English - Balay Mindanaw

English - Balay Mindanaw English - Balay Mindanaw

balaymindanaw.org
from balaymindanaw.org More from this publisher
12.07.2015 Views

LUMADNONG PAGKINABUHI NGADTO SA KALINAWThe research team with Datu Mandedlyne (former Brgy. Capt. Agulio Nanulanof Hagpa, Impasug-ong, Bukidnon) during the Community Feedbacking andValidation workshop at Sitio Kiudto in Hagpa last January 6, 2006. (Standing[L-R]: Carmen C. Monter, Kalayaan Anjuli D. Gatuslao, Leah H. Vidal, DatuMandedlyne, Xx Dagapioso- Baconga. Sitting [L-R]: Jonas A. Penaso, MelodyU. Salise, and Jimson P. Hapson.)Our task was to document the conflict resolutionpractices of the Higaunon groups in the localities ofSangalan and Hagpa. But we wanted to approach it ina way that is different from other lumad studies. We wantedto be able to capture the dynamism of the practices: how theyare actually performed and are being shaped in the process oftheir performance. Veering away from the usual notion thathuman practices are “standardized routine that one simplygoes through (Bruner 1986:5),” we wanted to capture howthe Higaunons actually shape and form their practices basedon their execution of such. So we turned to anthropology ofexperience. This was initially formulated by Victor Turner ashis “rebellion against the structural-functional orthodoxy withits static model of social system (Babcock as cited in Bruner12

Part 1 - Introductions1986:3),” and to structuralism, which “seek(s) a generalizedpattern, a model on a deeper level (1986: 8).” The two theoriesare the ones used in most ethnographic researches on thelumads that we have encountered.We asked the people to relate their experiences inpracticing conflict resolution, knowing that we will notcapture an absolute reality or the actual experience. Wewere mindful that we would be getting how they saw theirexperience, and how they are expressing it to us. They weresharing their “articulation, formulations and representationsof their experiences.” We identified several key informantsand respondents and we did not expect them to “tell the samestory.” We knew that “participants do not necessarily sharea common experience or meaning, what they share is onlytheir common participation.” Our aim was to capture theA gift -- two abaca woven bags, betel nuts, buyo leaves, money -- from DatuHulukuman to the Datu from Hinandayan who traveled all the way fromBuenavista, Agusan del Norte to participate as one of the mediating datus duringthe resolution of the Mandukita-Ansihagan conflict held at the Tribal Hall at SitioBagasabas, Barangay Sangalan, Gingoog City, last April 10 to 11, 2006.13

Part 1 - Introductions1986:3),” and to structuralism, which “seek(s) a generalizedpattern, a model on a deeper level (1986: 8).” The two theoriesare the ones used in most ethnographic researches on thelumads that we have encountered.We asked the people to relate their experiences inpracticing conflict resolution, knowing that we will notcapture an absolute reality or the actual experience. Wewere mindful that we would be getting how they saw theirexperience, and how they are expressing it to us. They weresharing their “articulation, formulations and representationsof their experiences.” We identified several key informantsand respondents and we did not expect them to “tell the samestory.” We knew that “participants do not necessarily sharea common experience or meaning, what they share is onlytheir common participation.” Our aim was to capture theA gift -- two abaca woven bags, betel nuts, buyo leaves, money -- from DatuHulukuman to the Datu from Hinandayan who traveled all the way fromBuenavista, Agusan del Norte to participate as one of the mediating datus duringthe resolution of the Mandukita-Ansihagan conflict held at the Tribal Hall at SitioBagasabas, Barangay Sangalan, Gingoog City, last April 10 to 11, 2006.13

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!