1942-1972), Philippine
presidents used the state’s licensing
powers as bargaining chips in their
dealings with national and local elites,
thereby creating benefices that favored the
dominant political families. (page 12)
• Most political families fused local power
with national access. Indeed, many found
that they could not compete effectively in
Manila for rents unless they could deliver,
by whatever means, a substantial bloc of
votes to national politicians.