In Kutawato, Unveiling the Iranun Tarsila

I had the unexpected good fortune to join a team doing a Focus Group Discussion on “Understanding the Iranun Tarsila as a Tool in Conflict Resolution in Mindanao”. This was organized by the Al Qalam Institute for Islamic Identities and Dialogue in Southeast Asia (Ateneo de Davao University) in Cotabato City last Sunday, 20 January 2013. Unexpected because I never thought that it would be both a provocative meeting and a once-in-a-lifetime chance to be around the descendants of the proud Sultanates in Mindanao, who shared their life stories, their ancestors’ struggles and the technicalities of genealogical recording. It was also my first time to visit Cotabato City and there were a lot of prejudices that I brought with me like an invisible extra satchel over my shoulders. But already upon entering the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) I contentedly ticked away my biases and found communities thriving, proud of their heritage and trying to pick themselves up after bloody years of conflict.

For the first timer, one still feels a palpable air of unease and an apprehension on what the new Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro might bring to their communities and their lives, yet there is also a pervading hope that life will be normal, time to go back to their farms and time to fight the age-old battle of taming the unpredictable moods of the Pulangi River. I felt that Cotabato is a city with deep wounds that go as deep as the history of our country and even deeper – going back to pre-Hispanic Mindanao, the Sri Vijayan and Majapahit empires in Indonesia. Its scars can be seen running deep in worried eyes, in forehead furrows, the scurry and hurry of getting home after dark, the military (or otherwise) checkpoints that dot the city, or in a stranger’s friendly advice to the tourist to go home after 3 in the afternoon.

Our group stayed at the Hotel Rio in Magallanes Street, where the FGD also took place. My first shock was that the name of the street was a Spanish conquistador right in the city center of Moroland, in the center of colonial resistance in Mindanao. Or maybe I read it differently. It may perhaps stand as an unwitting trophy in the sense that Magellan was fallen, supposedly, by a Moro-Tausug in the name of Lapu-Lapu/Maas Iliji/Maas Pulun as the Tausugs in Basilan and Sulu would proudly tell you. But more scholarly works are needed to prove this, even if it exists only in oral narratives, intellectual propriety insists that it must not be assumed fictitious. Indeed the street’s name was a fitting welcome to my first Cotabato experience!

The FGD team was composed of Prof. Yusuf Morales (as moderator), Michelle David (documenter), Nikki Ayubo (photographer), myself as documenter and headed by Al Qalam’s director, Datu Mussolini Lidasan. It was attended by Mohammad Lidasan, Amerul Umbra Nasser Lidasan, Bajunaid Saban, Abbas Addulkair and Datu Alamada.

The FGD aimed at probing the links, bloodlines and interconnectedness of the people through the use of the tarsila and further focused on the tarsila as a tool in conflict resolution. The following were the general questions that the FGD tried to answer:

  1. Who are the people knowledgeable in the Iranun Tarsila? What are their characteristics, traits and other qualifications?
  2. Aside from the mentioned uses of tarsila, what are its purposes and significance in the people today?
  3. How does tarsila help in resolving conflict?
  4. What are the indigenous modes of conflict resolution? How are they applied in the community?
  5. How significant is the tarsila in the lives of the Iranun people?

The study focused on the Iranun people whose traditional domain are the coastal towns of Datu Blah Sinsuat, Sultan Mastura, Sultan Kudarat, Parang, Matanog (municipalities under the province of Maguindanao), and the towns of Malabang, Balabagan, Sultan Gumander (municipalities under Lanao del Sur). These coastal-living people are generally called Iragaten. The Idalemen, on the other hand, or the upland people traditionally reside in the present towns of Buldon and Barira (parts of Maguindanao), Pigcawayan, Alamada, Banisilan (parts of Cotabato), and Wao, Bumbaran, and Butig (parts of Lanao del Sur).

The Iranun gained infamy because of their maritime raiding and assaults on villages and coastal dwellers as explicated by James Warren in his book “Iranun and Balangingi: Globalization, Maritime Raiding and the Birth of Ethnicity”. Warren described the Iranun as having “a fearsome reputation in an era of extensive world commerce and economic growth between the West and China” and that the name Lanun “struck fear into the hearts and minds of riverine and coastal populations across Southeast Asia two centuries ago.”

One of the participants asserted that the Iranun were the ancestors of the Maguindanao and other Islamized groups in Mindanao and that their tarsila proves that the royal houses of the Maguindanao is a direct line of the Iranun sultans and chieftains. He claimed that the primogenitors of both the Islamized ethnolinguistic groups and the non-Islamized Manobo, Tiruray, etc. named Mamalu and Tabunaway were in fact Iranun. There are still contentions on the Mamalu and Tabunaway story as there are discrepancies in the oral narratives of different groups. Some claim that Shariff Kabunsuan married Tabunaway, while others claim that Mamalu and Tabunaway were Manobo brothers before Tabunaway was Islamized, and other variants. What is important is the assertion of the pre-Islamic roots of these groups and their interconnected histories. In fact, the tarsila of the Iranun points to the house of Maharaja Tabunaway as the earliest line of the sultans of Maguindanao, while the Dulangan Manobo, in particular, traces their descent to Mamalu.

The tarsila is a genealogical record/narration of the Iranun. Other Islamized groups have their own tarsilas but the FGD focused on the Iranun tarsila. Amerul Nasser Lidasan shared that it has two kinds: the Tisa and the Sitta. The Tisa is the genealogical record of the nine shariffs, descendants of the Prophet Muhammad through his daughter Fatima, who came out of Meccah in Saudi Arabia to spread Islam and its tenets. The Tisa tarsila points all the way up to the Prophet Muhammed and his ascendants all the way to Adam. The Sitta tarsila on the other hand recounts the ancestors and descendants of Shariff Kabunsuan who himself is a direct descendant of the Prophet Muhammed. The Sitta Tarsila is the basis of all genealogical lines of the Sultanates of Maguindanao and Sulu. An alternative name to the tarsila is silsilah which is Arabic for ‘chain’ or ‘link’.

The Iranun uses the tarsila not only as a simple record of ascendants, descendants and kinship, but also as a tool to identify the line of the sultans and to take records of his bloodline. In Iranun society there is a council of elders called the ‘Pat – a Polaos’ or the ‘Four Pillars’ who uses the tarsila to trace candidates for the Sultan of Maguindanao and enthrone in a special ceremony, the rightful Sultan that they deem fits into the 4 attributes of a Sultan, namely:

  • antawan (wealth)
  • nunawan (lineage)
  • bangsawan (bloodline)
  • rupawan (charisma)
  • and in the case of a tie, ilmawan (intelligence).

Aside from identifying the Sultan’s bloodline, the tarsila is also the story of the Iranun people – of how the Datuship of Manila and Tondo were once connected to their own political and genealogical system. The Sultanates of Brunei, Makassar and Sulawesi can also find common ancestors in the Maguindanao houses most probably from intermarriages resulting from strategic alliances.

The FGD also proved that the tarsila is a tool used by the Iranun in conflict resolution. In cases of rido or clan wars, for example, they resort to the tarsila in finding a common kin who will serve as the mediator for the feuding families. They will then recite the tarsila in a religious ritual that involves the chanting (dhikr/dikil) of Quranic verses.

The following may be a rough guide to how conflicts are resolved:

  • A conflict arises
  • Elders investigate the conflict
  • Identification of the reason for the conflict
  • Families get a mediator, usually an elder datu who is a common kin
  • The Mediator then resolves the conflict.

The tarsila is also used in funerals and weddings to establish lineage. Often in funerals, an elder will recite the tarsila of the deceased to reconnect him/her to the ancient lines of heroes, sultans, and the Prophet Muhammed himself. The participants shared that the tarsila can be considered as a sacred document that contains the names of the deceased and that prayers are said before opening a tarsila, also as respect to the lineage of the Prophet. In weddings, the tarsila of the bride and the groom are recited from the bride all the way to the common ancestors and down to the groom’s ancestors to form a link, symbolic of a singular family that binds the ties of the wedded couple.

More than a genealogical record, the tarsila, as shared by the participants, is also a map of the extent of Islamic influence in the world from Saudi Arabia, to Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei and the Philippines, proving the linkages of different peoples and the unity of the human race through a religion that teaches surrender to one God, and compassion to mankind, among others.

In the middle of the FGD, we were showed a tarsila and some documents signed by the Pat-a Polaos validating the enthronement of a Sultan. The tarsila was written in a long parchment paper with the different houses signified by different colors. The tarsila included the royal lines of the Kingdoms of Manila, Tondo, and Brunei, and the early Sultanates of the Maharaja Tabunaway, Silungan, Buayan and Maguindanao – all following a direct line from the Prophet Muhammed. I was surprised to find out that succeeding sultans were not necessarily the sons of the previous sultan. They told us that the Pat-a Polaos consults the tarsila and looks for possible candidates in all the branches of the other houses. They then look for the 5 attributes of a sultan from each candidate. This was, they said, to ensure that despotism does not happen and that power is not contained in a single family. Technically they are still one big family with a common ancestor, but the distance from this common ancestor makes each family a single house. There are several technical notes in choosing the sultan and I deem that it must be elucidated on a separate paper to give it its due detail.

It is both sad and disappointing, as the participants shared, that the tarsilas of the Iranuns are now a rarity because of the past “revolutions” in Mindanao. The elders were either killed or too pre-occupied with surviving the Moro wars that the tarsila were either forgotten, lost, or failed to be transmitted to the next generation. The original tarsilas were committed to writing in barks of wood or animal skin and later on to scrolls of paper that were easily damaged. The participants also shared that the tarsila keepers of ancient time were given certain privileges, one of them is residence in the torogan or the Sultan’s house, implying the importance of the records keeper. They jealously kept the tarsila in secrecy, fearing forgery from people who desired to claim the sultanate or to con their way to the royal houses.

At the end of the FGD, someone told me that the Luzon and Visayan people lost something when they gained their Spanish surnames. While listening to those people who could recount their ancestors up to Adam himself, I felt like something was indeed missing, and that the oldest ancestor I could name was only my great-great grandmother on my mother’s side.

How wonderful it would be if we could only pick up the pieces of our lost histories, draw the lines of my mother and my father, connected to your great grandfather, discover a common ancestor, and see them grow in a giant World Tree rooted in a consciousness of brotherly and sisterly love for one and all.

Our trip to the ancient city of Kutawato, bastion of pirates, slave raiders, missionaries and warriors, was an invitation to a deeper understanding of Muslims in Mindanao, the pervading conflict in the area and a reflexive journey towards a people’s identity and my own.

Unveiling the tarsila, we discover that we are all cousins dancing under the watchful eye of God.

[This article is not the official document of the Focus Group Discussion conducted by the Al Qalam Institute. Result of the FGD will be made public after completion of the research.]

Advertisements

Ye Kumu [T’boli T’nalak ]

Ye Kumu 6 Ye Kumu 23

This Ye Kumu, or ceremonial T’nalak cloth often used for weddings, was painstakingly crafted by weavers of the Lake Sebu Women Weavers Association, Inc. (LASIWWAI) in Brgy. Ned, Lake Sebu, South Cotabato. [With permissions from Ms Jenita Eko, President of LASIWWAI].

To purchase t’nalak from LASIWWAI, please email me at radabueza@gmail.com for details.

Pagbibigay Boses sa Homo Narrans Gamit ang Pagtatalambuhay

 

Palagi itong nagsisimula sa ganitong pormula: ang pag-ahon ng usisa at mangha, ang marahang halik ng hangin na pumipitas sa mga lumang memorya, at ang unang mga bituin, nanginginig, inilalaraw sa itim ng ating mga mata. Ganito nagkaka-anyo ang mga kuwento at sanaysay simula’t sapul noong unang panahon na nagtipon ang mga tao malapit sa init ng apoy. Maaaring literal o talinghaga ang ganitong simula, ngunit ang pagbuo ng mga kuwento ay bumubukal mula sa udyok na lumikha o paglikhang muli sa mundo sa pamamagitan ng mga salita, at upang maipasa’t mailipat ang kanyang kwento sa mga sabik na tagakinig.

Masasabi nga nating bukod sa pagiging mga Homo sapiens (mga taong nag-iisp), ang mga tao ay Homo narrans din – mga tagapagsalaysay, mga tagapag-kuwento, na nararanasan ang buhay bilang mga serye ng naratibo na binubuo ng mga karakter sa isang kuwento na may simula, gitna at katapusan. Ang Homo narrans ay hindi lamang isang hayop na nangahas na makipagtunggalian sa mga mas mababangis na hayop sa kagubatan, o hayop na matagumpay na nakapaghanap ng mainam na sistema ng paggawa at paghahanap ng pagkain at tirahan, ngunit isa rin siyang hominid na natutong manirahan sa mga likhang-diwa o ‘di kaya’y mga panahon o lugar na gawa lamang sa mga guni-guni. Samakatuwid, ang Homo narrans ay tayo, na hindi lamang nabubuhay sa ngayon at dito, bagkus ay nabubuhay din sa mga salusalungat na bersyon ng ating nakalipas, pag-aasam at alinlangan sa kinabukasan, at pati na rin sa mga purong guni-guni na gawa ng malikhain at malikot na imahinasyon.

Hindi maikakaila na isa sa mga gawaing pampalipas-oras ng mga tao, noon hanggang ngayon, ay ang pagkukuwento tungkol sa sarili, sa iba, sa kapaligiran, totoo man o gawang-isip lamang. Maaaring nagsimula ang ganitong kaugalian mula pa noong mga mangangaso’t tagatipon (hunter-gatherer) pa ang mga sinaunang pamayanan o ‘di kaya’y mula pa noong natutong mangusap at tuluyang mabuo ang pagkakaintindihan ng mga tao gamit ang lengwahe. Sa kabila naman nito, ay maaari din na umusbong ang Homo narrans sa panahon nang natuto ang mga tao ng pagtatanim (agrikultura at hortikultura) kung saan kailangan humintay sa panahon ng anihan at nabibigyan ng mga malayang panahon ang mga tao para sa mga katuwaan o paglikha ng mga kagamitan.

Kahit ano pa mang teorya ang sundin natin, umusbong mula sa hilig ng mga tao na magkuwento at magsalaysay ang iba’t ibang uri ng nasusulat at hindi nasusulat na mga panitikan. Nariyan ang mga drama, komedya, nobela, epiko, kwentong bayan, at iba pa. May iba’t ibang layunin ang bawat uring ito ng panitikan – magbigay-aliw, magbigay kasagutan sa mga tanong, magpasa ng karunungan o magsiwalat ng magagandang asal. Napakalawak na ang teritoryong naabot ng pagkukuwento mula sa simpleng pagtitipon sa init ng apoy hanggang sa umabot sa dulo ng ating mga daliri gamit ang mga makabagong kindle o iPad. Nagbago na nga ang mga pamamaraan ng pagsasalaysay ng Homo narrans, ngunit ang manghang humahalina sa kuwentista ay siya pa ring mangha na namukaw-sigla sa mga sinaunang manunula/t.

May isang uri o genre sa panitikan na layuning ilarawan ang buhay ng isang tao. Sa paraang ito, ang Homo narrans ay direktang nagkukuwento o ikinukuwento ang kanyang buhay mula sa memorya. Base sa tunay na mga kaganapan ang pagsalaysay dito. Tinatawag na talambuhay o biography ang uring ito. Dito inilalarawan ng tagapagsalaysay ang buhay ng isang tao sa pamamagitan ng pag-interbyu sa taong kanyang sinusulat o sa mga malalapit sa kanya, at pangangalap ng iba’t ibang materyal (halimbawa mga liham, diary o journal). Mainam itong paraan ng paglalarawan hindi lamang ng taong sinusulat, kundi pati na rin ng panahon, lipunan at mga kaganapang kinapapalooban niya.

Sa larangan ng Agham Tao ay ginagamit ang pagtatalambuhay bilang isang paraan ng paglalarawan o pagguhit ng kapirasong realidad. Kung ang lahat ng mga akademikong sulatin ay kuwento ng mundo at realidad ng lipunan o ng isang tao, ang pagtatalambuhay ay mainam na paraan ng pagpinta sa ginagalawan natin/niyang panahon, lipunan at konteksto. Nilalagyan ng  pagtatalambuhay ng mukha, pangalan, boses, lasa at lokal na kahulugan ang malimit na tuyo’t tabang ng mga akademikong sulatin.

Wala namang paraan ng pananaliksik na buong buong maipipinta ang realidad o kaya’y maisisiwalat ang Katotohanan, ngunit layunin ng pagtatalambuhay na mabigyang puwang ang malimit na nakakalimutang mga boses sa pag-aaral ng Agham Tao.

Sa paraan ng pagtatalambuhay, hindi lamang taga-kuwento ang Homo narrans – siya mismo ang paksa ng kuwento. Lokal, partikular at indibidwal ang pagtatalambuhay. Kung layunin ng agham tao na maintindihan ang iba, sa pamamagitan ng pagtatala ng kanyang buhay, ay nabibigyang kahulugan nito hindi lamang ang kanyang sariling buhay kundi pati na ang konteksto ng kanyang mga gawain at desisyon. Sa gitna ng nakabibinging mga boses ng minsana’y salusalungat na naratibo, nabibigyang importansya ng pagtatalambuhay ang kuwento ng ilan upang mailarawan ang kahit kapiraso ng kabuuang kwento ng Homo narrans. Ang taong nasusulat sa talambuhay, kumbaga, ay isang saksi sa kanyang ginagalawang mundo.

 

Mahilig tayong makinig, magbasa at mangusisa ng kwento – mga chismosong Homo narrans nga tayo na sabik malaman kung ano ang pinaggagawa ng isang tao, personal na kakila man o hindi. Sa mga talambuhay ng mga sikat na personalid ay nakikita natin ang gara ng kanilang pamumuhay, ang mga damit na hindi natin kayang bilhin, ang mga lugar na hindi pa natin napupuntahan. O kaya’y sa talambuhay, nararamdaman natin ang poot ng mawalan ng anak sa boses mismo ng ina. Nagbubukas ng mga bintana ang talambuhay. Hindi ka naman talaga pinapapasok sa bahay, pinapasilip ka lang sa mga kwarto, minsa’y nasusulyapan din ang laman ng mga aparador, ngunit hanggang doon ka lang bilang researcher o mambabasa. May hangganan ang kabutihang loob ng maybahay. Hanggang tampisaw lang tayo sa batis ng Katotohanan.

This is How I Understand Grief, Solitude

This is how I understand Grief:

When the crisp and hollow wailing of our neighbor

In front of her dead son

Lost its consonants and the trail of

Vowels seems to me the last echo

In her womb.

This is how I understand Solitude:

I sit in a park bench

And no one sits beside me, save my

Shadow and an echo of vowels ringing

In my ears.

Image

[Nicolas Roerich, Song of Shambhala, 1943]

The ‘Foundation’ and the Science which seeks to Understand the ‘Other’

While reading on Participatory Rural Appraisal and the notes from Dr. Tomas’ presentation, I was reminded of a climactic moment in Isaac Asimov’s “Foundation” right before the planet Terminus was colonized by the Anacreonians, in a meeting of the Foundation’s Board of Trustees and Salvor Hardin, Mayor of Terminus:

Hardin continued: “It isn’t just you. It’s the whole Galaxy. Pirenne heard Lord Dorwin’s idea of scientific research. Lord Dorwin thought the way to be a good archaeologist was to read all the books on the subject—written by men who were dead for centuries. He thought that the way to solve archaeological puzzles was to weigh the opposing authorities. And Pirenne listened and made no objections. Don’t you see that there’s something wrong with that?”

Again the note of near-pleading in his voice.

Again no answer. He went on: “And you men and half of Terminus as well are just as bad.. We sit here, considering the Encyclopedia the all-in-all. We consider the greatest end of science is the classification of past data. It is important, but is there no further work to be done? We’re receding and forgetting, don’t you see? Here in the Periphery they’ve lost nuclear power. In Gamma Andromeda, a power plant has undergone meltdown because of poor repairs, and the Chancellor of the Empire complains that nuclear technicians are scarce. And the solution? To train new ones? Never! Instead they’re to restrict nuclear power.”

And for the third time: “Don’t you see? It’s galaxy-wide. It’s a worship of the past. It’s a deterioration—a stagnation!”

Maybe I still have an Asimovian hangover that let’s me wander off his galactic empire and pepper all my waking thoughts with his opus magnus ‘Foundation’. Maybe. But I really find this scene pregnant with meanings and especially on both positive and social sciences, significantly implores introspection in their different fields. Asimov smacks the scientist/researcher with the fundamental question of “so what?” What are you trying to prove and what good will it give us (the final end)? How will it move humanity forward and not just serve individuals or groups? There is a strong sense of questioning science’s purpose in this scene and to the social scientist, it begs the same questioning for whatever the research agenda is and demands an answer to “for what end?” As a student of Anthropology, I try to reflect on Anthropology’s purpose, and does it fulfill the all-encompassing objective of Science to advance Man? I will not claim that I have the answers to these questions, but they are the backdrops to how the specific science of Anthropology reveals its parcel of truth through methods uniquely or partly possessed it as its own.

Anthropology, as with all other fields, have set goals that set it apart from Sociology, Psychology, Philosophy, Natural Sciences, etc. These goals that define the field also set the possibilities for their research areas. Defining Anthropology as a science that deals primarily with “the whole human condition: past, present and future; biology, society, language and culture, with particular interest in the diversity that comes through human adaptability,”[1] one becomes dizzy with the depth and breadth of its scope. Consider also the multi-paradigmatic, multi-methodological, multi-disciplinary nature of this science, and one is lucky enough not to suffer from aneurysm if he tries to grasp the fullness and wholeness of this field. If we deem this definition true, are Linguistics and Sociology part of Anthropology? Yet if Sociology gave birth to Anthropology in the sepia-toned era of Emile Durkheim, did a daughter just gave birth to her mother? The evolution of this field indeed sprung forth from the discomfiture in Sociology, at once a specialization in the area of the ‘study of savages’ it has grown to an encompassing behemoth that now includes even climate change adaptation and migration.

What sets Anthropology apart from the other sciences, I believe, are the unique methods employed in gathering data. Direct participation and involvement of the researcher in the daily life of his/her research partners especially in ethnography “aims  to gain a close and intimate familiarity with a given group of individuals (such as religious, occupational, sub-cultural group or a particular community) and their practices through an intensive involvement with the people in their cultural environment, usually over an extended period of time”[2]. In this manner of data gathering, the researcher becomes, as it is, a part and parcel of his own study. Although this is not a perfect method (is there one?) because it opens the research to subjective interpretations as the researcher is never totally and wholly of and in the other. In the positive sciences, there is a clear distancing or dissociation of the researcher and the researched to be able to set an objective separation, in contrast to the seeming conjunction and proximity in Anthropological studies.

Another method employed by Anthropologists and other social scientists is Participatory Rural Appraisal. Here I will try to lengthen my discussion to drive home a point introduced by Asimov’s Foundation.

Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) is “a growing combination of approaches and methods that enable rural people to share, enhance and analyze their knowledge of life and conditions, to plan and act and to monitor and evaluate. The role of the outsider is that of a catalyst, a facilitator of processes within a community which is prepared to alter their situation”[3]. Coming from this method is a more specialized kind of Participatory Rural Appraisal, the Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) which is an “extractive research methodology consisting of systematic, semi-structured activities conducted on-site by a multi-disciplinary team with the aim of quickly and efficiently acquiring new information about rural life and rural resources”[4]. Here there is still the trademark direct participation and involvement of the researcher, yet there is another element here of community participation in which the knowledge and opinion of the research partner or clientele (beneficiaries of a government or nongovernment project) is incorporated in the planning and management of development projects and programs. It closely follows “the Freirian theme, that poor and exploited people can and should be enabled to analyze their own reality.”[5] Aside from the speed in which data are extracted from the research partners, the two also differs in the direction of intent so that RRA is “learning rapidly and directly from villagers”[6] while PRA is “learning with villagers”[7].

As a student of Anthropology, we are always reminded that data in and of themselves are meaningless. PRA and RRA are two such methods with an end goal of assisting the poor, marginalized and oppressed sector of the society such that it is often the tool employed by nongovernment and community development workers. Often, results of these studies are used to provide assistance and aid to the research partner/clientele and that “instead of creating knowledge for the advancement of a field or for knowledge’s sake, PRA and RRA are iterative processes, incorporating research, reflection and action in a cyclical process”[8].

In both direct participant observation and PRA/RRA, there is equitable partnership between researcher and research partner community. In equitable partnerships it “require sharing power, resources, credit, results and knowledge, as well as a reciprocal appreciation of each partner’s knowledge and skills at each stage of the project, including (depending on the research) problem definition/issue selection, research design, conducting research, interpreting results, and determining how the results should be used for action”[9]. As a field of science that focuses and sometimes forces us to consider the ways in which we understand the other, Anthropology’s methods always involve the other not as a passive variable in an experiment or a guinea pig in a laboratory but an active and empowered collaborator, consultant and participant in researches.

Here, I think, is the proper juncture to return to the ‘Foundation’.

Science’s goals are as diverse as the different fields under her mantle. Each branch of science has an individual purpose, but they all come together to form one encompassing resolve, which is to seek more knowledge/information about our world, ourselves and in turn use that knowledge to improve humanity’s quality of life.

The demise of Asimov’s Galactic Empire was brought by the decline in Science and the waning courage to discover new information about our world. Although this is very farfetch in our contemporary era, we are nevertheless being challenged by the idea of the importance of scientific/anthropological discoveries in moving humanity forward and in searching for Truth, may it be true true, approximately true and likely true, yet always spurred by the curiousity of the Homo sapiens sapiens. Science was the reason for the Empire’s demise yet curiously it was also its very spirit that salvaged it, mainly because Science became involved and engaged with the communities, instead of being cold and distant. The field of Anthropology, especially its various methods of directly participating and involving in, with and the community in its researches, is already Science that is involved and engaged with the same people that it serves. In its pursuit to understand the other, Anthropology and the proper Social Sciences are indeed foundations, and more, upon which humanity’s feet firmly stand.


[1] Conrad Philip Kottak, Anthropology: The Exploration of Human Diversity, 12th Edition, New York: McGraw-Hill, page 3.

[2] Wikipedia, Participant Observation, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participant_observation, retrieved January 7, 2012.

[3] Luigi Cavestro quoting Robert Chambers (1995 and 1997), P.R.A. – Participatory Rural Appraisal: Concepts, Methodologies and Techniques, paper written for the Universita’ Degli Studi di Padova Facolta’ di Agraria, October 10, 2003, page 5.

[4] Wikipedia, Participatory Rural Appraisal, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_rural _appraisal, retrieved on January 10, 2013.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Cavestro, page 4.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Wikipedia, Community-based Participatory Research, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community-based_participatory_research, retrieved on January 11, 2013.

[9] Ibid.