Kim Claudette M. Caringal

Caringal, Kim Claudette M. March 16, 2018 - Sociology 114 WFY Memo on Alfred McCoy’s “An Anarchy of Families” This historiography of Philippine politics provides a rather much-needed novel and sharp take on the way the State has been functioning throughout national history. Aptly titled the “anarchy of families”, McCoy essentially reframes how the progression of political systems in the country has been accounted for by historians then. While the sheer significance of families and the bilateral kinship networks that arise from them is an obvious truth, McCoy further expounds on this by pointing out two primary strategies that elite families employ in different ways and varying degrees in order to strengthen and further perpetuate their influence, both in the political and economic realm. Dichotomous branding notwithstanding, McCoy aligns two strategies to either the national or provincial type of politicians based on how they have employed these measures historically. The national statesman, for example, is remarkably adept at bolstering economic advantages and using these financial investments and opportunities to then complement his or his relative’s political interests. This kind of politician is more of the diplomatic, negotiating businessman as compared to his counterpart in the province. The other statesman, belonging to political clans in the province, is more inclined to enforce violent means to assure bases of support and to amass resources to maintain autonomous and self-sustaining. McCoy takes careful note to remove the traditionally polarizing understanding of the national and provincial politician. Indeed, it is continuously reiterated throughout the latter half of the essay that these politicians, regardless of measures primarily taken to ensure their survival, are nevertheless similar in their goal to accrue capital, whether economic or political, wherever the opportunity may arise. With these refreshing, arguably more sensible way of interpreting the progression – or regression, or stagnation, thereof – of Philippine politics in the period immediately after the Second World War up until present, questions then arise. How then might we utilize this analysis for present and future conditions? Is there even another way in which we can go about running the state, having established that even after the grave authoritarian rule of Marcos Sr., the figures of power only reverted to patronage politics common in our previous feudal system? Aren’t we too entrenched in this kind of corrupt, network-reliant, profit-driven political system to be able to even try to adopt a different sort of politics? What even would be the alternative?