Introduction
This essay explores the application and limitations of ethnography as a methodological tool in anthropology, focusing on the works of Felipe Landa Jocano and Oona Paredes. Jocano’s study, Maternal and Child Care Among the Tagalogs in Bay, Laguna, Philippines (1970), and Paredes’ A Mountain of Difference: The Lumad in Early Colonial Mindanao (2013), provide distinct approaches—participant observation and historical ethnography, respectively—to understanding Filipino indigenous communities. The purpose of this analysis is to examine how their methods reveal cultural knowledge while grappling with inherent constraints, shaped by context, sources, and researcher positionality. Key points include the strengths of their approaches, the limitations they encounter, and the broader implications for ethnographic research.
Jocano’s Participant Observation: Detail and Distance
Felipe Landa Jocano’s work in Bay, Laguna, from 1968 to 1970, offers a detailed account of maternal and child care among the Tagalog community. His methodology, primarily based on face-to-face interviews and direct observation, captures intricate practices from conception to adolescence, including sexual customs, childbirth, and the role of traditional healers like hilots (Jocano, 1970). For instance, his documentation of paglilihi (early pregnancy cravings) and the use of medicinal plants illustrates a systematic indigenous knowledge often dismissed by contemporary health experts as superstition. This specificity strengthens his argument for the validity of local practices, aligning with his aim to counter external biases during the socio-political shifts of the Marcos era.
However, Jocano’s approach reveals limitations. His tone remains notably detached, lacking personal engagement with the community or mention of key informants, which risks presenting the Tagalog way of life as a static, textbook narrative (Jocano, 1970). Furthermore, his failure to address historical influences—such as colonial medical systems—or internal community tensions over traditional healing suggests a gap in critical depth. This raises questions about the completeness of his portrayal and highlights how even meticulous observation cannot fully uncover hidden social dynamics.
Paredes’ Historical Ethnography: Reconstructing Through Fragments
In contrast, Oona Paredes employs historical ethnography to study the Lumad of early colonial Mindanao, focusing on symbols of authority such as the golden cane in Chapter 6 of her 2013 book. By combining Spanish archival records with indigenous oral traditions, she uncovers how the cane, originally a Spanish bastón de mando, was reinterpreted by Lumad leaders as a marker of pre-existing authority (Paredes, 2013). This dual meaning, meticulously drawn from fragmented sources, showcases ethnography’s capacity to reveal layered cultural interpretations beyond Eurocentric or nationalist narratives.
Nevertheless, Paredes confronts significant constraints. Her reliance on incomplete colonial records and selective oral traditions means some perspectives remain silenced or unrecoverable (Paredes, 2013). She reflexively acknowledges this, noting the ethical dilemmas of interpreting mediated stories and the influence of her positionality on access to narratives. This critical self-awareness underscores a key challenge of ethnography: the inevitable partiality of historical reconstruction, where silences shape knowledge as much as recorded data.
Comparative Insights: Context and Adaptation
Comparing Jocano and Paredes reveals how ethnography adapts to temporal and contextual demands. Jocano’s urgency in documenting living practices amid encroaching modernization contrasts with Paredes’ slower, archival method to reconstruct a distant past. While Jocano’s work can seem extractive due to its emotional distance, Paredes’ approach risks misinterpretation due to source biases (Jocano, 1970; Paredes, 2013). Together, they illustrate that ethnography is not a fixed tool but a dynamic process, shaped by purpose—whether validating local knowledge or challenging historical misrepresentations—and limited by what can be observed or recovered.
Conclusion
In summary, Jocano and Paredes demonstrate both the power and constraints of ethnography in capturing cultural realities. Jocano’s detailed observations validate Tagalog practices but lack critical engagement with broader contexts, while Paredes’ nuanced reconstruction of Lumad history grapples with incomplete sources and ethical representation. Their works highlight that ethnographic knowledge is always partial, shaped by silences, researcher positionality, and methodological limits. The implication for anthropology is clear: ethnography must be approached not as a definitive answer but as a conversation with the unspoken, urging future researchers to navigate these gaps with sensitivity and rigour.
References
- Jocano, F. L. (1970) Maternal and Child Care Among the Tagalogs in Bay, Laguna, Philippines. University of the Philippines Press.
- Paredes, O. (2013) A Mountain of Difference: The Lumad in Early Colonial Mindanao. Cornell University Press.
