Heru: The conceptualization of Pangasinan studies as ethnic/area studies under Philippine studies

[Harold Schiffman]

heru
Posted by drince on August 2, 2008

Abstract

The conceptualization of Pangasinan studies as ethnic/area studies
under Philippine studies had to be mapped to be able to define its
research contours and terrain. Prior to doing that, it is absolutely
necessary for Pangasinan scholars to lay down the epistemic
foundations of Pangasinan studies. A critical assessment on the past
and present production of knowledge, which falls under Pangasinan
studies, is pertinent and important in charting the directions of
future researches. This paper shall contribute toward understanding
the possible epistemic nature and origins of Pangasinan studies as it
shall appraise the past and current researches on Pangasinan. By doing
so, it shall conclude by defining and prescribing the prospective
course to be taken by Pangasinan scholars in the development of
Pangasinan studies.

Introduction

There is a felt need to revitalize the study and appreciation of
Pangasinan heritage and culture. Globalization makes the world smaller
yet even more complex than what we imagine, a global village in the
words of Marshall McLuhan, but it poses serious challenges to
marginalized cultures as Westernization or Americanization (others
call it McDonaldization) is making its way virtually unopposed. As for
Pangasinan culture, the language though alive as reflected in oral and
printed literature had been long suffering from neglect and
abandonment in the eyes of doomsayers. It is easy for others to
dismiss this but there is a grain of truth to it.

The only way to assess the growth and decline, development and
underdevelopment of Pangasinan literature is to survey the terrain of
Pangasinan studies (hereafter referred to as PnS) as seen in the
knowledge production about Pangasinan culture, history, education,
linguistics, science and technology. Pangasinan literature here means
the entire corpus of writing on any aspect of Pangasinan people,
culture and institutions. By assessing the state of the art in PnS,
Pangasinan scholars will be able to chart the necessary direction in
the promotion of Pangasinan culture in general and for the maturity
and diversification of PnS in particular. It is imperative and
necessary, however, to define first the epistemological framework,
which PnS might anchor on.

Mapping PnS is in no way exhaustive and is deemed as preliminary,
which others might take as point of departure for similar studies. The
data are gathered from the bibliographic entries in the online
catalogues of the National Library of the Philippines (NLP), which is
partially covered, University of the Philippines Main Library and the
LibraryLink. The latter is an online consortium of 37 libraries in the
entire Philippines among a total of 89 participating institutions.
Among these institutions are the Ateneo de Manila University,
University of Santo Tomas, De la Salle University and Filipinas
Heritage Library.

Epistemological bases of PnS

PnS cover any study, research and works that pertain to anything
Pangasinan in the various disciplines of the social sciences and pure
sciences. It is tentatively one of the many branches in the tree of
Philippine studies, which include Cebuano studies, Kapampangan
studies, Cordillera studies, West Visayan studies and other
ethno-linguistically-defined fields. It is a research domain where one
can find a collection of studies about Pangasinan people, institutions
and culture. Seen in this way, it is the body of knowledge of the
Pangasinenses accumulated since time began.

By this definition, PnS, unrecognized until now as such, did not begin
during the advent of Spanish colonialism when Spanish friars studied
Pangasinan culture as colonial instrument to propagate religion and as
a convenient tool of the colonial state to know their subjects. It had
its roots when Pangasinan people commenced recording their beliefs and
practices through their songs, legends, myths and proverbs, which are
the indispensable materials for the study of Pangasinan folklore,
ethnology and anthropology. This information constitutes the
collective memory and consciousness of Pangasinenses from the earliest
times which are handed down to the present generation.

Like other Austronesian-speaking peoples, early Pangasinenses were
basically oral people whose traditions and customs were passed on
through the mouth. Nonetheless, they have ancient way of writing
similar to the Tagalogs and Kapampangans. Although there are no
textual artifacts found at present similar to the Kawi script of
Javanese written literature as manifested in the Laguna Copperplate
Inscription (LCI), these might have been burned by the Spanish friars
or completely lost because they were written in perishable materials
like in leaves or bamboos.

It is not certain if colonialism had really stunted the growth of
Pangasinan indigenous literature either oral or written. Nonetheless,
colonialism paved the way for the Spaniards to study and report on the
culture of the Pangasinenses. Hence, the development of PnS from 1565
until 1898 was in the hands of Spanish friars and officials who
studied the language and culture of the Pangasinenses for purposes of
religious conversion and colonial administration. The University of
Santo Tomas (UST) took the forefront in publishing dictionaries,
prayer books and other religious materials in Pangasinan from the late
nineteenth century or even earlier until the pre-war years.

When the Americans annexed the Philippines, a new set of colonial
masters was sent to man the colonial bureaucracy. In contrast to the
selective and conservative educational policies of the previous
regime, the new colonizers introduced an efficient public education
system. Filipinos including Pangasinenses became subjects of inquiry
to what will be now known as Philippine Studies. The Pangasinan elite
were to send their sons and daughters to these universities such as UP
and would learn English. To these schools, they brought their cultural
baggage and would utilize them in research under the supervision of
American professors. From them would emerge professionals who would
later on occupy high places in government.

The germ of the Philippine revolution in the consciousness of the
Pangasinan elite was carried on in the so-called cultural revolution
and renascence under the very nose of the Americans. In 1901,
Lingayen-born Catalino Palisoc published and staged the first zarzuela
in Pangasinan, thus kicking off his title as "Father of Pangasinan
zarzuela" and the flourishing of Pangasinan zarzuela in the coming
years (Legasto 1996). In the next decades, the pioneering works and
interests of Pablo Mejia, Maria Magsano and other Pangasinan
luminaries constituted the "golden age" of Pangasinan literature
(Legasto 1996; Vidal & Nelmida 1996).

Freedom of the press initiated the growth of PnS as Pangasinenses were
allowed to own and manage newspapers and magazines. In 1925, Tonung, a
weekly in Pangasinan, which means "uprightness" was established and
lasted for a decade. Then, another publication was Lioaoa, a Catholic
mouthpiece. One of the most known publishers was the Pangasinan Review
Press, which issued Silew and later the weekly Pangasinan Courier.
These publications became the venue for Pangasinan scholars and
readers to publish and read on anything about Pangasinan and other
current issues of the day.

Educational progress had been limited and restricted during the course
of Spanish rule though foundations were laid for reforms. Parochial
schools were established while institutions of higher education were
concentrated in Manila. In the case of the Americans, mass education
was supported and encouraged throughout the archipelago. Besides the
barrio schools and central schools scattered in the different towns,
there were a number of intermediate schools in a number of towns such
as Lingayen and Asingan. Secondary schools included an agricultural
school in San Carlos and a vocational school in Lingayen. In
Bayambang, a normal school was built for the training of teachers.

Secular and privately-owned schools were established after the
founding of several public educational institutions. One of these
schools was the Dagupan Institute in 1925 renamed later as Dagupan
Junior Colleges in 1941, then Dagupan Colleges in 1950 and finally in
1968 as University of Pangasinan (UPang) (Cortes 1990).

Another university with pre-war origins is the Pangasinan State
University (PSU). It was chartered in 1978 and begun its operation the
following year. PSU integrated Asingan School of Arts and Trades
(ASAT), Eastern Pangasinan Agricultural College (EPAC) in Sta. Maria,
Pangasinan College of Fisheries in Binmaley, Pangasinan School of Arts
and Trades (PSAT) in Lingayen, Speaker Eugenio Perez National
Agricultural School (SEPNAS) in San Carlos City, Central Luzon
Teachers College (CLTC) and Western Pangasinan College of Agriculture
(WPCA) into one state university with these institutions becoming its
component colleges.

Postwar educational institutions were founded in response to the need
of skilled manpower after the devastation of World War II and the
shortage of professions faced in recent times. These include the
University of Luzon (UL), formerly Luzon Colleges of Commerce and
Business Administration (LCCBA) founded in 1948, renamed Luzon
Colleges (LC) in 1952; Northwestern Educational Institution (NEI) in
1951 and merged with Lyceum in 1974 as Lyceum-Northwestern (L-N),
renamed as Lyceum-Northwestern University (L-NU) in 2001; the Virgen
Milagrosa University Foundation (VMUF) recognized as such in 1994; the
Urdaneta City University (UCU), formerly Urdaneta Community College
(UCC) and City College of Urdaneta (CCU) among others.

These universities are the logical and likely sites in the production
of knowledge as well as the repositories of PnS because mainly they
cater to students near or within the area. They come from the
different towns and barangays of the province notwithstanding those
who are not from the place whose materials or data for analysis are
gathered from their places of origin. This production of knowledge can
be measured in the number of thesis and dissertations and funded
projects researched through the years, which can be verified in their
respective libraries and archives.

Along with these local universities were the universities in Manila,
which broke new ground in the study of Philippine culture and
civilization. At UP, in the mid-fifties, an Institute of Asian Studies
(IAS), a Magsaysay brainchild, was established with Philippine studies
as the main area of investigation. Reorganized as the Asian Center in
1968, it began offering a masters program in Philippine Studies until
its reorganization into Philippine Center for Advanced Studies (PCAS)
in the seventies and this time offering a doctoral program in
Philippine Studies. Meanwhile in 1974, the College of Arts and
Sciences initiated a PhD program in Philippine Studies. When it was
dissolved to create three separate colleges: College of Science (CS),
College of Social Sciences and Philosophy (CSSP) and College of Arts
and Letters (CAL), the latter two went ahead of instituting their own
programs in Philippine Studies. Lately, a centralized setup was
established to integrate the doctoral program in one office at the
Asian Center. Under this tri-college arrangement is one of the
overriding general objectives: "to study Filipino civilization and its
constituent ethnolinguistic cultures" in which studies about
Pangasinan is covered (Sobritchea 2002).

Reconceptualizing PnS

Thus, the epistemic nature of PnS based on its historical
underpinnings and development is basically colonial and neocolonial in
orientation. Colonial because it catered first to the colonial and
imperial needs of the colonizers in the form of dictionaries, census,
provincial reports and other colonial documents reporting on the
people, culture and activities of the Pangasinenses. It is neocolonial
in the sense that until now it has not shed off the vestiges of its
past colonial mold. Commercialization of education is rampant in
universities with the aim of maximizing profits rather than delivering
quality thinking and skills to students. Unknowingly, the thrusts of
college education is directed toward the outside rather than the
people themselves by strengthening English as medium of instruction
ostensibly to make their graduates "globally competitive" at the
expense of being the party to the erasure and distortion of their
students' cultural identity. The state of secondary and elementary
education in Pangasinan, the same in other provinces, contributes to
the neocolonial upbringing of most of the youth and adults. Meanwhile,
along with English are the more menacing consequences of another
neocolonialism, which shall be discussed in the following section.

On the other hand, inherent in PnS is its anti-colonial and
anti-imperialist character since its beginning can be traced to the
days when Pangasinenses were free, unfettered by colonialism. It was
in this trait, the love of freedom, that Pangasinenses were able to
resist colonial and neocolonial impositions; to take cognizance of the
value of Pangasinan language and culture amidst Hispanization and
Americanization. To this mold belong the leading lights in Pangasinan
culture and literature. PnS should project its anti-colonial and
anti-imperial sources as a liberating tool for Pangasinenses.

PnS as an area of study demands recognition as such. Until now,
Pangasinan scholars and educators have not recognized it as a
liberating field of study for the people of Pangasinan. To articulate
PnS as liberating tool for Pangasinan people, Pangasinan scholars must
first recognize it as both ethnic and area studies with both
anti-colonial and colonial origins separate from but mutually linked
to Philippine Studies. Ultimately, the objectives of a
reconceptualized PnS are the decolonization and liberation of
Pangasinenses.

Decolonization has been ongoing and it has never stopped and will
never as long as neocolonialism in its various forms and guises
continues to threaten cultural originality and diversity. The
marginalization of Pangasinan culture and language along with other
Philippine cultures is a reality that one must be aware of. By
reconceptualizing and reframing PnS as tool of liberation, we can get
out from this tragic prison of marginalization and invisibility.

Rizal anticipates Frantz Fanon in the latter's analysis of
colonialism, decolonization and alienation as can be read in Black
Skin, White Masks (1967) and The Wretched of the Earth (1968). In his
El Filibusterismo, Rizal in the words of Simoun was chiding and
condemning Basilio and his classmates' call for the teaching of
Spanish, which needs a critical rereading on our part to understand
its import:

Spanish [read: English or Filipino/Tagalog] will never be the national
language because the people will never speak it. That tongue cannot
express their ideas and their emotions. Each people has its own way of
speaking just as it has its own way of feeling. What will you do with
Spanish [read: English or Filipino/Tagalog], the few of you who will
get to speak it? You will only kill your individual personality and
subject your thoughts to other minds. Instead of making yourself free,
you will make yourselves truly slaves…as long as a people keeps its
own language, it keeps a pledge of liberty, just as a man is free as
long as he can think for himself. Language is a people's way of
thinking.

Rizal is saying that to abandon one's language in favor of another is
tantamount to new colonialism, to neocolonialism with the agents
themselves advocating their own alienation and slavery. Quibuyen
(1999) is right that Rizal's nationalist project is the recovery and
revitalization of the people's heritage and by people here, I suspect,
means the various ethnolinguistic groups in the country not just
Tagalog.

Rizal therefore anticipates again Renato Constantino (1966) who in
1957 was critical on the use of the English language as medium of
instruction and in a more expanded articulation on the subject in The
Mis-education of the Filipino examined the nexus between English
language in education and the neocolonial mindsets of Filipinos.

But as early as the twenties or thirties, a Pangasinan poet has issued
an ominous warning in the use of English, and consequently of using
another tongue, as a patent sign of slavery. Lamberto Mejia Guzman in
his "Sakey a Tepet" [A Query] (2006: 14) wrote: "Say wikan iletneg na
sankailin Oley ya papablien tayo tan labay tin dilien ag nikuan ya
tanda na aliguas na bahley noag ingen sikatoy tanda na inkaaripen [The
language that the foreign power cherishes, which we care and which we
want to nurture cannot be said to be an indication of the nation's
progress but it is even the hallmark of slavery].

In the academe, particularly at UP, indigenization of theories on
Philippine realities and conditions as opposed to Western methods and
thinking is seen as a correct and sure path to decolonization and
liberation of Filipinos from neocolonial frameworks and paradigms. It
started with nationalist historians reacting to and rectifying the
gross errors in the interpretation of Philippine history. Teodoro
Agoncillo (1970) argues that Philippine history should be interpreted
using the Filipino perspective. In the field of psychology, Virgilio
Enriquez theorizes on the development of an indigenous psychology
called Sikolohiyang Pilipino (SP) in contradistinction to
Western-oriented psychology. Prospero Covar (1998: 27) embraces the
gains from history and psychology to define Pilipinolohiya, different
from Philippine Studies, as "systematic study of Filipino psyche,
Philippine culture and Philippine society." Meanwhile, Zeus Salazar
(1991) puts forward Pantayong Pananaw (PP) as the totality in unity
and diversity of practices and customs of a cultural whole expressed
in a language geared towards the formation of discourse of a
civilization, meaning of Filipinos.

Reclaiming Pangasinan Identity

The avowed goal of SP, Pilipinolohiya and PP as perspectives is the
reclaiming of Filipinos of their identity erased and distorted by
colonialism and neocolonialism. By reclaiming their lost identity,
they will be able to chart their future on their own not through the
lens of foreign, usually Western perspectives. Drawing from their own
experiences as a people, Filipinos will be able to formulate original
thoughts and ideas, not imported and copycat theoretical models from
the West, about Philippine problems. PnS owes from them that it should
be a vehicle and strategy toward reclaiming Pangasinan identity.

But these ways of looking at things is hindered by one serious
theoretical flaw. Although they do identify the existence of the
multilingual and multiethnic configurations of what we call the
Filipino nation, they do not consider the language problem primarily
the imposition of Tagalog as an important factor in the
marginalization of cultures outside the grammar of power. Salazar
looks at Filipino/Tagalog as the language of a shared discourse among
ethnolinguistic communities in the creation of a national culture not
dictated by those in power politically and culturally (Mendoza 2001).
The same is true for Covar's Pilipinolohiya and Enriquez's
Sikolohiyang Pilipino, which use Filipino/Tagalog as the medium of
analysis. Consequently, Filipino/Tagalog is the lens of examining the
experiences of the Filipino, which should not be limited to Tagalog
experiences.

So what Rizal has feared as the rise of new tyranny is not only
political but also cultural. Filipinization or what the proponent of
Ilokano and Amianan Studies (IAS) Aurelio Agcaoili (2007) terms as
Tagalogization, instead of purportedly uniting the country, is
contributory to the 'othering' of other cultures by elevating
Filipino/Tagalog as the language of the national culture. By imposing
Filipino/Tagalog as the national language, as medium in communication,
education and local government, these theories on nationhood and
national identity are unwittingly abetting the linguistic, hence
cultural, genocide of the more than a hundred languages and cultures
in the Philippines including Pangasinan.

We have been othered by the mainstreaming of an allegedly national
culture that is no other than the Tagalog culture, which takes us to
Edward Said's Orientalism (2003) with an added twist, that of
Filipino/Tagalog making non-Tagalogs the object of investigation, of
domination and of oppression. In effect, this neo-orientalism among
the supposedly Orients, us, is a classic case of domination and
control by one of them over other cultures.

We have been seeing ourselves in the eyes of the Other. We have been
accepting hook, line and sinker that Filipino/Tagalog can express our
aspirations and longings as a people. We, especially the
intellectuals, have been complicit to this kind of wholesale betrayal
of our identity and culture. Agcaoili (2007) captures the sinister
consequences of Tagalogization to all Filipinos except Tagalogs and
our complicity with its imposition: "…this culture of silence we have
adopted in the face of this unwanted onslaught of the Tagalogization
of anything belonging to the nation, of the mind of the peoples of all
the ethno-linguistic groups, of the Tagalogization of consciousness,
of the Tagalogization of all the apparatuses of culture, the media,
the economic and political life of the peoples." He points the blame
to our leaders, a culpability that should be shared by the
intellectuals, in the "lobotomization of the minds of our people, such
that, in the end, the standard of national life became either an
Anglicized-Englishicized one or a Tagalogized one."

This should make us pause and rethink the bases of reclaiming our
identity as Pangasinenses. Our struggle as a people within the
Philippine nation-state is two-fold: the resistance to foreign,
American, Western neocolonialism through the English language and the
opposition to Filipino/Tagalog domination and oppression. Thus, PnS as
the reclaiming of our identity should deal with our experiences as a
people and our comprehension of the world around us using our own
perspectives and thinkings expressed in our own language. PnS in this
sense is larger than PnS as ethnic and area studies that is both
multidisciplinal and interdisciplinal.

Hence, PnS can be independent from Philippine Studies to a certain
extent because it is not confined to studying Pangasinan per se. It
could mean studying and looking at other cultures such as American,
English, European, Asian, Japanese, Malaysian, the whole spectrum of
human experience, as they would also look at us, not as objects of
analysis under Philippine Studies but as having a distinct culture and
identity. In other words, why not have a Pangasinan Studies in Britain
in the same way that we can have a British Studies in Pangasinan? PnS
in this frame of thinking does not constitute of one worldview, the
Pangasinan welstanchauung because that would be equivalent to
reductionism and essentialism. PnS consists of and encompasses a
multiplicity of disciplines, contesting perspectives, schools of
thoughts and points of view originating from within but not
discounting the outside of its totality.

Regarding this last point, PnS as ethnic and area studies includes
studies in the ethnicity and culture of other peoples who have
migrated to Pangasinan like the Ilokanos. It would be relevant and
provocative to define the limits and meanings of Pangasinan identity
not just on linguistic basis. Pangasinan as an ethnic identifier
usually connotes a person who speaks Pangasinan or someone who shares
the culture. By expanding its meaning to include people who had lived
and resided in the place, PnS shall be able accommodate other cultures
and peoples to its area of research. When we speak of Pangasinan
literature in English, we can therefore cite F. Sionil Jose although
Ilocanos can cite him under Ilokano literature in English, too. We can
also speak of Pangasinan literature in Iloco and therefore make the
trailblazer Juan S. P. Hidalgo Jr. our very own. In short,
Pangasinanness should not be limited to ethnicity but must also
include geographic considerations as a result of migrations. Corollary
to this, PnS, beyond the limiting confines of ethnic or area studies,
aims to understand the diaspora of Pangasinan people outside the
province and outside the country as the reality of globalization today
as in the past impinges on Pangasinan identity and culture.

PnS Mapped

As said earlier, PnS as ethnic/area studies is both multidisciplinal
and interdisciplinal covering history, anthropology and other social
sciences and the pure sciences such as biology, geology, mathematics.
At present, there is no PnS as described here although there are
studies done that can be said to be precursors to it or falls under
its domain. Except a center for Pangasinan studies as stipulated in a
memorandum of agreement between various cultural groups and a
university, its existence is subject to doubt, there are no
theoretical explorations on PnS as ethnic and area studies and its
larger connotation.

There are nonetheless significant bodies of knowledge produced about
Pangasinan by Pangasinenses themselves and other scholars. These
bodies of knowledge form part of the bulk of what constitutes PnS.
There are various disciplines that may fall under its purview ranging
from Pangasinan agriculture to Pangasinan urban planning, from A to Z
so to speak. Attached here is an appendix containing Pangasinan
bibliography alphabetically arranged in 31 disciplines. Over the past
fifty years or so, studies on Pangasinan had accumulated and will
continue to accumulate in the next fifty years. It is in this context
that PnS should enter the picture to guide future researches as to
their relevance and significance in the life of Pangasinan people.

This survey of knowledge that PnS can anchor on is based on the
collections of Manila-based universities, which had a good online
database unlike local universities in the region. The problem is
somewhat mitigated by looking at the online catalogue of the NLP
because all educational institutions had to submit a copy of each
thesis and dissertation to them. Since the survey had covered only a
small part of the NLP's online database, this survey does not provide
complete and accurate depiction but can give hints and clues on the
status of knowledge production about Pangasinan.

Out of the 313 entries taken from the online catalogues of UP Main
Library, NLP and LibraryLink, 300 (95.85%) are said to be Philippine
publications while 13 (4.15%) are produced outside. From these
Philippine publications, 166 (55.33%) are theses and dissertations and
the remaining, 134 (44.67%) are other types, i.e. publications of
public and private institutions.

Table 1 PnS by major disciplines according to its type of production

Major

Disciplines
 No. of Theses/Dissertations
 Other Types
 Total
 %

Philippine Universities
 Outside
 Philippine

Publications
 Foreign Publications<span class="Footnote-0020Reference–Char"><sup>1

Agriculture
 8
 1
 14
 1
 23
 7.35

Economics
 1
 1
 6
 1
 8
 2.56

Education
 72
 1
 3
 1
 76
 24.28

History
 5
 0
 32
 0
 37
 11.82

Linguistics
 11
 1
 22
 5
 38
 12.14

Literature
 6
 0
 33
 0
 44
 14.06

Marine Science
 28
 0
 0
 0
 28
 8.94

Public Administration
 8
 0
 5
 0
 13
 4.15


Table 2 PnS by minor disciplines according to its type of production

Minor

Disciplines
 No. of Theses/Dissertations
 Other Types
 Total
 %

Philippine Universities
 Outside
 Philippine

Publications
 Foreign Publications<span class="Footnote-0020Reference–Char"><sup>2

Anthropology
 2
 0
 0
 2
 4
 1.28

Archaeology
 0
 0
 2
 0
 2
 0.64

Architecture
 0
 0
 1
 0
 1
 0.32

Ecology
 0
 0
 1
 0
 1
 0.32

Engineering
 2
 0
 0
 0
 2
 0.64

Ethnology
 1
 0
 0
 0
 1
 0.32

Geology
 3
 0
 0
 1
 4
 1.28

Meteorology
 1
 0
 0
 0
 1
 0.32


Education (24.28%) ranks first among disciplines with most number of
researches followed by literature (14.06%), linguistics (12.14%) and
history (11.82%). At the bottom of knowledge production are the
disciplines of architecture, ecology, ethnology and meteorology (0.32%
or equivalent to having one publication). Meanwhile, anthropology and
geology (1.28%) and engineering (0.64%) had four and two publications
respectively.

A look at the data specific to education reveals a curious side of
PnS.  Pangasinan educators will likely to pursue graduate studies in
the province because of the availability of affordable and accessible
tertiary education. Thus, knowledge production in education is not
concentrated in Manila universities although Pangasinan educators
still opt to study in one or two of the leading universities in the
country. UP accounted for 15 theses and dissertations while Centro
Escolar University (CEU) produced six, National University (NU) three,
De la Salle University (DLSU), Philippine Women's University (PWU) and
as far as Silliman University (SU) one each. Cordillera and Central
Luzon colleges and universities made up the remaining, which is less
than 20 % or 13 theses and dissertations produced in Baguio Central
University (BCU) and Lyceum of Baguio (LB) with four each, University
of Baguio (UB) two and once each for Araullo University (AU) in
Cabanatuan City, Republic Central Colleges (RCA) in Angeles City and
Tarlac College of Agriculture (TCA) in Camiling.

Table 3 Knowledge production in education by location of universities

Locations of Colleges/Universities
 Number of Theses/Dissertations
 %

Pangasinan
 30
 41.67

Cordillera and Central Luzon
 13
 18.06

Manila incl. S. Luzon, Visayas
 28
 38.89


One can infer that among the disciplines, Pangasinan educational
institutions had strength rather than an edge in education compared to
anthropology for instance, in which they had no degree programs in
that discipline at all. NEI took the lead by producing seven while L-N
and San Carlos College had four each, Adelphi College (AC) three,
UPang, LC and Luna Colleges (LuC) two each, Palaris Colleges (PC), PSU
and Dagupan College (DC) one each. They are however limited in terms
of research capability in history, literature, marine science, degrees
either Baccalaureate or advanced, that are well-developed programs
obtainable and funded at UP and other Manila-based universities.

Table 4 Pns by location of universities as per theses/dissertations produced

Location of Colleges/Universities
 No. of Theses/Dissertations
 %

Pangasinan
 38
 22.89

Cordillera, Central Luzon
 15
 9.04

Manila (S.Luzon & Visayas)
 112
 67.47


Pangasinan colleges and universities constitute only about 23% of
theses/dissertations produced or 38 of which 30 are researches in
education. On the other hand, UP had 84 theses and dissertations or
about 75% of the total number produced in Manila covering agriculture
to urban planning, which is understandable since UP is a
state-sponsored university. But there is no excuse for Pangasinan
universities not to diversify and strengthen their curricula and offer
programs that can compete with Manila-based universities.  They should
offer programs that cater to the interests of students not just for
profit concerns because in the end, they are inevitably the loci of
PnS. They must be the vanguard in the promotion and development of
PnS. By doing so, PnS could break free from the domination of
Manila-based universities in terms of knowledge production. By doing
so, Pangasinan universities can lure local students to study in their
respective campuses instead of going to Manila and may attract
Manila-based Pangasinan scholars to teach among their own people.

         Table 5 PnS by language

Languages
 Number of Publications
 %

English
 254
 81.15

Spanish
 12
 3.83

Filipino/Tagalog
 11
 3.51

Pangasinan
 32
 10.22

Iloko
 3
 0.96

Bolinao
 1
 0.32


As the table above shows, most of PnS are written in English. The
reason obviously points to the language policy in the academe where
English is seen as the prestigious medium in discursive practices
contributing to the anglicization of the Pangasinan academic mind.
Pangasinan follows the list only because those included fall under the
area of literature and most are written in the first half of the
twentieth century until the sixties. Some are translations from
original Spanish texts. Except literary anthologies, once in a while
books of poetry and short story, a sole quarterly magazine like the
Balon Silew where one can find even English and Tagalog pieces and
annual literary contests, Pangasinan literature in Pangasinan language
is largely decadent and would sooner or later sing its swan song if
stakeholders do not institute revolutionary changes in our educational
and public policies.

The tagalogization of Filipinos, by extension to Pangasinenses, is
creeping the academe in our own universities and colleges. It is no
doubt that it has taken hold of mass media, in television, radio and
in education as medium of instruction. Pangasinan scholars, whose base
is Manila, however, are slowly becoming infected by this seemingly
unassuming syndrome as they are explaining to the Tagalogs, not to us,
our history as a people in a number of theses and dissertations.
Formerly, Pangasinan scholars had been writing in English but now,
some have shifted to Tagalog. In less than two decades, one
dissertation on language planning is advocating the use of
Tagalog/Filipino in the language policy of a particular Pangasinan
university (Navarro 1990)!

Why not Pangasinan as a language policy? Tagalogization would partly
explain why the author could not conceptualize a language policy in
Pangasinan for her own university. Added to this is the predominance
of this kind of thinking at UP where she sat at the feet of
Tagalog/Filipino language planning specialists.

Besides literature, majority of works in the field of history are
written in English, which is about 80% or 29. Five are in Spanish, one
each in Ilocano and Tagalog with the exception of Felipe Quintos who
wrote in 1926 a history of the Philippine revolution in Pangasinan.
Although Rosario Cortes wrote in English, she opened Pangasinan
historiography to other possibilities in treatment and methodologies
unexplored by her works. Her three-volume Pangasinan history is a
pioneering contribution to Philippine local historiography. Drawing
from various sources and approaches from various disciplines, she was
able to write a seemingly seamless narrative about Pangasinan history
dividing it in three periods: 1572 to 1800; 1801 to 1900 and 1901 to
1986. Nonetheless, historians can still look at fresh ways on how to
deepen our understanding of our indigenous culture prior to the coming
of the colonizers through the use of folklore, archaeology,
ethnography and comparative linguistics. A department of history then
in one of Pangasinan universities would play a crucial role in PnS.

Pangasinan linguistics had its beginnings in the landmark work of Fr.
Lorenzo Fernandez Cosgaya, the Diccionario Pangasinan-Español (1865)
supplemented by the research and emendations of Fr. Pedro Vilanova.
Anastasio Macaraeg (1904) wrote his Vocabulario Hispano-Pangasinan.
Most of Pangasinan linguistics studies are done in English with 29
works (76.31%) while only one is written, perhaps translated into,
Pangasinan by a foreigner.

It is high time that Pangasinan universities should establish a
department of Pangasinan linguistics covering not only Pangasinan but
other languages as well. Ronald Himes (199  had convincingly argued
that Pangasinan belonged to the Southern Cordilleran group of
Philippine languages which includes Ibaloi, Karaw, Kalanguya
(Kallahan) and Ilongot (Bugkalot). Linguistic data supports, according
to him, the hypothesis that these groups subsumed under the name
Ibaloi during the Spanish colonial period "migrated northward along
the Agno River from Pangasinan to Kabayan." The Pangasinan culture
area could extend beyond its present territorial limits to include
parts of Benguet, Ifugao, Nueva Ecija, Nueva Vizcaya and Quirino for
comparative studies in linguistics and ethnography.

Likewise, a department of Pangasinan literature must also be
established where Pangasinan takes the center rather than being at the
margins by understanding first ourselves, then looking at other
cultures in relation to us as a people. In short, as Ngugi Thiong'O
and his colleagues (1995) had argued in a position paper submitted to
a university, departments of English and Filipino should be abolished
or better reorganized under a department of Pangasinan literature. As
a good metaphor, most of what make up PnS as surveyed here are not
produced in the center but rather ironically at the margins, which is
Manila. But understanding ourselves as a people encompasses not only
this department but the entire university structure; not only the
entire curricula and programs of a university but mass media,
education and local government, an ambitious enterprise, which is
never impossible to achieve.

Conclusion

De-marginalization of Pangasinan identity and culture and the
de-centering of mainstream Filipino/Tagalog national culture demand
the active participation of Pangasinan intellectuals, cultural
activists and political leaders.  PnS points to the recovery of our
suppressed identity and culture as a people pushed into the periphery
of national existence by the linguistic and cultural domination and
manipulation in the guise of national culture, national language and
national identity. The sooner we recognize the inherent defects of our
national language policy and the sooner we correct our apathy towards
these fundamental roots of our being as a people the sooner we can
heal our souls as a people.

Pangasinan culture and civilization as reflected in our language is
our patrimony. We need to save and defend it from the unwanted and
forced encroachments of other cultures. Only when we are able to
define our civilization can we Pangasinenses are able to stem the tide
of Tagalogization and Anglicization. Such is the aim of PnS. PnS,
however, is never closed to other cultures. PnS recognizes the
heterogeneous, multicultural and multilingual facets of Pangasinan
society.

The struggle toward liberation is not restricted to Pangasinan people.
It also calls for other ethnic cultures in the Philippines to rebel
against the dominant, the center and the national be it culture,
language or structure of studies.

http://libongen.wordpress.com/2008/08/02/heru/

-- 
**************************************
N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to
its members
and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner
or sponsor of
the list as to the veracity of a message's contents. Members who
disagree with a
message are encouraged to post a rebuttal. (H. Schiffman, Moderator)
*******************************************