An Anarchy of Families: State and Family in the Philippines. by Alfred W.
McCoy
Review by: Mina Roces
The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 53, No. 4 (Nov., 1994), pp. 1322-1324
Published by: Association for Asian Studies
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2059319 .
Accessed: 23/06/2014 17:17
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Association for Asian Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Journal of Asian Studies.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 185.2.32.24 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 17:17:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
1322 THE JOURNAL OF ASIAN STUDIES
rationaleforAmericanintervention in Indochinaduringthe 1940s and 1950s. On
thatscore,the book's failureto acknowledgethe radicalcritiqueofAmericanpolicy
developedby GabrielKolko, PatrickHearden,ThomasMcCormick,BruceCumings,
and othersis particularlyregrettable.The one mentionof Kolko's Anatomyof a
War: Vietnam,the UnitedStates,and theModernHistoricalExperience (New York:
Pantheon,1985), arguablyone of the most challengingstudiesyet writtenon the
amountsto littlemorethana summary
conflict, dismissal.Despitethoseweaknesses
and theyare significantones-this collectioncontainsmuch of value. It deserves
a prominentplace on the bookshelvesof all who teach about the VietnamWar.
ROBERT J. MCMAHON
University
ofFlorida
An AnarchyofFamilies:Stateand Familyin thePhilippines.Editedby ALFRED
W. McCoy. Madison: CenterforSoutheastAsian Studies, University
of Wisconsin-Madison,1993. x, 541 pp.
EditorAlfredW. McCoy's rationalebehindthe book Anarchy ofFamiliesis that
scholarsof Philippinestudieshave ignoredthe importanceof elite familiesin the
historicaldevelopmentofthe Philippinestate.DismissingmostFilipinobiographies
as mere hagiographyand not hisrory,McCoy offersfourhypotheses:(1) family
oligarchies factorin Philippinehistory,(2) it is the relationsbetween
are a significant
these familiesthat influencePhilippinepolitics, (3) elite familynetworksbring
factionalisminto the political arena, and (4) "interactionbetweenpowerfulrent-
seekingfamiliesand a correspondingly weak Philippinestatehas been synergistic"
(p. 19). The essays in the volume fail dismallyto supportthe validityof these
hypotheses.Actually,the variousessaysare about individuals,not families.In fact,
the majorityof the essaysconcentrateon an individualpolitician'srise to power
throughviolentmeans and narratehis failureto pass on his legacyof prominence
and successto the nextgeneration.JohnSidel's studyon JustianoMontano,from
its verytitle,"faileddynastybuilding,"revealsMontano'sinabilityto keep himself
in power,let alone entrenchhis family.Not MichaelCullinaneon Ramon Durano,
norG. CarterBentleyon MohammedAli Dimaporo,norRuby Paredeson the Pardo
de Taveras makes the link betweenfamiliesand the state, nor do theybotherto
show how familydynamicsoperatein the political cultureof postwarPhilippines.
The book'sthrust,thatindividualpoliticianshad close ties to thepresidents(always
interpreted as the ultimatepatron)ascribesto the factionalmodel withoutadding
any new insights.
As editor,McCoy focuseson twocriticalcharacteristics ofelite familydynamics:
violenceand rent-seeking (definedas the family'sdesireto gain businessmonopoly
franchisesfromthe statethroughpatronageties withthe president).He arguesthat
violenceis necessaryforan elite family'srise to political and nationalprominence.
Thus, fiveout of the eight essaysin this volume contendthat theirsubject had a
reputationfor utilizing violence; that is, the Moncados, the Duranos, and the
Dimaporos..Even thecoverof the book, a photographofAntiqueGovernorEnrique
A. Zaldivarsurroundedby armedmen, highlightsthe book's focuson violenceas
endemicto Philippinefamilydynamics.So how does one reconcileall thesewith
McCoy'sassertionthat"the processof legitimation. . . discouragesthe continuing
use ofpoliticalviolence"(p. 15)? And of the Marcosregime,McCoy concludesthat
This content downloaded from 185.2.32.24 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 17:17:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
BOOK REVIEWS-SOUTHEAST ASIA 1323
"In the end, it was his use of violence,along witheconomicmismanagement, that
forcedthe nationalelite to turnagainsthim" and "Over the long term. . . reliance
on violencediscreditedthe regime,forcingMarcos into exile" (pp. 16, 439).
McCoy portrayswarlordismas a commonfeatureof Philippinepolitics since
thewar; I would arguethatviolenceand warlordism are atypicalofkinshippolitics.
While the Duranos, the Moncados, and the Dimaporos representone extremeof
familieswho use violenceas a dominantdynamic,a moretypicalfamilywould be
theOsmefiasanalyzedin theexcellentessayin thisbook by Resil Mojares;he presents
a sophisticatedanalysisof the Osmefiafamilyplaced in a diachronicframework of
a family'sclevermanipulationof the idioms of electoralpolitics. In fact,Mojares
critiquesthe inadequacyof thepatron-client modelfornot onlyreducingthe inactive
participants of the to
game "passive masses" but notadequatelyproblematizing such
indicatorsof political developmentas literacy,education,and urbanization.The
Osmefiasare not one-dimensional rent-seekers; theyreliedon an electoralmachine
and ideologicalappealsratherthansimplyon military or economiccoercion.Mojares's
essay,however, does not really"fit" into the themes of the book, since it does not
explorethe linksbetweenthefamilyand the state,and neitherdoes it depictviolence
or rent-seeking as a major featureof the Osmefias..Instead, Mojares insightfully
showsthe Osmefiafamilymoderatingbehavior,using not merelythe dynamicsof
personalizedpoliticsbut also the ideology/issuesthatare now permeatingelectoral
politics. This approachallows Mojares to presenta more sophisticatedanalysisof
familydynamicsthanmerepatron-client ties. In thissense,Mojares'sessaypointedly
challengesand even subvertsMcCoy's theme. Anotherexcellentessay is Jeremy
Beckett'sessay on politics in Maguindanao, which traces the emergenceof the
professional politician,suggestingthat familydynamicsbecomesless importantin
Maguindanaoin recentyears(again a modificationof the factionalmodel).
McCoy's applicationof the "rent-seeking"conceptin his essay on the Lopez
familyis inextricably glued to patron-clientties,wherehe seesthePhilippinepresident
as supremepatron.For McCoy, the Lopez family'sbusinessempireis createdfrom
the "rents"it was able to acquire throughits closenessto Philippinepresidentsso
thatthe withdrawalof presidentialpatronageunderMarcossignaledthe demiseof
the family.Thus, the Lopezes have been successfulbecause theywere "skilled in
securingthe presidential patronageso centralto the successof family-based enterprise
in thePhilippines"(p. 516). McCoy sees presidentialpatronageas thekeyto empire
building: "a presidentcan createvast wealth fora favoredfew by grantinga de
factomonopolyor approvinglow-interest loans" (p. 517). But patronagepolitics
is too simplistica modelforexplainingthecomplexitiesoffamilydynamicsin post-
war Philippines.Firstof all, it is not just the presidentwho hands out favors.It
is throughthe senatorsand congressmen (thatis whyfamilieslike to have members
in the legislature)that laws are passed privilegingcertainbusinesses.Closenessto
the presidentof the CentralBank or the PhilippineNational Bank can be even
more importantthan ties to the president,since it is these banks who approved
and/orguaranteedspecialloans(withtheexceptionofthemartiallaw years.)While
McCoyseesFernandoLopez'spositionas Secretary ofAgricultureand NaturalResources
as a "secondarypost" withwhichhe was "seeminglycontent"(p. 507), in actuality
the Lopezes foughtforthis positionin the Quirino yearsand were rewardedwith
it in the Marcosyears.Second, the Lopez familywas not only allied to Philippine
presidents,theywere"kingmakers"-theirsupporthelpedmake Marcospresident.
The presidentowed themfavors,so that, in this sense, Marcosin 1965 and 1969
was not the supremepatron.Furthermore, if presidentialpatronagewas the key to
This content downloaded from 185.2.32.24 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 17:17:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
1324 THE JOURNAL OF ASIAN STUDIES
successfulbusiness,howdoesone explainthattheLopezesfoughteverysinglepresident
except,perhaps,Garcia? Why would a familyattackthe supremepatronnecessary
forrent-seeking? If presidentialpatronageis absolutelyessentialforelite families
to practice"rent-seeking," how does McCoy explain'thateverypresident(with the
exceptionof Marcos) was voted out of office?If patronagepolitics is indeed the
overarching dynamicthatoperatedin thepoliticalculture,thencertainly an incumbent
presidentwho had superiorpatronageresourceswould easily defeatany outside
contenders. How does patronagepoliticsexplainthe EDSA revolution of 1986 (those
who riskedtheirlivesbystandingbeforearmoredpersonnel carriers
werenotmotivated
by personalor familypolitics)or that 1992 presidentialcandidateMiriamDefensor-
Santiagoalmost made it to the presidencywith no familybackingand almost no
patronageresources?Clearly,thereare otherdynamicsoperatinghere apart from
the "rent-seeking" or "familial"ones. I arguethatkinshippolitics,definedhereas
a familyalliance using powerand influenceto benefitthe kinshipgroup, though
a dominantinfluence(and farmore complexthan merepatron-clientties), is not
theonlydynamicoperatingin Philippinepoliticalculture.Familiesexhibitambivalent
behaviorusingnotonlythe idiomsof kinshippoliticsbut also the idiomsof Western
valuesor loyaltyto the nation-state,a pointechoedby Mojares'ssophisticated analysis
of the Osmefiafamily'smanipulationof both the idioms of patronagepoliticsand
ideologicalissues in its use of electionsto acquire the mandateforthe practiceof
kinshippolitics.
Finally,it is incumbenton me'to note thatMcCoy includesmy dissertation in
his list of hagiographies.Entitled"Kinship Politics in Post-WarPhilippines:The
Lopez Family, 1945-1989" (Maria Natividad Roces, Ph.D. diss., The University
of Michigan,1990), thisdissertation arguesthatthe conflictbetweenkinshippolitics
and Westernvalues fromthe colonial era, which taughtthat loyaltyto the nation
was more importantthan the family,explained the cycles of administrations in
postwarPhilippinesthroughwhichone familyalliancewas elected into officeonly
to be overthrownlater due to issues of graftand corruption.The Lopez family
historywas used as a case studyfordemonstrating this hypothesisand of necessity
was highlycriticalof the Lopez use of kinshippolitics.
MINA ROCES
CentralQueensland
University
IndonesianPoliticalBiography:
In SearchofCross-Cultural
Understanding.
Edited
by ANGUS MCINTYRE. Clayton,Victoria: CenterforSoutheastAsian
Studies, Paper No. 28, Monash University,1993. xi, 327 pp.
In presentingMonashUniversity's secondvolumeon Indonesianbiography, Angus
McIntyreargues for Indonesianistsdevotingmore attentionto what HarryBenda
describedas "the irreducibleimportanceof the individualactorin history"(p. v),
but he also stressesthedangersawaitingthosewho followthisadvice.His concluding
essay,in fact,stronglycriticizeswhat he sees as the two principalshortcomings of
mostof thosenon-Indonesian biographers who havethusfarventuredinto the field:
"an excessiverelianceon culturalexplanationand a failureto investigateand put
to good use thebiographer-subject (p. 291). In his introduction,
relationship" McIntyre
further accuses"Indonesianistbiographers"of a tendency eitherto identify
too readily
withtheirsubjectsor too easilyto repudiatethem(p. vi). In neitherhis introductory
This content downloaded from 185.2.32.24 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 17:17:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
