THE ECONOMY AS FOUNDATION OF SOCIAL LIFE

The importance of economic structure Karl Marx, the father of scientific socialism, famously
stated in his a preface to a critique of political economy the most controversial assertion in
sociology:

“In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and
independent of their will; these relations of production correspond to a definite stage of
development of their material forces of production. The sum total of these relations of production
constitutes the economic structure of society the real foundation, on which rises a legal and
political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The
mode of production of material life determines the social, political and intellectual life process in
general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their
social being that determines consciousness”.

SYSTEM OF STRATIFICATION AS SOURCE OF INEQUALITIES

Some sociologists, however, extend the definition of class to include not only access to the
means of production like land, capital, and technologies but also to the prestige attached to one’s
social position. Some sociologists, however, extend the definition of class to include not only
access to the means of production like land, capital, and technologies but also to the prestige
attached to one’s social position. Hence, some sociologists, writing along the Weberian tradition,
use the term stratification.
When regularly recognized social differences (of wealth, color, religion, ethnicity or gender, for
example) become ranked in some hierarchical manner, sociologists talk about strata (Bruce and
Yearly 2006, p. 290).

Max weber defined class a category of individuals who:

1. Have in common a specific causal component of their life chances in so far as
2. This component is represented exclusively by economic interests in the possession of
goods and opportunities for income, and
3. It is represented under the conditions of the commodity or labor market.”

“I believe that ownership of property is crucial to the definition of class. Where class referred to
social differences based on economic divisions and inequalities, status designated the
differentiation of groups in the “communal Sphere in terms of their social honor and social
standing” Max Weber
Caste System as a system of social stratification differs from class in its rigidity and in the basis
of legitimacy. It is also called a closed system in contrast with the class system that is relatively
open. Membership of castes is ascribed rather than achieved, and social contact between castes is
heavily constrained and ritualized. Unlike in the class system, in the caste system the positions of
people are already determined at the moment they were born.

The Class system. As discussed earlier, under the class system, individuals are positioned
according to their access to the means of production and contribution to productive labor. People
with higher income tend to have children who also have higher income. Parents who can afford
to send their children to better schools are promoting the future advantage of their children. To
talk about the class system is to talk about the ways in which individuals from a definite family
background can advance to a relatively better economic position than their parents. In most class
system, education has become the accepted means to advance one’s social mobility.

Among filipino families, education is considered as the “ticket to success. This is supported by
the theory of education-based meritocracy proposed chiefly by american sociologists daniel bell
in the 1960s.
In this theory, education is supposed to be the great status. Equalizer. Education provides much
needed capital to climb the economic ladder. Hence, many filipino families will sacrifice
anything for their children to finish a college degree. This practice is based on the belief that our
society
Is an "open" Society that allows the movement of individuals from a lower class to a relatively
higher class. When people are allowed and are capable of moving from one stratum or class to
another class, it is called social mobility.

Social mobility signifies the movement of people between positions in a system of social
stratification. In modern societies this means the movement of people between social classes is
defined by occupational scales. It may occur between generations (as when a girl born into a
working-class family achieves a middle-class occupation) or be the ups- and downs of an
individual career” (p. 283).- Bruce and Yearley (2006)

Pierre bourdieu (1930-2002), A french sociologist, who dealt extensively with class inequalities
by arguing that capital, in its classic marxist usage, does not refer only to economic assets but
also includes cultural, symbolic, and social capital. Cultural capital refers to the forms of
knowledge, educational credentials, and artistic taste that a person acquires from family
background, which give them higher status in society.
Social capital refers to resources based on group membership, relationships, and networks of
influence and support. Bourdieu (1984) described social capital as “the aggregate of the actual or
potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less
institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition.” In traditional societies
for instance, individuais are recruited in a bureaucracy on the basis of blood relations. In his
book distinction (1984), Bourdieu refers to symbolic capital as “the acquisition of a reputation
for competence and an image of respectability and honourability…” (p. 291)

Politics. What does politics mean? Why does politics bear a negative connotation especially
when used by well known politicians, celebrities, and media practitioners? What is the
relationship between power and politics? Where does power lie? Who wields power? Who seizes
power? What does it mean to be political? What does it take to be politicized? What are the
possible ways in which politics and empowerment can mean something meaningful and fruitful
for the majority?

POLITICS AND SOCIAL ORGANIZATION

All known societies are organized in ways that facilitate and maintain the everyday life and
culture of different social groups. This means that the morality made up of norms, mores, and
folkways that people live by are part of an organized system of “ways of doing and mixing” Are
ways of living in a world where each individual needs. To mix with other people. In other words,
there are rules, unwritten or written, that guide people’s ways of socializing. This way of
inhabiting the world is conceptualized as social relations. Power is a nominal term or another
word we use to refer to social relations. This means that the rules for relating socially are
observed depending on one’s position in society. This is why all social relations are power
relations. This why politics is not even choice that those who can get into. Politics is part and
parcel of social life. It shapes the way people live.

FORMS OF LEGITIMACY
German sociologist max weber identifies 3 types of legitimacy which concertize the same in its
various concrete forms:

1. Traditional Legitimacy (TL)

TI is the kind of moral authority that keeps society together by virtue of custom and habit. This
type of legitimacy emphasizes the authority of tradition by virtue of its historical practice by a
particular group. This form of rule is understood as historically accepted by its practitioners:
“this is how we have always done things.” Governments or forms of rule that are based on
traditional legitimacy are historically continuous such as monarchies and the traditional
legitimacy of customary law that govern tribal societies.

2. Charismatic Legitimacy (CL)

In his book “charisma and institution building,” Weber studies the transition of power from one
regime to another through the seizure of power or revolution. He studies a dimension of regime
change or revolution focusing on a charismatic leader. He argues that seizure of power is often
initiated by a leader who questions traditional authority, brings together and leads followers to
oust the old regime and bring forth a new one. Fidel Castro of Cuba’s 1959 revolution, Mao
Zedong of the 1949 Chinese revolution, Vladimir Lenin of the 1917 October Russian revolution.
Other examples of charismatic leaders in world history are Zapata, Khomeini, and Mandela. The
charismatic leader is often regarded as endowed with Exceptional powers and superhuman
qualities. Charisma is the quality of political leaders whose individual characteristics set him
apart from ordinary people. Weber, however, highlights that the charismatic leader’s authority
over her followers can only be maintained and reinforced when solidified in political institutions.
This means that as a quality of a leader, charisma must itself undergo institutionalization, the
most effective of which are formal bureaucracies or modern governments that have replaced the
traditional and hereditary rule of monarchs.

3. Rational-Legal Legitimacy (RLL)

Authority in this context derives from formal procedures of institutions. This is a type of
legitimacy that is based on a government’s capacity to use public interest as the rationale for
establishing and enforcing law and order. Rational- legal legitimacy is therefore the basis of
power and leadership of a government that pledges to abide the law and wins consent from the
people through public trust. Modern states or governments premised on representative or
participative democracies are examples of the kind of authority that is derived from rational-legal
legitimacy. Betrayal of trust and culpable violation of the constitution by a government official
strips him or her of rational-legal authority. This explains the phenomenon of presidents leaving
their office due to public clamor and/or people power.

POWER AND AUTHORITY KEY DIFFERENCES

AUTHORITY POWER
Control delegated to an individual or group Control that allows influence on others
Is a right or privilege granted to you resides in Comes from who you are resides in the
the post or position person/people who use it
Flexible and dynamic
Technical and static Cannot be accurately illustrated-flows in
Illustrated in organizational charts-flows many directions
Diffuse
 downwards
Positional

ORIGINS OF THE PHILIPPINE MODERN STATE

Modern principalia: “a continuity of leadership recruitment from a tiny minority of elite families
and, in spite of “democratic” Elections, members of these families get elected again and again.”-
dante simbulan

The ruling elite or the plutocracy refers to any given society’s economic and political elite. In
this context, the melding of economic and political power is decisive in the formation of the
Philippine state and the different regimes or governments that have historically made it up. In an
ideal world, governance only requires political acumen or the ability to wield political capital
effectively. But the history of colonialism and neo-colonialism has shaped the confluence of
economic and political power in shaping the life of a nation.
Each province in the Philippines is almost always ruled by political dynasties that rule not only
the political life, they also shape and control ordinary people’s economic and social life.

THROWBACK IN HISTORY
The Principalia is a product of spanish colonialism that morphed into the modern principalia all
throughout American colonialism and neo-colonialism, up to the institution of the Modern
Philippine state.
Caciquism is a system of rule introduced by the Spanish colonizers who ruled the Philippines
from 1571-1898. While leaders of Barangays and Datus already existed in the social organization
of the various regions in Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao before Spanish colonial rule, these
sophisticated system of organization was used by the Spanish colonizers against the colonized.
The Spanish colonizers introduced Caciquism or the rule of the cacique or chief through local
leaders like the datos and cabezas de barangay. In other words, local chiefs were recruited to the
Spanish colonial government as local collaborators. They were compensated through the
encomienda system, or land grants to local caciques. The caciques then started to preserve and
reinforce power through getting more land which allowed them to make their constituents, the
people, dependent on them. This newly formed local elite group also served as tax collectors who
extorted money from the locals, partly for their use and part of it to be surrendered to their
spanish superiors.
In the Bonifacio-led 1896 katipunan revolution, the Principalia played a counter-intuitive role.
The 1896 revolution was inspired by the reform movement initiated by the Ilustrados, they are
intellectual segment of the Principalia who are alienated from the practices and interests of this
elite group. They are the young intellectuals who studied in Europe a midst the Philippines
colonization of Spain. Their exposure to the literature on the enlightenment and the different
revolutions in the west, foremost of which is the french revolution, these alienated young
intellectuals would come home to the country to become propagandists of the reform movement
against Spanish colonialism. From this movement, the revolutionary katipunan was born and
eventually won the revolution against Spanish colonialism.
During the united states colonization of the Philippines, the campaign to pacify revolutionary
anti colonial forces ensued. The principalia during this period was comprised of pro-american
upper class Filipinos, who in December 12, 1900, came together, all 125 of them, to organize the
Federalista party. As part of the pacification campaign, local Filipino elites were also appointed
by Americans in different positions in the bureaucracy culminating in the commonwealth period.
This period marked the institutionalization of the modern Principalia as pillars in the
establishment of state institutions in the so-called post-colonial period. This segment of the
Principalia has its roots from the land-owning Principalia that collaborated with spanish
colonizers. This is how the modem Principalia became the local ruling elite that occupy seats in
local government units, congress, senate, and the Malacanang palace. Contemporary Philippine
politician’s preference for foreign investors, partnerships with big business, and us military
forces is a disposition that has its historical roots in the making of the modern Principalia which
now comprise the modern Philippine state. The phenomenon of making profits out of one’s seat
in government or what is known as bureaucrat capitalism is a logical trajectory of governance
that was instituted during colonial rule, and whose substance and bases (economic power based
on land, and later on, entanglement with foreign interests) have yet to be eliminated to make
Philippine politics a practice of genuine democracy.