At the turn of the twenty-first century, labor history declined as the indigenization movement, specifically Pantayong Pananaw, shifted academic focus to Philippine language and culture

03 Jul 2026

Between 1959 and 1985, only seven studies on the Philippine labor movement were made due to security risks under the Marcos dictatorship. With the fall of the martial law regime in 1986, an upsurge in labor history was witnessed with the vigorous publication of studies on the history of Filipino workers and their labor movement. This paper explored the defining characteristics of labor history in the Philippines by surveying at least 15 books and articles on Philippine labor published from 1988 to 1998. The literature then was contextualized to the cultural and linguistic turns that took over Philippine historiography after 1986, which in turn was critiqued by adopting an anti-nationalist perspective. The results show that these works can be categorized as “old labor history” in their tradition and were individual in nature due to the absence of a collaboration attempt between historians and social scientists. Furthermore, labor history declined at the turn of the twenty-first century as the indigenization movement, particularly Pantayong Pananaw, dramatically shifted the academic focus from political economy towards the study of Philippine languages and culture.

My research has two main significances. First, it is the first historiographical study to define and review labor history in the Philippines, one of the underexplored fields of history as a discipline of social sciences. As a distinct subfield, labor history is fundamentally defined by its historical inquiry and methodology. Its analytical framework can be organized chronologically or thematically, often focusing on specific geographical locales. Crucially, the discipline relies on rigorous historical evidence drawn from primary and secondary sources, viewed through specific theoretical lenses. Positioned within this framework, this study seeks to build upon the work of Torres-Yu (2011) by further situating labor history within Philippine historiography.

Second, it serves as an extension of previous related works critical to the indigenization movement in Philippine social sciences, particularly Pantayong Pananaw, made by Caroline Hau, Ramon Guillermo, and Lisandro Claudio, among other Filipino scholars. According to Claudio (2013), Pantayong Pananaw serves as an example of how nationalism can mask class oppression within Philippine historiography. This research builds upon Claudio’s argument by positing that this framework also contributed to the decline of labor history in the country. Specifically, the shift away from discourses on class struggle led to a critical neglect of Filipino workers’ labor conditions.

Author: Jervy C. Briones (Department of Social Sciences, University of the Philippines Los Baños)

Read the full paper: https://doi.org/10.32871/rmrj2513.01.14

Image by JC Presco from Pexels

At the turn of the twenty-first century, labor history declined as the indigenization movement, specifically Pantayong Pananaw, shifted academic focus to Philippine language and culture

Between 1959 and 1985, only seven studies on the Philippine labor movement were made due to security risks under the Marcos dictatorship. With the fall of the martial law regime in 1986, an upsurge in labor history was witnessed with the vigorous publication of studies on the history of Filipino workers and their labor movement. This paper explored the defining characteristics of labor history in the Philippines by surveying at least 15 books and articles on Philippine labor published from 1988 to 1998. The literature then was contextualized to the cultural and linguistic turns that took over Philippine historiography after 1986, which in turn was critiqued by adopting an anti-nationalist perspective. The results show that these works can be categorized as “old labor history” in their tradition and were individual in nature due to the absence of a collaboration attempt between historians and social scientists. Furthermore, labor history declined at the turn of the twenty-first century as the indigenization movement, particularly Pantayong Pananaw, dramatically shifted the academic focus from political economy towards the study of Philippine languages and culture.

My research has two main significances. First, it is the first historiographical study to define and review labor history in the Philippines, one of the underexplored fields of history as a discipline of social sciences. As a distinct subfield, labor history is fundamentally defined by its historical inquiry and methodology. Its analytical framework can be organized chronologically or thematically, often focusing on specific geographical locales. Crucially, the discipline relies on rigorous historical evidence drawn from primary and secondary sources, viewed through specific theoretical lenses. Positioned within this framework, this study seeks to build upon the work of Torres-Yu (2011) by further situating labor history within Philippine historiography.

Second, it serves as an extension of previous related works critical to the indigenization movement in Philippine social sciences, particularly Pantayong Pananaw, made by Caroline Hau, Ramon Guillermo, and Lisandro Claudio, among other Filipino scholars. According to Claudio (2013), Pantayong Pananaw serves as an example of how nationalism can mask class oppression within Philippine historiography. This research builds upon Claudio’s argument by positing that this framework also contributed to the decline of labor history in the country. Specifically, the shift away from discourses on class struggle led to a critical neglect of Filipino workers’ labor conditions.

Author: Jervy C. Briones (Department of Social Sciences, University of the Philippines Los Baños)

Read the full paper: https://doi.org/10.32871/rmrj2513.01.14

Image by JC Presco from Pexels