Edward Dean Mark C.

Abalo AB Anthropology 3
Seatwork Anthropology of the State
Steputtat and Nuijten speak of the ‘enigma’ or ‘paradox’ of the State. Does this paradox
hold true in the case of Philippine State? Discuss, using your own example/s.
The State as an entity and perceived as an anthropological unit of analysis is critical in
examining its significance and agency for the human population and community. Conventional
knowledge tells us that the primary role of the State is for nation-building, public service or
welfare, and development for its country and constituents. However, anthropologists critically
investigate that this only sometimes seems to be the case. Hence, the State is not a static entity as
an instrument for public welfare, but dynamic, shifting, and assorted political rationales are
embedded and manifested in the social realm. From that standpoint, the State, in an
anthropological lens, implies an unsettling, blurring role that leads to an interpretation of the
State as enigmatic and paradoxical in some sense.

I would argue that in our context, the Philippine State holds this enigmatic and
paradoxical nature of the State. For instance, I have heard and observed, also once believed that
the State is a unified agent outside and above us, the society. However, it is commonly ignored
that the State significantly impacts society in so many ways and every dimension of our
community and personal lives. In other words, the human population, or the Filipinos in this
case, are conditioned and marinated on the notion of the Philippine State as the caretaker of our
needs and safeguard for our security. For example, regarding the bureaucratic system and the
relationship between state officials and ordinary citizens, I present the fixer and backer system
from my prior observation and experience. The Philippine State bureaucratic system is designed
for an orderly and fair service for the public in all agencies and institutions, however, in most
cases, this has not been adequately implemented, and this is where the sovereignty of the State is
extended to individual actors who are encapsulated and encompassed by state power and
sovereign authority which leads to a priority and selective system in accordance to exchange and
access of resources, services, and networks. Another example is the Philippine State's response to
the plight of our indigenous peoples. This case is the most neglected and unfavorable to a great
extent. The Philippine State, following the law, aims to protect its rights. However, they treat the
IPs as a marginalized sector and continue to marginalize them in many ways through
displacement, hamlet, land-grabbing, essentialism, tourist attractions, and limited representation
in political and social spheres. This is a manifestation and exercise of the Philippine State's
Sovereignty and Violence. Also, the Philippine State challenges the common notion in terms of a
'unified actor' because, at present, the Philippine State cannot be only concluded as a simple,
unified political body since it is fragmented in the aspect of territories. The Philippine State
could not get hold of remote or rural areas since bandit politics emerged from being criminals of
the law to capable of having their place in local politics. Also, in the aspect of religion, the
BARMM, a Muslim autonomous region that is also a fragment of the Philippine State, granted
that they have complied and compromised with the Muslim and Moro IP community. However,
the non-Moro IP is still in its plight. I could present more concrete examples which can be
observed and a point of analysis to examine Philippine State on smaller to larger scales. These
examples provided evidence of how the Philippine State localizes and manifests its 'statehood' or
'state-ness' in this context.

In conclusion, based on the examples I have presented on how the Philippine State holds
true to the enigmatic and paradoxical nature of the State is that the Philippine State manifests its
subjectivity as a State being through the general perceptions and subjectivities of constituents
which are intertwined from the dynamics of the people and its movements. The conventional
perception of Filipinos towards the State implies that state practices produced and conditioned
the people's desires, fears, and imaginations. The Philippine State also exercises and manifests its
sovereignty through violence and marginalization, i.e., laws, regulations, ordinances, para-
military agents, resource accumulation, fixer-backer system. In this sense, I affirm Gramsci's
argument that a State of class power that exhibits its sovereignty would essentially be violent and
unstable in nature. Lastly, with the presented examples and implications, I would echo Rodger's
argument that the Philippine State also shows an institutional 'blurriness' as a state. That is why I
would argue that the Philippine State also has those enigmatic and paradoxical nuances as a state.