(Re)Constructing Multiculturalism 1

Paper accepted for presentation at International Conference

Future Imperatives of Communication and Information for
Development and Social Change
Bangkok, December 20-22, 2010.
http://www.jcconference.co.cc/.It
This conference is jointly coordinated by the Faculty of Journalism and Mass Communication
at Thammasat University; the Department of Communication at the University of Nagasaki;
and the Center ‘Communication for Sustainable Social Change’ (CSSC) at UMass Amherst.
The conference forms part of a series of preparatory and inter-connected conferences,
coordinated by ORBICOM-UNESCO Chairs in Communication, across the regions of the
world to focus the attention of the most experienced and innovative information and
communication scholars, practitioners and policy-makers on the new challenges towards
world development and sustainability.

Redefining Indigenous Communities in the Digital Age

Liezel C. Longboan
PhD Candidate
School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies
Cardiff University, Wales, United Kingdom
Abstract:
Indigenous peoples, despite the socio-political advances they have made, continue to be ‘incarcerated’ in places, to borrow from Appadurai

(1998: 37). While most of them continue to live in their ancestral lands, they have been increasingly moving to urban areas and foreign

countries. However, research documents, and national and international policy documents stress their attachment to the land, among other

characteristics, which reify the idea that peoples and their cultures are tied to specific places. The United Nations Permanent Forum on

Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) has acknowledged that the trends, dynamics and impact of migration among indigenous peoples’ and their

communities have yet to be fully studied (UNFPII, 2006). This paper seeks to contribute to the growing number of research on diasporic

indigenous peoples, particularly on their use of computer-mediated communication, to engage in identity construction and community-

building. Migration has made it imperative for researchers to adopt more nuanced approaches towards the study of indigenous peoples’

construction of place and identification. The complex dichotomy between the global and the local, space and place, seem to be more

palpable in studies focusing on indigenous peoples because they are often represented as rooted to the land and tradition, territory and kin.

While places shape personal and cultural identity (Tilley 1994 in Escobar 2001), places are also socially constructed (Rodman 1992;

Massey 1994 in Gielis 2009; Escobar 2001).

This paper explores the complexity of indigenous peoples’ diasporic experiences and their concept of identity and place. Focusing

on indigenous peoples in North Luzon, Philippines collectively called Igorots, the paper describes their increasing migration to

foreign countries in search of better economic opportunities. Although they are physically detached from their communities of

origin, they have created translocal communities using online discussion forums that illustrate a distinct blending of indigenous

values and cosmopolitan perspectives. They are beginning to write about their personal and collective experiences as indigenous
(Re)Constructing Multiculturalism 2

groups and as part of an Igorot diaspora evidenced by their considerable Internet presence on websites, blogs, and email groups.

Mostly educated and closely linked by offline networks, members are carefully treading the tenuous lines between their village,

regional, national and transnational identifications in their online interactions. Igorots form a substantial part of the ever growing

diasporic Filipino community, estimated to be at nine million, or ten percent of the country’s total population. Next to India and

Mexico, the Philippines receives the third highest net remittance in the world from its overseas workers and immigrants (Pernia

2006). The astounding economic contribution of migrants is to be expected considering that large-scale labour migration is not

only encouraged, but institutionalised within the state’s legal and governmental systems (Asis 2008).

Apart from moving between geographic and socio-cultural boundaries, from their own villages to cosmopolitan cities around the

world, Igorots are also creating and occupying virtual neighbourhoods. Despite the lack of formal organisation, their loose online

collaboration has brought about significant social impact to migrants in difficult situations and indigenous communities in the

Philippines.

Key words: indigenous peoples; identity; Philippines; diaspora; Internet

Redefining Indigenous Communities in the Digital Age

Liezel C. Longboan,

School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies

Cardiff University, Wales, United Kingdom

Introduction

One of the main identifying characteristics of indigenous peoples is their continuous

occupation of their lands ‘since time immemorial’ (Clifford 1994: 310; UN 2008).

Discourses about their deep attachment to their lands are found in anthropological research

and in international policy documents set out by the United Nations. While this particular

characteristic remains true for many of them, it has become problematic in recent years

because of their increasing mobility within and outside national territories. Do indigenous

peoples lose their indigenous identity once they leave their villages? Is indigeneity confined

to specific places? In this paper, I will explore how present-day indigenous peoples move

between traditional and modern understandings of ‘indigenous’ identity as part of diasporic

communities. Focusing on Igorots from North Luzon, Philippines, I will attempt to describe
(Re)Constructing Multiculturalism 3

how place, space, and technology are allowing them to redefine ethnic relationships

constrained by categories imposed by Spanish and American colonisers, and the state, as they

collectively address local, national, and global issues using Internet forums.

First, I will present an overview of the constructed and processual nature of identification in

relation to indigenous peoples. Next, this discussion will be linked to approaches about space

and place by indigenous peoples’ themselves, researchers, and international bodies such as

the UN. I will then focus on Appadurai’s concept of translocality which serves as my

theoretical framework for this paper. Third, I will locate the socio-political context of the

Igorots’ sense of indigenous identification at the levels of the village, town, region and the

diaspora. I will describe how categories and labels imposed by colonisers, scholars and the

state have helped create an ‘imagined’ homogenous identity among Igorots. Last, I will

illustrate the complex translocal engagements of diasporic Igorots through Bibaknets, an

email group of Igorots all over the world.

Indigenous Identity: Processual, Not Fixed

Scholars recognise that identity is socially constructed and therefore involves issues of power

(Hall 1992, 1996; Grossberg 1996: 99; Jenkins 1996, 2008a, 2008b; Brubaker and Cooper

2000; Brubaker 2002, 2003; Calhoun 1997, 2003; Howard 2006). Moreover, identity is

always social so that it is difficult to talk about the self without taking into account the social

context within which it is embedded (Jenkins 2008a: 17, 45; Ashmore 2004: 81; Calhoun

2003: 558; Simon 1997: 321; Hall 1996). Consequently, some of them stress that identity is

processual rather than a primordial aspect of our being (Jenkins 1996, 2008a, 2008b;

Brubaker and Cooper 2000, 2002; Hall 1992, 1996; Sarup 1996; Melucci 1996). Ethnic

identity is similarly seen as socially constructed and not a cultural given (Brubaker 2000,
(Re)Constructing Multiculturalism 4

2004, 2009; Gleason 1979: 17-18 in Chapman 1993: 20; Calhoun 1997; Jenkins 1996, 2008b;

Clifford 2001; Ruane and Todd 2004; Brubaker 2002: 167-168; Chandra 2006). It is

relational and a form of practise (Calhoun 2003: 560). On a narrower sense, it is the socio-

cultural, political, and psychological process of group-making (Brubaker 2002: 167-168;

Chandra 2006). Generally, scholars recognise that individual and collective identity are

produced and shaped at the same time in various places by different actors for different

purposes (Kearney 1995: 557-558; Clifford 2001; Niezen 2005; MacKay 2006). Identity and

ethnicity are both problematic terms as they are defined differently by scholars along their

disciplinary interests. For the purposes of paper, I focus on the social constructedness of

identity and ethnicity as adopted by several scholars.

As a relatively new category, the term indigenous peoples both empower and constrain our

understanding of this particular group of people. It refers to groups of people primarily

attached to their lands and preserve some or all of their own social, economic, cultural, and

political institutions (UN 2009: 4; Niezen 2003: 3). There is a strong emphasis on

primordial and essential qualities that make them indigenous. At present, there are roughly

370 million indigenous peoples in 90 countries (UN 2009: 1). As the leading international

policy-making body involved in indigenous peoples’ issues, the UN recognises that

indigenous peoples are differently situated which have consequences in the ways they assert

their indigenous identity. Thus, the UN prefers to ‘identify (emphasis mine), rather than

attempt to define, indigenous peoples in a specific context’ (UN 2008: 9). Some of the key

characteristics of indigenous peoples mentioned by the UN are self-identification as

indigenous or tribal and occupation of their ancestral lands (UN 2009a: 7; Niezen 2003: 3).

However, the UN also recognises that one of the factors that may affect their historical
(Re)Constructing Multiculturalism 5

continuity include ‘residence in certain parts of the country, or in certain regions of the

world’ (UN 2009b: 5)

Indigenous peoples’ movement outside their ancestral territories presents a challenge in as

regards indigenous identity formation. Although essentialist framing of indigenous peoples

stress rootedness to the land, scholars observe that the sources of indigenous identity are both

local and global, informal and local (Niezen 2005: 534; Landzelius 2006: 3, 17-18), a point

similarly made by McKay (2006) particularly referring to Igorots’ in North Luzon,

Philippines. Indeed, while they may be motivated by their values to remain close to their

land their traditions, it is also highly likely that they would take the necessary steps to engage

globally to achieve ‘universal identity’ (Niezen 2005: 534).

Space, Place and the ‘Native’

Indigenous groups do not have a fixed and stable identity (Landzelius 2006: 17; Niezen 2005;

Feldman 2001; Clifford 2001). Although they assert primordial attachments to their land and

culture (Maybury 2002: 6), they also engage meaningfully with the demands of their socio-

political situation. The Garifuna, an Afro-Indian ethnic group originally from St. Vincent in

the Caribbean, exhibit the flexibility of indigenous identity as they continue to speak their

language and propagate their culture despite having to take on different identities as a

‘survival strategy’ in their new communities (Matthei and Smith 2008). They switched

between their African roots, Indian ethnicity or ‘Carib’ identity for economic and socio-

political purposes from the 16th century until the 1980s in order to survive as a group (ibid.,

2008: 225, 228-229). Indeed, indigenous peoples have been increasingly moving within and

outside national territories in recent years. However, a 2006 report of the United Nations

Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNFPII) acknowledged that the trends, dynamics
(Re)Constructing Multiculturalism 6

and impact of migration among indigenous peoples’ and their communities have yet to be

fully studied.

Today, an increasing body of literature describe the complexity of indigenous peoples’

diasporic experiences. More specifically, a significant number of research focus on their use

of electronic media, particularly the Internet, to engage in identity construction, community-

building, and activism. Migration has made it imperative for researchers to adopt more

nuanced approaches towards the study of indigenous peoples’ construction of place and

identification. The complex dichotomy between the global and the local, space and place,

seem to be more palpable in studies focusing on indigenous peoples because they are often

represented as rooted to the land and tradition, territory and kin. While places shape personal

and cultural identity (Escobar 2001), places are also socially constructed (Rodman 1992;

Massey 1994 in Gielis 2009). Thus, new approaches towards place and space reject the idea

of solid and homogenous communities and recognise that the production of identity takes

place ‘simultaneously in many different locales of activity by many different agents for many

different purposes’ (Marcus 1992; Clifford 2001; Landzelius 2006; Niezen 2005; Feldman

2001; Delugan 2010)

Categories and labels referring to groups of people can be problematic as they sometimes fail

to capture people’s capacity for change. Appadurai recognises this as he critiques his fellow

anthropologists’ restrictive use of the word ‘native’ to refer to non-Western persons and

groups (1998:37). The restrictive usage of ‘native’ clearly implies that ‘natives are not only

persons who are from particular places, and belong to those places, but they are also

somehow incarcerated (emphasis in original), or confined, in those places’ (ibid.). Such

incarceration refers not only to spatial confinement but also to intellectual circumscription.
(Re)Constructing Multiculturalism 7

First, natives are seen as ‘tied to a pattern of places’, unlike outsiders such as missionaries,

explorers, colonisers, and even anthropologists, who are ‘the movers, the seers, the knowers’

(ibid). Second, natives are also intellectually limited ‘by what they know, feel, and believe.

They are prisoners of their own mode of thought’ as Evans-Pritchard (1937: 82-83) wrote

about the Azande in Sudan (ibid., 37-38). On the other hand, the category ‘tribe’ developed

by Americans illustrate how the state incarcerates certain groups of people. American law

created the category ‘tribe’ to ‘distinguish settled Indians from roving, dangerous “bands”,

plac[ing] a premium on localism and rootedness’ (Clifford 1994: 309). Consequently, tribes

such as the Mashpee whose members were mostly living away from their homelands lost

their cultural and political status as ”tribal” in court (ibid.).

Indigenous peoples generally claim to be the first occupants of their country and continue to

live there (Maybury-Lewis 2002: 7; Clifford 1994: 308; UN 2008: 7; Niezen 2003: 3).

Although histories of travel and settlement may be part of indigenous peoples’ historical

experience (Clifford 1994: 308), these have only been written about more recently. But even

before the period of what we refer to as globalisation, there have been no pure ‘natives’.

Spatial boundaries are fluid so that ‘people confined to and by the places to which they

belong to, groups unsullied by contact with a larger world, have probably never existed’

(Appadurai 1988: 39). In his analysis of Dumont’s (1970) Homo Hierarchicus which looked

at the Indian caste system, Appadurai showed that Dumont’s conclusions were drawn from

other anthropologists’ work on ancient Romans and Arabians, and peoples from the South

Pacific (ibid., 43-45).

Despite more open approaches about space and place in anthropology, it has been shown that

an essentialist perspective that requires indigenous peoples to remain in specific places

(Re)Constructing Multiculturalism 8

persists which can be traced to researchers, activists, indigenous peoples themselves,

including international bodies such as the UN. Watson disagrees with Lee (2006) and

Rosaldo (1993) who both take a similar stand that traditional homelands define indigenous

peoples; once they leave, they lose their indigeneity (Watson 2010). On the other hand,

international indigenous rights movement use the same discourse to secure and protect land

rights. Watson points out that this strategy may be a political necessity but it negates the

capacity of indigenous peoples to participate actively in constructing their sense of place

(ibid., 21). In his study of Ainu migration to Tokyo, Watson argues that Ainu continue to

articulate and reproduce their indigenous identities in urban environments, recreating their

own place in the capital (ibid., 21). Biolsi pursues a similar position as he critiques American

laws for imposing geographic limits where one can practice and live as an Indian (2005). He

stresses that Indian people do not lose the right to be Indian or their claim to Indianness when

they leave reservations (ibid., 245).

Translocality and Indigenous Peoples

The increasing mobility of indigenous peoples serves as a strong basis to explore new

trajectories linking place, indigenous identity, and power. For Clifford, indigenous peoples

have “never been simply “local”: they have always been rooted and routed in particular

landscapes, regional and interregional networks’ (1994: 309-310). It is significant to take

note that the marginalisation of indigenous peoples by colonisers, transnational corporations

and emerging nation-states are displacing indigenous peoples from their lands. The ‘tribal-

diasporic binary is not absolute’ (ibid.) because of the diverse situations of indigenous

peoples.
(Re)Constructing Multiculturalism 9

Arjun Appadurai’s concept of translocality (1995) transcends the dichotomies between place

and space, local and global, the nation and more fluid socio-cultural groupings. It takes into

account the processual nature of group interaction as it moves away from the excessive focus

on the nation as a point of reference in analysing diasporic people’s communication.

Appadurai describes locality as ‘primarily relational and contextual, rather than as scalar or

spatial’ (1988: 204-206). The material production of locality takes place through situated

communities, whether spatial or virtual, which he refers to as ‘neighbourhoods’ (ibid.). Thus,

locality is ‘the property that makes space into place’ (McKay and Brady 2005). The

production of locality, however, has become more challenging partly because of the

increasing mobility of people. Consequently, locality is no longer anchored only to the

nation-state but even extends beyond it through translocalities. ‘[T]ies of marriage, work,

business and leisure weave together various circulating populations with kinds of “locals” to

create neighbourhoods which belong in one sense to particular nation-states but are from

another point of view, what we might call translocalities’ (Appadurai 1988: 216).

Translocality captures the fragile reality that almost all migrants face: they may be physically

in one place but are at the same instance socially and materially connected to many other

places. In his discussion of the global production of locality and diaspora, Appadurai

highlights the role of electronic media, particularly the Internet, in creating virtual

neighbourhoods which are connected to lived, local neighbourhoods. He writes that although

virtual neighbourhoods are ‘hard to classify and their longevity difficult to predict, clearly

they are ‘communities of some sort’ (ibid., 219). The concept of translocality complements

the argument that indigenous identification is constantly in process. Translocality could be

described as both a mode and a space (Mandaville 1999: 672-673). As a mode, it refers to

how locals ‘(re)-create localities that belong in one sense to particular nation-states’
(Re)Constructing Multiculturalism 10

(Appadurai 1996: 44). It is not primarily concerned with ‘how peoples and cultures exist in

places, but rather how they move through them’ (Mandaville 1999: 672). As a space, ‘it is an

abstract (yet daily manifest) space occupied by the sum linkages and connections between

places (media, travel, labour, import/export, etc) (ibid., 672).

Locality and Igorot Identification

Philippine indigenous peoples comprise a small yet significant part of the country’s

burgeoning migrant population. In North Luzon, Philippines, several indigenous groups

collectively known as Igorots may now be considered itinerant peoples whose search for

better economic opportunities have led them to different parts of the country and overseas.

They occupy the Gran Cordillera Central, the highest and the single largest mass of

mountains in the entire country (Finin 2005) hence, the peoples are also referred to or

describe themselves as Cordilleran. The major indigenous groups in the region are the Ibaloi,

Kankanaey, Bontok, Ifugao, Kalinga, Isneg and Tingguian (Rood 1989). The latest estimates

place indigenous peoples at roughly 18 million, making up 20 percent of the country’s total

population. Igorots are estimated to comprise 1.2 million (ADB 2002).

Igorot is a problematic indigenous term and category. Even until today, scholars offer

varying, if not conflicting, explanations on the origins of the term ‘Igorot’ which is not part of

any of the languages within the region. The word Ygolotes, meaning ‘people from the

mountains’, first appeared in records during the Spanish period (Scott 1974) referring to

speakers of Southern and Central Cordilleran languages (Afable 1995). As a category, it is

more of a product of Spanish and American colonial policies and the state, rather than actual

lowland-highland differences (Mckay and Brady 2005: 91; Afable 1995: 12). Neither does it

refer to a homogenous, unified indigenous collectivity but to several indigenous groups with
(Re)Constructing Multiculturalism 11

their own particular languages, customs and traditions. Ibaloi anthropologist Patricia Afable

argues that the labelling and naming of indigenous groups in the Cordillera by Spanish and

American colonisers (and perhaps foreign ethnographers) have ‘obscure[d] the broad

continuities in language, culture, and geography characteristics of this region (1995: 13).

Indeed, the Cordillera is characterized by ‘”an impressive unity of cultural tradition”

(particularly contrasted with the Hispanized lowlands)’ but also a high degree of pluralism

(De Raedt 1987 in Rood 1990: 11). Thus, a few groups prefer to be identified by their

specific ethnic groups, such as the Ifugaos and Kalingas, rather than the more inclusive, albeit

problematic name, Igorots. The diversity in languages, social and political structures thus

impinges on the idea of a unified, pan-Igorot/Cordillera identity (ibid. 12). Although

Igorots/Cordillerans shared the idea of indigeneity in their region, their practices were

specific to villages (ili) or ethno-linguistic groups or culture areas (e.g., Bontok, Kankanaey,

Ibaloi, etc.) (ibid.). It is within this socio-political context that I would like to locate present-

day diasporic Igorots.

While Igorot is a created category, it has defined and continues to define the relations

between ethnic groups in the region and the mainstream Philippine population, as well as

between ethnic groups in the Cordillera. Apart from the more neutral term Cordilleran, the

acronym BIBAK is also commonly used to refer to organisations or associations whose

membership are from the different provinces within the region. BIBAK stands for the

Benguet, Ifugao, Bontoc, Apayao, and Kalinga, the original provinces that comprised the

region. In 1986, the Philippine government created the Cordillera Administrative Region, on

the basis of an apparent ‘commonality of indigenous practices’ (Casambre 2010). It is made

(Re)Constructing Multiculturalism 12

up of six provinces and one city, namely: Benguet, Ifugao, Mountain Province, Apayao,

Kalinga, Abra and Baguio City.

Power, Space, and the Igorot

The production and construction of Igorot identification was and continues to be made not

only in the Cordillera region and in the Philippines but even overseas. One of the most

documented travels of Igorots focus on the St. Louis World Fair in Missouri, USA. In 1904,

over a hundred Igorots from the Cordillera were recruited to be paid performers in the fair.

The ‘Igorot Village’ became the ‘biggest money-earner’ of the fair, thanks to the Igorot dog

feast which showed how Igorot men slaughtered, dressed, boiled or grilled the meat for a

meal. The use of dogs for rituals was not part of Cordillera culture except for the Isnegs

(Afable 1995: 15). The dog-eating feast was used more as a tool to highlight the

underdevelopment of the colony for the American public. While many died of the cold, many

of the Igorots stayed behind when it ended, having been contracted to appear in other fairs

such as ‘the Lewis and Clark Centennial Exposition in Oregon (1905), the Alaska-Yukon-

Pacific Fair in Seattle (1909), as well as in amusement parks in Los Angeles, Chicago, Coney

Island, Philadelphia, and apparently in London and Belgium as well (ibid., 16-19). In 2006,

the City of Ghent in Belgium considered naming one of its streets in honour of Timicheg, one

of the 55 Igorots brought to Belgium from America for the 1913 World’s Fair (Ocampo

2006).

Today, Igorots, form a substantial part of the ever growing diasporic Filipino community,

estimated to be at nine (9) million, or ten percent of the country’s total population. Next to

India and Mexico, the Philippines receives the third highest net remittance in the world from

overseas workers and immigrants (Pernia 2006:1). Igorots continue to construct their
(Re)Constructing Multiculturalism 13

Indigeneity but with the added layer of being part of a diaspora. Watson’s ‘”diasporic

Indigeneity” – the fluid negotiation and extension of modern Indigenous identities in non-

local settings’ (Watson 2010: 273), appears to be an essential part of their diasporic life in

Manila, Hongkong, Paris, Jeddah, London, and New York, among many other cities in the

world. Records from the Overseas Workers’ Welfare Administration (OWWA) regional

office show that between 2007 and 2008, nurses, domestic helpers and engineers were the top

three professions of overseas workers from the Cordillera. The United Kingdom was one of

the top three destinations of overseas workers between 2006 and 2007 although it was no

longer on the list in 2008, perhaps due to the more strict immigration policy that was adopted

by the UK government.

Although Igorots can be found in different parts of the Philippines and in the world today,

studies on diasporic Igorots are just beginning. On the other hand, diasporic Igorots’

considerable Internet presence through websites, blogs, and email groups provide helpful

leads in the way Igorots are engaging with their diasporic experiences. For this paper, I focus

on Igorots working and living outside the Philippines. As of 1995, there are ‘several

thousand’ Igorots mainly on the West Coast and cities in the north east of the United States

(Afable 1995: 16-19). Based on websites and online forum discussions, Igorots are also

found in Europe, with formal organisations such as Igorot-Austria, Cordillera Community in

Belgium (Cordi Bel), BIBAK Ireland, BIBAK Spain, and BIBAK Switzerland. In Britain,

Igorots formed Igorot-UK in 1995, although some of the ‘pioneers’ have been there since the

late 1960s. As of 2008, it has 265 registered members although it is estimated that there are

roughly between 1000 to 2000 Igorots in the UK. On a regular basis, Igorot organisations in

Europe hold meetings referred to as the Igorot Cordillera BIMAAK Europe (ICBE)

Consultation where they celebrate their culture and discuss issues of integrating into their
(Re)Constructing Multiculturalism 14

host communities. On an even wider scale, Igorots formed Igorot Global Organization

(IGO), a project which was conceived not in their mountainous villages but in West Covina,

California in 1995 during the first Igorot International Consultation (IIC). It was officially

formed in the Philippines in 2000.

Bibaknets: A Translocal, Cosmopolitan Meeting Place

In this section, I focus on Bibaknets1, an Igorot electronic mailing group (email group or

egroup) and its functions as a translocal place linking Igorots not only to their villages but to

other Igorots in different parts of the world. There are 24 egroups exclusively for diasporic

Igorots that come up on Yahoo Groups search. Their egroup names often describe their

locations, for example, bibaksandiego, floridaigorotsociety, mabika_australia, bibaktoronto,

ICBE-Europe,etc. Yahoo Groups is considered one of the biggest free hosting sites for

egroups. As of 2008, it has 113 million users, 9 million groups in 22 languages. It uses a

format which combines electronic mailing list and a threaded Internet forum. Members can

read group messages through email or log in to their Group homepage, like a web forum. In

September 2010, Yahoo Groups began to implement its remodelling scheme, adopting some

of the features of Facebook, a social networking site.

Bibaknets is one of the oldest and biggest egroups for Igorots. It was created in September

19, 1998 by Harry Basingat, a US-based Igorot immigrant. As of November 2010, it has 1013

members living and working in different parts of the Philippines and in the world. Bibaknets

describes itself as the ‘largest virtual gathering place of Igorots/Cordillerans’ who trace their

roots or indicate cultural ties or affinity to the Cordillera region. Contrary to ideas of cultures

and people being fixed into places, people can bring their culture to any place, including the

1
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bibaknets/
(Re)Constructing Multiculturalism 15

Internet. As a metaphor for the egroup, the moderators and members use the Kankanaey term

‘dap-ay’. Traditionally, dap-ay refers both to a physical structure and a traditional decision-

making process in the community which used to be a role exclusively for men (Brett 1986:

7). On Bibaknets, however, members use dap-ay to describe the forum as a virtual place for

sharing and dialogue, where members are encouraged to participate and contribute ideas.

I have been a member of Bibaknets since 2006. In May 2009, I re-introduced myself as a

researcher and conducted a four-month participant-observation from June to September 2009.

I also undertook a non-random online survey in the forum to obtain the members’

demographic profile. The survey is not the main method of my study but it provides helpful

insights to complement my analysis. Out of 100 respondents, 39 reside in the US, followed

by 30 in the Philippines 8 in Canada. The United Kingdom, Australia, Saudi Arabia, and

Germany have 6, 4, 3, and 2 members each. There was one member from Belgium, Norway,

Switzerland, Taiwan and Hongkong2. On the other hand, messages from members indicate

that some of them are in Yemen, Thailand, South Korea, Japan, and Dubai. Overall, the

respondents are highly educated: 19 have postgraduate degrees, 9 have reached postgraduate

levels, 44 with university degrees, while 18 have reached university level. Those who

obtained secondary and vocational courses make up a total of 8 members while two did not

provide answers. More than half (68) of those who responded were above 40 years old.

Ties to the Cordillera region based on kinship or even a mere ‘affinity’ to the place is a

‘requirement’ for Bibaknets membership. Thus, some members come from non-indigenous

groups, such as individuals whose families have migrated to the Cordillera to work or to

establish businesses. However, prospective members must introduce themselves to the

2
There were 2 invalid answers.
(Re)Constructing Multiculturalism 16

moderators and give their real full name, geographic location, and their most recent photo.

Once accepted as a member, they are often asked by old members if they are related to

certain individuals or families from certain villages or towns, questions which facilitate a

more in-depth ‘getting-to-know-you’ phase for both old and new members. Based on the

survey results and my observations, Bibaknets members are also subscribed to a second or

even a third email group but this time, to their own sub-ethnic, town or provincial

‘communities’. For instance, some Bibaknets members are also members of Kotim-Ya-Eta

for Kankanaey speakers; i-Bauko for those coming from this town, or; Benguet for those who

come from this province.

Because of the members’ diverse ethnic backgrounds, English is the main language used in

posting messages. However, the moderators allow members to write in their own languages

as long as they provide a brief translation for those who have limited knowledge of their local

languages. Members have a wide discretion as to the topics they can write about. One can

read about golf, gardening, sex, global politics, and religion, among many others. They also

access the Internet but engage with social networking sites such as Facebook and Multiply.

YouTube is another favourite site as they post music, news or other videos of interest.

E-gorots: Bringing Igorot Identity Online and Offline

Despite the many differences among the forum members, Bibaknets as a virtual village show

a high degree of flexibility and stability, particularly in times of calamity, death, or illness. In

August 2009, Robert Balagtey, president of Igorot-UK posted a message on Bibaknets

(Re)Constructing Multiculturalism 17

informing the forum about the death of Joy3. She was driving to work when she met a

vehicular accident on the M5.

Subject: [bibaknets] Joy

Dear All,
This to inform everyone that Joy from X village, Y town, Benguet Province met an
accident...in the countryside according to reports I just received.

Her parents had been informed and they are pleading that her body be sent home in one
piece. We are now arranging for her body to be sent to Whitchurch where the Igorot-
UK will make final arrangements for her eventual transport back to the Philippines.
Please inform other kakailians (townmates) and to watch for further developments on
the Bibaknets, as well as, the Igorot-UK yahoogroups site.

We will also arrange a viewing before her departure to the Philippines.

Thank you,

Robert Balagtey4

Robert’s message shows how place figures prominently among Cordillerans. By stating early

in his message where Joy originally came from in the Cordillera, he establishes that she is

part of the Igorot community in the UK, regardless of the particular town or province she

comes from. It appears that Joy was having financial troubles at the time of her death, raising

concerns how her body could be repatriated back to the Philippines. A total of five threads

and 53 messages were generated by Robert’s email. Ben, a US-based member, made a

‘motion’ to raise funds for Belen:

Thursday, August 27, 2009 9:15:37 PM

Subject: [bibaknets] FUNDS for Joy
To all,
I would like to make a motion: That Benguet 13 will start raising funds for Joy. I will
start collecting here in San Diego.

3
Except for Harry Basingat, Bibaknets creator, and officers of some Igorot organisations, all the names of the
members used in this paper have been anonymised to protect their identity.
4
The message is reproduced in toto except for details that would reveal members’ real identity.
(Re)Constructing Multiculturalism 18

Ben

Benguet 13 is a California-based group whose members are from Benguet. Take note that Joy

is from a town in Benguet. Ben’s reply prompted offers of donations from Igorot individuals

and organisations in Washington DC, San Diego, Los Angeles, London, Manila, and Baguio,

among others. Jose, a medical doctor in Baguio City although originally from Mountain

Province, endorsed Ben’s suggestion:

Subject: Re: [bibaknets] FUNDS for Joy

All,
That's a motion and unless there is any objection, the motion is carried. Siya dadlo sa
(That’s the way things should be).

Jose

Through the announcement on Bibaknets, a total of £11, 549.99 and $480.00 were raised to

repatriate KC’s body and help fund the studies of her two children. Those who donated and

participated in the discussions were not only made by the Kankanaeys, the ethnic group to

which Joy belonged, or by members from Benguet, the province where Joy hails from, but by

other forum members from other ethnic groups, towns and provinces in the Cordillera.

Members from Ifugao, Mountain Province and Sagunto, among others, gave their donations

through their organisations or friends. In the UK, Igorots have formed a community in

Whitchurch, London. The officers’ decision to hold the necrological rites at an Anglican

church within the area, was thus appropriate and convenient for many Igorots.

Subject: Re: [bibaknets] FUNDS for Joy

Hi JK,
It's good to know that Igorots, as usual, mobilize quickly when tragedy strikes one
of our own...Some years ago, I got a message about a Pinoy named Inhumang in
his ID who lost consciousness in a public place and in a coma in a hospital
(Re)Constructing Multiculturalism 19

in California. The name sounded Ifugao so I passed it on to the Ifugao email

group. It turned out his relatives were looking for him.

Tomas

Tomas is an Ifugao who is now based in the US. Although he belongs to an ethnic group

whose members generally do not identify themselves as Igorots, he acknowledges in this

message the cooperation and unity among the different ethnic groups in the region. On 12

September 2009, KC’s body eventually arrived in the Manila, accompanied by a relative

from the UK, and met by some family members and kailians (townmates).

Re: [bibaknets] Re: Joy repatriation

To All,

Despite of the continuous heavy rain here in Manila, the body of Joy (+) arrived at the
NAIA, 10:30 Saturday evening Sept. 12, 2009 on board Emirates and, with the absence
of the expected so much red tape at the Customs Bureau, processing for It's release was
made easy so that at almost 12 midnight the body again started It's trip to Baguio City
on board the Baguio Memorial Chapels' van, and according to the convoy, they will
have a short stop-over in Baguio before proceeding to X.

The body was accompanied by Susan who arrived earlier in the morning from London
and Victor and company who came all the way from X.
…
Our Prayers,

Lozano’s
Paracelis and Bauko
Mt. Prov. Phils

The online and offline interaction among Bibaknets members suggest that peoples are not

tied to places. The members’ interaction in an email group created based on apparent ties to a

particular region is shaped by varying degrees of identification to their villages, towns and

provinces. Although they see themselves as part of the Cordillera region, their first level of

identification is to their villages or towns, when addressing their fellow Cordillerans. On the
(Re)Constructing Multiculturalism 20

other hand, contrary to ideas of cultures and peoples being fixed into geographic places,

indigenous peoples can also bring their cultures to any place, including the Internet. Online,

diasporic members often exchange information about native dishes or plants, traditional

healing remedies, including narratives about their villages and towns. While they continue to

locate themselves ‘at home’, diasporic Igorots are also able to adapt to their host towns and

cities. In making arrangements for the donations for Joy, they show familiarity to financial

and administrative systems in their host countries as they talk about remittance fees or bank

transfer fees, or their own experience with funeral arrangements of deceased relatives. Using

mobile phones and the Internet to get in touch with relatives in the Philippines also appears to

be a natural part of their day-to-day interactions.

Conclusion

Indigenous peoples and their cultures cannot be contained in particular places. The socio-

political construction of place is linked with Foucault’s concept of governmentality, the

formal and systematic classification of individuals into groups (1991: 102). It is a form of

power concerned with population, political economy and security (ibid.). Taking Gupta and

Ferguson’s argument, the emphasis on cultural differences serve to legitimise restricting the

movement of peoples, indigenous or not, across borders and territories, ‘a means through

which the disempowered are kept that way’ (1992: 17). However, peoples have the ability to

reimagine space and place (ibid). Wimmer observes that peoples are able to critically assess

their own situation and develop strategies which can be different from their culture (2002:

27). Hence, the idea of indigenous peoples moving beyond their ancestral lands and yet

maintaining some of their cultural identity should not be seen as paradoxical but as part of

peoples’ ‘competence’ to adapt to their situation (ibid). The rapid changes involving

indigenous peoples perhaps suggest that researchers also need to sharpen their awareness of
(Re)Constructing Multiculturalism 21

these changes or they might end up being the ones ‘incarcerated’ by their own ideas about

indigenous peoples.
(Re)Constructing Multiculturalism 22

References

Afable, P. 1995. The Peoples of Eduard Masferre’s Photographs in Discovery, Vol. 25 (2):
New Haven CT: Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University.

Appadurai, A. 1988. Putting Hierarchy in Its Place in Cultural Anthropology Vol. 3.

________. 1995. The Production of Locality In: R. Fardon (ed.) Counterworks: Managing
the Diversity of Knowledge, pp. 204-225, New York, NY: Routledge.

Ashmore, R., Deaux, K., and McLaughlin-Volpe, T. 2004. An Organizing Framework for
Collective Identity: Articulation and Significance of Multidimensionality in
Psychological Bulletin, Vo. 130 (1): 80-114, American Psychological Association

Asian Development Bank. 2002. Indigenous Peoples/Ethnic Minorities and Poverty

Reduction: Philippines. Manila, Philippines: Asian Development Bank.

Biolsi, T. 2005. Imagined Geographies: Sovereignty, Indigenous Space, and American Indian
Struggle in American Ethnologist, Vol. 32(2): 239-258, American Anthropological
Association.

Brubaker, R. 2009. Ethnicity, Race, and Nationalism in Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 35:
21-42, Annual Reviews.

______________. 2002. Ethnicity Without Groups in Archives Europeennes de Sociologie 43

(2): 163-189

Brubaker, R. and Cooper, F. 2000. Beyond “Identity” in Theory and Society. Vol. 29, pp. 1-
47, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Brubaker, R., Loveman, M. and Stamatov, P. 2004. Ethnicity as Cognition in Theory and
Society, Vol. 33: 31-64. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Calhoun, Craig. 1997. Nationalism. Buckingham: Open University Press.

__________. 2003. Belonging in the Cosmopolitan Imaginary in Ethnicities, Vol. 3(4): 531-
568, London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi: SAGE.

Casambre, L. 2000. (unpub) The Frustrated Discourse on Regional Autonomy in the

Cordillera and Notes Toward a Productive Discourse, presented during the 6th
International Philippine Studies Conference, Philippine Social Science Council,
Quezon City, Philippines.

Chandra, Kanchan 2006. What is Ethnic Identity and Does It Matter? In Annual Review of
Political Science, Vol. 9: 397-424.

Chapman, Malcolm. 1993. Social and Biological Aspects of Ethnicity in Social and
Biological Aspects of Ethnicity, Chapman, M. (ed.). Oxford, New York, Tokyo: Oxford
University Press.
(Re)Constructing Multiculturalism 23

Clifford, J. 1994. Diasporas in Cultural Anthropology, Vol. 9 (3): 302-338. American

Anthropological Association.

________. 2001. Indigenous Articulations in The Contemporary Pacific. Vol. 13

(2): 468-490. Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press.

Delugan, R. M. 2010. Indigeneity Across Borders: Hemispheric Migrations and

Cosmopolitan Encounters in American Ethnologist, Vol. 37(1): 83-97.

Escobar, A. 2001. Culture Sits in Places: Reflections on Globalism and Subaltern Strategies
of Localization in Political Geography, Vol. 20 (2): 139-174, Elsevier.

Feldman, A. 2001. Transforming Peoples and Subverting States: Developing a Pedagogical

Approach to the Study of Indigenous Peoples and Ethnocultural Movements in
Ethnicities, Vol. 1 (2): 147-178. London, California and New Delhi: Sage.

Finin, G. 2005. The Making of the Igorot Identity: Contours of Cordillera Consciousness.
Manila: Ateneo de Manila University Press.

Foucault, M. 1991. Governmentality In: Burchell, G., Gordon, C. and Miller, P. (eds) The
Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality with Two Lectures and an Interview with
Michel Foucault. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gielis, R. 2009. A Global Sense of Migrant Places: Towards a Place Perspective in the Study
of Migrant Transnationalism in Global Networks, Vol. 9 (2): 271-287, Blackwell.

Gleason, Philip. 1983. Identifying Identity: A Semantic History in The Journal of American
History, Vol. 69(4): 910-931, Organization of American Historians

Grossberg, L. 1996. Identity and Cultural Studies: Is That All There Is? In: Hall, S.
and Du Gay, P. (eds). Questions of Cultural Identity, London: SAGE.

Gupta, A. and Ferguson, J. 1992. Beyond “Culture”: Space, Identity and the Politics
of Difference in Cultural Anthropology, Vol. 7 (1): 6-23. American
Anthropological Association.

Hall, Stuart., Held, D., and McGrew, T. (eds.) 1992. Modernity and Its Futures.
Cambridge: The Open University.

Hall, Stuart. 1996. Who Needs Identity? In: Hall, S. and and Du Gay, P. (eds.)
Questions of Cultural Identity. London: SAGE.

Hepp, A. 2009. Localities of Diasporic Communicative Spaces: Material Aspects of

Translocal Networking in The Communication Review, Vol. 12 (4): 327-348.
Routledge.

Jenkins, Richard. 1996. Social Identity. London: Routledge.

(Re)Constructing Multiculturalism 24

_______. 2000. Categorization: Identity, Social Process and Epistemology in Current

Sociology, Vol. 48 (3): 7-25, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore: SAGE

_______. 2008a. Social Identity. London: Routledge

_______. 2008b. Rethinking Ethnicity: Arguments and Explorations, 2nd edition, Los
Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore: SAGE

Kearney, M. 1995. The Local and the Global: The Anthropology of Globalization and
Transnationalism in Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 24 (1995): 547-565. Annual
Reviews.

Keyes, C. 2002. Presidential Address: ‘The Peoples of Asia” – Science and Politics in the
Classification of Ethnic Groups in Thailand, China, and Vietnam in The Journal of
Asian Studies, vol. 61 (4), November 2002: 1163-1203.

Landzelius, K. (ed) 2006. Native on the Net: Indigenous and Diasporic Peoples in the Virtual
Age. Oxford: Routledge.

Low, S. 2009. Towards an Anthropological Theory of Space and Place in Semiotica Vol. 175
(1/4).

Mandaville, P. 1999. Territory and Translocality: Discrepant Idioms of Political Identity in

Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vo;. 28 (4): 653-673. Millennium
Publishing House.

____________2003. Communication and Islam: A Virtual Ummah? In: Karim H. Karim (ed)
The Media of Diaspora. London: Routledge.

Marcus, George. 1992. Past, Present and Emergent Identities: Requirements for
Ethnographies of Late Twentieth Century Modernity Worldwide in Modernity
and Identity by Lash, Scott and Friedman, Jonathan (eds), 1992. Oxford, UK:
Blackwell Publishers.

Matthei, L. and Smith, D. 2008. Flexible Ethnic Identity, Adaptation, Survival,

Resistance: The Garifuna in the World-System in Social Identities, Vol. 14
(2): 215-232). Routledge.

Maybury-Lewis, D. 2002. Indigenous Peoples, Ethnic Groups, and the State, 2nd edition,
Boston: Allyn and Bacon

McKay, D. 2006. Rethinking Indigenous Place: Igorot Identity and Locality in the
Philippines in The Australian Journal of Anthropology, Vol. 17 (3): 291-306.

McKay, D. and Brady, C. 2005. Practices of Place-Making: Globalisation and Locality in the
Philippines in Asia Pacific Viewpoint, Vol. 46 (2): 89-103 Blackwell Publishing.

Melucci, Alberto. 1996. Challenging Codes: Collective Action in the Information Age. Great
Britain: Cambrige University Press
(Re)Constructing Multiculturalism 25

Niezen, R. 2003. The Origins of Indigenism: Human Rights and the Politics of Identity.
California and London: University of California Press.

________. 2005. Digital Identity: The Construction of Virtual Selfhood in the

Indigenous Peoples’ Movement in Comparative Studies in Society and
History, Vol. 47 (3): 532-551. Cambridge University Press.

Ocampo, A. 2006. Timicheg in Philippine Daily Inquirer 24 October 2006 [WWW] <URL:
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20061024-28507/Timicheg

Pernia, E. 2006. Diasporas, Remittances, and Poverty in RP’s Regions, University of the
Philippines School of Economics Discussion Papers.

Prill-Brett, J. 1987. A Survey of Cordillera Indigenous Political Institutions, CSC Working

Paper Number 5. Baguio City, Philippines: Cordillera Studies Center, UP Baguio.

Rodman, Margaret C. 1992. Empowering Place: Multilocality and Multivocality in American

Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 94 (3): 640-656, Blackwell Publishing

Rood, S. 1989. Issues on Creating an Autonomous Region for the Cordillera, Northern
Philippines. Baguio City, Philippines: Cordillera Studies Center.

Ruane, Joseph and Todd, Jennifer. 2004. The Roots of Intense Ethnic Conflict May
Not in Fact Be Ethnic: Categories, Communities and Path Dependence in
European Journal of Sociology, Vol. 45(2): 209-232. Archives Europeennes de
Sociology.

Sarup, M. 1996. Identity, Culture and the Postmodern World. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.

Scott, W.H. 1974. The Discovery of the Igorots: Spanish Contacts with the Pagans of
Northern Luzon. Quezon City, Philippines: New Day Publishers.

United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. 2006. Report of an Expert Workshop
on Indigenous Peoples and Migration: Challenges and Opportunities. New York, 15-26
May 2006.

United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. 2008. Resource Kit on

Indigenous Peoples’ Issues. New York: United Nations.

United Nations. 2009a. State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples. New York: Department of
Economic and Social Affairs.

United Nations Development Group. 2009b. Guidelines on Indigenous Peoples’ Issues. New
York and Geneva.

Watson, M. 2010. Diasporic Indigeneity: Place and the Articulation of Ainu Identity in
Tokyo, Japan in Environment and Planning, Vol. 42: 268-284.

Wimmer, A. 2002. Nationalist Exclusion and Ethnic Conflict: Shadows of Modernity.

(Re)Constructing Multiculturalism 26

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press