GE Gender and Society Chapter 5: Gender and History
GE Gender and Society Chapter 5: Gender and History
net/publication/364318364
CITATIONS READS
0 2,728
1 author:
A. M. Leal Rodriguez
University of Auckland
7 PUBLICATIONS 1 CITATION
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by A. M. Leal Rodriguez on 12 October 2022.
A. M. Leal R. Rodriguez
To cite this article: A. M. Leal R. Rodriguez (2022): Filipinising colonial gender values: A history
of gender formation in Philippine higher education, Educational Philosophy and Theory, DOI:
10.1080/00131857.2022.2128760
Introduction
Centuries of colonial governance contribute to complicated narratives about Philippine identity.
Despite the European and American domination of the Philippines’ culture, language and tra-
dition, Filipinos are more ‘Asian in consciousness and aspiration’ (Cullinane et al., 2020) sharing
values such as strong family ties with their South-East Asian neighbours and ‘Filipinising’ traits
from the colonisers’ cultures (Abinales & Amoroso, 2005).
The higher education system in the Philippines is modelled after the education system of
its colonisers: the Spaniards (1565−1898), the Americans (1898−1946) and briefly the Japanese
(1941−1945). The history of Philippine universities shows the values each coloniser prioritised
and embedded in education structures, revealing the gender order they created. The survey of
higher education’s history in the Philippines reveals the process of the country’s forced adap-
tation to colonisers’ needs, and later decolonisation and adaptation to its own needs.
Education remains a tool to impose and normalise values from colonists’ cultures, as ‘indi-
genised’ and adapted to Philippine culture. Foreign and colonial influences masked under
‘global competitiveness’ (Adeyemo, 2015) still affect universities’ relevance in post-colonial
societies such as the Philippines. Colonial values remain in universities and continue to shape
norms and values, including gender identity in these institutions. Despite this, initiatives con-
cerning gender in these institutions focus on gender mainstreaming, to address current issues
deemed ‘gendered’ in universities (Commission on Higher Education (CHED), 2015). These
overlook gender issues’ origins and serve as stop-gap measures. We must be able to reflect
on gender in education beyond these concerns. This article answers the call for a retheorisation
of Philippine philosophy of education by reflecting on the nature, aims and problems of edu-
cation and recognising the power of education institutions as normative in one overlooked
aspect of life—gender. The project maps the patterns that create universities’ gender regimes
and slowly places them in the gender order of greater Philippine society. By locating the
Filipino’s identity formation (Quito, 1978) specific to gender, we enhance our philosophising
on Philippine education.
extended to education; through this system, tradition and knowledge passed from one gener-
ation to the next.
Women in pre-Philippine society held more power and sexual freedom. One traced their
kinship through both the male and female lines (Eviota, 1992) with inheritance rights bestowed
to both sons and daughters. Women freely chose their sexual partners. Female spiritual healers
or babaylan remained integral to community life. Older women performed this role, though
some reports include feminine men who dressed as women to perform important village ritual
practices (McCoy, 1982). These babaylan bore the community’s culture, showing the value and
power delegated to special women or women-like persons, making the Spanish colonisers’
enforcement of their patriarchal gender order even more violent.
The Muslim settlers closely linked their education system to Islam. Their Imam (religious
leader) or Uleman (Islam scholar) took the lead in passing down Islam’s values and teachings
(Milligan, 2020).
The arrival of Ferdinand Magellan in 1521 started the violence of Spain’s colonial presence
in the archipelago overhauling the country’s political structure and economy and uniting numer-
ous ethnolinguistic groups (Constantino, 1975). Pre-Philippine values were subordinated by
Spain’s Eurocentric colonialism which involved the ‘direct, political, social and cultural domination’
of the conquered country (Quijano, 2007). Western imperialism led to the eventual consenting
of dominant groups within the islands to the colonisers’ values, creating a new hegemonic ideal.
Spain’s colonisation and the start of formal education in the Philippine Islands
We credit three macro developments in contemporary Philippine education to the Spanish
Colonial period: the church’s influence on education, the proliferation of single-sex schools, and
the high value placed on private education. The Spanish missionaries’ influence with religion,
specifically Catholicism (Brewer, 2004) caused this radical shift in the islands’ gender order and
educational priorities in the Philippines.
lay in the fear of indios gaining knowledge (Abinales & Amoroso, 2005). Learning the coloniser’s
language would allow access to knowledge, and therefore power, and would allow the indios
to defend themselves from the abuses of their colonisers (Santiago, 1991). Preventing this
maintained the friar’s image as the dominant force. Control of knowledge creation and produc-
tion reinforced Eurocentered colonial domination (Quijano, 2007) seen in different colonised
countries during this period.
Race barred indios from accessing education, which started the coloniality of power under
a Eurocentric, specifically Spanish, world power (Quijano, 2007). Despite decrees mandating
access to education, indios were only admitted to secondary school in 1645, eight decades after
the formalisation of the Philippines as a Spanish colony (Santiago, 1991). The students of primary
and higher education were male Spaniards or male children with Spanish parents who grew
up in the Philippines—‘secondary and tertiary levels of education were set up in the colony
for the exclusive benefit of Spanish youths’ (Santiago, 1991, p. 136). At the beginning of the
17th century, only those with ‘purity of [Spanish] blood’ (limpieza de sangre), were awarded
Baccalaureates from the only university in the Philippines at the time—the University of Sto.
Tomas (Santiago, 1991, p. 139). The policies eventually relaxed in 1674, when students from
other racial backgrounds were awarded baccalaureates. However, these still excluded indios and
Chinese mestizos (Santiago, 1991).
The supposed turning point for Philippine colonial education under Spain came with the
1863 decree of the Minister of War and Colonies. This document ‘laid down the legal basis for
a system of universal primary education, encompassing every single pueblo in the Philippine
Islands’ (Hunt & Mchale, 1965, p. 64). A shortage in the Spanish crown’s workforce made the
1863 decree include secular topics in the curriculum. However, the decree fell short of imple-
mentation, as Philippine public schools remained focused on reading, writing and memorising
devotional texts, with little to no attention to analytic thinking (Hunt & Mchale, 1965). Despite
this, ‘the Philippines had proportionally, a larger number of schools than almost any country
in the world excepting Europe and some Spanish dominions of South and Central America’
(Bazaco, 1953, p. 48). Only the sons of the principalia class could afford private tutors to learn
Spanish and prepare for higher education in Manila. (Abinales & Amoroso, 2005, p. 93). Women
did not continue to university, regardless of their race.
prevented the colony’s native inhabitants from entering education, including university education
(Santiago, 1991). The popularity of religious institutions called beaterios reinforced women’s roles
at home and further removed them from access to power and resources (Camacho, 2007).
Sex-segregated school with special curriculum for men and women created distinct roles per
gender. By the 19th century, the imminent change in ideology brought by the Spanish coloni-
sation instilled patriarchy and machismo values in various aspects of Filipino life (Rafael, 2018).
The ceding of the Philippines to America through the 1898 Treaty of Paris frustrated the
revolutionary leaders’ efforts towards independence. The Americans saw the Filipinos as unfit
for self-government (Hoganson, 1998), which justified the American’s policy of ‘benevolent
assimilation’—a policy instigated by the then-American president, William McKinley. The
Americans professed the Spanish regime’s incompetence and the supposed mental infancy
of the colony they left behind. They took it upon themselves to lead the Filipinos, their
newly acquired ‘little brown brothers’ (Kramer, 2006) about American life and imbibing
American values.
The Americans used education and military pursuits to mould men’s minds (Constantino,
1966). This technique rapidly expanded the reach of higher education during the early part of
American colonial’s rule. Massed education, military kinship, the feminisation of specific indus-
tries, and the colonial narrative espoused about Filipino men became the American’s legacy for
Philippine university education. The ideal result was a Filipino people who would become
subservient to the Americans, so the imperial agenda of capital expansion and wealth accumu-
lation could continue unquestioned (Eviota, 1992).
Labour in the latticework: Formalising women’s domestic role in the public sphere
The democratisation of education gave women more opportunities, yet literacy and gender
stereotyping plagued their experience. During primary education, girls were more literate than
their male counterparts. However, less women entered secondary and higher education than
men due to the belief that a woman’s life would be reflected by her husband’s educational
attainment (Sobritchea, 1990). Schools strongly emphasised women’s role in the domestic sphere,
reinforcing women’s role as good wives (Sobritchea, 1990, p. 79). Women included in the econ-
omy had their spheres of influence limited to household management and vocational activities
relating to care, weaving and crafts.
Americans and Filipino (Hardacker, 2012, p. 19). The American colonial period saw an increase
in enrolled students and the overall number of teachers. Mass education meant that those in
the peripheries, such as non-Manila cities and provinces, would finally have an educational
opportunity, specifically higher education (Hardacker, 2012). However, the 1925 Monroe Survey
on education promoted a more humanised approach to administration and materials adapted
to Philippine life. By the end of this regime, new challenges arose for American-trained Filipino
educators. They had a ‘sharply contrasting philosophy’, and needed to balance indigenous
leadership endeavours with the colonisers’ competing pressures. These educators’ goal was to
find a ‘value system most compatible with the dignity and aspirations of an independent coun-
try’ (Hunt & Mchale, 1965, p. 63).
The Japanese invasion during World War 2 delayed Philippine independence but added another
point for reflection for the country. The Americans abandoned the Philippine islands in 1942, which
formally started the Japanese occupation. These Japanese colonists brought the ‘Asia for Asian’
narrative (Abinales & Amoroso, 2005). The Japanese colonists’ reopened schools to instil discipline
in the Filipinos, using education to achieve military order. Nippongo or the Japanese language
became the priority language. Schools fostered of the love for work, and removed Western Values
such as materialism. One major shift during the Japanese’s short occupation involved teaching
Tagalog, Philippine History, and Philippine values in schools. While the Japanese colonial period
only lasted five years, these five years had given the Filipinos time to reflect on their consciousness
as ‘Orientals’, creating a Filipino for Asians policy (Musa & Ziatdinov, 2012). Their reign was short,
and the Philippines regained its freedom when the United States military assisted in reclaiming
Manila in 1945. In 1946, the Philippines was granted independence by the United States.
The article identified how colonial patterns of restructuring the Philippine gender order through
education, specifically university education, benefitted different colonial aims. Written record
(Abinales & Amoroso, 2005; Eviota, 1992) shows pre-colonial gender relations and structures were
egalitarian more prior to colonisation. Patterns of same-sex schools arranged gendered roles and
courses during the Spanish colonial period, reinforcing the assumption of Spanish men as the
golden standard for rationality (Paechter, 2018) making this identity aspirational. Conceptions of
the nation and national identity (Azada-Palacios, 2021), put forward by propagandists such as
the national hero Jose Rizal, resulted from colonial University education, creating a Filipino identity
(Schumacher, 1975) synonymous with Filipino manhood (Owen, 1999). Tracing this progression,
the American Colonial education feminised labour insofar as they reinforced a woman-specific
curriculum for women in universities who entered the work force (Sobritchea, 1990). The evolution
of the Philippine education system has led to lingering gender issues and structures we see
today. A heavily gendered education system remains harmful to identity construction of Filipinos.
This becomes the context from which we theorise the Philippine Philosophy of education.
and technological knowledge and promote efficiency’ (Philippine Const. 1987. art. XIV, section
3). They must also ‘inculcate patriotism and nationalism, foster love of humanity, respect for
human rights…’ (Philippine Const. 1987. art. XIV, section 3) while teaching history and proper
citizenship. The country’s education system pushes for globalisation (Adeyemo, 2015) and ‘eco-
nomic development and social progress’ as foreign interests continue to influence the topics
tackled in higher education. Foreign values have been indigenised by Filipinos (Opiniano et al.,
2022) such that a return to a pre-Philippine value system remains uncertain.
We contribute to the Philosophy of Philippine education by providing points for reflection,
specifically in terms of one’s gender. Current questions in the Philosophy of Education involve
the makings of a good life (Tesar et al., 2022). This points us to questions of gender. By locating
the Filipino’s identity formation (Quito, 1978) specific to gender, we ask, how are we gendered?
In what ways are we gendered? And who are we gendered for (Paechter, 2018)? Successful
educational reform cannot be achieved without linking gender-related issues within higher
education to broader social issues plaguing the Philippine nation. The push towards formal
education, specifically formal higher education results from outward values that aim to re-absorb
the Philippine labour force in a global market that does not benefit the country (Adeyemo,
2015). Gender issues affect access to education, quality of education, and an institution’s vision
for its ideal graduate. Philosophising about education involves a removal of assumptions regard-
ing particular bodies as masculine and feminine, removing sex-role stereotypes whose colonial
origins have a long-standing impact on learning and the economy.
We must explore avenues to decolonise the universities through reframing the Filipino phi-
losophy of education to fit our current gender order. Notions of how the Philippine gender
order was constructed by universities furthers discussions of decolonisation. Without grounding
education’s gender issues in the history of colonisation, reform remains incomplete. Interrogations
must be made on how we conceptualise reason and rationality in the Philippine context. Avenues
for educational reform include rethinking understandings of gender that impact teaching and
learning philosophy. Knowledge of the gender order’s radical shifts inspire possibilities for
change. With this, we can create an ‘education for freedom’ for Filipinos, with gender in mind.
And without troubling the notions of gender institutions put forward, we cannot explore a
Philosophy of Education that is truly Filipino.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes on contributor
A. M. Leal R. Rodriguez is a PhD student currently affiliated with the University of Auckland as a Faculty of Arts
Doctoral Scholar. A product of the Department of Sociology and the School of Critical Studies in Education, her
PhD project focuses on masculinities in the global south, gender, and higher education (universities). Her work
as a feminist activist with almost ten years of experience in the development and education sector led her to
decolonial and post-structuralist theory.
ORCID
A. M. Leal R. Rodriguez http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1671-0384
References
Abinales, P. N., & Amoroso, D. J. (2005). State and society in the Philippines. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Adeyemo, K. S. (2015). Regulatory and skills requirements for higher education in the Philippines. Industry and
Higher Education, 29(2), 89–92. https://doi.org/10.5367/ihe.2015.0249
Educational Philosophy and Theory 11
Alcala, A. C. (1999). Higher education in the Philippines. Philippine Studies, 47(1), 114–128.
Altbach, P. G. (1989). Twisted roots: The western impact on Asian higher education. Higher Education, 18(1), 9–29.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138959
Azada-Palacios, R. A. (2021). Hybridity and national identity in post-colonial schools. Educational Philosophy and
Theory, 54(9), 1431–1441. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2021.1920393
Bazaco, E. (1953). History of education in the Philippines: Spanish period 1565–1898 (2nd rev. ed.). University of Santo
Tomas Press.
Brewer, C. (2004). Shamanism, Catholicism and gender relations in colonial Philippines 1521–1685. Ashgate.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. Routledge.
Camacho, M. S. T. (2007). Woman’s worth: The concept of virtue in the education of women in Spanish colonial
Philippines. Philippine Studies, 55(1), 53–87.
Cardozier, V. R. (1984). Public higher education in the Philippines. International Review of Education, 30(2), 193–198.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00597919
Commission on Higher Education (CHED) (2015). Memorandum Order No. 1.
Connell, R. (1987). Gender and power: Society, the person, and sexual politics. Polity Press in Association with B.
Blackwell.
Connell, R. (2002). Gender. Polity; Blackwell Publishers.
Connell, R. (2005). Masculinities (2nd ed.). University of California Press.
Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender & Society,
19(6), 829–859. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243205278639
Constantino, R. (1966). The Filipinos in the Philippines and other essays (pp. 39–65). Malaya Books.
Constantino, R. (1975). The Philippines: The past revisited. Tala Publishing Services.
Cullinane, M., Hernandez, C., & Borlaza, G. C. (2020). Philippines. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved from https://
www.britannica.com/place/Philippines
Eviota, E. U. (1992). The political economy of gender women and the sexual division of labour in the Philippines. Zed Books.
Gutierrez, F. C. (2019). “Nothing unites men like war”: Fraternity rumbles, masculinity, and the routes to leader-
ship. Social Science Diliman, 15(1), 25–55.
Hardacker, E. P. (2012). The Impact of Spain’s 1863 educational decree on the spread of Philippine public schools
and language acquisition. European Education, 44(4), 8–30. https://doi.org/10.2753/EUE1056-4934440401
Hoganson, K. L. (1998). Fighting for American manhood. Yale University Press; JSTOR. www.jstor.org/stable/j.
ctt32bht5
Hunt, C. L., & Mchale, T. R. (1965). Education and Philippine economic development. Comparative Education Review,
9(1), 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1086/445110
Kramer, P. A. (2006). The blood of government: Race, empire, the United States, & the Philippines. University of North
Carolina Press.
McCoy, A. W. (1982). Baylan: Animist religion and Philippine peasant ideology. Philippine Quarterly of Culture and
Society, 10(3), 141–194.
McCoy, A. W. (2000). Philippine commonwealth and cult of masculinity. Philippine Studies, 48(3), 315–346.
McHale, T. R. (1962). American colonial policy towards the Philippines. Journal of Southeast Asian History, 3(1),
24–43. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0217781100000533
Milligan, J. A. (2020). Islamic identity, postcoloniality, and educational policy: Schooling and ethno-religious conflict in
the Southern Philippines (2nd ed. 2020). Springer.
Musa, S., & Ziatdinov, R. (2012). Features and historical aspects of the Philippines educational system. European
Journal of Contemporary Education, 2(2), 155–176. https://doi.org/10.13187/ejced.2012.2.155
Opiniano, G. A., Jackson, L., Cortez, F. G. F., de los Reyes, E. J., Mancenido-Bolaños, M. A. V., Altez-Albela, F. R.,
Abenes, R., Monje, J., Basal, T. J. B., Elicor, P. P. E., Suazo, R. S., & Azada-Palacios, R. (2022). Philosophy of edu-
cation in a new key: A collective writing project on the state of Filipino philosophy of education. Educational
Philosophy and Theory, 54(8), 1256–1270. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2021.2008357
Owen, N. (1999). Masculinity and National Identity in the 19th century Philippines. Illes I Imperis Estudios De Historia
De Las Sociedades En El Mundo Colonial Y Post Colonial. https://www.academia.edu/27033736/Masculinity_and_
National_Identity_in_the_19th_century_Philippines
Paechter, C. (2018). Gender and the philosophy of education. In International handbook of philosophy of education,
(pp. 981–994).
Philippine Const. 1987. art. XIV, section 3.
Quijano, A. (2007). Coloniality and modernity/rationality. Cultural Studies, 21(2–3), 168–178. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09502380601164353
Quito, E. (1978). The role of the university in changing women’s consciousness. DLSU dialogue. An Interdisciplinary
Journal for Cultural Studies, 14(1), 1–1.
Rafael, V. L. (2018). Colonial contractions: The making of the modern Philippines, 1565–1946. In V. L. Rafael, Oxford
Research Encyclopedia of Asian History. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acre -
fore/9780190277727.013.268
12 A. M. L. R. RODRIGUEZ
Santiago, L. P. R. (1991). The beginnings of higher education in the Philippines (1601–1772). Philippine Quarterly
of Culture and Society, 19(2), 135–145.
Schumacher, J. N. (1975). Philippine higher education and the origins of nationalism. Philippine Studies, 23(1/2),
53–65.
Sobritchea, C. (1990). Philippine history and society: American colonial period. Asian Studies Journal, 28, 70–91.
Tesar, M., Hytten, K., Hoskins, T. K., Rosiek, J., Jackson, A. Y., Hand, M., Roberts, P., Opiniano, G. A., Matapo, J., St.
Pierre, E. A., Azada-Palacios, R., Kuby, C. R., Jones, A., Mazzei, L. A., Maruyama, Y., O'Donnell, A., Dixon-Román,
E., Chengbing, W., Huang, Z., … Jackson, L. (2022). Philosophy of education in a new key: Future of philosophy
of education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 54(8), 1234–1255. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2021.194
6792
Torres, A. (1993). Women’s education as an instrument for change: The case of the Philippines. In The Politics of
women’s education: Perspectives from Asia, Africa, and Latin America (pp. 105–119). University of Michigan Press.
https://archive.org/details/politicsofwomens0000unse
Valledor-Lukey, V. V. (2012). Pagkababae at Pagkalalake (Femininity and Masculinity): Developing a Filipino Gender
Trait Inventory and predicting self-esteem and sexism [Child and Family Studies—Dissertations]. Syracuse University.
Wolters, O. W. (1999). History, culture, and region in Southeast Asian perspectives (Rev. ed.). Southeast Asia Program
Publications, Southeast Asia Program, Cornell University.