Anthropology and Sociology at UP - Lessons From An Academic Union 1

Philippine Sociological Society
Anthropology and Sociology at UP: Lessons from an Academic Union, 1914-1951

Author(s): CARLOS P. TATEL, JR.
Source: Philippine Sociological Review, Vol. 62 (2014), pp. 109-137
Published by: Philippine Sociological Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/43486390
Accessed: 11-07-2016 06:53 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Philippine Sociological Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Philippine Sociological Review
This content downloaded from 131.172.36.29 on Mon, 11 Jul 2016 06:53:28 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
CARLOS P. TATELJR.
Anthropology and
Sociology at UP: Lessons
from an Academic Union,
1914-1951
What lessons can we learn from an academic union? The disciplines of

anthropology and sociology used to be together under a single department
known as the Department of Anthropology and Sociology at the University
of the Philippines during the early twentieth century. This essay reviews their
"marriage" to demonstrate that institutional memory is more than an exercise in
nostalgia but an opportunity to examine how we make sense of our academic and
intellectual pursuits. Given that the said fields were forged during the American
colonial period, it is important to understand how the disciplines grappled
with the notions of "nation" and of the "Other" especially now that we have
the opportunity to look at them from a post-colonial stand point. Through an
assessment of the University General Catalogues - historical sources that were
left unnoticed in the University archives but now come alive to provide us a
closer and fuller view of how it was like taking junior and senior college courses
in the fabled College of Liberal Arts and under professors who were pioneers of
their respective fields. This historical and institutional review coincides with the
centennial of anthropology education in the Philippines, which is being marked
here by its shared history and legacy with a close cousin - sociology. Since the
two were together for almost four decades beginning in 1914 and separating
formally in 1952, there is enough reason to argue that while the union did not
last, it was nevertheless significant to merit our appreciation and critical scrutiny.
Keywords: anthropology, institutional memory, University of the

Philippines, post-colonial, American colonial period, sociology of education
Philippine Sociological Review (2014) • Vol. 62 • pp. 109-138 109
Trees of the Same Soil. (Photo By: Jose Wendell Capili)
INTRODUCTION
Philippines. In 1914, Anthropology 1 or General Anthropology -

The the Philippines. year
the oldest 2014 existing In is 1914,
oldest the centennial academic
existing Anthropology of coursecourse
academic Anthropology 1 orin
in General Anthropology Anthropology educationin
Anthropology in in thethe
the -
country - was first taught at the University of the Philippines (UP)
by Henry Otley Beyer. Beyer handled the course in the old College
of Liberal Arts (CLA). Three years from now, the UP Department of
Anthropology celebrates another centennial - the 100th anniversary
of the establishment of the department as a separate academic unit in
1917 (Tatel 2010; Tan 2010; Castro and Tatel 2007; Salazar 2006; Abaya,
Lucas-Fernan, and Noval-Morales 1999; Panopio and Bennagen 1985;
Lynch and Hollnsteiner 1961).
Missing in the discussion of Anthropology's academic history is
a little known fact that before it became a full-fledged academic unit,
it was tied to Sociology since the early years of UP until seven years
after the end of the Second World War. This rather forgotten period was
raised, two summers ago, during the 2013 UP College of Social Sciences
and Philosophy (CSSP) Faculty Workshop by Filomin Candeliza-
Guiterrez, the Chair of the Department of Sociology. She reminded us
anthropologists who were present to remember the period when the
Department of "Anthropology and Sociology" was a single unit before
parting ways in the post- World War II era.
The sociologist's comments came to me as a timely advice for
anthropologists who are having serious doubts about their own
discipline's existence and purpose. As what Michael Tan has written
about the development of Anthropology in the country, our discipline
is already moving toward a "Post- Anthropology Age" where its original
premises, which are colonial in nature, are being challenged in today's
context (Tan 2010). "Post- Anthropology" doesn't mean leaving behind
the ideals and concepts central to Anthropology but making them more
attuned to the needs and context of our time and without having to grapple
much with the idea of who is the "native" among us. Instead of thinking
that Anthropology is now irrelevant, it is more productive to appreciate
Carlos P. Tatel, Jr. is an Assistant Professor at Department of Anthropology,
College of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of the Philippines-Diliman.
Philippine Sociological Review (2014) • Vol. 62 • No. 1 111
Anthropology as an academic disciple has never been more useful and
meaningful than today.
Thus, even with "flawed" beginnings, it might also be fruitful to
examine the very "flaws" that brought Anthropology into Philippine
tertiary education so that we would know from whence we came and to
where we are headed. As anthropologists like myself revisit the early stages
of Anthropology education in UP, we also encounter a young Sociology
discipline. "Married" to each other in the early 1920s, they were in fact
already together in 1914 under the Department of History. Anthropology
and Sociology will eventually be administered and cultivated jointly
under a single department for the next three long decades.
If we look back at the common roots and shared history of the said
two disciplines in UP, it is inevitable that we also learn about Philippine
social sciences in general. When UP was established in 1908, the
American colonial state was barely a decade old. The founding of formal
social science academic fields - history, economics, political science,
anthropology, sociology - have started university instruction in those
disciplines and began preparing the youth for various professions,
leadership roles, and bureaucratic service. Anthropology and sociology
used to occupy the same institutional structure and academic framework
in training young Filipinos and molding them to become better citizens
of the young nation under American tutelage.
INVESTIGATING THE PAST THROUGH CATALOGUES

My article is based on an exploratory study. Hence, it must be appreciated
as a preliminary reflection rather than a final statement in the institutional
memory and shared history of anthropology and sociology in the
Philippines. It may also be regarded as a small contribution to on-going
efforts to define the Philippine brand of social sciences. Various authors
have already attempted to synthesize this struggle for intellectual and
academic identity and contextualized them in the experience of the
Filipino (Bautista 2001; Aquino 1999). This article attempts to define
intitutional memory by going back to the basics - organizational
structure, curriculum, course numbers and descriptions, faculty members
and their respective ranks, and required textbooks. This task may
appear trivial for some but I argue this task generates information that
112 Philippine Sociological Review (2014) • Vol. 62
is otherwise overlooked in other sources such as reports of University
officials, statistical records, and the like.
Those unheralded University Catalogues, already vulnerable to
elements and physical deterioration, are a goldmine. As a student and
scholar of anthropology, it feels that these catalogues sent me back to the
early 20th century as if I was really there attending classes, choosing my
General Education courses in the Junior College, and getting instruction
from particular Instructors. I was also able to follow the careers of
some people - now well-known personalites in today's Philippine
social science textbooks - as they rise through the ranks of academic
profession. I have examined the annual University of the Philippines
General Catalogues from 1913 to 1951 although certain gaps in terms
of missing years were observed in the Archives Section of the UP Main
Library. Nevertheless, the current collection was sufficient to construct
a general sequence and useful narrative of the period. Table 1 provides a
summary of these key periods.
Table 1: Summary of key periods: Sociology and Anthropology

1913 Sociology was first taught in CLA
1914 Anthropology was first taught in CLA
1 92 1 Sociology and Anthropology were in the same department
1 952 Sociology and Anthropology split as academic units
Other social scientists may also see the benefit of serving as historians
or storytellers of their respective fields if they realize the importance of
self-reflection in the growth of their respective fields. Having the benefit
of hindsight, and with the aid of University Catalogues as sources of
data, social scientists today have the ability to look back to the past with
confidence and objectivity. Through this unique documentary source,
an interested researcher can examine not only the content of the subject
matter but also the Educational Philosophy and Pedagogy on which today's
academia is built. While it is challenging to draw specific conclusions
from this limited source, a general knowledge of socio-political context
of the country during that period and familarity with the disciplines' key
concepts, pioneers, and important works can forge a sense of connection
TATEL • Anthropology and Sociology at UP 11 J
between what was being stated in the data and what was going on in
society in general.
I have attempted to trace the shared history of anthropology and
sociology at UP when both disciplines did not have too many students
who major in these fields, when both were regarded mainly as electives
in college and rarely as major academic fields, and when junior and
senior college students simply took our courses as "preparation" for more
established professions like law, medicine, commerce, and education. As
I write about them, I will try to answer the following questions: what
was the academic nature of emerging disciplines of anthropology and
sociology at UP? What was the impact of their institutional "marriage"
in the development of their respective fields? Why did they eventually
"break up" by the middle of the twentieth century?
COLONIAL LENS IN UP'S EARLY

ANTHROPOLOGY AND SOCIOLOGY
I examined old catalogues of UP published from 1913 to 1953 and
discovered insights into the social life of a young nation under the
American colonial regime. Taking cue from the conviction that the
academe reflected prevailing ideas and way of life in society, I have treated
UP's General Catalogues as vital sources of historical and social data.
One can get a sense of the spirit of the times by reviewing and examining
what was recorded in the pages of UP academic and institutional history
through its evolving curriculum and institutional structure.
The subjects or Courses of Instruction of the old College of Liberal
Arts (CLA) in UP (the forerunner of the College of Arts and Sciences
in the 1960s which in the 1980s split into three colleges - Social
Sciences and Philosphy, Arts and Letters, and Science), were usually
being offered as introductory courses for students in the Junior years
of the CLA. It means that, during this period, students took several
sets of general courses akin to the General Education program of the
present UP curriculum in the social sciences, humanities, and natural
sciences for two years; and if continued for three more years in the
Senior College level, would lead to a Master of Arts (MA) or Master
of Science (MS) degrees. Certain Junior College courses may be taken
as preparatory subjects for professional fields (UP Catalogue 1913-14;
1914-15; 1916-1917; 1917-1918).
Anthropology 1 was instituted in 1914 under the auspices of the
Department of History headed by Austin Craig. As what I have mentioned
already at the beginning of my essay, H. Otley Beyer was the first ever
instructor of this course in the Philippines. Anthro 1, as it is commonly
referred to by UP students nowadays, had the following description in
1914 and, interestingly, never changed the core of its decription up to the
present time:
• Anthro 1 : A general instruction to the whole subject of Anthropology;

Its history, aims, and methods; physical Anthropology, Archaeology,
Ethnology, Ethnography, and Language.
(UP Catalogue 1914-1915)
Along with a general Anthropology course, 1914 also saw the

appearance of specialized Anthropology subjects, all taught by Beyer.
• Anthro 2: Ethnography of East Asia and Oceania

• Anthro 3: Early History and Development of Philippine Peoples
• Anthro 4: Philippine Languages
• Anthro 5: Economic Development of Mankind
• Anthro 6: Social Development of Mankind
• Anthro 7: Social and Economic Life of Mountain Peoples of the
Philippines
• Anthro 8: The Government of Primitive Peoples
At the same time, more courses were introduced in the Senior College
level:
• Anthro 9: The Indo-Oceanic Languages

• Anthro 10: Special Problems in Philippine and Oceanic Anthropology
• Anthro 1 1 : Special Problems in Asiatic Anthropology
TATEL • Anthropology and Sociology at UP IIS
Meanwhile, the first Sociology course in UP, Sociology 1 , was offered
in 1913 - a year earlier than Anthro 1. In the next academic year, 1914-
1915, the second Sociology course, Sociology 2, was offered at the CLA.
Both subjects were all handled in the Junior College by Conrado Benitez,
a scholar with diverse academic and professional credentials having been
listed first as an "Instructor in History" in 1913. He was then an Associate
Professor of History, Economics, and Sociology and, finally, became the
Dean of the CLA. Benitez taught introductory courses to Sociology.
Sociology 1 (Principles of Sociology), had simple description then:
This course is prescribed in the second year of the Preparatory Law course.
The information above was only about when this course was instituted
highlighting the fact that Sociology was treated as one of the basic courses
required of the students of the CLA, especially those who were taking
Law and Medicine. By 1914, Sociology 2 (Social Ethics) had a more
elaborate course description:
The practical application of ethical principles to social problems. Lectures,

assigned reading, and special reports. Prerequisite: Economics l.This course
is open to students of the College of Law and the College of Medicine; it is
also open to others who have taken or are taking Sociology 1 or Anthro 1 .
Benitez handled the two courses for about two years and it was during
the time when the disciplines of history, economics, anthropology, and
sociology were fused under a single department headed by a historian,
Austin Craig. Other members of the said department were Miss Neale
(historian),1 H. Otley Beyer (ethnologist), and Leandro Fernandez
(historian) (UP Catalogue 1914-1915). Despite the fact that sociology
came earlier than anthropology in UP education, there was a delay in
the latter 's development because there was not enough qualified faculty
to handle it. Benitez, also an LLB graduate, was lecturing both on
1 Her name only appeared as such in the UP Catalogue 1914-1915.
economics and sociology; not to mention, published a popular book
on Philippine history. In 1930s, he published a book, which reflects his
sociological side: Philippine Social Life and Progress (Benitez, Tirona,
and Gatmaytan 1937).
On the other hand, Anthropology was already providing opportunities
for graduate work as early as 1914. The General Catalogue of 1914-1915
further reported that:
Anthropology: the complex racial and linguistic problems afforded in the

Philippines and its neigboring oriental countries offer an unusually rich field
for original research in Anthropology. In addition to unique library facilities,
students in the department have the advantage of free access to the collections
of the Philippine Museum, the Ateneo de Manila, and the University of Santo
Tomas. The ethnological literature of the Bureau of Science, and in certain
private collections especially rich in unpublished manuscripts, may also be
used by graduate students.
The succeeding years, 1916-1918, saw the continuation of original

anthropology and sociology subjects in both the iunior and senior colleges.
Beyer continued to serve as the lone faculty in Anthropology (by then, he
was already promoted to Assistant Professor) while Sociology had a new
teacher in Luis Rivera who received his B A and MA in 1 9 1 1 at Marquette
University. Meantime, Cecillio Lim, shared teaching duties with Beyer
but only in Anthropology 2 (Ethnography of East Asia and Oceania) and
Anthropology 5 (Economic development of mankind).
In the academic year 1916-17, more subjects in anthropology
appeared which highlighted "race" being a dominant ideology in the
West during that time. The information below also suggests that the
main strengths of Anthropology in UP then, and for the whole country
for that matter, were Archaeology and Physical Anthropology. Amassing
ethnograpic materials or archaeological artifacts on the Philippines was
a major preoccupation among ethnologists and archaeologists during
that era of incipient anthropological science. As years passed, it became
a common knowledge in the academe, scientific community, and the
TATEL • Anthropology and Sociology at UP 117
public that Anthropology is equivalent to Physical Anthropology and
Archaeology just like what the citation below is trying to sugggest:
• Anthro 10: Philippine Archaeology

• Anthro 13: Racial Anatomy of the Philippine Peoples
• Anthro 14: Research in Criminal Anthropology
• Anthro 16: Museum Methods
NEGOTIATING QUESTIONS OF "NATIONHOOD"

AND THE ETHNIC "OTHER"
The institutional integration of the disciplines of anthropology and
sociology under a single department from the 1920s up to the Second
World War opened a new era of specialized knowledge and applied
research for both disciplines. On the conceptual side, it appears that the
basis for having them together in one academic unit sprung from the
general acknowledgement that they came from a common heritage in
Western thought - both claim that their modern disciplines were rooted
in the ideas of Emile Durkheim, dubbed as the "Father of Anthropology
and Sociology."
On the practical side, the institutional union was also logistical
because there were too few faculty members who could handle their rather
non-traditional courses. Hence, despite their "marriage," the ensuing
institutional history of the Department of Anthropology and Sociology
reflects a fundamental difference in the two disciplines' intellectual
foundations and research agenda: on one hand, Anthropology had its
eyes set on elucidating the notion of ethnic "other," while Sociology, on
the other hand, addressed the political and social issues that defined the
era - the struggle for independence and the question of nationhood.
It can be gleaned from an evolving Anthropology curriculum that the
discipline had been grappling with idea of "native" which the West (i.e.
Euro-American imperialists) had traditionally equated with primitiveness
and life at the "margins" - meaning, far-flung communities in the
mountains or islands, away from the centers of "civilization" and seat
of colonial political power. Meanwhile, glancing through the growing
T18 Philippine Sociological Review (2014) • Vol. 62
number of new subjects in sociology, one could think that the discipline
had been focusing on urban colonial society and seemed to deal more
directly, than anthropology, with the issue of a rapidly changing
"civilized" society. Taking cue from the initial results of the early twentieth
century American colonial policy of "Benevolent Assimilation" in the
Philippines Islands, "civilizing agents" such as education, sanitation and
economic development appeared to have correlations with Sociological
themes and topics found in UP Catalogues.
This period when anthropology and sociology were put together
under one academic unit saw not only a continuation of pioneer courses
that dealt with long-standing issues like "race" or "mountain peoples,"
but also the emergence of new subjects which dared to characterized
contemporary "social problems" and "social life" with a focus on the
lowland and urban societies. The twenties and thirties decades saw a unique
department with two distinct academic agenda: one, to study universal
concepts like cultural diffusion and race; and two, to pay attention to
particular social issues associated with "modernity" such as crime and
poverty. In the course of time and events, sociology subjects in UP went
on to deal with pressing social issues like crime, population, progress,
social change, and ethics, which were all part of a growing and evolving
"civilized society" under the American colonial supervision. It may also
be viewed that courses of instruction in sociology depicted "a society-in-
transition" based on the overarching belief then that American colonial
regime in the Philippines would only be temporary. The Philippines
were under the "tutelage" of the Americans on how to run a democratic
government. Like what was stated in the General Catalogues, sociology,
just like anthropology, was seen as an excellent "preparatory" training for
those who would go into established and practical professional fields like
law, medicine, commerce, and education. Therefore, it can be said that,
within this colonial context of the academe, sociology courses seem to
reflect educational training toward contributing to nation-building while
Anthropology courses appeared to work toward teaching the youth about
cultural integration.
Meanwhile, the development of sociological education in UP
coincided with the arrival of formally trained Filipino academics from
the United States. Going over the new subjects in Sociology during the
1920s up to the 1930s, one can get a sense that these were more attuned
to the times. The courses were more practical because they intended to
provide solutions to the problems of a rapidly changing and urbanizing
Philippine society. Since Sociology courses, as well as some publications
written by pioneer UP sociologists, were instituted and published under
the colonial regime, they manifest an overall theme of the era which was
how to run a young nation within the framework of democracy.
The UP Catalogue of 1 922- 1 923 presents a more elaborate descriptions
of Sociology 1 (Principles of Sociology ), Sociology 2 (Social Problems),
and Sociology 3 (Social Ethics), which help us better understand
their relationship to what was happening in society during that time.
Analyzing their detailed descriptions, we could see that these subjects
emphasize useful knowledge about real life situations in the context of
a growing urban and industrializing society. They are more cognizant of
various forces in society about which Sociology - and social sciences in
general - strive to shed light:
• Sociology 1. Principles of Sociology. This course is designed as

an introduction to the social sciences. Discussion of such topics as
sources and materials for the study of Sociology; fields and methods of
investigation in Sociology, scope and task of Sociology; some form of

social forces; social process, and social products; and certain sociological
principles. This course is prescribed in the second year of the commerce
course. Junior College course.
• Sociology 2. Social Problems. The study of social problems such as

pauperism, unemployment, child labor, immigration, crimes, feeble-
mindedness, insanity, and industrial diseases in their relation to the
business community. This course is prescribed in the third year of the
Commerce course. Junior College course.
This became Sociology 102 in 1926.

• Sociology 3. Social Ethics. A rapid survey of ethical principles and their
practical application to industrial, commercial, civic and political life.
Lectures, assigned readings and special reports. Prerequisite, Economics
1 . This course is open to students in the College of Law, and the College
of Medicine and Surgery, it is also open to others who have taken or

taking Sociology 1 or Anthropology 1 . Senior College course.
This course became Sociology 101 in 1926.

Like I said earlier, the new set of undergraduate Sociology courses

reveals a strong link with contemporary issues besetting an urbanizing
society:
• Sociology 4: Rural Sociology (became Sociology 103 in 1926)

• Sociology 5: Criminology (became Sociology 105 in 1926)
• Sociology 6: Social Psychology (became Sociology 103 in 1926)
• Sociology 7: Social Statistics
• Sociology 8: Social Charities
• Sociology 9: Prison System
• Sociology 10: Social Progress in the Philippines
The undergraduate courses mentioned above somewhat have a

counterpart in the graduate level which have already been offered since
the mid- 1920s:
• Sociology 201: Social Statistics. The uses of statistics as a method of

scientific study of social phenomena. Special attention is given to the
interpretation of statistical material relating to social problems in the
Philippines - vital statistics, statistics of pauperism, crime, defective
classes, emigration and immigration, and labor conditions. Prerequisites:
Sociology 1 and Economics 1. Re-numbered from Sociology 7.

• Sociology 202: Prison System. A detailed study of the prison system
in the Philippines; the administration of Bilibid Prison, the Lolomboy
Reformatory, the Iwahig Penal Colony, the San Ramon Penal colony,
and other similar institutions. The suggestion of constructive methods
for improvement in the light of experience of countries like England,
France, United States, and Germany. Prerequisite: Sociology 1 and 102

(old number, Sociology 9).
• Sociology 203: Seminar in Social Problems. An intensive study of

Philippine social problems from primary sources and investigations to
be conducted by students under the supervision of the instructor. (Old
number, Sociology 10).
A positivist orientation in sociology's themes and points of discussion

can be gleaned from the said courses. A strong structural functionalist
orientation was apparent considering this was a dominant sociological
perspective on "society" in American academic discourse during the
early 20th century. In addition, the sociological training provided in the
mid- 1920s was geared toward analyzing local situations and problems.
This was in stark contrast to anthropology, which retained its
tendencies toward racialized and diffusionist theories in their current
course offerings as well as in knowledge production. Anthropolgy

seemed to be shielded from issues of social life or politics as it continued
to think along the lines of late ninetheenth and early twentieth century
cultural evolutionist discourses. Nevertheless, as an academic discipline,
anthropology flourished but only in the sense of strengthening the hold
and influence of American tradition of anthropology in the UP educational
system.
Unlike in sociology, which from the beginning was already handled
by Filipino academics, anthropology was still being headed, up to that
time by Beyer, its American founder who eventually became Head of
the combined Department of Anthropology and Sociology. Under his
term, Anthropology blossomed into a full-blown "four-field" discipline
featuring physical anthropology, archaeology, linguistic anthropology,
and social anthropology. The fact that Anthro 1 never changed its course
number and course title from 1914 to the present may be interpreted as
symbolic of the over-all trajectory of Anthropology at UP - a holistic
academic discipline dedicated to the continuation of a four-field approach
initiated and popularized by American-style anthropological tradition.
Beyer himself, who was already promoted to full Professor and
Head of a reorganized department, changed his academic orientation
from ethnology (or social anthropology) to archaeology due to recent
discoveries all over the country as result of increased rate of physical
progress (e.g., mining, construction, road, and dam building). It was in the
field of archaeology that UP Anthropology developed a high reputation in
international and local community of academics and scholars since they
are all coming to UP for anthropological training and instruction.
Ever since anthropology was introduced in UP educational system,
it already had a provision for "further graduate work" and indicated an
established network of national and local university libraries for their
graduate students. By the 1920s onwards, the department has produced
graduates in the Master's level, albeit majoring only in the fields of
Physical Anthropology, Ethnology and Archaeology. Sociology was
left wanting in post-graduate research. Same is true with Anthropology
which was able to produce only four MA graduates since 1914 up to the
split Anthropology and Sociology in 1952:
• Ricardo E. Galang, 1923, "Analysis of Racial Types among Christian

Filipinos"
• Thomas Huisiang Lin, 1928, "A Study in Chinese Customs of the Past"
• Generoso S. Maceda, 1932, "The Dumagats of Famy"
• Francis X. Lynch, 1949, "A Typological Study of the Neolithic Stone
Implements of the Rizal-Bulacan Region of Luzon in Comparison to
Those from Other Parts of the Philippines"
What the department has developed, over the years, was a wide range
of subject areas as well as specialized topics in its curriculum because
the underlying agenda was to provide the broadest possible foundation
for undergraduate students. Indeed, graduate study has also been a part of
its academic program and instruction as students could do further studies
TATEL • Anthropology and Sociology at UP III
and independent research which leads to either a Master of Arts or Master
of Science degrees in Sociology, Ethnology, Physical Anthropology, or
Criminology. Those who do not wish to pursue graduate studies could
still take the courses as preparatory to Medicine, Law and Government,
Education, and Commerce (UP Catalogue 1926-1927). However, with
the small number of successful post-graduates, it is a puzzle why the
department then was not as prolific as we wanted it to be.
By 1926-1927, Anthropology, had the following existing courses
(with new course numbers) as well as new subjects that reveal its macro
and regional scope in contrast to the almost exculsively "localized"
orientation of Sociology:
• Anthropology 1 0 1 : Archaeology of Malaysia

• Anthropology 1 02: Ethnography of Eastern Asia and Oceania
• Anthropology 105: Economic Development of Mankind
• Anthropology 117: Folklore of Eastern Asia and Oceania
Meanwhile, certain Anthropology courses, old and new, remind us

of the discipline's strong links with prehistory and ethnicity - a major
preoccupation among ethnologists and physical anthropologists since the
19th century:
• Anthropology 103: Philippine Ethnography

• Anthropology 104: Philippine Languages
• Anthropology 106: Social Anthropology
• Anthropology 107: Social and Economic Life of the Philippine Mountain
Peoples
• Anthropology 108: Physical Anthropology
• Anthropology 109: Criminal Anthropology and Race Mixture
• Anthropology 1 1 5 : Museum Methods
• Anthropology 116: Philippine Folklore
Though belonging to a single department, interaction between the

two disciplines was rare because they had their respective programs
on how to contribute to nation building under the auspices of the
Americans. Sociology subjects and knowledge production tried to
address this by focusing on Christian, low-land, and colonized majority;
while Anthropology engaged with the idea of the ethnic "Other" - the
minorities and non-Christian peoples of the islands - in the hope that
they may eventually be integrated into the larger population.
It should be noted that it was not only the courses that were "evolving"
but also faculty members themselves. The UP Catalogue of 1922-1923
lists the following members of the CLA who have handled courses either
Anthropology or Sociology:
H. Otley Beyer, Professor of Anthropology
• C. Benitez (PhB, AM, LLB), Professorial Lecturer in Economics, also

taught Sociology
• Serafín Macaraig (AB, PhB, AM), Instructor in Sociology

• Marcelo Tangco (AB, BSE), Instructor in Anthropology
• Leland H. Tracey (BL, BD), Professorial Lecturer on Sociology
• Eduardo E. Palma (AB, LLB), Lecturer on Anthropology.
During this academic year, Sociology 2 (Social Ethics) and

Anthropology 1 (General Anthropology) started to be offered in the third
and fourth year, respectively, in the curriculum of Law and Government.
Just looking at the credentials of the faculty with law degrees, it is not
surprising to note that General Sociology and Anthropology courses have
made it to the senior years of Law and Government. Moreover, the need
to develop a better understanding of social contexts and cultural processes
among pre-Law and Law-proper students was implicit in the decision to
incorporate anthropolgy, sociology and social science subjects in their
curriculum.
In the course of time, Beyer recruited a number of lecturers to beef up

the faculty profile of the department. Most of them did not stay long but
at least we get to have an idea of what subjects were given emphasis and
what internal networks were established during those times (Tatel 2010;
Caccam and Melendez 1967):
• Dean Spruil Fansler, American, from English Department, Lecturer in
Folklore, Undetermined dates: pre- 1920s
• Hazel Clark, American, from English Department, Lecturer in Folklore, 1918-1920
• John Garvan, Scholar on the Manobos, Instructor, Undetermiend dates: 1 920s
• Engracio Guazon, Lecturer, 1934-1935

• Mariano Abogon, Lecturer, 1936-1938
Fansler and Beyer pioneered formal academic Folklore Studies in UP.

They both taught folklore courses in the Junior and Senior colleges of the
CLA: Fansler at the English Department and Beyer at the Department of
Anthropology and Sociology. In fact, folklore courses in both the English
and Anthropology departments were cross-listed or credited as parallel
and equal courses. Meanwhile, having Garvan - a well-known scholar on
Mindanao - in the Department of Anthropology and Sociology seems to
indicate growing ethnographic and geographic scope of UP Anthropology.
Unfortunately, I could not give the same kind of additional information
for Guazon and Abogon due to a dearth of data about them.
There is some confusion as to when exactly sociology and anthropology
formally merged into one department. Available secondary sources are
one in saying that it was in 1921 (Panopio and Bennagen 1985; Caccam
and Melendez 1967). Unfortunately, the Archives Section of the UP Main
Library have gaps in their own collection which prohibited me to see the
whole picture based on primary sources. Furthermore, the UP Catalogue
of 1922-1923 also indicated the presence of a combined "Department of
Economics and Sociology" with the following set of instructors:
• Prof. Ben F. Wright, Head of the Department

• Prof. M. H. Donaldson.
• Assoc. Prof. Nicanor Reyes

• Assoc. Prof. Mariano D. Gana
• Instructor Serafin E. Macaraig.

• Instructor Jose P. Apostoł
• Professorial Lecturer C. Benitez
• Lecturers: Mr. Francisco, Mr. Bellosillo, Mr. Cosío, Mr. Ancheta,

• Mr. Castillo and Mr. Fernandez
However, this set up did not last long because the Department of
Anthropology and Sociology will surface in the next available General
Catalogues (1926-1927) and will continue to be that way up to 1951.
Fortunately, this issue of an exact "foundation year" can be resolved
with missing data eventually becoming available. Though important
in institutional memory, identifiying the exact foundation year can be
problematic and complicated because not all institutions have clear
beginnings and complete foundation narratives.
Turning our attention to the list above, we can say that Macaraig
and Benitez were the only faculty members who taught Sociology
in this batch. Between them, it was the former who had a formal
training and academic credential in sociology. This same unit also had
a curious label about their curriculum: designed "to give cultural and
professional training" to their students. As an anthropologist, I treat
this line as rather interesting because it can be construed that the notion
of "culture" was beginning to get into the framework of teaching in
college undergraduate curriculum.
By 1926-1927, a truly separate "Department of Anthropology and
Sociology" had already existed in UP. The list below shows how small
the department was even if it was already composed of two disciplines
and featured a wide range of academic courses:
• H. Otley Beyer, Professor and Head

• Serafin Macaraig, Assistant Professor
• Marcelo Tangco, Instructor
• Ricardo E. Galang, Instructor
• Jose Leyson (BA, LLB), Lecturer
Looking at the data above, it means that, among the members of

the faculty of the department, Macaraig, Galang, and Leyson were the
teachers in sociology while Beyer and Tangco were the only instructors
in Anthropology. Needless to say, the department, despite being too small
in terms of personnel, was providing big services for the univeristy and
the nation.
The academic years 1927-1928 and 1929-1930 were extra special in
the sense a couple of interesting developments came into the teaching of
anthropology, sociology, and social sciences.
First, Josefa Lianes (also known as Josefa Lianes Escoda), the
well-known advocate of women's right to vote and founder of the Girl
Scouts of the Philippines was listed as the newest member of Sociology
instructors in the department. As someone who has graduate degrees in
Sociology and Social Work, it is tempting to imagine about her impact in
the department, especially in the teaching of sociology courses that were
interwoven with social work. Though her career in UP was short-lived
(we all know that she became a heroine of the Japanese Occupation of
the Philippines), her teaching stint can be read as a foreshadowing of
the emergence of a combined Department of Sociology and Social Work
after the War.
Second, textbook writing in anthropology and sociology finally

appeared. Macaraig, already an Assistant Professor in Sociology, came
up with two textbooks accompanying certain courses (UP Catalogue
1927-1928):
• Outlined Readings in Philippine Social Conditions

(For Sociology 1 : Principlies in Sociology)
• Local Social Problems
(For Sociology 2: Social Problems)
I could not locate anymore in the libraries the above-mentioned

textbooks. Nevertheless, they would have an equivalent in two publications
by Macaraig, which came out commercially in the 1920s and 1930s:
• Social Problems (The Educational Supply Co., 1929)

• Introduction to Sociology (The Educational Supply, 1938)
The above-mentioned books generally have the same framework

with slight modifications. They tackle the principles of Sociology
and how they can be used to analyze Philippine society at that time.
The common issues examined are problems besetting a contemporary
Philippine urban society. Special emphasis were given to what Macaraig
called "social forces" which affect social institutions like family,
customs, national traits, education, etc. and responsible for changes in
society. Contemporary issues like urbanization, crime, immigration,
population, poverty, labor relations and labor movement, agrarian
conflicts, new legislations, prison system, etc. were also discussed
in the book (Mararaig 1929 and 1938). Since it is the first published
textbook in General Sociology in the Philippines, it can be considered as
a milestone in Sociology education in the Philippines. Nevertheless, the
book, despite carrying the sociological lens to the study of Philippine
society, seems to be silent with the issue of American colonialism.
The book was pioneering enough to focus on Philippine situation and
context, but there was also no attempt to "indigenize" concepts and
principles in Sociology which could otherwise be gathered from an in-
depth understanding of Filipino history, culture, and society.
On the other hand, Tangco, the lone teacher in Physical Anthropology
at that time, also came up with his own general Anthropology textbook
in 1929. He kept on updating his textbook until the 1950s. Unfortunately,
again, no copy could be found in the libraries:
• Notes on Anthropology
• An outline of Lectures in General Anthropology

(UP General Catalogue 1952-1953)
On the brink of Anthropology's split with Sociology in the early

1950s, Tangco came out with his monograph, The Christian Peoples
of the Philippines (1951). This, I think, is an important shift from
anthropology's traditional topics like "exotic" and "non-Christian"
peoples toward re-orienting it to the more "sociological" concerns of
Christian and low-land Filipinos. Upon Tangco's retirement from the
department in the 1960s, Anthropology at UP (now separated from
Sociology) will engage in new topics like medicine and health, urban
areas, media, politics and governance, development, Christianity, and
many more.
Third, a new and special course intended solely for a holistic view of
the social sciences - and not as individualized fields - was introduced
in 1927. Introduction to Social Sciences 1 and Introduction to Social
Sciences 2 would have the subsequent descriptions:
This course is given by the College of Liberal Arts with the cooperation
of the College of Education. The cooperating departments are Political
Science, Philosophy and Psychology, Anthropology and Sociology, History,
Economics, Education, and Library Science.
Social Science 1 (First Part). Work in the first part takes up man's relation with
nature, its traits, peculiarities, and ideals, and the historical background of the
present civilization, with emphasis on the cultural development.
Social Science 2 (Second Part). This course, which should follow Social
Science 1, introduces the students to elementary problems in political science
and economics, and discusses the fundamental economic, educational, and
political questions of the Philippines, with special emphasis on the political

development of the peoples and their relationship with the United States.
These introductory subjects, which were being offered in the first two
years of the new BA curriculum, rest on a multidisciplinary framework
composed of faculty members from various disciplines and chaired by
the Dean of the CLA. The complexity of effects of American colonialism
on the lives of the Filipinos was being alluded to by the theme of these
new-generation general education undergraduate courses.
More innovations were implemented in the field of sociology by
introducing brand new as well as retooled courses:
Sociology 11: Elementary Sociology. An orientation course in the field of

Sociology. The nature and scope of Sociology's social forces, social proceses,
and social problems with applicationto local social conditions.
Sociology 101: General Sociology. This replaced Social Ethics.
Sociology 102: Social Mobility. A study of historical and modern stratified
societies; the social effects of stratification; the causes of the breakup of

stratification; social mobility; results of social mobility.Prerequisite:
Sociology 1 1 .
Unfortunately, the long list of improvements done in the curriculum of

and themes in Anthropology and Sociology belies the perennial problem
of this institution - it could not keep its new faculty members for a
long time. Beyer and Tangco were an exception, both retiring from the
University in the 1960s after having served the academe for four decades.
Macaraig, on the other hand, arrived only in the 1920s and have gone
part-time or on-leave during the course of his service until late 1940s.
In the 1930s, the department was just a small unit that only had Beyer
and Tangco as anthropologists and Macaraig as the lone sociologist (UP
Catalogue 1932-1933; 1935-1936).
SEPARATE LIVES
After the Second World War, UP resumed its classes and continued
much of what had been started before the Japanese period. The same
Department of Anthropology and Sociology resurfaced but still lacking
with a critical mass of competent faculty members, especially in the field
ofSociology (UP Catalogue 1947-1948). In the academic year 1948-1949,
the department got the needed shot in the arm by getting new recruits in
John de Young (Associate Professor of Anthropology), Arsenio Manuel
(Instructor in Anthropology and Sociology), and Benicio Catapusan
(Lecturer in Sociology). By 1950, Anthropology had kept the core of its
pioneer faculty beefed up by their two recruits while Sociology practically
had lost everyone. Curiously, Manuel was the only "sociologist" in UP at
that time having been listed as an Instructor in both disciplines.
Then, the split in 1952 happened. Out of the original combined two
disciplines, came out two independent and full-fledged academic units:
first, the Department of Anthropology consisting of Beyer, Tangco, and
Manuel; second, the Department of Sociology and Social Work composed
of newcomers, Severino F. Corpus and Carmen Prudencio-Talavera as
Instructors of the re-organized department.
Virtually the same intellectual, methodological, and pedagogical
orientation of anthropology during the pre-War period was retained in
the now independent Department of Anthropology in post- War times.
Anthropology education had long been grappling with the concepts of
"minorities," "natives," "race," and "primitives" since its introduction
in UP. We can say that the department became even more oriented
toward physical Anthropology, Archaeology, and Prehistory in the first
few years after the War until the arrival of US-trained anthropologist
from the Philippine Studies Program of the University of Chicago. At
the time of "separation," Anthropology was still under the shadow of a
dominant figure in Beyer who, despite his age, was still the Head of the
department. As Panopio and Bennagen lamented in their article about the
development of sociology and anthropology in the Philippines, Beyer, in
all of his forty years in UP, was able to produce very few MA graduates
(Panopio and Bennagen 1985).
Meanwhile, the Department of Sociology suddenly expanded its
scope, which now included Social Work as a major component of its own
department. Social work will have a flowering of new courses within this
new academic set up. The following courses below reflect what appears to
be a disciplinai turn toward a more applied sociological inquiry instead of
simply analyzing "social problems" that has characterized the discipline
during the "marriage" with Anthropology before the War.
• Social Welfare 101 : The Field of Social Work
• Social Welfare 102: Methods of Social Work
• Social Welfare 103: Introduction to Public Welfare
• Social Welfare 104: Principles of Child Welfare

• Social Welfare 105: Social Care Work
Moreover, Sociology would have the following additional courses,

which mirror a more nuanced social inquiry breaking away from the
colonial concerns and issues of the pre-war period:
• Sociology 107: Urban Sociology
• Sociology 108: Crime and Delinquency
• Sociology 109: Race Relations
• Sociology 110: Population and Society
• Sociology 199: Methods of Social Inquiry
POST-WAR, POST-COLONIAL CONCLUSIONS

In my previous article entitled, Anthropology at the University of the
Philippines: Examining Institutional History and Academic Dependency in
a Southeast Asian University, I discussed the rest of the story of Philippine
Anthropology at UP up to its 90th anniversary (Tatel 2010). The discipline
has grown and, at the same time, struggled through the post-colonial years,
which were defined by efforts to break away from academic dependency
from Euro-American intellectual traditions and the search for balance
between intellectual pursuits and social relevance. Our saga is highlighted

this year - the centennial of anthropology education. We look forward
with excitement about what is in store for us in the coming decades.
Unfortunately, I could not do the same kind of introspection for
Sociology as I did not cover in this essay the post- War, post-colonial
years of Sociology and Social Work. Thus I leave it to the sociologists
who could characterize, more aptly than me, the rest of their disciplinai
and institutional history.
Upon reviewing the almost four decades of being together under one
institution and one leadership, I argue that Anthropology and Sociology
have done little to cross-fertilize ideas and programs of one another. The
annual University Catalogues may seem limited at first glance but they
provide crucial insights into the academic and intellectual life of both
anthropology and sociology at UP. To establish if there had been some
degree of collaboration or intersections between the two disciplines
would be a difficult assessment to make due to lack of recorded joint
activities, projects and intellectual production. However, the University
catalogues, as well as some available textbooks published at the same
time, indicate that institutional "marriage" was mainly for administrative
purposes especially in a department with few permanent faculty members
and dominated by one discipline.
Indeed, anthropologists Beyer and Tangco have published their
respective works and sociologist Macaraig have also produced a good
number of important textbooks but these productions were far from
being a collaborative exercise. At best, these were individual attempts
to cultivate and popularize their respective disciplines. These were
separate milestones in the academic histories of anthropology and
sociology in Philippines.
Another point of discussion is whether the frameworks of academic
courses indeed correspond to particular interests, situations, and
processes in the country. As an anthropologist quite familiar with my own
discipline's historical development, I can say that our country and our
people, during the early 20th century, had been treated as mere specific
examples of overarching theories and frameworks of culture and society
developed in mainly Euro-American centers of anthropological training.
Moreover, it cannot be denied that anthropological education in UP
mimicked the curriculum of foreign departments of Anthropology. This
seeming dependency of our style of Anthropology on foreign intellectual
development has long been observed by progressive Filipino academics
since the 1970s.
As far as sociology education in UP is concerned, it can be noted that

courses were fer from original in the sense that they were also patterned
after the general pedagogical model in centers of higher education in foreign
universities. In the course of my survey of sociology education at UP, we
can see that concepts and issues such as family, charities, social problems,
development, prison system, population, etc. were also standard topics in
foreign departments of sociology. Yet, in spite of this, it is tempting to note
some correspondence between sociology education at UP and what was
happening in Philippine society during the American colonial period. It
supports the idea that the academe, since it is part of society, tends to reflect
the needs and struggles of its own society where it belongs.
But it was such an exciting period seeing how institutions grow and
disciplines evolve through time. A quick assessment of the academic
courses reveals that the young nation under American colonial regime
was a major factor in the academic tracks of both Anthropology
and Sociology. The colonial nation was going through its own self-
reflection regarding the benefits of "civilization" and social change.
change. At best, the nation was was looking for its own identity under
the colonial regime.
I wonder, though, whether the presence of Beyer himself impeded
what could have been a fruitful exchange between two fundamentally
related disciplines. Or was it because anthropology and sociology, at that
time, were too fixated with their respective issues and orientation that
they did not bother at all to relate to one another? I could not speculate
on what went on in the minds of the faculty members of the department
and what else they did as a unit. The key to establishing a connection
could be E. Arsenio Manuel. He was the only person, right after the War,
who was listed as an Instructor in both disciplines. He was the "missing
link," so to speak, between anthropology and sociology during the pre-
World War II era. In the end, Manuel's career centered on anthropology
and he conducted numerous ethnographies of Philippine folklore. Years
after retirement, he was awarded in 1991 by the Cultural Center of the
Philippines (CCP) as the Dean of Filipino Anthropologists. Further
inquiry on this conjecture is indeed warranted.
Overall, my article aimed to illustrate the power and benefit of
hindsight. There is so much to learn if we look back from whence we
came from. As an anthropologist, I encourage fellow social scientists
to be historians of our respective disciplines, to keep alive the stories
of our predecessors' struggles, problems, triumphs and accomplisments
in our departments. As the old saying goes, " hindi ka makakarating
sa paroroonan hung hindi lilingon sa pinanggalingan. " As we brace
for another century of anthropology and sociology education in the
Philippines, we hope that the Post-Anthropology Age or Post-Sociology
Age would not be so bad.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to acknowledge Professor Mary Racelis and Professor Clemen Aquino
for their valuable insights.
REFERENCES
Abaya, Eufracio, Ma. Luisa Lucas-Fernan, and Daisy Y. Noval-Morales.1999.
"Shifting Terms of Engagement: A Review of the History of Anthropology."
Pp. 1-9 in The Philippine Social Science in the Life of the Nation, edited by
Virginia Miralao. Quezon City: Philippine Social Science Research Council.
Aquino, Clemen C. 1999. Mula sa Kinaroroonan: Kapwa, Kapatiran, at Bayan sa

Agham Panlipunan. Professorial Chair Paper. Quezon City: College of
Social Sciences and Philosophy Publications.
Bautista, Cynthia B. 2001. "The Social Sciences in the Philippines: Reflections on

Trends and Developments." Philippine Review of Economics 38(1):92-120.
Benitez, Conrado, Ramona S. Tirona, and Leon Gatmaytan.1937. Philippine Social

Life and Progress. Boston: Ginn and Co.
Caccam, Josephine and Pedro Melendez. 1967. "The U.P. Department of
Anthropology: 1914-1965." Studies in Philippine Anthropology: In honor
of H. Otley Beyer, edited by Mario D. Zamora. Almar-Phoenix Publishing

House.
Castro, Nestor T. and Carlos P. Tatel, Jr. "Kronolohiya ng Kasaysayan ng
Departamento ng Agham Tao, Unibersidad ng Pilipinas Diliman."

Unpublished Manuscript.
Commision on Higher Education. 2014. Commission on Higher Education database.

OPRKM-KMD. June 5, 2014.
Dalisay, Soledad Natalia M. 2010. Mary Racelis: Engaged Anthropologist. 100

Anthropologists (www.anthro.upd.edu.ph).
David, Randy. 2012. "Prof. Randy David's Speech before the Ateneo Sociology
Graduating Class of 2012." Retrieved September 13, 2014. (http://www.dsa-
ateneo.net/content/prof-randy-davids-speech-ateneo-sociology-graduating-
class-2012).
Lynch, Frank and Mary R. Hollnsteiner. 1961. "Sixty Years of Philippine Ethnology."
Science Review 2(1 1): 1-5.
Panopio, Isabel S. and Ponciano L. Bennagen. 1985. "The Philippines." Pp. 218-264
in Sociology and Social Anthropology in Asia and the Pacific. New Delhi:
Wiley Eastern Limited.
Rolda, Realidad S. and Isabel S. Panopio. 1984. Cultural Anthropology: Philippine

Perspective. Quezon City: Katha Publishing Co., Inc.
Rodriguez, Mary Jane B. 2010. Reading a Colonial Bureau: The Politics of Cultural
Investigation of the non-Christian Tribes. Social Science Diliman 6(1): 1-27.
Salazar, Zeus A. 2006. Ang Kasaysayan ng Agham Tao/Antropolohiyang Pilipino.

Unpublished Manuscript.
Tangco, Marcelo. 1951. The Christian Peoples of the Philippines. Quezon City:
University of the Philippines.
Tatel, Carlos Jr. P. 2010. "Anthropology at the University of the Philippines:
Examining Institutional History and Academic Dependency in a South-East
Asian University." Academic Dependency in the Social Sciences: Structural
Reality and Intellectual Challenges, edited by Kathinka Sinha-Kerkhoff
and Syed Farid Alatas. New Delhi: SEPHIS, Asian Development Research
Institute and Manohar.
Tatel, Carlos Jr. P. 201 1. The Non- Western Peoples as Filipinos: Mediating Notions
of 'Otherness' in Photographs of the National Geographic Magazine of Early
20th century. Asian Anthropology. Volume 1 1 (201 1), edited by Gordon
Matthews and Sidney Cheung. The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong
Kong.
Tan, Michael L. 2010. "Philippine Anthropology in a Post- Anthropology Age."
Philippine Social Science Discourses - Rafael V. Palma Lectures

Commemorating the UP Centennial , edited by Jorge V. Tigno. Quezon City:
CSSP Publications, UP Diliman.
University of the Philippines General Catalogues. 1913-1914; 1914-1915; 1916-

1917; 1917-1918; 1922-1923; 1926-1927; 1927-1928; 1929-1930 ; 1932-
1933; 1935-1936; 1947-1948; 1948-1949; 1950-1951; 1952-1953.
TATEL • Anthropology and Sociology at UP 1 17

Anthropology and Sociology at UP - Lessons From An Academic Union 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anthropology and Sociology at UP - Lessons From An Academic Union 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Philippine Sociological Society

Anthropology and Sociology at UP: Lessons from an Academic Union, 1914-1951

What lessons can we learn from an academic union? The disciplines of

Keywords: anthropology, institutional memory, University of the

Philippine Sociological Review (2014) • Vol. 62 • pp. 109-138 109

Philippines. In 1914, Anthropology 1 or General Anthropology -

Carlos P. Tatel, Jr. is an Assistant Professor at Department of Anthropology,

College of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of the Philippines-Diliman.

Philippine Sociological Review (2014) • Vol. 62 • No. 1 111

INVESTIGATING THE PAST THROUGH CATALOGUES

112 Philippine Sociological Review (2014) • Vol. 62

Table 1: Summary of key periods: Sociology and Anthropology

1 952 Sociology and Anthropology split as academic units

TATEL • Anthropology and Sociology at UP 11 J

COLONIAL LENS IN UP'S EARLY

114 Philippine Sociological Review (2014) • Vol. 62

• Anthro 1 : A general instruction to the whole subject of Anthropology;

(UP Catalogue 1914-1915)

Along with a general Anthropology course, 1914 also saw the

• Anthro 2: Ethnography of East Asia and Oceania

• Anthro 8: The Government of Primitive Peoples

(UP Catalogue 1914-1915)

• Anthro 9: The Indo-Oceanic Languages

TATEL • Anthropology and Sociology at UP IIS

(UP Catalogue 1913-1914)

The practical application of ethical principles to social problems. Lectures,

is open to students of the College of Law and the College of Medicine; it is

(UP Catalogue 1914-1915)

1 Her name only appeared as such in the UP Catalogue 1914-1915.

116 Philippine Sociological Review (2014) • Vol. 62

Anthropology: the complex racial and linguistic problems afforded in the

for original research in Anthropology. In addition to unique library facilities,

Tomas. The ethnological literature of the Bureau of Science, and in certain

private collections especially rich in unpublished manuscripts, may also be

used by graduate students.

(UP Catalogue 1914-1915)

The succeeding years, 1916-1918, saw the continuation of original

TATEL • Anthropology and Sociology at UP 117

• Anthro 10: Philippine Archaeology

(UP Catalogue 1916-1917)

NEGOTIATING QUESTIONS OF "NATIONHOOD"

T18 Philippine Sociological Review (2014) • Vol. 62

TATEL • Anthropology and Sociology at UP 119

• Sociology 1. Principles of Sociology. This course is designed as

investigation in Sociology, scope and task of Sociology; some form of

principles. This course is prescribed in the second year of the commerce

course. Junior College course.

(UP Catalogue 1922-1923)

• Sociology 2. Social Problems. The study of social problems such as

Commerce course. Junior College course.

(UP Catalogue 1922-1923)

This became Sociology 102 in 1926.

120 Philippine Sociological Review (2014) • Vol. 62

Lectures, assigned readings and special reports. Prerequisite, Economics

of Medicine and Surgery, it is also open to others who have taken or

(UP Catalogue 1922-1923)

This course became Sociology 101 in 1926.

Like I said earlier, the new set of undergraduate Sociology courses

• Sociology 4: Rural Sociology (became Sociology 103 in 1926)

The undergraduate courses mentioned above somewhat have a

• Sociology 201: Social Statistics. The uses of statistics as a method of

Sociology 1 and Economics 1. Re-numbered from Sociology 7.

TATEL • Anthropology and Sociology at UP 121