MARKET ECONOMY AND T HE PROCESS OF CULTURAL REDEFINITION ... · MARKET ECONOMY AND T HE PROCESS OF...

BAYBAYIN vol. I, no. 1 (August 2015) http://www.baybayin.com.ph

ISSN 1908-4697

90

M A R K E T E C O N O M Y A N D T H E P R O C E S S O F C U L T U R A L R E D E F I N I T I O N I N M A N G Y A N S O C I E T Y

Fr. Edwin A. Gariguez ABSTRACT:

This paper is a presentation and evaluation of the impact of market economy

in relation to the over-all socio-cultural milieu of the Mangyan indigenous

communities. Using Karl Polanyi’s concept of “embeddedness” and “great

transformation”, the paper situates the discussion in the context of Mangyan

indigenous communities—how are they affected by the intrusion of the market

system? How is the market economy slowly transforming their traditional

society, which was then predominantly characterized by subsistence economy,

socially-oriented transactions, non-commodified values, and ecological

integrity? The last part of the paper articulates the process of on-going socio-

cultural redefinition in the collective consciousness of the Mangyan indigenous

peoples vis-à-vis the encroaching forces of market-dominated economy,

namely: a) adaptation of profit-motivated form of transactions, b) emerging

social differentiation, and c) ecological alienation.

Keywords: Karl Polanyi, Market economy, Cultural Redefinition, Mangyan

indigenous peoples

Defining Framework

Market economy that came with the current of industrial revolution had a

tremendous impact in prevailing economic arrangement of that period. It

affected even the cultural structures, the accepted social paradigm, and the

political landscape and institutions. The revolutionary character of market

liberalism was best described in Karl Polanyi’s (1944) book, The Great

http://www.baybayin.com.ph/


ISSN 1908-4697

91

Transformation, highlighted how modern market economy had determined the

various changes in structures, social relationship and even in consciousness of

societies beginning from the period of industrialization.

Polanyi (1944, p. 68) defines market economy as: “an economic system

controlled, regulated, and directed by market alone . . . An economy of this

kind derives from the expectation that human beings behave in such a way as

to achieve maximum money gains . . . It assumes the presence of money, which

functions as purchasing power in the hands of its owners. Production will then

be controlled by prices, for the profits of those who direct production will

depend upon them . . .”

Polanyi asserts that economy is not an autonomous and independent system

but it is necessarily related (or even subordinated) to politics, religion and social

relations. This interlocking interrelationship of economy with other social

structures is Polanyi’s concept of “embeddedness” (Block 2000).

Admittedly, market economy is determined by socio-cultural

structures, but the interrelationship can also be a mutual engagement, with

market economy influencing the social relations and cultural patterns, not in a

deterministic fashion prescribed by Karl Marx, but as a matter of cultural

import and redefinition of the collective consciousness.

The economic system that we have today is primarily controlled by

market liberalism, and it is getting even more pronounced in this period of

advancing process of globalization. This kind of laissez-faire market economy

is predicted to be destructive for it “requires that human beings and the natural

environment be turned into pure commodities and this assures the destruction

of both society and natural environment” (Block 2000, p. 8). The present

situation of underdevelopment and dismal poverty reflect the curse and

inevitable outcome of the pervasive pattern of market-dominated economy.

This paper will try to situate the discussion in the context of Mangyan

indigenous communities—how are they affected by the intrusion of the market

system? How is market economy slowly transforming their traditional society,

which was then predominantly characterized by subsistence economy, socially-

oriented transactions, non-commodified values, and ecological integrity?

The Mangyan indigenous communities in Mindoro are no longer

spared from the prevailing market system, which is governed by monetized

transactions with profit-seeking motive for its primary end, with the

agricultural production being oriented not only for subsistence but more and

more to cash crop economy.



ISSN 1908-4697

92

Considering the embeddedness of the economy to the other socio-

cultural structures, the focus of this present inquiry is to describe and evaluate

the impact of change in economic systems in relation to the over-all socio-

cultural milieu of the Mangyan indigenous communities.

As the market-oriented economy is infringing on the life and cultural

systems of the indigenous peoples, forcefully or in a subtle way, the Mangyans

are undeniably undergoing a paradigm shift in their world views, orientation,

mind-sets, or in social and ecological relationship. Social theories ascribed

change as part of the social process and it can be categorized in many ways, like

assimilation, acculturation, accommodation and other types (Palispis 2003, pp.

208-215).

However, socio-cultural changes among the Mangyans, occasioned by

the emergence of market economy, escapes the above-given typology for the

change process is neither total nor already consummated, it is not yet clearly

defined or fully articulated. For simplicity, the changes referred to may be

better termed as a process of cultural redefinition, which underlines the on-

going process of socio-cultural change and undefined integration process, often

characterized by arbitrariness, as unwelcome intrusion, as a necessary

compromise, as conscious acceptance or sometimes not.

With the emergence of market economy, it is necessary to examine

how the Mangyan indigenous communities redefine their life-perspective as

reflected in their social relationships and cultural expressions. How is the

traditional consciousness being modified to accommodate the framework of

the market economy? What are the consequences and implications in terms of

concrete social behavior and relationship in the community?

SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF MANGYAN SOCIETY

As it is used today, Mangyan is a collective term to designate the ethnic tribes

occupying the interior of Mindoro. But scholarly researches point out to the

distinction and differentiation of this tribal entity, grouping them into seven

major groups based on linguistic classification, territorial location or racial

types or origin. Geographically, tribes belonging to the middle, northern part of

the island are: the Iraya, Alangan and Tadyawan. Those tribes occupying the

southern part are: the Hanunuo, Batangan, Ratagnon, and Buhid. Among the

tribes, the Hanunuo-Mangyan and the Buhid have, for their cultural heritage,

their own original system of writing dating back to the pre-colonial era

(Gariguez 1992).



ISSN 1908-4697

93

Historically, the Mangyans were the original settlers and inhabitants of

Mindoro. They were believed to have come from the Indonesian archipelago

in Southeast Asia. They settled on the fertile coastal plain. Their flourishing

settlements had engaged in trade with Chinese and Arab traders. In the course

of time, the Mangyans were believed to have been evicted from their original

coastal dwelling and were forced to retreat into the interior. The migrant

“indios,” coming from the island of Luzon occupied the northern and eastern

coast of Mindoro. Bornean settlers too were believed to have made their way

into the island. It was to these people who retreated into and stayed in the

forest that the collective term “Mangyan” was first used (Gariguez 1992).

Generally, the Mangyans have subsistence agricultural economy with

kaingin as their basic resource for food production. For primary crops, they

have rice and corn, but they also plant other crops such as bananas, fruit trees,

root crops, among others. During the pre-colonial period, their products,

particularly honey and beeswax, were bartered for lowlanders’ bolos, salt and

other goods. But this lowland contact is limited to occasional trading (Schult

1991, p. 75; Lamberte 1983, pp. 61-62).

In a much later part of history, colonial trade defined the direction of

agricultural economy. It was for this reason that the cultivation of export crops

affected even the remote island of Mindoro. The commercialization of

agriculture resulted to the demand for more and more land to cultivate to meet

the increased market demand for agricultural export production, then the

search for idle lands had led to increasing migration of settlers from Visayas

and Luzon to less populated island of Mindoro (Helbling and Schult 1997).

The unmitigated migration occasioned by the need to expand the base

for production and cultivation reached its culmination when the free trade

between the Philippines and the United States was established resulting to “a

large and stable market for export crop.” It was in 1910 that export economy

in Mindoro flourished with the founding of the most modern and largest sugar

hacienda in the Philippines established in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro. The

surge of migration to Mindoro increased at an astonishing rate. And it was only

during this time that the lowland population to Mindoro exceeded that of the

Mangyans, eventually reducing the latter into the status of being a minority.

This pattern of massive influx of migration to Mindoro exacerbated, resulting

to further deprivation of the Mangyans and their being pushed further into the

mountainous interior (Helbling and Schult 1997, pp. 393-394; pp. 396-397).

It was during this time that outright and large-scale land-grabbing

became prevalent, depriving the Mangyans of their land, sometimes, even their

lives! (Lamberte 1983). Moreover, the export-led industrialization which took

place from the 1950s among the underdeveloped countries signaled the

encroachment of the transnational business corporations into the territories



ISSN 1908-4697

94

and ancestral lands of the indigenous peoples in their venture for logging,

mining and other extractive industries (Gaspar 1977). And the Mangyans were

not spared from these pressures of resource competition, for which they were

always at a disadvantaged position.

Although, the Mangyans were able to maintain relative degree of

isolation, they have been forced by the circumstances to confront the incursion

of lowland influences and to wrestle with the socio-political and economic

changes that the so-called “civilization” had subjected them to.

The isolation of the Mangyan communities and their reclusiveness as

highlighted by Conklin’s (1955, p. 10) description of the Mangyans as “forest-

dwelling non-Christian groups who live in small scattered settlements . . . have

little contact with each other or with the coastal Christians, and are loosely

organized politically” does not hold true anymore.

In a more recent research, the seemingly complete seclusion of the

Mangyan indigenous population from the rest of lowland society is refuted.

Lopez-Gonzaga’s (2002, pp. 10-11) research, reveals that since then, “the

Mangyans have increasingly adopted the life of permanent settlements, each of

which is connected to the town or regional centers of Mindoro. The Mangyans

also maintain diverse forms of exchanges not only among the different interior

groups, but also with the traders.”

Infringing Features of Social Change and Market Economy

From the foregoing, it has been shown that the economic demand for

lands and resources led to the lowland encroachment on the land and life of

the indigenous peoples. The ensuing social and economic changes were not

always voluntarily accepted through the process of assimilation, but more

often, they were imposed through force and motivated by the greed of the

powerful players of the elite in mainstream society, and even by the

transnational capitalists powers. This observation is articulated by Lamberte

(1983, p. 140) in her integrative studies of researches on the Mangyans: “It is

clear from these observations that changes do occur. However, it must be

considered that changes were apparently consequences of outside pressures

rather than voluntary assimilation.”

The policy of American colonial government on the indigenous

peoples was illustrative of this pressure. Then U.S. President Mckinley made

clear their policy approach towards the indigenous population: “to prevent

barbarous practices and introduced civilized customs.” This entailed Mangyans’



ISSN 1908-4697

95

integration into the lowland structures and the indigenous communities

necessarily had to give up their cultural identity (Schult 1997, p. 479).

While it is true that adaptation to the emerging lowland influences is,

in some situations, necessary, but the price that the Mangyans have to pay must

not cost the annihilation of their cherished cultural values and priorities. The

result is damaging because the unequal terms of relationship threaten to

swallow the Mangyans’ cultural tradition and their identity as a people. As one

missionary admits, the Mangyans’ “association with the lowlanders initiated a

‘partial integration,’ but as a whole, the Mangyans have much more to lose than

to gain” (Javier 1987, p. 51).

In the course of history, Mangyans had no real alternative but to

succumb to the integrative forces of the lowland culture. The Mangyans had

been forced by circumstances to grapple with the infringing outside forces, not

only in cultural sphere but in terms of economic arrangements as well.

Foremost among the negative results of the Mangyans encounter with

the lowland market economy is the imposed redefinition of the concept of land

ownership. Traditionally, the Mangyan indigenous peoples believe in an

integrated cosmology, wherein the Creator, linked to other deities and spirits, is

considered the source of land and life. It is for this reason that land is

considered sacred and cannot be sold, owned or leased. The land is

communally owned, and an individual cannot claim absolute ownership. They,

as community, are stewards of the gift of creation. As such, land and nature’s

richness is meant for community’s use and sustenance (Gariguez 2001).

With the coming of the colonizers, this customary concept of

ownership was subverted and replaced with the Regalian doctrine claim

asserting that all conquered lands belong to the Spanish sovereign. The

American colonial government pursued this policy, reinforcing the State’s

control over the public domain (Gaspar 1977). The dominant legal system on

ownership was imposed for the resource exploitation of the lands of the

indigenous peoples. The aftermath of this market economic orientation was a

pattern of resource exploitation which Polanyi (1944, p. 179) appropriately

termed as commercialization of the soil, a conversion of the land from traditional

subsistence towards mobilization of the feudal revenue for surplus production.

The change in concept of land-ownership did not only facilitate the

exploitative ventures of the lowland capitalist elites. Consequently, among the

Mangyan indigenous communities, the traditional pattern of agricultural

subsistence was modified in relation to the emerging framework of market-

oriented economy. In a recent ethnographic research among the Mangyans,

Lopez-Gonzaga (2002, p. 153 and p. 189) noted how the Buhids have been

drawn into heavier work loads in the farm not only to produce subsistence



ISSN 1908-4697

96

crops but for more intensive exploitation of resources around them to generate

cash: “As land was individually parceled out, and household got to work in

well-delineated boundaries of cultivation, there seem to have been a greater

impetus at producing more perennial tree crops that bring in good cash.”

The transformation caused by adapting indigenous economic pattern

to the lowland market economy is further described in a research conducted by

De La Salle Integrated Research Center (1984, p. 7): The consequences of the

invading lowland population have radically transformed the environment. It is

the Mangyans who must adapt their traditional land use system that relies now

and into a distant future on a finite land area, restores the environment and

meets their basic needs through a combination of subsistence farming and cash

agricultural production.

Contemporary researchers in other areas of indigenous peoples in the

country have noted the seeming conflict of orientation between the traditional

subsistence-oriented economy and the commercial market-dominated

economy. Duhaylungsod (1996, p. 94) underlines the problems associated with

the conflict in economic paradigm between the lowlanders and the indigenous

peoples: “There are qualitative differences and conflicts between the system of

resource management of non-capitalist indigenous peoples and the market-

dominated monetized system.”

Market-dominated economy necessarily brings in the monetary form

of exchange and inevitably influences the mode of social interaction in the

community. Moreover, monetized economy somehow redefines the cultural

patterns and priorities of the communities engaging in market transactions.

Again, Polanyi (1944, p. 41), in his critique of the market liberalism,

cautions that the change from subsistence economy to cash substitution has a

corresponding implications in terms of economic arrangements and motives:

“The transformation implies a change in the motive of action on the part of

the members of society: for the motive of subsistence that of gain must be

substituted. All transactions are turned into money transactions . . . All incomes

must derive from the sale of something or other . . .”

Redefinition of Mangyans’ Socio-Cultural Paradigm

As earlier noted, there exists a form of economic transactions among

the Mangyan indigenous peoples and the outside society. There was even a

time in pre-colonial past that they were engaged in barter trade with the

neighboring Asian countries. Economic activity had always been part of

community life, a way of sustaining their needs, and as medium for exchange.



ISSN 1908-4697

97

As Polanyi (1944, p. 43) aptly affirms: “No society could, naturally, live for any

length of time unless it possessed an economy of some sort…”

What creates a conflict with the emerging economic system is that in

market-dominated economy, particularly characterized by monetized

transactions and capital accumulation, the traditional values and perspective are

somehow contradicted by the market principles and orientation. With the

framework of market-dominated economy, the Mangyan indigenous peoples

have come to redefine their socio-cultural paradigm vis-à-vis the infringing

features of the market forces.

The process of redefinition concomitant with the principle of

monetized economy is explained by Dejillas (2001):

We can also advance that with the introduction of money a new set of

values and attitudes emerged which found their way into the social, economic,

political, and even religious lives and systems of the people . . . Money forces

not only economic exchanges, but also human behavior and relationships to

quantitative measures . . . With the introduction of money, exchange and

relationships among the people drastically shifted towards something formal,

impersonal, individualistic, economistic, exploitative as well as secular and

almost atheistic.

The subsequent discussion will try to articulate this process of on-

going socio-cultural redefinition in the collective consciousness of the Mangyan

indigenous peoples vis-à-vis the encroaching forces of market-dominated

economy:

1. Adoption of Profit-Motivated Form of Transactions

In a more traditional Mangyan society, what is generally practiced is

the subsistence agricultural economy, wherein households produce only for

what they need for their day-to-day food consumption. Describing the

characteristic typology of the indigenous peoples, which include the Mangyan

group, Jocano (1998, p. 81), points out that as such, “the concept of surplus is

an emergent economic aspiration but not a pervasively dominant ideology . . .

These are often used to enhance social prestige, increase influence, and support

leadership role.”

However, the dominant economic orientation of the past is slowly

being modified or redefined in the light of the market economy, which the

Mangyan indigenous communities have to continually grapple with. A very

valid observation is noted by Lamberte (1983, p. 99) in her consolidated

research on the Mangyans:



ISSN 1908-4697

98

As a consequence of various socio-economic pressures and changes

taking place among some of the Mangyan communities, cash economy

and profit-oriented economy is slowly being introduced and some

being adopted by the Mangyans particularly those in the core

reservation and lowland areas. Those living farther up the

mountainous interiors, still stick to the barter system.

This particular economic pattern is exactly a case of how a traditional

society with subsistence orientation is being integrated into the mainstream

society, adapting to the structure of a capitalist economy, which is wider and

more complex than their customary simple economic transaction.

Referring specifically to the Buhid indigenous communities, Lopez-

Gonzaga (2002, pp. 12; 152-153) observes: “Buhid linkage with the market

economy of the town centers provided opportunities for investment of surplus

in non-traditional ways…” Further, the agricultural production of slash and

burn continued but “has been oriented beyond the fulfillment of basic

domestic requirements to the meeting of market demands. Thus, household

produce not only subsistence crops, but also cash goods which generate cash

for their purchase of basic needs not meet by their basic production.”

This pattern of market integration to the lowland economy is

becoming a trend even among other Mangyan tribes and communities, in

response to the need to adapt to the so-called “modern” way of life (Gariguez,

2001).

The introduction of cash economy is, in a way, part of the necessary

change process in the Mangyans conscious decision to be integrated into the

mainstream Filipino society. To some development practitioners, creation of

surplus may even spell a good indicator for the desired development. However,

the danger is that arbitrary adoption of the market system could jeopardize the

very integrity of their socio-cultural values, which defines the very soul of their

society.

In Lopez-Gonzaga’s (2002, pp. 190, 176-77 and 179) research, market

economy, in many instances, has come to dictate the form and manner of

social relationship, determined by monetized arrangement and not by the time-

honored pattern of social relationship. Examples include cases such as a Buhid

“entrepreneur” buying out land from fellow Mangyans who are unable to pay

their debts, more influential and well-endowed Buhids embarking on a money-

lending activity charging high interest rates, profiteering entrepreneurship,

employment of hired labor of fellow Mangyans to work in big landholdings of

the better-off members of the community, and the like.



ISSN 1908-4697

99

The primacy of social relationship which in the past had determined

the economic processes has now been redefined. Non-monetary values of

helping one another, communal ownership, solidarity, strong kinship ties, are

now slowly being set aside, to give way to the market pressures emphasizing

greater profit, impersonal transactions, return of investment and individual

prosperity!

For the traditional society, “acquisition of wealth is not a value in

itself, on the other hand, generosity, living together, and being harmonious

with the neighbors are . . . Traditional societies which stressed stability were

structured to help members to attain proper and fulfilling relationships with

their fellowmen and environment” (Salleh 1981, pp. 61-62). But in the

emerging socio-cultural system defined by market priorities, such idealized

consciousness is slowly fading into the background.

2. Emerging Social Differentiation As described by Polanyi (1944, p. 46), in traditional societies, “man’s

economy as a rule, is submerged in his social relationships. He does not act so

as to safeguard his individual interest in the possession of material goods; he

acts to safeguard his social standing, his social claims, his social assets.” In this

framework, he points out that economy is being run on non-economic

motives, like social ties, following primarily the behavioral principles of

reciprocity and redistribution.

The reciprocal character is what comes very close to the features of

Mangyan traditional society. In such a community, trade is operative but no

profit is involved. Members of society are all producers of their respective

goods and services, which they share with other members. But when

monetized economy is introduced, “. . . social considerations, in particular, the

concepts of reciprocity and the primitive redistribution system propounded by

Polanyi, no longer became the primary consideration of the market economy”

(Dejillas 2001). Instead, what predominates in the market system is no longer

the social character of production and exchange but the individualistic craving

for accumulation, irrespective of the wider consideration for the over-all

welfare and support of the community.

This pattern of engagement leads to neglect of the social character of

the economic pursuit in order to promote personal interest, given the market

framework for production process and resource exploitation for profit. Profit

when realized becomes a surplus, which can in turn be invested for further

generation of monetary gain or for expanding land ownership. This economic

system is inherently competitive in its operation, with the more enterprising or

powerful groups gaining access to more resources or cornering the profit from

market transactions.



ISSN 1908-4697

100

As a consequence of this market-dominated economic system, the

social structure is also being redefined with the concurrent changes in status

and establishment of new powerful economic players. The once dominantly

egalitarian society has to admit the emergence of social differentiation.

Admittedly, among the Buhids, the adoption and accommodation of

the lowland capitalist market economy leads to the incipient form of social

differentiation, with a few members of the community possessing

entrepreneurial skills emerging as the local elite gaining control over

production process of the economy. This group of entrepreneuring elite makes

use of their profit in acquiring more landholdings, thereby making the

differentiation even more pronounced (Lopez-Gonzaga 2002, pp. 190 and177).

The redefinition of socio-cultural values has enshrined the consumerist

and highly-individualistic paradigm of the market economy into the pattern of

interaction among the Mangyan indigenous peoples. The gap in economic

inequality which is almost non-existent in the traditional Mangyan society is

slowly being introduced into the social structure of the community. The shift in

economic orientation brings with it the corresponding and inevitable change in

social relations.

Acknowledging the political dimension of monetary economy, Dejillas

(2001) affirms that “money influences the balance of power not only between

nations, but also between and among classes in society.”

But in the experience of the Mangyan-Buhid communities, the economic

transformation and ensuing cultural redefinition underlines the capacity of

monetized economy not only to influence the balance of power but to create

imbalances and disparities both in economic and socio-political status of

erstwhile communitarian, and predominantly undifferentiated society.

3. Ecological Alienation The Mangyans believe in the existence of one Supreme Being who

created them and the world and is continually sustaining them in their

existence. For this Supreme Being, each tribe ascribes him a name (Apo Iraya,

Ambuwao, Amangtam, Afu Daga, Mahal-Makakaako). The presence of the

divine is experienced in terms of his omnipotence, pervading their everyday

life, and manifesting Himself in physically observable phenomena such as

deliverance from calamity or sicknesses, blessing of the harvest, other forms.

The Mangyans are also considered animist, in the sense that sacrality is

experienced in the all-pervading presence of the omnipotent power personified

in streams, tress, hills, rocks and in almost every corner of the natural universe

(Gariguez 1992).



ISSN 1908-4697

101

Mangyans share the conviction of the Indian Chief Seattle (1981, p.

63), declaring his belief in the sacredness of the earth in unequivocal terms:

“Every part of the earth is sacred to my people . . . We are part of the earth and

it is part of us . . . For this land is sacred to us . . . the earth is our mother.

Whatever befalls the earth befalls the son of the earth . . . This we know: The

earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth.”

This unadulterated consciousness regarding the earth as intrinsically

part of human community is slowly being shattered with the advent of

industrialism and colonialism, which are but offshoots of the liberalism of the

market economy.

Beginning from the period of industrialization, “natural resources”

came to be regarded as “those parts of nature which were required as inputs

for industrial production and colonial trade . . . resources are now merely

material or conditions existing in nature which may be capable of economic

exploitation” (Shiva 1999, pp. 25-26). In this sense, the relationship and affinity

of human and nature changes from respect to enmity: “Man is no longer a

friend to his natural environment. He is the arrogant conqueror who destroys .

. . mostly as a result of greed rather than a struggle for survival” (Salleh 1981, p.

60).

The Mangyans have not completely turned their backs to their

traditional belief in the ecological integrity of a living and sacred relationship

with the natural universe. But a gradual disorientation is slowly taking place in

the process of redefining relationship with nature in the context of the market

economy’s concept of resource utilization and the pursuit of maximum profit.

Among the Buhids, for example, the accommodation of lowland

market demand in their agricultural production results to acquisition of surplus

income from the sale of alternate crop. More significant consequence is the

“development of private landholding and the concept of permanent land

ownership and finally, the view that land is a commodity to be bought and sold

by cash irrespective of ethnic status of the parties involved” (Lopez-Gonzaga

2002, p. 137, underlining mine). This kind of valuing in a process of

commodification is slowly being translated into the mind-set and priorities of

the Mangyan indigenous people.

For Polanyi (1944, p. 178), this pre-occupation with market value or

the commercialization of the land is utterly condemnable: “What we call land is

an element of nature inextricably interwoven with man’s institutions. To isolate

it and form a market out of it was perhaps the weirdest of all undertakings of

our ancestors.”



ISSN 1908-4697

102

The protestation is very much called for, but sadly, the perspective of

market mentality has undeniably influenced, to a considerable degree, the

Mangyans’ redefinition of the once sacred relationship they had with mother

earth.

REFERENCES:

Block, Fred. 2000. Introduction to the Great Transformation by Karl Polanyi. Available

from:

<http://sociology.berkeley.edu/faculty/evans/polanyi_intro.pdf.>

(Accessed December 2003).

Chief Seattle, 1981. “Man Belongs to the Earth.” IN: de Leon, F. ed. On Art,

Man and Nature. Manila, University of the Philippines.

Conklin, Harold. 1955. The Relation of Hanunuo Culture to the Plant World.

Unpublished Ph.D dissertation, Yale University.

Dejillas, Leopoldo. 2001. “Alternative Paradigm for Viewing the Monetary

System.” IN: Dejillas, L. ed. In the Service of Culture, Spirituality and

Development: A Festschrift for Dr. Mina M. Ramirez. Manila, Asian Social

Institute [Multi-media CD-ROM].

Duhaylungsod, Levita. 1996. “Higaonons and Bukidnon Forest Incorporated:

‘Will the Twain Ever Meet.’” Aghamtao 8, pp. 83-97.

Gariguez, Edwin. 1992. The Presence of Grace Among Non-Christians in the Writings

of Karl Rahner and Its Implication to the Mangyan Mission Apostolate.

Unpublished M.A. thesis, Ateneo de Manila University.

_____________. 2001. Panaghoy ng Lupa: Isang Natatanging Dokumentaryo Tungkol

sa Katutubong Mangyan. Calapan City, Mangyan Mission & CEDC

[Multi-media CD-ROM].

Gaspar, Carlos. 1977. “Globalization and the Indigenous Peoples: Focus on

Malaysis, the Philippines and Mexico.” Kasarinlan 12 (4) – 13 (1), pp.

65-112.

Helbling, Jurg and Schult, Volker. 1997. “Demographic Development in

Mindoro.” Philippine Studies 45, pp. 385-406.

Integrated Research Center (IRC). 1984. Mangyan Appropriate School: A

Participatory Community Development Experiment. Manila, DLSU.


http://sociology.berkeley.edu/faculty/evans/polanyi_intro.pdf.


ISSN 1908-4697

103

Javier, Edgar. 1987. The Mangyans: Progress Through Christian Community Building.

Manila, Divine Word Publications.

Jocano, F. Landa. 1998. Filipino Indigenous Ethnic Communities: Patterns, Variations

and Typologies. Quezon City, Punlad Research House.

Lamberte, Exaltacion. 1983. Mangyan Realities: An Integrative Study of Contemporary

Mangyan Researches (1960-1981). A Report Submitted to the

Participatory Upland Management Program. Manila, De La Salle

Integrated Research Center.

Latham, A. J. Karl Polanyi: Some Observations. Reference used in class in Mediated

Economy.

Lopez-Gonzaga, Violeta. 2002. Peasants in the Hills. Quezon City, UP Press.

Palispis, Epitacio. 2003. Introduction to Sociology and Anthropology. Quezon City,

Rex Printing Company.

Polanyi, Karl. 1944. The Great Transformation. New York, Rinehard & Company.

Salleh, Muhammad Haji. 1981. “Cultural Justice.” IN: de Leon, F. ed. On Art,

Man and Nature. Manila, University of the Philippines.

Schult, Volker. 1991. Mindoro: A Social History of a Philippine Island in the 20th

Century. Manila, Divine Word Publications.

___________. 1997. “Mindoro and North Luzon Under American Colonial

Rule.” Philippine Studies 45, pp. 477-499.

Shiva, Vandana. 1999. “Diversity and Democracy: Resisting the Global

Economy.” Global Dialogue 1 (1), pp. 19-30.

Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (NASSA, Philippines)


MARKET ECONOMY AND T HE PROCESS OF CULTURAL REDEFINITION ... · MARKET ECONOMY AND T HE PROCESS OF...

Documents

Transcript of MARKET ECONOMY AND T HE PROCESS OF CULTURAL REDEFINITION ... · MARKET ECONOMY AND T HE PROCESS OF...