Should "Tribe" Be Used by Cordilleran IP Groups?

Should Igorots still use "tribe" to refer to the various ethnolinguistic groups in the Cordillera?

This question sometimes arises in discussions among fellow academics who question the appropriateness of the term. On a minor note, the term bears a colonial baggage (e.g., Finin 2005, 26-30) and the notion of the philistine -- notwithstanding the claim that contemporary “[a]nthropologists do not associate the term tribal society with anything negative” (Ferraro and Andreatta 2014, 320).

More importantly, it does seem to be an inappropriate term based on its general definition given by cultural anthropologists: “a culturally distinct population whose members consider themselves descended from the same ancestor” (Nanda and Warms 2018, 175). Thus, anthropologist Jesus Peralta (2008) argues, there are “technically… no tribes in the Philippines”— only “ethnic groups” or “ethno-linguistic groups”—because traditional communities in the country are characterized by a bilateral, not a unilineal, kinship system. He also maintains that since these cultural groups are, to a large extent, organizationally overshadowed by the state, they cannot qualify as real tribes.  

Peralta's academic (anthropological) definition of the term squares with at least two popular definitions:

Collins: Tribe is sometimes used to refer to a group of people of the same race, language, and customs, especially in a developing country. Some people disapprove of this use.

Oxford: a social group in a traditional society consisting of people with the same language, culture, religion, etc., living in a particular area and often having one leader known as a chief

However, I have long observed that the Kalingas unproblematically use the term to mean “ethnic community” or this collectivity of families, clans and generations identifying themselves around a commonly shared traditional culture -- whether referring to themselves in general or to their specific ili, just as it is used apparently in this sense by other Filipino scholars -- e.g., Cariño (2012) and Leo (2011, 381). This "non-technical" usage of the term also fits into its popular, dictionary meaning, as follows:

Meriam -Webster: a social group made up of many families, clans, or generations that share the same language, customs, and beliefs

Cambridge: a group of people often of related families, who live together, sharing the same language, culture, and history, especially those who do not live in towns or cities

It seems to me then, as a Kalinga, that the term can be used simply as a descriptive word to refer to an aggrupation of indigenous peoples, with the intent of emphasizing a distinctively traditional culture, without necessarily invoking colonial or racial prejudices. Besides, who should dictate upon us what to call ourselves, anyway, given the fact that terms like "ethnic group" and "ethnolinguistic groups" are arbitrarily imposed labels on societies?

Further, while it is true that there are no “pure” tribes today (Ferrarro and Andreatta 2014, 318), the term may not at all be inappropriate in reference to the native communities in, say, Kalinga for they share at least three characteristics of tribes as understood by cultural anthropologists themselves—the presence of pan-tribal structures within each group (e.g., Banao Bodong Tribal Association, Inc.) or across Kalinga (Kalinga Bodong Council or the bodong system itself), non-centralized/informal leadership, and consensus-based decision-making processes (Ferrarro and Andreatta 2014, 315). The fact that the Kalingas or Ifugaos or any other ethnic groups in the Cordillera are politically overshadowed by the Philippine state doesn't necessarily mean that "tribe" is no longer an appropriate term for their respective communities; it simply means that they are no longer wholly autonomous as before (see a discussion on the ever-evolving definitions or characteristics of tribes in Kottak 2017, 153-174).

Finally, jettisoning “tribe” and replacing it with “ethnic group” does not make the distinction any clearer since the term is itself problematic -- i.e., (a) it continues to be contested term just as it was when Julian Huxley and A.C. Haddon first introduced the term over 80 years ago as a substitute for “race” (see Eller 2016, 110-118); and thus, (b) its various definitions can actually also refer to “tribe” as understood by Igorots who comfortably use the term.

So should Cordilleran Indigenous communities use "tribe" as a label of self-identification?  It is up to them, and I am in no position to dictate upon them what they should call themselves. Whether they continue to use the term to refer to themselves or cast it off entirely is a decision they have to make collectively.  In the case of the Kalinga communities, they generally have no problem using the term as far as I know. If they are comfortable with it, who am I to tell them they ought not to use it? The Vanaws calls its governing body the Banao Bodong Tribal Association (BBTA), and the whole community does not seem to find any issue about the term. Who am I to tell them not to use the terms "tribe" or "tribal" for group identification?  

What I try to avoid is to assume the garb of a spokesperson of the Cordillera or even my own community, the Vanaw, and tell them what or what not to call themselves. For after all, words and word meanings evolve, and I believe it is true to the term in question -- just as exonyms like 'Filipino', 'Igorot' and 'Kalinga' have now acquired denotative and connotative meanings that are different from or even opposite to what these terms originally meant.

Works Cited:

Cariño, Jacqueline K. 2012. “Country Technical Notes on Indigenous Peoples’ Issues Republic of the Philippines.” Accessed November 3, 2014. http://www.ifad.org/ english/indigenous/pub/ documents/ tnotes/philippines. pdf.

Eller, Jack David. 2016. Cultural Anthropology: Global Forces, Local Lives. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge.

Ferraro, Gary and Susan Andrea. 2014. Cultural Anthropology: An Applied Perspective. 10th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

Finin, Gerard A. 2005. The Making of the Igorot: Contours of Cordillera Consciousness. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.

Kottak, Conrad Philip. 2017. Cultural Anthropology: Appreciating Cultural Diversity. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.

Leo, Mark Sabas. 2011. “Indigenous Folk Dance and Performance.” In Encyclopedia of Asian American Folklore and Folklife, edited by Jonathan H. X. Lee and Kathleen M. Nadeau, 380-82. Santa Barbara, CA: ABCCLIO, LLC.

Nanda, Serena, and Richard L. Warms. 2018. Culture Counts: A Concise Introduction to Cultural Anthropology. 4th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.

Peralta, Jesus T. 2008. “Why There are No Tribes in the Philippines.” Accessed November 4, 2014. http://www.ncca.gov.ph/about-cultureand-arts/articles-on-c-n-a/article.php?subcat=13&i=294.