CIVILIZING COLONIALISM

AND TAMING THE CRIMINAL SAVAGE

- Impression Management, and the Making and Unmaking of
Deviance and Discipline
in Late Colonial Philippines, 1900-1935

By Virgilio Rojas
Paper presented at the Graduate Seminar, 20002-02-28
Dept. of Economic History, Stockholm University, 106 91, Stockholm, Sweden
Virgilio.Rojas@ekohist.su.se

AN UNDISCIPLINED INTRODUCTION

Critical Empirico-Historical Departures

Our journey into the subject of criminality and colonial management begins with
two impressive, statistically-grounded, and widely quoted accounts of what
appeared to be declining ratios of criminality and low racial propensity to
criminal behaviour among natives during the early years of American colonial
occupation in the Philippines. This first set will then be juxtaposed to yet a third
deposition from a contemporary informant, clearly unimpressed with and critical
to theory and practice of colonial management itself.

As we shall later see, critical questions to unfold in the course of ‘dialogue’ with
the above trinity of informants will anticipate the central theme, thrust and
problem that will be the subject of deeper elaboration further on in this report:
How and why impressions (and the need to maintain and manage precisely those
impressions) about both colonial managers and the subject populations they are
supposed to manage, matter as conditions and constraints to the practical
operation of colonial management itself, and its deployment and application of
s-c ‘technologies of disciplinary power.’ Or alternatively put, how and why the
way in which a colonial latecomer like the United States defines and projects
itself as a unique ‘civilizing’ power (relative to a set of distinct ‘audiences’:
other ‘civilizing’ powers, political constituencies and economic interests at
home, colonial subjects) bear on the actual course in which the practical bases
(judicial and ‘disciplinary’ institutions) of such power evolves.

But before we begin with the ‘dialogue’, a thumbnail description of the

prominent socio-political contingencies and the discursive landscape or official
 2

meta-narrative in which terms the fledgling colonial ‘civilizing’ project were to

be negotiated at the early stage of American occupation, is in order.
In 1900, American policy-makers and colonial overseers were still debating the
terms of Philippine colonial incorporation for the then newly acquired territory
in the Far East. They first turned to British s-c crown colonies’ in Africa and
Asia for possible models, but finally settled for a home-spun, if slightly revised
model of territorial government1 -- or a colony with ‘representative institutions,
but no responsible government’. Indeed, the Americans consciously and
tactfully avoided the use of the term ‘colony’ so as not to offend the sensibilities
of the subject population, a significant segment of which had just recently
redefined its terms of identity in nascent nationalist directions after taking on
and almost decisively ending more than 350 years of Spanish rule through a
popular armed insurrection.2 Yet, Americans soon found themselves drawn into
a vicious two-year war with large fractions of the still functional native rebel
army against Spain, which was soon effectively if brutally quelled. When the
fighting officially ended in 1902, the stage was set for a bold American
experiment in building the basic institutions of what some contemporary
analysts referred to as tropical democracy.3 It was to be a ‘civilizing’ project like
no other: one with an unprecedented fast-track, condensed mentality-and-
sensibility-altering agenda based on scientifically managed popular pedagogy in
modern democratic, responsible, auto-disciplinary citizenship and eventual self-
rule. A ‘civilizing’ project compelled by the noblesse oblige of an enlightened
modern global power to proselytise and benevolently persuade yet
unenlightened subject populations in the ways of modern, rational self-
management.

Couched in the idiom of tutelage, American political, legal, judicial, educational

institutions were to be gradually transplanted through learning-by-doing
exercises in self-government, first by a limited electorate drawn from the most
‘intelligent’ segment of the native population, later to be enlarged in tandem
with the spread of mass education, and the intensification and thickening of
inter-tribal and cross-cultural communication. Cultural homogenisation will, as
envisioned, eventually turn the natives into an English-speaking race,
‘exceeding in intelligence and capacity all other people of the Tropics.’ 4 Within
1
An adjusted version of the Jeffersonian-Madisonian model of government for the territory of Louisiana. Report of the
Philippine Commission (RPC), 1900: 104-107.
2
Ibid. As the American commissioners warned: ”No other word in their vocabulary is so ill-omened (sic.), so terrible, so
surcharged with wrongs, disasters, and sufferings. In their experience, a colony’ is a dependent political community which
the sovereign power exploits, oppresses and misgoverns.’
3
Elliot, Charles (1917) The Philippines, To the End of the Commission Government: A Study in Tropical Democracy.
4
Census, 1903: 39-40. The language of tutelage was by then of course well grounded in ‘traditional’ American, that is,
Jeffersonian, educational and political theory, which posited the inextricable functional link between universal education and
popular government. Following this ‘tradition’ early colonial bureaucrats like Director of Educational Bureau, David
Barrows (1903-1909) moreover tailored policies on colonial primary instruction in favour of ‘literary education’ over one
which prepared the citizenry for industrial, productive labour; like Jefferson, Barrows ‘looked at the school system to break
down class barriers, to create an educated, independent yeomanry.’ Succeeding policies would however displace and reorient
directions toward industrial education. Conflicts and changes in official discourse in the field of educational policy within the
 3

the colonial meta-narrative thus, the bulk of the native population was depicted
as intellectually backward, ‘ignorant, superstitious and … incapable of
understanding any government but that of absolutism.’5 Hence to make tutelage
worth its while systematic identification and targeting of the potential first phase
tutorial population is a pre-requisite, and will be achieved through a restrictive
definition and criteria of eligibility into the electorate. The second phase
envisions a co-extensive enlargement of the tutorial constituency, who through
practical learning-by-doing-self-government will later eventually be able to
expurgate unrestrained absolutist in favour of more self-disciplined government,
‘limitations upon power which is now so difficult for them to understand.’6 As
the Americans argued: ‘by establishing a form of municipal government
practically autonomous, with a limited electorate, and by subjecting its
operations to the scrutiny and criticism of a provincial government in which the
controlling element was American, we could gradually teach them the method of
carrying on government according to American ideas.’7

Moreover, this grand experiment in modern tropical democracy would now also
employ the knowledge-generating power of statistics in a scale hitherto rarely
seen. Tutelage would not only be systematic, it will be managed scientifically
with the latest innovations in turn-of-the-century ‘informational technology.’ In
fact, census-taking itself would become both tool and laboratory of teaching in
the art of self-government. An Act ratified by the American Congress and
instituted in situ by the Philippine Commission virtually made the gradual
extension of modern self-government to the natives contingent upon the success
of the census, by providing for the holding of general elections to a popular
assembly within two years after its implementation. Indeed as our first
informant, Director of Census retired Major General J P Sanger would proudly
announce, the Philippine census was the first attempt ever by any ‘tropical
people in modern times, to make an enumeration of themselves.’8
American colonial hierarchy underlying noted shifts are eloquently sketched in the seminal work of Glenn Anthony May
(1980) Social Engineering in the Philippines. The Aims, Execution and Impact of American Colonial Policy, 1900-1913.
Quezon City: New Day Publishers.
5
An important indication of native low IQ was the degree of fluency in Spanish: ‘The intelligence and education of the
people may be largely measured by knowledge of the Spanish language. Less than 10 percent… speak Spanish. With
Spaniards in control of these islands for four hundred years and with Spanish spoken in all official avenues, nothing can be
more significant of the lack of real intelligence among the people than this statement.’ Report of the Philippine Commission
to the Secretary of War, 1901: 19-20.
6
Just as native ’IQ’ was measured by linguistic proficiency, so too was the ’intelligent population’ to be recruited according
to that standard plus of course income level and past experience in colonial management. So only those who spoke English or
Spanish, paid yearly taxes of no less than 15 dollars/yr or owned property equivalent to 250 dollars or had formerly served as
municipal officer, were able to enter the ranks of the ‘intelligent’ tutorial constituency. Ibid:
7
Ibid: 20-21.
8
Census of the Philippines, 1903: 31. Systematic enumeration and classification of populations were of course by no means
an American invention. Proto- and more modern censuses had been carried out earlier on in the Islands during Hispanic
colonial rule, through the agency of the Church and the secular bureaucracy (with the latter accelerating in the mid-and late
19th century) in an ascending order of sophistication. Most of these censuses, even the latest ones at the close of Hispanic rule
were estimates (not absolute house-to-house counts) and often referred to those of non-comparable populations, i.e. of either
tributary or parish/pueblo populations. Parish counts were usually more comprehensive than the tribute-based estimates.
Comparatively, American innovation, as represented by the 1903 census, lies not only in the sheer scale and relative accuracy
(house-to-house counts) of enumerated data, but distinctively in inter alia: a) the plurality of the ‘objects’ of classification
 4

Statistical-izing Impressions of Lost Criminal Populations

Included in this ambitious colonial cognitive mapping project of sorts is of

course information and knowledge-production vis-à-vis deviant and criminal
populations. An early, crude, yet statistically-based statement on this score was
issued by Census Director J P Sanger in late 1902. Departing from the number
of convicted felons confined in prison, or a figure of 5 395 out of a total 12 312
accused of various crimes, for that year, Sanger arrives at a criminal ratio of 8 to
every 10 000 population. He then compares this with the corresponding US
figure for 1890 given at 13: 10 000 to conclude that ‘considering the unsettled
condition of affairs in the island during the 6 years prior census, the showing is
… remarkable and indicates that the Filipino as a race are not specially
disposed toward crime.’ (emphasis added)9

In a preceding passage, we find Sanger’s circumspective distinction between

Christianised populations of the pueblo, the central object of statistical
enumeration, and what he labelled as the non-Christian or ‘wild tribes,’ non-
pueblo populations to be approached separately and more cautiously. Curiously,
however, he, as if randomly inserts deviant or ‘outlaw elements from the
Christian towns’ as a fourth group in a fourfold classification scheme for the
savage populations. This segment of the ‘civilised’ population turned savage is
apparently and presumably unaccounted for in the criminal statistics, Sanger’s
delinquency-factor as it were, the consequences of which he by no means
bothered to acknowledge.

Six years later, Attorney General Ignacio Villamor’s pioneering survey,

‘Criminality in the Philippine Islands, 1903-1908’ provides us with an even
more sophisticated re-statement of Sanger’s conclusion. Villamor, a native
bureaucrat, had the luxury of the routinization over time of bureaucratic
functions and its auspicious effects on data-retrieval and production that Sanger
didn’t have in 1902; certainly since then the nationwide census had long been
completed, courts have become more effectively managed, with the habit of
record keeping and statistical reporting starting to take root among a growing

and the kind of measurement fetish generating all sorts of statistical data on populations of just about anything and
everything, from cattle to criminals; b) the indigenisation (an in fact partial feminisation), as alluded above, of census-taking
as a knowledge-power (to use Foucault) generating organisation and devise, devolving from the exclusive hands of the
Spanish clergy and colonial officials towards an inclusive cadre of native functionaries under American supervision. For
comparative contemporary cases elsewhere, see Benedict Anderson’s discussion of Charles Hirschman’s study of mentalités
of British colonial census-makers for the Straits Settlements and peninsular Malaya in his widely read Imagined
Communities. Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London & New York: Verso. For a critical, comparative
assessment of Philippine Spanish and American census data, consult May, Glenn Anthony (1987) A Past Recovered. Quezon
City: New Day Publishers; Corpuz, OD (1997) An Economic History of the Philippines. Quezon City: University of the
Philippine Press. For an interesting semiotic analysis of the 1903 Census, refer to the trailblazing work of Vergara, Benito
(1995) Displaying Filipinos. Photography and Colonialism in Early 20th Century Philippines. Quezon City: University of the
Philippine Press.
9
See Census, 1903, Vol. IV chap VII. ‘Criminals and Prisons,’ p. 417.
 5

army of native court clerks.10 With this advantage he is able to produce detailed
and denser statistical information on major criminal categories and their relative
frequencies and relevant anecdotal data on possible causes of common crimes
occurring between 1903-1908.

Unlike Sanger’s, Villamor’s survey is now explicitly informed by state-of-the-

art theories from positivist criminal sociologists such as Cesare Lombroso and
Enrico Ferri;11 ostensibly, it is now more concerned with accurate scientific
analysis of the causes of criminality within the frame of dominant
criminological discourse to date. But like him, Villamor ultimately reaffirmed,
but perhaps for different reasons, and as will soon be clear, from discrepant
premises, the negligibility of criminality and its corresponding ‘genetic’
implications. Winding up his impressive statistical probe, he avers: ‘It therefore
appears that judging criminality in the Philippines either from the number of
crimes or cases and of persons accused, or from the number of persons accused
convicted by the courts of justice, the result of the comparison of the four
quinquennial periods (Q1 1870-1874, Q2 1875-1879, Q3 1883-1887, Q4 1903-
1908) shows that the Filipinos, as a race, as General Sanger declared in the
census of 1903, have no inclination to crime.’12
Figure 1
Quinquennial average ratio of criminals per 10 000 population in
relationto no. of cases, accused, and convicted, 1870-1903.
15
13.77
12.42 12.5
10 9.63 Average no of cases
8.83
7.88 7.63 Average no of accused
6.27
5 5.19 4.94 Average no of convicted
3.9

0
Q1 1870-1874 Q2 1875-1879 Q3 1883-1887 Q4 1903-1908

Source: Villamor, I (1909) Criminality in the Philippine Islands, Table Nos.

XLVII, XLVIII, XLIX, L, p. 42-43.
N.B. Q4 include only data on total and average no. of persons, whereas Q1-3
figure depart solely from total and average no. of cases.

10
As the huge organisation under-girding Villamor’s comprehensive survey reveals: 235 statistical reports of criminal cases
filed at the Courts of First Instance (CFI) collated and submitted by 47 court clerks coupled with anecdotal data from 27
provincial fiscals nationwide. Villamor, Ignacio (1909) Criminality in the Philippine Islands, 1903-1908.
11
Insofar as he failed to properly footnote his quotations, it is however unclear exactly whether Villamor departs from
Lombroso’s early or later editions of his widely influential work, On Criminal Man (1876); where Lambroso’s theoretical
concerns successively shifted throughout five editions from a mono-causal, biological to a multi-causal ecological
explanation of deviance, including climate, gender, marriage customs etc. One can nevertheless easily infer from the
checklist of potential causes Villamor intended to verify through the survey and his way of downplaying biology in the text
that he had indeed taken central cue from the mature Lombroso and his more sociologically-oriented successors within the s-
c Positivist School like Ferri. For a short outline of early criminological theory see Lilly, Cullen, & Ball (1995)
Criminological Theory. For a contemporaneous critique see Durkheim, Emile (1997) The Division of Labor in Society…. pp.
257-8.
12
(emphasis added) Ibid: 88.
 6

As for remarkable deviations from the standard of diachronically declining

criminal ratios, like the quizzical ridges or peaks punctuating the start and finish
of the fourth or current quinqennium (Q4), which on face value would appear to
adversely bear on the Sanger-theorem of low native racial or genetic
predisposition to deviance, Villamor, after fastidiously tracing the sources of
noted statistical discrepancies, nonetheless critically maintains that: ‘the increase
of criminality … is due to causes which were purely transitory,13 ‘and not to a
psychological condition revealing social perversity and degeneration.’14

In fact, not only does the scientific evidence provided by falling criminal ratios
sustain the notion of native racial fitness, it also suggests, according to this
informant, a strong positive correlation between effective colonial ‘instruction’
and sound native ‘intelligence’ and ‘learn-ability’ as it were. Hence, in quite a
short span declining patterns of deviance more than anything indicate the
emergence of a new ethos, a new sense of responsibility and discipline spawned
by the US-led revamp of outdated Spanish-designed institutions, not least in the
field of secular primary mass education and effective criminal procedures.
Ultimately as such Villamor expects that as intellectually and morally
enlightening public instruction mounts across the whole ‘laity’, particularly
among the indigent lower-classes, rising popular savoir-faire in criminal law15
and internalisation of preferred mentalities, habits and dispositions in loop with
the new moral order will as a result increasingly check if not pre-empt vestiges
of deviance in a way that will make that order homeostatic and self-sustaining.
Under given conditions Villamor envisions the birth of Lombroso’s proverbial
informed ‘moral man’ without ‘criminal proclivities.’ An anti-deviant individual
imbued with the virtues of self-discipline and deference to: work, the principles
of private property, law and order, authorities, duty and self-denial in adversity,
and self-restraint. 16

Literally taken, the statistical imagery and enunciations elicited by the Sanger-
Villamor reports may be temptingly read, as some recent scholars tend to do, as
emblematic of two consecutive phases in the progressive deployment and
application by a modernizing colonial power and its native subalterns of
knowledge-generating statistical techniques for objectifying and thus rationally
managing (allegedly manageable) native deviance and deviant populations at
13
Concurrently, whereas the initial peak in 1903 was as reported largely fuelled by crimes (political and predatory banditry,
vagrancy, stock- and property theft, violation of oath of allegiance law, etc) following in the wake of the anti-occupation war
and its ramifications (food shortages, rinderpest, inflationary livestock prices, etc), subsequent growth in 1907-1908
stemmed, according to Villamor, mainly from the introduction and enforcement of new laws (gambling, election, weight &
measurement laws, etc). Ibid: 88-90.
14
(emphasis added) Ibid: 90.
15
As the author suggests, inasmuch as native lawbreaking has largely been a function of widespread ‘ignorance of the law,’
popular instruction in penal law will do for crime-prevention what the dissemination of elementary knowledge in hygiene can
do for disease control. Ibid: 88.
16
Quoting Lombroso but without proper notation Villamor points at the hazards of moral-free instruction as the precursor of
the ‘smart’ deviant: “Knowledge which doesn’t moralise the individual converts him into a criminal more refined, more
ingenious, and more dangerous.” Ibid: 87-88
 7

large.17 While the ‘rationalisation of colonial rule’ interpretation is certainly

plausible in terms of actual, ‘performative’ or the practical/functional
application per se of s-c modern technologies of power – after all, there can be
little doubt on the historical distinctiveness of American large-scale and strategic
deployment of census-taking as a deliberate devise in colonial management in
the Philippines – it does not rule out an equally plausible if interlacing analysis
of the same accounts in the ‘performative’, functional sense of impression-
making and management.18

That is, in reading these reports one should carefully distinguish strategic
transfer or deployment of rationalising technologies of power (census and
criminal statistics) in itself, from the tactical appropriation or redeployment of
these technologies - particularly in highly power-laden colonial contexts such as
in the current case - by asymmetrically positioned but interactively operating
social agents (who for discrepant but instrumental reasons, as in the super-
ordinate-subaltern Sanger-Villamor relationship partake) in the simulation of
images or impressions about strategic technology transfer itself. As much as one
can speak of multiple technologies of power, like ‘militarized measures for
instituting public health and disease control, highly specialised laboratory
experiments and scientific papers on tropical medicine, and reformatory prisons
and model penal colonies,’19 one may in this second meaning find an array of
impression management or information control techniques in the presentation or
projection of these technologies as integral components of a modern colonial
power’s self-image.
The transaction of ‘performative’ activity in the above dual sense will moreover
substantively be negotiated in terms set by the larger, dominant discourse of
power; it is locked into and should bear a consistent (or at least a semblance of

17
A tendency that resonates strongly in the recent surge of Foucault-inspired scholarship exploring the transfer and
application of technologies of disciplinary power during the early phase of American colonial rule, particularly in the work of
Michael Salman, who sees how Villamor’s ‘depiction of the purpose and methods of Philippine penal system bears a striking
resemblance to the rationalization of colonial rule.´(emphasis added). Salman, M. (1997) “Nothing Without Labor”:
Penology, Discipline and Independence in the Philippines under United States Rule,” in Rafael Vicente’s Discrepant
Histories. Translocal Essays on Filipino Cultures. Manila: Anvil. pp. 113-132. For a comparative and interpretative regional
analysis of the diversification and ‘hybridization’ of imported new penal technologies in 19 th and 20th century Latin America
see the insightful anthology edited by Salvatore, Ricardo & Aguirre, C (1996) The Birth of the Penitentiary in Latin America.
Essays on Criminology, Prison Reform, and Social Control, 1830-1940.Austin: University of Texas Press. For the original
definition see Foucault, Michel (1994) Power. Essential Works of Foucault, 1954-1984. Vol 3. Ed. By Faubion, James. New
York: The New Press.
18
As Goffman, from which this term originally derives, once presciently described the interaction of politics and drama,
argued: for power of any kind to be effective, whether projected through example, enlightenment, persuasion, exchange,
manipulation, authority, threat, punishment or coercion, must be clothed in effective means of displaying it and will have
different effects depending on how it is dramatized. He argued that rather than allow the impression of activity to arise only
incidentally one can reorient reference frames and invest, in the making of desired impressions; instead of attempting to
achieve ends by acceptable means one can attempt to achieve the impression that they are achieving certain aims by
acceptable means. Goffman, E (1958) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books. For an extensive
elaboration on impression management through myriad information control techniques in interactions involving stigma and
its strategic and tactical concealment and camouflage see his later work, (1990) Stigma. Notes on the Management of Spoiled
Identity. London: Penguin Books. James Scott below recycles this dramaturgical approach in his analysis of the discourses of
power, domination and resistance.
19
Rafael, op.cit: xix.
 8

it) relationship with something amounting to what one author labelled as, the
‘public transcript’ of domination.20 In the Philippine case, this ‘transcript’
articulates in American colonial self-portrayal as benevolent civilizers and
mentors of modern rational citizenship and self-government. Within the general
parameters of this official discourse colonial managers, their proximate native
subalterns and subjects at large are expected and compelled to ‘act in character’
as it were, at least in public, according to their respectively designated roles.
Further, if the underlying logic of strategic technology transfer is to heighten the
intrusiveness and operational efficiency of a modern colonial power’s
surveillance and control capabilities, the interactive and negotiated
redeployment of the same, especially where impression management is at work,
will reciprocally embody the counter-logic and possibility of censoring, short-
circuiting or subverting those very capabilities.

With the above distinctions in mind, we note with wonder how the statistical
information generated by our informants and the impressions they tend to create
with it have hitherto largely eluded serious critical scrutiny. Nor has the
possibility of impression-making and management through statistical imaging,
its meaning, and impact on the praxis and practical bases of colonial power ever
significantly concerned historians of colonial crime and deviance. 21

In retrospect thus, there could very well be more to the Sanger-Villamor

impressive, statistically festooned narratives on native deviance than what
might, at first glance, simply appear as perfunctory, progressive deployment of
new technologies of power. In fact, subjecting these accounts to crude ‘forensic’
examination will readily reveal traces of ‘performative’ activity as previously
noted. And it is precisely the flawless fit between statistical evidence and the
conclusions about ‘natural’ native anti-deviant properties suggested by these
reports, that almost instinctively invites investigation.

A central ‘lead’ in an initial attempt to detect potential technical flaws in the

‘flawless fit’ imagery is provided by population data on which allegedly
declining criminal ratios rest (i.e. the denominator used in the calculation of
these ratios). Apparently identical trends of low level or declining native
propensities to deviant behaviour projected in the cruder synchronic Sanger and
later in the more technically sophisticated diachronic Villamor reports are in fact
calculated from discrepant population figures. As noted (p.4) Sanger explicitly
and strictly departs from total pueblo-based Christian (‘civilised’) population
figures, excluding fluid non-pueblo unconverted tribal and mobile criminal
20
Defined by James Scott in its crudest form as, the ’self-portrait of dominant elites as they would have themselves seen.’
(1990) Domination and the Arts of Resistance. Hidden Transcripts. New Haven & London: Yale University Press. p. 18.
21
Adjacent to current works on ‘technologies of power’ in Rafael, op.cit., take also a look at the way social historian, Greg
Bankoff uses Spanish and early US criminal statistics in his unique monograph on deviance and the rise of what he calls the
‘judicial state’ and its implications to social control at the close of Hispanic colonial rule. Bankoff, G (1996) Crime, Society,
and the State in the Nineteenth Century Philippines. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.
 9

Christian populations. An instant comparison of the ratio obtained for 1902 is

then made with US estimates for 1890. Under given conditions Sanger’s
conclusions on native deviance can at best be nothing more than provisional.

In the case of his native counterpart, the impression of meticulousness and

precision ‘given off’ by the powerful ensemble of 54 tables of criminal statistics
he deploys, the barrage of supplementary anecdotal data, not to mention the
critical analyses of potential data biases, yes, all the trappings of scientific
savvy, collapse under the weight of one crucial ellipsis, one very prominent
blank Villamor as if strangely ‘forgot’ to account for. Nowhere in this survey
has he explicitly specified the actual denominative basis of his celebrated
criminal ratios. Finding Villamor’s ‘lost’ demographic denominator (s) might
give us a clue to the enigma of ‘amnesia’.

Revisiting the central statistical tables (Villamor, Tables XLVII-L: 42-43), we

are able to extrapolate and recapture the ‘missing’ population data by cross-
referencing Villamor’s criminal ratios for the four quinquennial periods (Q1-
1870-74; Q2-1875-79; Q3-1883-87; Q4-1903-08) with alternative quinquennial
ratios calculated from a number of known population figures. Evidently, for the
American period (Q4), our prime concern is to determine whether Villamor uses
total (Christian + non-Christian) or partial (only Christian) population figures
from the 1903 Census. For the Spanish period (Q1-3), our task will be a bit
different: here we need not bother with the above-noted distinction, since pre-
existing data usually singularly refer to Christian populations, rather our concern
will be confined to pinning down among a number of possible alternatives
exactly which source Villamor did utilize. We know from the Census of 1903
and 1918 that the alternative Spanish population estimates listed below (Table 1)
were and must have been available to colonial officials like our distinguished
Attorney General.

As our cross-referencing test clearly shows (highlighted figures marked with

asterisks), Villamor’s quinquennial ratios on all three categories (average no. of
cases, of accused, and of convicted felons) for the Spanish period (Q1-Q3)
matched with the relatively less accurate 1876 Church-based population
estimates. As far as the American period is concerned, the corresponding
matches indicate total and not partial population figures from the 1903 Census
as his point of reference on all three counts. What the test essentially suggests is
that for Villamor to be able to vindicate Sanger’s theorem with any credibility
he had to commission and make

Table 1. Population statistics (million), 1870-1903

 10

Year 1870 1876 1877 1879 1885 1887 1903

A B C D E F G

Population 6,98
(Christians 4,71 5,50 5,56 5,48 5,83 5,98 G1
only) 7,63
G2

Source Official Church Census Official Church Census Census

Guide Guide

Source: Census of the Philippine Islands (1918) Vol. II, Population and Mortality. p. 24.
N.B. The censuses (1877, 1887, 1903) are comparatively the more comprehensive source, with the 1903
census relatively the one closest to a standard house-to-house count. G2 & G1 are exclusive respectively
inclusive of the non-Christian population.

Table 2.
Cross-referencing Villamor’s (V) with alternative quinquennial (Q) criminal ratio (CR)
estimates per 10000 according to population data (million) used (Table 1) in relation to
average aggregate number of criminal cases (thousand) (C1), of accused (C2), and of
convicted felons (C3).

Q1 1870-74 Q2 1875-79 Q3 1883-87 Q4 1903-1908

(V) C1 4257 4860 4199 7359

(V) CR 7,88 8,83 7,63 9,63*
(6,64)#
1. (1870) CR 9,03
2. (1876) CR 7,74* 8,83* 7,63*
3. (1877) CR 8,72 7,54
4. (1879) CR 8,85 7,65
5. (1885) CR 7,19
6. (1887) CR 7,02
7. (1903 G1) CR 10,50
8. (1903 G2) CR 9,63*
(V) C2 6711 7580 6880 7359
(V) CR 12,42 13,77 12,50 9,63
1. 14,2
2. (1876) CR 12,2* 13,77* 12,50*
3. 13,60
4. 13,80
5. 11,78
6. 11,49
7. 10,50
8. (1903 G2) CR 9,63*
(V) C3 2803 3450 2717 2984
(V) CR 5,19 6,27 4,94 3,90
1. 5,95
2. (1876) CR 5,10* 6,27* 4,94*
3. 6,19
4. 6,28
5. 4,65
6. 4,53
7. 4,27
8. (1903 G2) CR 3,90*
 11

Source: Tables XLVII, XLVIII, XLIX, L, Villamor, I. (1909) Criminality in the Philippine Islands, op cit. pp 42-
43.
N.B.C1 figures drawn from aggregate no. of cases for Q1-3; Q4 data represents mainly aggregate number of
persons.
C2 figures culled primarily from Court of First Instance (CFI) records forQ1-4; it should be noted however that
during Q4
an unspecified number of crimes previously under CFI jurisdiction were transferred to lower circuit courts. C3
estimates
refer exclusively to convicted criminals.
* exact or close match. # computation or typographical error? Data noted in the explanatory text at the end of
the report (6,64) do not tally with the corresponding figure note in Table XLVII (9,63), which for all intents and
purposes gives the correct figure. Compare text and table in p. 88 and 42, respectively.

past pre-US data serviceable; and as far as our alternative ratio calculations
demonstrate it really didn’t matter whether denominative population estimates
used were more or less accurate, any would do as ratios wouldn’t have varied
significantly. Indeed, for the category C3 (no. of convicted felons, purportedly
approximating the hardcore among deviant populations in any given society)
even the historically highest figure (6,27 for Q2) would still fall way below
Sanger’s comparative 1890 US standard of 13. The low-propensity theorem,
even giving allowance for inaccuracies of any one population estimate deployed
for the pre-US period, would have been largely sustained anyway, so it appears.

We seem to have been lured into a wild goose chase! But, perhaps not. It might
be precisely the apparent arbitrariness, not precision, of the statistical bases on
which the suspicious intersubjective conclusions of the two consecutive
accounts were in fact or might have been drawn that makes the impression of
intersubjectivity possible in the first place. And it is this arbitrariness (or the
interchangeability as it were of discrepant data from which to draw ostensibly
identical conclusions) that might actually be the object of concealment in
Villamor’s statistical-izing impressions of diachronically low/declining criminal
ratios, the real object of noted prominent blanks in his account. The impression
of continuity over time which he further reinforces with that long silent and
unaccounted gap (on both numerator and denominator halves of the equation)
between 1887-1902.22

Exposing the arbitrariness of statistical data in this manner opens the floor to
possible other signs of ‘performative’ activity elsewhere. Whereas concealment
of statistical arbitrariness is crucial in producing images of statistically stable
and sound native popular psychology, the amplification of statistical anomalies
and the selective application of rigor to flush them out tend to create the
impression of the transitory nature of deviance. (Here, explicit rigor or
22
One doesn’t have to be specially trained to detect instances of embarrassing clumsiness in Villamor’s way of handling of
and deploying statistical information, that conjures images of one who tries to impress by pretending to have skills one hasn’t
really mastered yet, or if he did have, feigning not too have mastered them entirely yet.
 12

‘complete information,’ not ‘strategic secrecy’ as Goffman23 would have

designated the previous case of concealment, infuses management operation and
images generated by it with scientific aura). Villamor applies this technique in
domesticating noted surges in criminality during the start and close of the
American Q4 period (pp. 5-6; f n 13-15) 24

Both sets of images combine, not only to validate Sanger’s dictum, but the
dominant discourse of colonial power as well. They both ‘give off’ expressions
of scientific evidence to show the absence of ‘genetic’ criminal disorder among
natives at large, and by the same token therefore Filipinos are ‘genetically’ fit to
govern themselves given proper instruction and enough time.

While our two informants tell of low racial propensities to deviant behaviour,
the deployment of impression-making statistical data satisfies perhaps
diametrically different compulsions and needs emanating from differential social
positions: for Sanger, the supposed ‘tutor,’ the downplaying of ‘genetics’ may
well take its cue from an offensive compulsion to create, or at least a semblance
of it, a potential ‘tutorial population’ ‘genetically’ fit to learn; for Villamor, the
supposed ‘student’, it may just be the opposite, a defensive compulsion to justify
eligibility into the same population defined as ‘genetically’ fit to be taught. By
and large, these accounts tell more than just the straightforward, disinterested
transfer of s-c new technologies of power and their assimilation into alien
societies and populations; they also tell how the actual terms of ‘technology-
transfer’ and institutionalisation will be contested and negotiated in ways that to
some extent will involve the manufacture and management of impressions about
how social agents wish that process to be seen by others.

Anecdotally Critical Counter-Impressions

23
Goffman (1959) op.cit.
24
What is most fascinating with the statistical-izing impressions generated by Villamor’s impressive yet inordinate use of data
in his reconstruction of native criminality are those critical moments when statistics appear to suddenly assume a life of its
own, pulling some of these impressions into unexpected directions to become self-fulfilling prophecies at times. For instance,
while he in one breath alludes to the literal construction of crime by political fiat, in the next, he almost as nearly literally de-
constructs the same. As such, comparing the American quinquennial (Q4) with the Spanish equivalent (Q1-3) he concurs, ‘it
is a fact that … numerous (US-sponsored) special laws have been enacted … increasing the total number of persons accused
annually by the addition of such offenders.’ Thus, consistent with the impression generated by noted statement, Q4 data
intimate indeed that almost 4000 were accused of violations of special laws, roughly 4800 of brigandage, and around 1 000 of
vagrancy, adding up to a rounded figure of 10 000. At any rate, he insists that this figure is in fact insignificant to the total
number of accused for concerned period (36 652), thereby meriting exclusion from the total criminal count for Q4. In other
words he removes unwarranted sources of peaks in advance. An act which of course creates the impression of flattening or
declining curves. However, a cursory check will easily reveal that these as it were ‘socially constructed’ crimes (via new laws
that is) are not that insignificant after all (in fact they represent more than 20% or a fifth of all crimes for said period!). He
then concludes that ‘assuming relative accuracy of the Spanish data (Q1-Q3)’ which is in fact contradicted by his finer-print
caveats below corresponding tables where he tells of data flaws and probable comparability problems, there is still reason to
believe that ‘there has been an unquestionable decrease in the number of criminals,’ for Q4 in relation to the preceding
Spanish intervals!
 13

For those in the commanding heights of American colonial power, it was

intrinsically important to project strategic transfer of new technologies and
institutions of power in terms of ‘mastery’ or control over that process. This was
commonly how colonial technocrats in the interim government in the
Philippines, many of them professionals and members of American
intelligentsia25 tried to conduct and wanted themselves to be seen and perceived
by the native subalterns and populations at large. Their critical encounters with
natives they were supposed to instruct in the art of modern self-management
during those very fluid, early years of colonial rule would test the limits of that
self-image. During these initial encounters American administrators entered
social sites26 they had yet hardly mastered, sites enclosed within institutional
worlds carved out by more than three hundred fifty years of Hispanic
colonialism, ‘inhabited’ and previously operated by social agents who had
predispositions, mentalities, and practices evolving from an environment they
had previously learnt to master.

The arrival of new masters, with actually little or no ‘mastery’ over these social
sites and institutional world, but posed to conquer and reshape these sites as
portable images of their s-c modern home institutions, would naturally worry the
natives, who would try to defend, if symbolically, these sites and institutional
environments from total usurpation, or alternatively, from the possibility of
completely being ‘mastered’ by their new ‘masters.’ At the point of American
entry into these sites, the stage was therefore set for symbolic contestation and
‘negotiations’ over institutional turfs; some of which translated into silent but
stunning victories in favour of the natives and the ‘hybridization’ if you like of
institutional change and technology transfer.

Henry Parker Willis,27 our third reporter, lends us anecdotal, critical counter-
impressions of these first encounters and problems of colonial management’s
self-portrait in 1901-1905. His sensitive eye brings us closely ‘under the skin’ of
spectacular running symbolic struggles over social sites in insular legal and
judicial institutions, then under American reconstruction.
Far from radiating the swagger and self-confidence of a Great civilizing
power, Willis speaks of a groping, at times, fumbling improviser, consumed and
sometimes crippled by cynicism, contempt and self-conceit. Ironically,
American condescending attitudes towards native self-management abilities had
25
May (1980) op cit; Gleeck, Lewis Jr (1986) The American Governors-General and High Commissioners in the
Philippines. Proconsuls, Nation-builders and Politicians. Quezon City: New Day Publishers.
26
The term ‘sites’ as intended here is something akin to Bourdieu’s concept of ‘fields’ in which ‘habitus’ or predispositions
operate. The point that his concept makes about conflicting social actors over resources of different modes in these ‘fields,’
and symbolic struggles arising from such conflicts of interest are well appreciated here, albeit we have yet to fully develop
ideas about whether and how to incorporate Bourdieu in our analytical frame. For a condensed note on his works see Swartz,
David (1997) Culture and Power. The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

27
Willis, Henry Parker (1905) Our Philippine Problem: A Study of American Colonial Policy. N.Y.: Henry Holt & Co.
 14

de facto thwarted certain important components of institutional modernization

they sought to achieve at the outset. This brand of self-constraining demeanour
was starkly reliefed in the early attempts to transform pre-existing Spanish-
designed legal and judicial institutions and practices. Default, disastrous
improvisations and strategic retreat, if not silent ‘surrender’ to native forces
were the leitmotif of American inroads into this institutional turf. Personnel
scarcity and linguistic handicap marked the initial phase of American
intervention in this site. Although US institutions, laws and practices were
deemed superior, there was simply not enough judicial manpower28 fluent in
Spanish, let alone Spanish law or procedure. The early American military
government (1899) had to simply accept existing conditions and rely if
hesitantly on Spanish or native judges and lawyers to man the new bench as it
were. However, the intention was to repeal and modify procedures and
substantive law, coupled with the gradual retiring of Spanish in favour of
English as official and legal lingua franca.

Willis noted that later the architects of the new legal system were unrehearsed in
the fundamentals of Roman law that they ‘tended to introduce a fearful
confusion into the body of law which it sought to leave untouched.’29 The image
of the fumbling improviser was manifested in the almost literal Americanisation
of the Code of Civil Procedure, but not that of the Civil Code. As Willis
bewailed, the former ‘traversed the provisions of the latter and leaving others to
stand as fragmentary and irrelevant parts of an original, like the pillars of some
ancient church destroyed by a Philippine earthquake.’30

Nowhere was the self-restraining impact on institutional modernization by

American contempt towards the native so lucidly manifested than in the interim
insular government’s decision to forgo the installation of the system of trial by
jury31 and the limitations attached to the writ of habeas corpus, that tended to be
more onerous on personal liberty than those in the Spanish model. The trial by
jury episode also vignettes the curious coincidence of super-ordinate-subaltern
discourses; Filipino magistrates like Cayetano Arellano was as much hostile to
the idea as the incumbent Governor General Taft, but for essentially diverging
reasons – the former defending the well-entrenched exclusiveness of Hispanic
judicial culture from any threat of contamination, while the latter, motivated by
28
There was in contrast an abundant supply of native and Spanish lawyers at this point, not least due to the legalistic and
judicial nature of Hispanic bureaucracy, the impact of what Bankoff described as the 19th century rise of the ‘judicial state’ on
the Islands. Bankoff, op cit; see also Robles, Eliodoro G (1969) The Philippines in the Nineteenth Century. Quezon City:
Malaya Books Inc.
29
Willis, op cit: 92-93
30
Ibid: 93-94.
31
May (1980) op cit: 50, intimates that the junking of jury trials stemmed from the caretaker Commissions belief that ’90%
of the people are so ignorant that they cannot sit on the jury to begin with and understand anything that would be addressed.
Commissioner Ide, who drafted the codes of criminal and civil procedure, introduced instead trial procedures similar to those
of Samoa, where in civil cases, the contending parties may request two ‘assessors’ from a list of qualified residents to assist a
regular magistrate.’ See also, Salamanca, Bonifacio (1968) The Filipino Reaction to American Rule, 1901-1913. Shoestring
Inc.
 15

fear of potential native adulteration of the sanctity of modern democratic culture

embodied in the praxis of jury trials, yet to be internalised by the native.
Otherwise up until 1906 native symbolic resistance had been fierce and able to
hold American intrusion into legal and judicial sites largely at bay. The retention
of Spanish as mainstream medium in these sites attests to the tactical if not
strategic victory of defensive struggles, insofar as much of the Spanish legal
system did remain intact long after the Anglicisation of courtroom and
bureaucratic speak. Indeed an astonishing, silent capitulation of this institutional
turf to the natives, which was unsurprisingly also to evolve into one of the
earliest, most indigenised components of the colonial bureaucracy.

Willis continues to report on other instances of impression-management and

critical counter-impressions. Criminal procedures are a case in point, where he
finds a serious discrepancy between the dressed self-portrait and naked face of
colonial power. Consequently, impressions created by colonial managers in
perorations and display of ‘oratorical fireworks’ evoke the stern integrity of
judges and their even-handedness in sentencing natives and Americans alike.
Many natives, according to him, would tend to disagree; in fact in criminal
cases, ‘the judiciary has cooperated with the Commission (civil government) so
closely as to be nothing more than a mere tool in the hands of that body…’32 in
wholesale production of convictions. Moreover, judges were under pressure to
deliver according to the wishes of the Commission. Malfeasance and corrupt
practices know apparently no ethnic boundaries. Various informal sanctions are
applied on ‘deviants’ among the judges: those displaying civil courage and
principled behaviour have been ‘socially ostracised’, they are subjected to
‘surveillance from above’ etc.

In sum, Willis underscores the centrality of the judicial body to colonial

managers; one that appears to stem from the need to project unity within its own
ranks, and co-extensively, from the necessity to effectively display ‘mastery’
over the institutions of power. If ranks are kept tight to maintain impressions of
‘mastery’ from above, how is that image reproduced all the way down the lower
reaches of civilizing power, right down to individual typification of moral
restraint and self-discipline, the hallmarks of modern civilizations like the
United States, moral qualities which should have by then become every decent
American’s second nature.

Willis’ suggests that American civilizing power had at this point its own ‘social
problem’, one which they were keen to mask from public view. About the
American population in the colonial capital, he had this story to tell: many
among the rank-and-file Americans were by no means creditable representatives
of American character, a big segment of which were ‘men of broken fortunes or
32
Willis, op cit: 99.
 16

doubtful record, or have been adventurous young men unwilling to accept a life
of steady habits and humdrum restraints at home. Our soldiers, ‘ he lamented,
‘both while serving in the ranks and after discharge, created an unfavourable
impression on the natives by their dissolute habits and tendencies to oppressive
methods, as well as their race prejudice,’ 33

The dangers wayward Americans posed to colonial prestige and pose were
clearly articulated in the 1903 Taft Commission report regarding the Act for the
deportation of troublesome characters and the large numbers of Americans
transported under it: ‘One of the great obstacles that this government has to
contend with is the presence in a large majority of towns of the archipelago of
dissolute, drunken and lawless Americans, who are willing to associate with low
Filipino women and live upon the proceeds of their labor. They are truculent and
dishonest. They borrow, beg and steal from the native. Their conduct and mode
of life are not calculated to impress the native with the advantage of American
civilization.’34

The kind of strategic ‘concealment’ of discreditable personal information among

those with stigmatised or ‘spoiled identities’, as noted in an earlier section
above, finds its avatar in something amounting to ‘image inversion’ modes of
impression management. Willis provides a window into such practices in his
sensitive account of venereal disease control, when official apologies for the
introduction of control systems to address this health problem were made on the
pretext that it was necessary to protect troops and others against ‘native disease’.
In fact, as Willis exclaims, nothing close to this existed in Spanish times; a
system of regular prostitution was unknown. Commissioner Worcester who
previous to the American occupation had travelled extensively in the islands
confirmed that ‘there was comparatively little syphilis in the islands before the
advent of our troops; that it was introduced by them …and that venereal
disease .. has been carried into provinces where it was previously practically
unknown, and has spread rapidly, only too often being communicated by those
wholly guiltless of illicit relations.´35

As noted, few of the inmates of the regularly inspected resorts (houses of

prostitution) were native women. So not only was this statement unsustainable,
the system was actually designed ‘to protect Americans against disease brought
by Americans from the US and widely propagated among a people to whom it
was unfamiliar and who were unacquainted with the prophylactic or curative
measures necessary for its control.’36 Willis concluded that the control system
eventually and dismally failed to stem the spread of venereal disease, which
33
Ibid: 248.
34
Ibid
35
Ibid: 259-60.
36
Ibid: 261.
 17

later actually intensified rather than declined, whereby its frequency among
natives rose, not least through, according to him, ‘the false safety produced by
the inspection system and the consequent spur thereby given to immorality.’ In
American ways of addressing the ‘social question’ at large, Willis ended with
the note: ‘In this latter respect we have fallen between two stools, neither
applying our own codes of social morality and restraint nor accommodating
ourselves to those of the natives.’37

The First Impressions of Problem and Aim……………..

This inflated introduction was first intended to serve as a short, disciplined

appetizer to what had first been envisioned as a two-chapter, standard theory-
method essay. In writing the above however I had to shuttle back and forth
between empirical and theoretical texts and annotations ending up inflating both
chapters beyond reasonable proportion. So I decided to present noted chapters
separately. Honestly, the theoretical chapter where I plan to elaborate on some
of the ideas and concepts previewed here and there in the current report
(Goffman’s concepts of ‘impression management’ and ‘informational control
techniques’; Foucault’s ‘technologies of power’; Bourdieu’s, ‘social fields’ and
‘symbolic power’) is unfortunately still under construction, but well underway
towards making sense and gaining a modicum of coherence. Here, as well, the
usual state of the art excursus from which more precise research questions may
be drawn, plus, perhaps an outline of an historically and institutionally sensitive
model of an ‘economy of impression management,’ are envisaged. On that note,
we exit from theory and re-enter our over-extended empirical annotations to
wrap up with a preliminary first impression specification of some of the key
issues raised by the current report.

Notwithstanding the impressionistic character of the empirical depositions on

which this paper rests, they all collectively and reasonably do suggest that
telescopic ‘civilizing’ projects involving the strategic transfer of portable
modern institutions and technologies of power by late colonial powers like the
United States cannot be fully understood without relating their actual
deployment to concrete, perhaps even historically changing ways of making and
managing impressions of deployment itself. The description and analysis of the
history of strategic institutional and technology transfer cannot be singularly and
literally drawn from empirical evidence without any attempt to separate and
distinguish the process of actual realisation of strategic transfer from the
virtualisation of ditto. The task to describe and analyse the related but often
conflated histories of these parallel processes will therefore be the central
problematique of the research project.

37
Ibid: 270.
 18

To gain maximum visibility in the study of noted processes we will confine

ourselves to tracing the historical development of three inter-related institutions
of American colonial, disciplinary power – legal/judicial, law-enforcement and
perhaps penal institutions – in three, perhaps four consecutive phases of US
colonial rule in the Philippines (1899-1902; 1903-1907; 1908-1917; 1917-1935).
Phase 1 constitutes the military pacification period; the second straddles the
early phase of institutional reconstruction that ends with the national elections to
the Philippine Assembly, the beginning of the serious indigenisation of basic
institutions; the third and fourth phases are for the moment arbitrary
designations. Briefly, the critical phases for institutional reconstruction are the
first two.

Our main sources of information for the purpose of this research are: complete
serial Governor General reports and Reports of the caretaker insular
government, the Philippine Commission (1900-1935), Censuses of 1903, 1918,
statistical bulletins, civil and criminal codes and codes of criminal procedure, an
array of eye-witness reports from 1899-1935 on general, military, and penal
conditions on the Islands. Particular attention will be given to statistical sources
for an analysis of the use of statistics in the service of impression management
and information control.

An Invitation to ‘Brainstorm’

Apart from general critical inputs, I will particularly appreciate suggestions on

the following points:
1. Methodological departures for capturing impressions?
2. Related typology of materials deployed by above departures
3. Critical theoretical arguments against or reformative of symbolic
interactionist models (eg Goffman)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Official Publications

Annual Report of the Governor General of the Philippines, 1920-1932. Congressional

Publications.
 19

Attorney General ed. (1911) The Penal Code of the Philippine Islands. Manila: Bureau of
Printing.

Bureau of Commerce and Industry (1918-1929) Statistical Bulletin of the Philippines.Vols. 1-

11. Manila: Bureau of Printing.

Census Office of the Philippine Islands (1921) Census of the Philippine Islands, 1918. Vols.
2-4. Manila: Bureau of Printing.
-- Volume 2. Population and Mortality.
-- Volume 3. Agriculture, Medicinal Plants, Forests, Lands, and Proper Diet.
-- Volume 4. Social and Judicial Statistics, Manufactures, and Household Industries.

Code of Civil Procedure of the Philippine Islands (Act 190) (1921) Manila: The Lawyers
Cooperative Publishing Company.

Philippine Commission (1904) An Act Providing a Penal Code in the Philippine Islands.
Manila: Bureau of Public Printing.

Report of the Code Commission on the Proposed Civil Code of the Philippines. (1948)
Manila: Bureau of Printing.

Report of the Philippine Commission to the President (1900-1915) Washington: Government

Printing Office.

Report of the Philippine Commission to the Secretary of War (1901) Division of Insular
Affairs, War Department, Washington: Government Printing Office.

Report of the Governor General Philippine Islands. (1916-1935) Washington: Government

Printing Office.

US Bureau of Census (1905) Census of the Philippine Islands, 1903, Vol. I-IV. Wahington:
Bureau of Census.
-- Volume I. Geography, History & Population.
-- Volume II. Population.
-- Volume III. Mortality, Defective Classes, Education, Families, & Dwellings.
-- Volume IV. Agriculture, Social, & Industrial Statistics.

Secondary References

Adas, Michael (1981) “From Avoidance to Confrontation: Peasant Protest in Precolonial and
Colonial Southeast Asia,” Comparative in Society and History. Vol. 23 No. 1 (January): 217-
247.

Anderson, Benedict (1991) Imagined Communities. Reflection on the Origin and Spread of
Nationalism. London & New York: Verso.

Angeles, Sixto de los (1919) Estudios Sobre Antropologia en las Islas Filipinas. Manila:
Bureau of Printing.
 20

Arnold, David (1979) “Dacoity and Rural Crime in Madras, 1860-1940,” JPA 6 No. 2
(January): 140-167.

Arrighi, Giovanni & Piselli, Fortunata (1987) “Capitalist Development in Hostile

Environments: Feuds, Class Struggles and Migrations in a Peripheral Region of Southern
Italy,” Review X 4 (Spring): 649-751.

Bain H David (1984) Sitting in Darkness. Americans in the Philippines. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Company.

Bankoff, Greg (1996) Crime, Society, and the State in the Nineteenth Century Philippines.
Manila: Ateneo de Manila University Press.

Barkey, Karen (1994) Bandits and Bureaucrats: The Ottoman Route to State Centralisation.
Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Barnes, J A (1994) A Pack of Lies. Towards a Sociology of Lying. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Benton, L and Muth, J (2000) “On Cultural Hybridity: Interpreting Colonial Authority and
Performance,” Journal of Colonialism and Colonial History 1: 1.

Billingsley, Phil (1988) Bandits in Republican China. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Blok, Anton (1974) The Mafia of a Sicilian Village, 1860-1960. A Study of Violent Peasant
Entrepreneurs. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

-- (1972) “The Peasant and the Brigand: Social Banditry Reconsidered,” Comparative Studies
in Society and History: 494-503.

Bourdieu, Pierre (1998) Acts of Resistance Against the Tyranny of the Market. New York:
The New Press.

-- (1997) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

-- & Wacquant, L. (1992) An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: The University of

Chicago Press.

-- (1991) Language & Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Bracewell, Catherine W (1992) The Uskoks of Senj: Piracy, Banditry and Holy War in
Sixteenth-Century Adriatic. NY: Cornell University Press.

Braithwaite, John (1998) Crime, shame and reintegration. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Bresnahan, Roger (1981) In Time of Hesitation. American Anti-Imperialist and the

Philippine-American War. Quezon City: New Day Publishers.
 21

Camagay, Maria Luisa (1992) Kasaysayang Panlipunan ng Maynila, 1765-1898.38 Diliman:

Camagay.

Caulk, Richard (1984) “Bad Men of the Borders: Shum and Shefta in Northern Ethiopia in the
19th Century,” IJAHS: 201-227.

Chandler, Billy Jaynes (1978) The Bandit Kinf Lampiao of Brazil. College Station: Texas A &
M University Press.

Cheah Boon Kheng /1985) “Hobsbawm’s Social Banditry, Myth and Reality: A Case in the
Malaysian State of Kedah, 1915-1920,” BCAS 17 (4): 34-51.

Connolly, Michael SJ (1992) Church Lands & Peasant Unrest in the Philippines. Agrarian
Conflict in 20th-Century Luzon. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.

Constantino, Renato (1975) A History of the Philippines. From the Spanish Colonization to
the Second World War. New York & London: Monthly Review Press.

Corpuz, OD (1997) An Economic History of the Philippines. Quezon City: University of the
Philippines Press.

Crummy, Donald ed (1986) Banditry, Rebellion and Social Protest in Africa.London: John
Curry Ltd.

Dews, Peter (1984) ‘Power and Subjectivity in Foucault,’ NLR 140 (March-April): 72-91.

Durkheim, Emile (1997) The Division of Labor in Society. With an introduction by Lewis
Coser, translated by W D Halls. New York: The Free Press.

Egmond, Florike (1996) “Between Town and Countryside: Organised Crime in the Dutch
Republic,” in Johnson & Monkkonen eds. The Civilization of Crime – Violence in Town and
Country since the Middle Ages. Chicago: University of Illinois Press: 138-164.

Elias, Norbert (1998) On Civilization, Power, and Knowledge. Selected Writings. Ed. & with
Introduction by S Mennell and J Goudsblom. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago
Press.

-- (1998) The Norbert Elias Reader. Eds. J Goudsblom & S Mennell. Oxford: Blackwell.

-- (1994) The Civilizing Process. The History of Manners and State Formation and
Civilization. Oxford: Blackwell.

Elliot, Charles (1917) The Philippines, To the End of the Commission Government: A Study
in Tropical Democracy. Indianapolis: Morrill Co. Publ.

Foreman, John (1906/1980) The Philippines. Makati: Filipiniana Book Guild.

Foucault, Michel (1994) The Order of Things. An Archeology of the Human Sciences. New
York: Vintage Books.
38
Trans The Social History of Manila.
 22

-- (1994) Power. Essential Works of Foucault, 1954-1984. Vol 3. Ed. By Faubion, James.
New York: The New Press.

-- (1977) Discipline & Punish. The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage Books.

-- (1972) The Archaeology of Knowledge & the Discourse on Language. New York. Pantheon
Books.

Garland, David (1995) Punishment and Modern Society. A Study in Social Theory. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.

Gatrell, VAC, Lenman, B & Parker, G eds (1980) Crime and the Law. The Social History of
Crime in Western Europe since 1500. London: Europa Publications Ltd.

Gealogo, Francis (1995) ‘Ang mga Taong Labas, ang Kabayanihan, at ang Diskurso ng
Kapangyarihan at Kasaysayan,’ in Mga Idea at Estilo. Komposisyong Pangkolehiyo sa
Wikang Pilipino,’ 39 Santiago Quindoza, Lilia, ed. Quezon City: University of the Philippines
Press. pp. 123-138.

-- (1994) ‘Hermeneutika ng Pakikipagtunggali: Ang pagpapakahulugan sa diskurso ng

pakikibakang panlipunan,’ in Philippine Social Sciences Review’s Special Issue (January-
December) entitled Ang Kilusang Masa sa Kasaysayang Pilipino (1900-1992)40 Veneracion,
J. ed. College of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of the Philippines.

-- (1989) Ang Mga “Taong Labas” at ang Subersyon ng Kaayusang Amerikano sa

Katagalugan, 1902-1907.41 University of the Philippines (Unpublished MA thesis in History).

Gleeck, Lewis Jr (1998) The American Half-Century (1898-1946) Revised Edition. Quezon
City: New Day Publishers.

-- (1986) The American Governors-General and High Commissioners in the Philippines.

Proconsuls, Nation-builders and Politicians. Quezon City: New Day Publishers.

Golay, Frank H (1997) Face of Empire. United States-Philippine Relations, 1896-1946.

Manila: Ateneo de Manila University Press.

Goffman, Erving (1990) Stigma. Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. London:
Penguin Books.

-- (1961) Asylums. Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. New
York: Anchor Books.

-- (1958) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books.

39
Trans. ’People from Without, Heroism, and the Discourse of Power and History,’ in Ideas and Stiles. College-level
Composition in the Filipino Language (author’s translation)
40
Trans. ’The Hermeneutics of Struggle: The meaning of societal struggle in discourse’ … The Mass Movement in
Philippine History (1900-1992) … (author’s translation)
41
Trans. The ”Outsiders” and the Subversion of American Order in the Tagalog Region, 1902-1907.
 23

Hart, David (1987) Banditry in Islam: Case Studies from Morocco, Algeria and the Pakistan
North West Frontier.

Haynes, D & Prakash, G (1991) Contesting Power. Resistance and Everyday Social Relations
in South Asia. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Hirschman, Charles (1987) “The Meaning and Measurement of Ethnicity in Malaysia: An

Analysis of Census Classification,” The Journal Of Asian Studies, Vol. 46, No. 3 (August):
555-582.

-- (1986) “The Making of Race in Colonial Malaya: Political Economy and Racial Ideology,”
Sociological Forum, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Spring): 330-361.

Hobsbawm, Eric & Ranger, Terence eds. (1997) The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

-- (1974) “Social Banditry,” in Landsberger, H ed. Rural Protest: Peasant Movements and
Social Change. London: Macmillan.

-- (1972) Bandits. Middlesex: Penguin Books.

-- (1959) Primitive Rebels. Studies in Archaic Forms of Social Movement in the 19th and 20th
Centuries. London: Manchester University Press.

Huggins, Martha Knisley (1985) From Slavery to Vagrancy in Brazil: Crime and Social
Control in the Third World. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

Ileto, Rafael (1999) Filipinos and their Revolution. Event, Discourse, and Historiography.
Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.

-- (1989) Pasyon and Revolution. Popular Movements in the Philippines, 1840-1910. Manila:
Ateneo de Manila University Press.

-- (1988)’Outlines of a Non-Linear Emplotment of Philippine History,’ in Reflections on

Development in Southeast Asia. Singapore: ISEAS. pp. 130-159.

Inverarity, James, ‘Theories of the Political Creation of Deviance (pp. 175-217), Legacies of
Conflict Theory, Marx, and Durkheim,’ in Lauderdale P ed (1980) A Political Analysis of
Deviance. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Ireland, Alleyne (1899) Tropical Colonization – An Introduction to the Study of the Subject.
London: Macmillan.

Isaacman, Allen (1977) “Social Banditry in Zimbabwe and Mozambique, 1894-1907: An

Expression of Early Peasant Protest,” JSAS Vol. 4 No. 1: 1-30.

Johnson, Eric & Monkkonen, E eds (1996) The Civilization of Crime – Violence in Town and
Country since the Middle Ages. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
 24

Johnston, David (1980) “Bandit, Nakleng, and Peasant in Rural Thai Society,” CAS XV: 90-
101.

Keller, Edmond J (1973) “A Twentieth Century Model: The Mau Mau Transformation from
Social Banditry to Social Rebellioin,” KHR Vol. 1 No. 2: 189-205.

Kelly, Michael ed. (1994) Critique and Power. Recasting the Foucault/Habermas Debate.
Cambridge: MIT Press.

Koliopoulos, John (1987) Brigands with a Cause: Brigandage and Irrendentism in Modern
Greece, 1821-1912.Oxford: OUP.

Koren, John ed. (1918) The History of Statistics. Their Development and Progress in Many
Countries. New York: Macmillan.

Lauderdale, Pat, The Power and Process Approach to the Definition of Deviance’ (pp. 3-14)
in Lauderdale, Pat ed. (1980) A Political Analysis of Deviance. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.

LeRoy, James A (1905) “The Philippines and the Filipinos.” Reproduced from Alleyne
Ireland’s Far Eastern Tropics in Bulletin of American Historical Foundation Vol. XXXVI
No. 3 (104) July-September 1998: 7-34.

Lewin, Linda (1979) “The Oligarchical Limitations of Social Banditry in Brazil: The Case of
the ‘Good’ Thief Antonio Silvino,” P & P 82 (February): 116-146.

Lilly, J R, Cullen, F T & Ball, R A (1995) Criminological Theory. Context and

Consequences. London: Sage.

Little, David (1989) Understanding Peasant China. Case Studies in the Philosophy of Social
Science. New Haven: Yale University Press.

May, Glenn Anthony (1997) Inventing a Hero. The Posthumous Re-creation of Andress
Bonifacio. Quezon City: New Day Publishers.

-- (1987) A Past Recovered. Quezon City: New Day Publishers.

-- (1980) Social Engineering in the Philippines. The Aims, Execution, and Impact of
American Colonial Policy, 1900-1913. Quezon City: New Day Publishers.

McCoy, Alfred W ed (1994) An Anarchy of Families. State and Family in the Philippines.
Manila: Ateneo de Manila University Press.

Medina, Isagani R (1994) Cavite Before the Revolution (1571-1896). Quezon City: CSSP
Publications and University of the Philippine Press.

-- (1984) ‘La Madre de los Ladrones: Tulisanismo in Cavite in the Nineteenth Century,’ in
Philippine Social Science Review Volume XLVIII, Nos. 1-4 (January-December). College of
Social Science and Philosophy, University of the Philippines.
 25

Nordholt, H S (1991) “The Jago in the Shadow: Crime and ‘Order’ in the Colonial State in
Java,” RIMA 25 (1): 74-91.

Ochosa, Orlino (1995)‘Badoleros’Outlawed Guerrillas of the Philippine-American War,

1903-1907. Quezon City: New Day Publishers.

O’Malley, Pat (1980) “The Class Production of Crime: Banditry and Class Strategies in
England and Australia,” RLS Vol. 3: 181-199.

-- (1979) “Social Bandits, Modern Capitalism and the Traditional Peasantry: A Critique of
Hobsbawm,” JPS: 489-501.

Outhwaite, William, ed. (1996) The Habermas Reader. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Parades, Ruby ed. (1989) Philippine Colonial Democracy. Manila: Ateneo de Manila
University Press.

Paz, Victor (1994) Mula kay Kapitan Kulas, Patungo kay Ka Dodo: Isang Pagaaral sa
Pagsulong ng Tradisyon ng Armadong Pakikibaka, 1930-1936.42 Unpublished MA thesis,
College of Social Science and Philosophy, University of the Philippines.

-- “Nicolas Encallado: Kapitan Kulas, Remontado, Manggagamot,”43 in Veneracion ed. Ang

Kilusang Masa sa Kasaysayang Pilipino (1900-1992). Special Issue Philippine Social Science
Review, College of Social Science and Philosophy, University of the Philippines: 81-110.

Perez, Luis (1989) Lords of the Mountain: Social Banditry and Peasant Protest in Cuba,
1878-1918. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Phelan, John Leddy (1959) The Hispanization of the Philippines. Spanish Aims and Filipino
Responses, 1565-1700. Madisen: The University of Wisconsin Press.

Popkin, Samuel (1979) The Rational Peasant: The Political Economy of Rural Society in
Vietnam. Berkeley: UCP.

Rafael, Vicente (1988) Contracting Colonialism. Translation and Christian Conversion in

Tagalog Society under Early Spanish Rule. Manila: Ateneo de Manila University Press.

-- (1997) Discrepant Histories. Translocal Essays on Filipino Cultures. Manila: Anvil

Publishing Inc.

Ransom, John (1997) Foucault’s Discipline. The Politics of Subjectivity. Durham & London:
Duke University Press.

Robles, Eliodoro G (1969) The Philippines in the Nineteenth Century. Quezon City: Malaya
Books Inc.

42
Trans. From Captain Kulas, Towards Comrade Dodo: A Study of the Continuing Tradition in Armed Struggle, 1930-1936.
(translation mine)
43
Trans. ”Nicolas Encallado: Captain Kulas, Bandit, Healer,”
 26

Ruggiero, G & Muir, E eds. (1994) History from Crime. Baltimore & London: The John
Hopkins Unversity Press.

Salamanca, Bonifacio (1968) The Filipino Reaction to American Rule, 1901-1913. Shoestring
Inc.

Salvatore R & Aguirre, C eds. (1996) The Birth of the Penitentiary in Latin America. Essays
on Criminology, Prison Reform, and Social Control, 1830-1940. Austin: Texas University
Press.

Sawyer, Frederic (1900) The Inhabitants of the Philippines. New York: Charles Scribner’s
Sons.

Schwartz, Rosalie (1989) Lawless Liberators: Political Banditry and Cuban Independence.
London: Duke University Press.

Scott, James C (1990) Domination and the Arts of Resistance. Hidden Transcripts. New
Haven & London: Yale University Press.

-- (1987) “Resistance without Protest and without Organization: Peasant Opposition to the
Islamic Zakat and the Christian Tithe,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 29:
417-452.

-- (1985) Weapons of the Weak. Everday Forms of Peasant Resistance. New Haven &
London: Yale University Press.

-- (1977) “Protest and Profanation. Agrarian Revolt and the Little Tradition, Parts I & II,”
Theory and Society Vol. 4 Nos. 1 & 2 (Summer & Spring): 1-38; 211-246.

-- (1976) The Moral Economy of the Peasant: Rebellion and Subsistence in Southeast Asia.
New Haven: Yale University Press.

Sidel, John T (1999) Capital, Coercion, and Crime. Bossism in the Philippines. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.

Slatta, Richard ed (1987) Bandidos: The Varieties of Latin American Banditry.NY:

Greenwood Press.

Simmel, Georg (1950) The Sociology of Georg Simmel. Translated, edited and with an
introduction by Kurt H Wolff. New York: The Free Press.

Singelmann, Peter (1975) “Political Structure and Social Banditry in Northeast Brazil,” LAS 7
(1): 59-83.

Sobritchea, Carolyn (1984-86) “Banditry in Cavite During the Post World War II Period,”
Asian Studies Vols. XXII-XXIV. Asian Centre, University of the Philippines: 10-23.

Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty (1988) “Subaltern Studies: Deconstructing Historiography,” In

In Other Worlds. Essays in Cultural Politics. New York & London: Routledge. (pp. 197-221)
 27

Stanley, Peter ed. (1984) Reappraising an Empire. New Perspectives in Philippine-American

History. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Stigler, Stephen (1986) The History of Statistics. The Measurement of Uncertainty Before
1900. Cambridge: Belknap Harvard UP.

Sturtevant, David R (1976) Popular Uprisings in the Philippines, 1840-1940. Ithaca: Cornell
University Press.

Swartz, David (1997) Culture and Power. The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.

Taylor, Lewis (1987) Bandits and Politics in Peru: Landord and Peasant Violence in
Hualgayoc, 1900-1930. CLAS, University of Cambridge: CUP.

Porter, Theodore M (1986) The Rise of Statistical Thinking, 1820-1900. Princeton: PUP.

Vanderwood, Paul J (1982) “Bandits in 19th Century Latin America: An Introduction to the
Theme,” Bibliotheca Americana: 3-27.

-- (1981) Disorder and Progress: Bandits, Police and Mexican Development.London:

University of Nebraska Press.

van Onselen, Charles (1978) ”’The Regiment of the Hills’: South Africa’s Lumpenproletarian
Army, 1890-1920,” P & P No. 80: 91-121.

Vergara, Benito M Jr. (1998) Displaying Filipinos. Photography and Colonialism in the
Early 20th Century Philippines. Diliman: University of the Philippines Press.

Villamor, Ignacio (1927) A Brief Study on the Correctional Code. Manila: Bureau of Printing.

-- (1909) Criminality in the Philippine Islands, 1903-1908. Manila: Bureau of Printing.

Willis, Henry Parker (1905) Our Philippine Problem: A Study of American Colonial Policy.
NY: Henry Holt & Co.

Wilson, Stephen (1988) Feuding, Conflict, and Banditry in Nineteenth-Century Corsica.

Cambridge: CUP.

Wolf, Eric & Hansen E (1966) “Caudillo Politics: A Structural Analysis,“ Comparative
Studies in Society and History Vol. IX No 1 (October): 168-179.

Weber, Max (1978) Economy and Society. Vols. 1 & 2. Ed. Roth, G & Wittich, C. Berkeley:
University of California Press.

Worcester, Dean C (1914) The Philippines. Past and Present. Vols. I-II. New York:
Macmillan.

Young, Alison (1996) Imagining Crime. Textual Outlaws and Criminal Conversations.
London: Sage.
28