Introduction
This essay explores the use of ethnography in Oona Paredes’ work, specifically focusing on Chapter 6, “The Golden Cane and Other Colonial Symbols of Indigenous Authority,” from her 2013 book *A Mountain of Difference: The Lumad in Early Colonial Mindanao*. Ethnography, as a qualitative research method rooted in anthropology, seeks to understand cultural phenomena through immersive observation and detailed historical analysis. Paredes employs this approach to examine the complex interplay between indigenous Lumad communities and colonial powers in Mindanao during the early Spanish colonial period. This essay will discuss how Paredes uses ethnographic methods to interpret colonial symbols of authority, evaluate the strengths and limitations of her approach, and consider the broader implications for understanding indigenous agency. By analysing her methodology and contextual evidence, the essay aims to highlight the significance of ethnography in uncovering nuanced historical narratives.
Ethnographic Methodology in Paredes’ Analysis
In Chapter 6, Paredes utilises ethnography to reconstruct the socio-political dynamics between the Lumad and Spanish colonisers, focusing on symbols such as the golden cane, which represented indigenous authority under colonial oversight. Her approach draws on archival records, missionary accounts, and oral histories to interpret how such symbols were perceived and negotiated by indigenous groups. This method allows Paredes to go beyond Eurocentric colonial narratives, offering insights into how the Lumad adapted to and resisted imposed structures of power. For instance, she notes that while the golden cane was bestowed by Spanish authorities as a marker of subservience, it was often reinterpreted by indigenous leaders as a legitimisation of pre-existing authority (Paredes, 2013). This dual meaning, carefully documented through her analysis of historical texts, exemplifies ethnography’s strength in revealing layered cultural interpretations.
Furthermore, Paredes’ ethnographic approach integrates a historical lens, aligning with anthropological traditions of understanding culture within specific temporal contexts. Her careful selection of primary sources—colonial reports and indigenous accounts—demonstrates a sound understanding of the field, though it occasionally lacks deeper critical engagement with potential biases in these materials. Nonetheless, her methodology effectively illustrates how symbols functioned as tools of both control and resistance, providing a balanced view of colonial encounters.
Strengths and Limitations of Paredes’ Ethnographic Approach
One strength of Paredes’ ethnography lies in its ability to foreground indigenous perspectives, often marginalised in colonial historiography. By examining the symbolic significance of the golden cane, she highlights indigenous agency, showing how Lumad leaders navigated colonial impositions to retain cultural autonomy (Paredes, 2013). This focus is particularly valuable in anthropology, as it addresses the discipline’s aim to amplify subaltern voices. Additionally, her interdisciplinary use of historical ethnography—combining archival research with cultural interpretation—demonstrates a competent application of specialist skills, even if it remains somewhat descriptive at times.
However, a notable limitation is the limited exploration of counterarguments or alternative interpretations of the symbols she discusses. While Paredes acknowledges the coercive nature of colonial symbols, her analysis could benefit from a more critical approach to the power imbalances inherent in her sources, many of which were written by Spanish chroniclers. Indeed, a broader consideration of conflicting perspectives could strengthen her arguments, aligning with the critical depth expected in academic discourse (Robson, 2002). Despite this, her work remains a useful starting point for understanding the complexities of colonial-indigenous interactions in Mindanao.
Broader Implications for Anthropological Research
Paredes’ ethnographic study has significant implications for anthropology, particularly in the study of colonial histories and indigenous resilience. Her work underscores the importance of using ethnography to uncover hidden narratives, demonstrating how cultural symbols can serve as sites of contestation and adaptation. This approach is arguably essential for addressing complex historical problems, as it provides a framework for examining power dynamics through a culturally sensitive lens. Moreover, her research highlights the applicability of ethnography in challenging dominant historical accounts, a practice that remains relevant in contemporary anthropological studies of post-colonial societies (Clifford and Marcus, 1986).
Conclusion
In conclusion, Oona Paredes’ use of ethnography in Chapter 6 of *A Mountain of Difference* offers a compelling analysis of colonial symbols of authority and their significance in early colonial Mindanao. By employing historical ethnography, she effectively illuminates the nuanced ways in which the Lumad negotiated power through symbols like the golden cane, thereby contributing to a deeper understanding of indigenous agency. While her approach demonstrates sound knowledge and methodological competence, it occasionally lacks critical depth in evaluating source biases. Nevertheless, her work underscores the value of ethnography in anthropology, particularly for reconstructing marginalised histories and addressing complex cultural interactions. The implications of her research extend beyond Mindanao, offering insights into the broader study of colonialism and resistance, and highlighting the continued relevance of ethnographic methods in uncovering diverse perspectives.
References
- Clifford, J. and Marcus, G.E. (eds.) (1986) *Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography*. Berkeley: University of California Press.
- Paredes, O. (2013) *A Mountain of Difference: The Lumad in Early Colonial Mindanao*. Ithaca: Southeast Asia Program Publications, Cornell University.
- Robson, C. (2002) *Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and Practitioner-Researchers*. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
