Ishna Anjela S.

Amoren May 17, 2019

Philippine Social Stratification and Its Effect on Political Participation

I. Introduction

The National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) launched the

AmBisyon Natin 2040 which speaks about the collective long-term vision of the

Filipino people for themselves and for the country in a span of 25 years.

Specifically, the vision of the Filipinos for the country is as follows:

“The Philippines shall be a country where all citizens are free from hunger

and poverty, have equal opportunities, enabled by a fair and just society

that is governed with order and unity. A nation where families live together,

thriving in vibrant, culturally diverse, and resilient communities.”

Part of the overall strategic framework of the Philippine Development Plan

2017 - 2022 is Reducing Inequality where there is expansion and increased access

on economic opportunities alongside accelerating human capital development and

reduction of the vulnerability of individuals. Although we have the promise of

several developments along the way, there are still a lot of issues around our

political system that can potentially disrupt these goals. Inequality, in itself, is a

long overdue issue that has been fought by many scholars and social movements.

However, in a study by Dacuycuy and Dacuycuy on the social mobility in the

Philippines, they have argued that, “Inequality is less of a concern when it arises

due to disparities in effort and work. It becomes a legitimate concern for

1
 intervention when it arises due to the dependence of future outcomes on initial

conditions such as family background (oftentimes referred to as intergenerational

persistence and is related with the idea of social mobility)” (2018). More often than

not, the notion of equal opportunity is that success is dependent on hard work and

opportunities are present only for those who are privileged at birth. The concept of

social stratification has been present since ancient times and has evolved through

time, bringing with it the development of political participation in the society. This

paper seeks to analyze how the Philippine social stratification has affected the

realms of politics with the changing times.

II. Social Stratification in the Philippines

Social inequality in the Philippines has taken several forms. Several

decades ago, social inequality came in the form of ethnicity, land ownership,

religious affiliation, and has later added gender and linguistic ability to the list, just

to name a few. The most significant and prevalent of these forms however is the

social stratification. By any means, it has involvement to many forms of

interpersonal relations including economic arrangements and political leadership.

In fact, the other types of social inequality is an extension to a defined setting of a

class system, or the emphasis of one specific inequality set-up. Thus, it can be

said that social stratification is the framework in which all of the other inequalities

happen (Manlove 2015).

2
 Observers who study social classes have proven its existence in the society

but it was noted that it differs greatly on the size and composition. After the

Philippines was conquered by the Spaniards, the country’s society was described

by Miguel de Loarca and Juan de Plasencia as a “mechanism for more effectively

governing them” (Manlove 2015). It is noted that the Tagalog society was

composed of the following four estates as described by Morrow (2015):

1. Datu Stratum (Principales or Maginoo) – the top of Tagalog society; they

controlled access to the land and had followers and who ruled beyond

his immediate household, over whole communities.

2. Warrior-Nobles (Maharlika) - had the same rights and responsibilities as

the timawa, but in times of war they were bound to serve their datu in

battle. Although they were partly related to the nobility,

the maharlikas were technically less free than the timawas because

they could not leave a datu’s service without first hosting a large public

feast and paying the datu between 6 and 18 pesos in gold – a large sum

in those days.

3. Commoners (Timawa) – free commoners of Luzon and Visayas who

could own their own land and who did not have to pay a regular tribute

to a maginoo, though they would, from time to time, be obliged to work

on a datu’s land and help in community projects and events.

4. Slaves (Alipin) - A better description would be to call them debtors. They

could be born alipins, inheriting their parents’ debt, and their obligations

3
 could be transferred from one master to another. However, it was also

possible for them to buy their own freedom.

a. Serfs (Aliping Namamahay) – can purchase their freedom

b. True Slaves (Aliping Sagigilid) – can be sold but can also be

granted freedom

The Philippines may be referred as a highly stratified country according to

Vreeland (1976). She has suggested that in addition to the common stratification

of land, education, and occupation, perhaps ethnicity and social group members

may as well be added to the dimensions of Philippine stratification. For Manlove

however, adding the concept of ethnicity as a determinant is failing to separate the

predominantly Chinese big businessmen to the large landowners who are not of

the same race (2015).

Other studies came up later on which somehow opposed the previous

studies. On 1959, Dr. Frank Lynch observed that as far as his studies on a town in

the Philippines are concerned, social classes do not exist. Upon his extensive

series of interviews on the town’s citizens, he found out that the people could not

decide and define characteristics of classes. Moreover, these people cannot

identify which level in the upper-middle-lower class society their neighbors belong.

For instance, Family X was identified by some as middle class while others identify

the same family as lower class. Lynch also observed that even so, the citizens still

understand the concept of social class and has been changing their social behavior

to reflect status difference between families (Manlove 2015). Regardless of this,

4
Lynch’s conclusion was inclined towards stating that the social classes were latent

due to lack of strong evidence.

On a general perspective, much is still unclear about the social stratification

in the Philippines. Most observers have brought with them assumptions that the

Philippines is under a tripartite model, having low, middle and upper classes. This

assumption was then imposed upon the observations instead of actually deriving

results from first-hand observation and analysis. This creates a problem of having

the absence or lack of objective evidences for each of the classes. According to

Manlove, “It is easy to observe, subjectively, that there is a range of socioeconomic

statuses in play here and to use this to propose possible stratification. It is more

difficult to demonstrate objectively how the range of statuses is broken down by

the families to create exclusive layers in the society. Only when we understand this

will we understand the nature and mechanisms of the system” (2015).

Furthermore, Christaller added that another problem is that the apparent

variations in the society was not very much recognized in most studies, particularly

the “hierarchy of central places” (1933). The Philippines is a country with many

farm villages surmounted by a hierarchy of towns and municipalities ranging from

the smallest type of city to the primary ones. Each of these places must be carefully

studied to figure out the differences in terms of status, wealth, and power that

somehow generates status and social classes from the bigger centric zones. With

strong and detailed analysis from these studies, it is only then that we can

understand the social system that emanates in the whole society.

5
III. Political Leadership in the Philippines

As discussed, the social stratification of the Philippines in early times has

established primordial civilizations. Abinales and Amoroso in their book “State and

Society in the Philippines” argued that although the country, prior the Spanish

colonization, had less centralized policies versus other parts of Asia, it also

possessed “the same cultural and political attributes and ruling practices found in

many early Southeast Asian states” (2005). For instance, the small villages

(barangays) were attached through an army of rulers called “datus”, which to some

extent have religious traditions, kinship practices, and a system of hierarchy and

dependence (Abinales and Amoroso 2005). Consequently, having this system of

developed social stratification may suggest to legitimize the ranks of people and

to equal out the allocation of goods, services, and even prestige (Kerbo 2006).

During this period however, social stratification is politically weak in the context of

economic status. Wealth is mostly concentrated on the religious leaders as the

symbol of society, making the upper classes the religious and the lower classes as

believers. This limits the political opportunity to the upper hands as political

activities in the form of social engagements were the likes of religious ceremonies

and festivities. The rule of law was also held by these religious leaders where

established system of rewards and punishments are anchored on their religious

beliefs (Abinales and Amoroso 2005). This puts the Pre-Spanish period to minimal

influence on political affairs as the effect of weak social economic stratification.

The time of Spanish control brought about significant changes to the

Philippines’ political participation. The Spaniards centralized governance over the

6
Philippine archipelago enabling political opportunity possible for almost everyone.

Needless to say, religious stratification slowly lost its power. The society grew to

have supervision and control of powers, and was able to establish a system of

rewards and punishment through a judiciary as participated by the “literate class”

as opposed to the then tribe elders (Abinales and Amoroso 2005). The emerging

influence of social stratification increased political participation. At this time,

bourgeoisie were rising and the proletariat and peasants are becoming more

dependent. The people began to be educated and acquired understanding of their

part in governance. At this time, wealth and skill was the source of social

stratification (Estillore 2013).

Post-Spanish period brought significant transformation to the Philippine

political life, caving in some critical implications for the new pattern of political

development (Machado 1974). This is the beginning of industrialization where the

middle class emerged and brought socioeconomic change. The Americans at this

time expanded the involvement of Filipinos towards government and has made

education accessible to all. According to Abinales and Amoroso, during the period

of the Filipino colonial state (1902-1946), state building has shifted its focus from

“the [institutional] concerns of the Malolos congress to ‘politics’ — the battle to

capture the machinery of representation” (2005). A lot has happened in between

the American regime towards the end of Marcos dictatorship which made marks

from political inefficiencies to professional governance. Towards 1986 to 2004, the

focus of the administrations of Aquino, Ramos, Estrada, and Macapagal-Arroyo is

geared towards pursuing good governance, political and economic reforms, as well

7
 as the emergence of civil society organizations in a restored democratic order

(Abinales and Amoroso 2005).

IV. Conclusion

The evident social stratification reflects how an individual perceive their

worth in the society. Those in lower ranks tend to feel that they have lesser

political participation and lower “political self-efficacy” as compared to those on

the upper level of the hierarchy. In the study of Kraus, he suggested that the

psychological perceptions of one’s own class position in the society is relatively

significant in political participation (2015). In this study, political participation was

consistently associated to social class perceptions. According to the author,

these associations happened after accounting for political ideology and objective

indicators of social class. The study shows that these perceptions are in effect

reducing political participation in lower social class because “such perceptions

reduce beliefs that the individual has the capacity to personally control social and

political institutions” (Kraus 2015). In the same study, it was discovered that “(1)

students with lower perceived social class were less likely to seek information

about student government; (2) perceptions of political self-efficacy accounted for

the relationship between perceived social class rank and political participation;

(3) established causal associations between perceived social class and political

participation—a momentary manipulation of elevated perceived social class

increased political efficacy and intentions to participate in politics; and (4)

8
affirming the self-reduced social class disparities in both perceived political

participation and efficacy”.

This was also supported by the study of Kern and Hooghe when they noted

that participatory democracy suggests that higher levels of democratic legitimacy

is associated with the citizens’ direct democratic involvement. Further, they have

stated that “Simultaneously, however, it has been pointed out that a repeated

reliance on direct democracy procedures might lead to democratic fatigue among

citizens, and it might even lead to a ‘participation paradox’, as a proliferation of

forms of participation in practice leads to more inequality” (2018).

Social scientists are trying to reduce inequality in politics and have

proposed addressing resource differences in each class of individuals. However,

studies have shown that less political participation is not only limited to lack of

physiological resources because it was seen that psychological perceptions of a

person’s lower position in the social hierarchy are also causing beliefs that one

does not have the capacity to influence political institution. Interventions to

address resource scarcity have been delivered through decreasing voter

restrictions and increasing political knowledge but the findings suggest that it is

the mentality of being at the bottom that makes the difference (Kraus et al 2018).

The presence of social stratification in any given organization may be a

means to inspire or discourage individuals to participate in any political activities.

In the Philippines, social and even religious stratification has become very

apparent that it has influenced the political realms where individuals seek for

legitimacy and approval from the higher class levels. It is this mentality that drags

9
the Filipino down to lesser political involvement and settling themselves for “the

usual”. To those in the lower ranks who have grown frustrated to the decades of

unbreakable corruption cycle and broken political promises, they have created a

mindset that no amount of participation will take them up the ladder. While the

society clamors for the ones on top, others quietly breathe a sigh of hopelessness

knowing that whatever happens, they will remain stagnant. This is especially

despairing to the middle class who seeks for justice, change, and a chance for a

better life. This issue will remain unrest until further advancements will be made

to address psychological determinants to political participation, making this a

promising area for future research and development.

10
 References

“A Long Term Vision for the Philippines.” AmBisyon Natin 2040, National Economic and
Development Authority, 2016, 2040.neda.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/A-
Long-Term-Vision-for-the-Philippines.pdf.

Abinales, P. N., & Amoroso, G. J. (2005). The Philippines in Maritime Asia in the
Fourteenth Century, Democratization. In P. N. Abinales, & D. J. Amoroso, State
and Society in the Philippines (pp. 19-24,230-244). Oxford, United Kingdom:
Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc.

Christaller, W. 1933 Central Places in Southern Germany. C. W. Baskin, trans.

Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall Pub.

Dacuycuy, Connie Bayudan, and Lawrence Bayudan Dacuycuy. Social Mobility in the
Philippines: A Research Road Map. Philippine Institute for Development Studies,
Nov. 2018, pidswebs.pids.gov.ph/CDN/PUBLICATIONS/pidsdps1818.pdf.

Estillore, Jiemar R. “How Social and Religious Stratification Define Political Participation
in the Philippines.” Academia.edu, 2013,
www.academia.edu/11433423/How_Social_and_Religious_Stratification_define_P
olitical_Participation_in_the_Philippines.

Kerbo, H. R. (2006, September 18). UK Sage Publication Study Materials. Retrieved

August 4, 2013, from United Kingdom Sage Publication Web Site:
http://www.uk.sagepub.com/leonguerrero4e/study/materials/reference/05434_so
cstrat.pdf

Kern, Anna, and Marc Hooghe. “The Effect of Direct Democracy on the Social
Stratification of Political Participation: Inequality in Democratic Fatigue?”
SpringerLink, Palgrave Macmillan UK, 25 Jan. 2017, doi.org/10.1057/s41295-017-
0093-y.

Machado, K. G. (1974). From Traditional Faction to Machine: Changing Patterns of

Political Leadership and Organization in the Rural Philippines. The Journal of
Asian Studies, 33(4), 523-547. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2053123

Manlove, Robert Fletcher. “Social Inequality in Urban Philippines.” Berkley Library,

University of California, Berkley,
digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/anthpubs/ucb/text/kas089_090-007.pdf.

Michael W. Krauss (2015). “The Inequality of Politics: Social Class Rank and Political
Participation”. IRLE Working Paper No. 120-15.
http://irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/120-15.pdf

11
Morrow, Paul. “Maharlika and the Ancient Class System.” Pilipino Express News
Magazine, 16 Jan. 2009, www.pilipino-express.com/history-a-culture/in-other-
words/251-maharlika-and-the-ancient-class-system.html.

Vreeland, Nena, G. B. Hurwitz, P. Just, P. W. Moella and R.S. Shinn 1976. Area
Handbook for the Philippines. Washington: The American University Press.

12