Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T14:23:25.860Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nature, colonial science and nation-building in twentieth-century Philippines

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 February 2021

Ruel V. Pagunsan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines colonial nature-making in twentieth century Philippines. It particularly looks into natural history investigations of the American-instituted Bureau of Science and the ways in which it created a discursive authority for understanding the Philippine natural environment. These biological investigations, the article argues, did not only structure the imperial construction of the colony's nature, but also provided a blueprint for imagining notions of national integration and identity. The article interrogates the link between colonial scientific projects and nation-building initiatives, emphasising the scripting of the archipelago's nature and the creation of a national science through biological spaces.

Type
Review Article
Information
Journal of Southeast Asian Studies , Volume 51 , Issue 4 , December 2020 , pp. 561 - 578
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The National University of Singapore, 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This article is a revised version of a paper presented at ‘Southeast Asian Natures: Environmentalism and the Anthropocene in Southeast Asia’, University of California Riverside, 13 Mar. 2018. My gratitude to the workshop organisers, particularly David Biggs, Christina Schwenkel and Hendrik Maier, and to co-participants for their insights, references and help. I also wish to thank the JSEAS editors and reviewers for comments and suggestions. The archival and library research for this article was conducted during my PhD research; I wish to thank the Department of History, National University of Singapore, for its support. Finally, I am grateful to the University of the Philippines for assistance and making it possible for me to attend the workshop.

References

1 Merrill, Elmer, ‘Destruction of the Bureau of Science in Manila’, Science 101, 2625 (1945): 401Google Scholar; Barroga-Jamias, Serlie, ‘Eduardo A. Quisumbing: Botanist par excellence and father of Philippine orchidology (1895–1986)’, in National Scientists of the Philippines (1978–1998) (Quezon City: National Academy of Science and Technology; Anvil, 1998), pp. 164–74Google Scholar.

2 K.M. Heller, Letter to Jose Rizal, Dresden, 5 Feb. 1895, Miscellaneous correspondence of Dr. Jose Rizal (Manila: Philippine National Historical Institute, 1992), pp. 315–16.

3 See Mojares, Resil, Brains of the nation: Pedro Paterno, T.H. Pardo de Tavera, Isabelo de los Reyes, and the production of modern knowledge (Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 2006)Google Scholar.

4 Thomas, Megan, Orientalists, propagandists, ilustrados: Filipino scholarship and the end of Spanish colonialism (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012), p. 7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Anderson, Warwick and Pol, Hans, ‘Scientific patriotism: Medical science and self-fashioning in Southeast Asia’, Comparative Studies in Society and History 54, 1 (2012): 93–113Google Scholar.

6 Caroline Hau, ‘Foreword’, in Thomas, Orientalists, propagandists, ilustrados, (Quezon City: Anvil, 2016), p. xvii.

7 Anderson, Benedict, Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism, rev. edn (London: Verso, 2006)Google Scholar.

8 Ibid., p. xiv.

9 See Anderson, Imagined communities, pp. 163–85.

10 Savage, Victor, Western impressions of nature and landscape of Southeast Asia (Singapore: Singapore University Press, 1984)Google Scholar.

11 Macleod, Roy, ‘“On visiting the moving metropolis”: Reflections on the architecture of imperial science’, in Scientific colonialism: A cross-cultural comparison, ed. Reingold, Nathan and Rothenberg, Marc (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1987), p. 219Google Scholar.

12 Müller-Wille, Staffan, ‘Walnuts at Hudson Bay, coral reefs in Gotland: The colonialism of Linnaean botany’, in Colonial botany: Science, commerce and politics in the early modern world, ed. Schiebinger, Londa and Swan, Claudia (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2005), pp. 34–48Google Scholar.

13 MacKenzie, John, Museums and empire: Natural history, human cultures and colonial identities (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2010)Google Scholar.

14 Csiszar, Alex, ‘Seriality and the search for order: Scientific print and its problems during the late nineteenth century’, Journal on the History of Science 48, 3–4 (2010)Google Scholar.

15 Goss, Andrew, The floracrats: State-sponsored science and the failure of enlightenment in Indonesia (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2011)Google Scholar.

16 Ibid., pp. 10, 80.

17 Barnard, Timothy, Nature's colony: Empire, nation and environment in the Singapore Botanic Gardens (Singapore: NUS Press, 2016)Google Scholar.

18 Merrill, Elmer D., Twenty-first annual report of the Bureau of Science, Philippine Islands; to the Honorable the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources; for the year ending December 3, 1922 (Manila: Bureau of Printing, 1923), p. 6Google Scholar.

19 Mojares, Resil, ‘The formation of Filipino nationality under U.S. colonial rule’, Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society 34 (2006): 11–32Google Scholar.

20 Ibid., p. 14.

21 United States Library of Congress (LOC), Manuscript Division, W. Cameron Forbes Papers (1904–46).

22 Forbes Papers, W. Houghton Library, Harvard University, quoted in Anderson, Warwick, ‘Science in the Philippines’, Philippine Studies 55, 3 (2007): 299Google Scholar.

23 The Philippine Commission Act no. 156, July 1, 1901, created the Government Laboratories in 1901 to take charge of vaccines and sera for disease eradication and control. See Russell, Paul F., ‘Biological and medical research at the Bureau of Science, Manila’, Quarterly Review of Biology 10, 2 (1935): 119–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Anderson, Warwick, Colonial pathologies: American tropical medicine, race and hygiene in the Philippines (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2006), pp. 111–13Google Scholar. Its renaming as the ‘Bureau of Science’ was approved through the Philippine Commission Act no. 1407, October 26, 1905, or ‘The Reorganization Act’. This law ordered for the bureaucratic changes that disbanded some bureaus and streamlined functions of other agencies. The Bureau of Science continued to be under the Department of Interior.

24 Ahern, George, Annual Report of the Director of Forestry of the Philippine Islands for the period July 1, 1906, to June 30, 1907 (Manila: Bureau of Printing, 1908), p. 16Google Scholar.

25 Arnold, David, Travelling gaze: India, landscape, and science, 1800–1856 (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2006)Google Scholar.

26 Worcester argued for the centralisation of scientific activities under one institutional roof to avoid what he believed to be an impending duplication of works and the cultivation of scientific turf. He cited his experience at the University of Michigan where zoological investigations were conducted by several academic units and thus leading to duplication of functions and resources. America's experience in the Philippines, according to Worcester, was ‘a golden opportunity to start right’, saying that centralisation would benefit the colonial government in saving time and expenditures. Worcester, Dean, The Philippines, past and present, vol. 1 (New York: Macmillan, 1921), pp. 488–500Google Scholar. See also, Sullivan, Exemplar of Americanism, pp. 115–17.

27 Freer, Paul, Description of the new buildings (Manila: Bureau of Public Printing, 1905)Google Scholar.

28 Freer, Paul, Fourth annual report of the Superintendent of the Bureau of Government Laboratories for the year ending August 31, 1905 to the Honorable the Secretary of Interior (Manila: Bureau of Printing, 1905), pp. 11–12Google Scholar.

29 Paul Freer, Fifth annual report of the Director of the Bureau of Science to the Honorable the Secretary of Interior for the year ending August 1, 1906 (Manila: Bureau of Printing, 1906), p. 13. The Section of Botany was formed in 1902 as a unit of the Bureau of Agriculture, though botanical research under the Americans had started two years earlier by Capt. George Ahern, as chief of the Philippine Forestry Bureau, an agency absorbed from the Spanish Inspeccion de Montes and reorganised by Americans in April 1900. George Ahern, Special report by the Forestry Bureau, Philippine Islands (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1901). The colonial government also absorbed the Inspeccion de Minas which became the Division of Mines under the Bureau of Science.

30 Alvin Cox, Eleventh annual report of the Bureau of Science to the Honorable the Secretary of Interior for the year ending August 1, 1912 (Manila: Bureau of Printing, 1913), p. 10.

31 Philippine Commission, ‘Act No. 2590: An Act for the Protection of Game and Fish’, 4 Feb. 1916.

32 Vicente Villaflor, ‘The place of forestry in our economic development’, in The Philippinensian (Manila: University of the Philippines, 1917), pp. 158–9.

33 Ibid.

34 Alvin Cox, Fifteenth annual report of the Director of the Bureau of Science the Philippine Islands to the Honorable the Secretary of the Interior for the year ending December 31, 1916 (Manila: Bureau of Printing, 1917), p. 58.

35 Berny Seby, ‘Exhibiting the empire in print: The press, the publishing world and the promotion of “Greater Britain”’, in Exhibiting the empire: Cultures of display and the British Empire, ed. John McAleer and John Mackenzie (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2015), p. 186.

36 Official Handbook: Description of the Philippine Islands, compiled by the Bureau of Insular Affairs, War Department, Washington D.C. (Manila: Public Printing Office, 1903).

37 Alvin Cox, Industrial resources of the Philippine Islands (Manila: Bureau of Science, c.1914).

38 See Thongchai Winichakul, Siam mapped: A history of a geo-body of a nation (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1994).

39 Despite the relatively abundant Spanish contributions, American naturalists found them incomplete and taxonomically inaccurate. Manuel Blanco's Flora de Filipinas, the most important contribution to Philippine botany in the 19th century, was deemed ‘absolutely inadequate’, ‘obsolete in arrangement’, and featured only ‘less than one-eighth of the species now known to occur in the archipelago’. Alvin Cox, Fourteenth annual report of the Director of the Bureau of Science the Philippine Islands to the Honorable the Secretary of the Interior for the year ending December 31, 1915 (Manila: Bureau of Printing, 1917), p. 56; Frederick Coville, Memorandum for Charles D. Walcott, Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 10 Nov. 1915, RU 192, Smithsonian Institution Archives (SIA), Washington, DC.

40 Alvin Cox, Bureau of Science Press Bulletin 87 (Manila: Bureau of Science, 1918), p. 6.

41 Alvin Cox, Sixteenth annual report of the Director of the Bureau of Science, the Philippine Islands, to the Honorable the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources; for the year ending December 31, 1917 (Manila: Bureau of Printing, 1918), p. 30.

42 Strong, Richard, Eighth annual report of the Bureau of Science to the Honorable the Secretary of Interior for the year ending August 1, 1909 (Manila: Bureau of Printing, 1910), p. 27Google Scholar.

43 A similar project was a compilation of medicinal plants. In 1916, the Bureau appointed Filipino pharmacist Leon Ma. Guerrero to lead the project. Examining the Herbarium's collection, Guerrero listed more than 150 species with curative merits. The results of his study were published in the 1918 Census of the Philippines, and later revised and enlarged by William Brown as part of the study on forest products in the Philippines published by the Bureaus of Science and Forestry in 1921.

44 Robbins, William J., Elmer Drew Merrill 1876–1956: A biographical memoir (Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1958)Google Scholar.

45 William Maxon, Memorandum to Mr. Coville, 13 May 1922, RU 192, SIA.

46 Leonard Wood, Letter to Charles Walcott, Manila, 30 Mar. 1922, RU 192, SIA.

47 Alexander Wetmore, Memorandum, 20 Nov. 1926, RU 89, SIA.

48 Ibid. The breakdown was as follows: $3,800–payment for botanist; $1,400–payment for clerk; $800–payment for illustrations; and $1,500–for freight, travel and miscellaneous expenses.

49 Charles D. Walcott, Letter to Elmer Merrill, Washington DC, 12 Dec. 1919, RU 192, SIA.

50 W. de C. Ravenel, Letter to Leonard Wood, Washington DC, 11 July 1924, RU 192, SIA.

51 Merrill, Twenty-first annual report, p. 18.

52 Frederick Coville, Memorandum for Charles D. Walcott, Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 10 Nov. 1915, RU 192, SIA.

53 The Spanish colonial government established the Manila Botanical Garden in September 1858. It only gained recognition in the 1870s–‘80s during the administrations of Domingo Vidal, and later his brother, Sebastian Vidal. Both introduced various ‘exotic’ floral species and significantly increased its native plant collections. For a brief history of the Garden, see Merrill, Elmer, Botanical work in the Philippines (Manila: Bureau of Public Printing, 1903), pp. 30–33Google Scholar.

54 The Garden had been placed under the supervision of the Manila City government from 1904. Merrill, Elmer, A descriptive catalogue of the plants cultivated in the City nursery at the Cementerio del Norte Manila (Manila: Bureau of Printing, 1912)Google Scholar.

55 Harley H. Bartlett, ‘Prospectus for a Philippine Botanical Garden’, n.d., Harley H. Bartlett Papers, Bentley Historical Library (BHL), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

56 Freer, Paul, Third annual report of the Superintendent of the Bureau of Government Laboratories for the period from September 1, 1903 to August 31, 1904 (Manila: Bureau of Printing, 1905), pp. 101–2Google Scholar.

57 Freer, Paul, Seventh annual report of the Director of the Bureau of Science to the Honorable the Secretary of Interior for the year ending August 1, 1908 (Manila: Bureau of Printing, 1908), p. 17Google Scholar.

58 See further Barnard, Nature's colony, esp. chaps. 3, 6 and 7.

59 Bartlett, ‘Prospectus for a Philippine Botanical Garden’.

60 Ibid.

61 Ibid.

62 Ibid.

63 See Luyt, Brendan, ‘Empire forestry and its failure in the Philippines: 1901–1941’, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 47, 1 (2016): 66–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

64 Harley Bartlett, Synopsis of possible industrial development for the Philippines, Mar. 1945, Harley H. Bartlett Papers, BHL.

65 See Mojares, Resil, Waiting for Mariang Makiling: Essays in Philippine cultural history (Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 2002)Google Scholar.

66 Raby, Megan, American tropics: The Caribbean roots of biodiversity science (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

67 Teresa Montemayor, ‘National Museum of Natural History opens to public’, Philippine News Agency, 18 May 2018, https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1035741 (accessed 27 Sept. 2020).

68 Frank Murphy, Proclamation no. 652, 1 Feb. 1934. Executive orders and proclamations issued by the Governor-General during the year 1934 (Manila: Bureau of Public Printing, 1935). The other members of the committee were Leon Ma. Guerrero, Luis J. Reyes, and Eulogio B. Rodriguez.

69 Anderson and Pol, ‘Scientific patriotism’, p. 103.

70 See Gutierrez, Kathleen, ‘Rehabilitating botany in the postwar moment: National promise and the encyclopedism of Eduardo Quisumbing's Medicinal Plants of the Philippines (1951)’, Asian Review of World Histories 6 (2018): 33–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

71 Eduardo Quisumbing, Letter to Elmer Merrrill, Manila, 7 Mar. 1945, Elmer Merrill Papers, Archives of Arnold Arboretum, Harvard University.

72 Eduardo Quisumbing, ‘A proposed plan for the rehabilitation of the Natural History Museum’, c.July 1946, Elmer Merrill Papers, Archives of Arnold Arboretum, Harvard University. My emphasis.

73 ‘Tribute to National Scientist Eduardo Quisumbing, PhD’, A directory of academicians (Manila: National Academy of Science and Technology, 1981).

74 Barroga-Jamias, ‘Eduardo A. Quisumbing’, p. 172.