Reproductive Politics, Religion and State Governance in the Philippines
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Reproductive Politics, Religion and State Governance in the Philippines Maria Dulce F Natividad Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2012 © 2012 Maria Dulce F Natividad All rights reserved ABSTRACT Reproductive Politics, Religion and State Governance in the Philippines Maria Dulce F Natividad Reproductive controversies are never only about reproduction and health. They serve as proxies for more fundamental questions about citizenship, the state, national identity, class and gender. In a post-colonial context such as the Philippines, where a particular historical relationship between the Church and the state has developed, policymaking on reproduction, sexuality and health answers to both development goals and religious norms. At the same time, women’s everyday frameworks of (reproductive) meanings are also inextricably bound with state policies and popular culture. My ethnographic study examines the relationship between state governance, religion, reproductive politics, and competing understandings of embodied sexual morality. My study argues that at the heart of the complex politics involved in policymaking on reproductive health in the Philippines is the entanglement of national and religious identities. Reproductive policy then operates as a frame through which the politics of the nation, religion and the state get filtered and played out. Taking the Philippines as a case study, I focus on women’s ‘lived religion’ and practices; the local, national and international institutions and actors that exert influence on reproductive policy and popular sentiment; and how these shape women’s reproductive practices in the context of everyday life. Through the women’s narratives, I show how class, gender and religion work in tension with one another. Lastly, the study also investigates how the historical entanglement between religion and the state configures practices of governance, such as policymaking, in postcolonial contexts. TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments ii Dedication v Chapter 1 Policy Worlds and Reproductive Politics 1 Chapter 2 Debating Reproductive Health 32 Chapter 3 Reproducing the Moral Nation: 76 Catholicism and the Politics of Reproduction Chapter 4 Moral Economy of Survival: Women’s Narratives and Realities 128 Chapter 5 Go Natural, Start Local: Policy Moves Through Government 159 Chapter 6 Conclusion 207 Bibliography 224 i Acknowledgments This dissertation would not have been possible without the support and encouragement of many individuals, groups and communities. First, I wish to thank the women of Sangandaan for sharing their life histories with me. I am grateful for their openness and trust. I extend this gratitude to everyone who participated in my research. I also thank the Sasakawa Young Leaders Fellowship Fund and the Weatherhead East Asian Institute at Columbia University for supporting both my preliminary research and fieldwork in the Philippines. I want to thank the members of my dissertation committee: Drs. Carole Vance, Richard Parker, Lesley Sharp, Alice Miller and Jennifer Hirsch. I count myself lucky for having a wonderful and dedicated mentor in Carole Vance. Her thorough review of my writing and her challenging comments on my drafts, as well as her tireless focus on my progress, provided a steadying guide throughout the difficult process. She has put a lot of her energy and time into helping me achieve my best. For this, I cannot thank her enough. By her example, I have learned greatly about what it means to be a scholar, mentor and teacher. Graduate school is an environment for achieving, but it is also a place of survival. I am grateful for the unconditional support that Richard Parker has given me from the time I finished my coursework until now. He trusted me with work, training me in areas of research, writing and academic publishing, and introducing me to a broad network of academic-activists, while at the same time ensuring my survival. All this has informed my own work and will serve me well in my future. I valued greatly the critical points he made on my text. For never tiring of being excited about my work, Lesley Sharp has given me a generous gift. She always saw the potential and strengths of my research. My conversations with her were for me sessions for crystallizing and messing up ideas. Her urging that I let the voices of my respondents speak is now forever ingrained in my mind. ii Despite her move to another university, Ali Miller sustained her commitment to be on my committee. The questions she posed always opened a different complex perspective. Beyond the call of duty, she offered her lovely home as refuge and work space as I finished my revisions. Stepping in at a final and crucial stage of my dissertation work, Jennifer Hirsch was perfect. Her comments and views challenge me to take my work further. In the course of my academic work, Drs. Monica Maher and Edgar Rivera Colon, also served as members of my committee for a time. They both helped me work out certain aspects of my dissertation. I wish to acknowledge other faculty whose quiet support I appreciated a lot. They include Kim Hopper, Amy Fairchild, Marita Murrman, James Colgrove, Miguel Munoz-Laboy and Robert Sember. I thank Marni Sommer for her heart and caring for my well-being. Theo Sandfort, my adviser when I did my MPH at Columbia, deserves special mention. He took me under his wing when I first came to New York. I also want to give a special mention to my friends, Ernesto Vasquez, Carmen Yon-Leau, and Shaohua Liu. Although we met each other when were at different stages of our academic lives, the four of us managed to form a tight group of international students. I cherish the love and support they have given me, and miss the laughter and stories that we shared. For their friendship and being there during the last stages of my dissertation writing, I thank Ephraim Shapiro, Nancy Worthington, Laura Murray, Raziel Valino, Emily Vasquez, Robert Frey, Jonathan Garcia and Yessica Diaz. They all made life easier for me. My Filipino community in New York was a source of immeasurable support. I thank Toinette Raquiza, Vince Boudreau, and Myrna Alejo, who also live academic lives, for being generous with their advice, opening their homes to me, and comforting me with food. Nora Angeles, another friend and academic based in Vancouver, commented on the rough draft of my dissertation. The Reyes family, Vicky, Romy, Mark and Anne, welcomed me into their New Jersey home and made me a part of their family. iii To my friends and colleagues in the Philippines who served as my cheering squad and updated me on news from home, I say thank you. Jing Pura, Mia Aquino, Lai Mendoza, Mags Lopez, Jojo Garcia, Alan Ortiz, Randee Cabaces, Chris Bantug, Agnes Camacho, Sheila Espine, Mela Sarenas, Roy Choco, Gus Cerdena, Mye Cruz and Doby Pineda sustained my spirit. They understood my unwillingness to be distracted by Facebook and endured the inconvenience of regular email to continue communicating with me. Princess Nemenzo, Mercy Fabros, Fe Manapat, Fe Sarmiento, Melvi Gelacio, Bing Concepcion and Ka Dodong Nemenzo provided encouragement and enthusiastic support. For keeping me company from far away and for many nights, I thank Ian Rintoul. Lastly, I wish to thank my family for their constant love and support. I thank my siblings, Kuya Dominic, Doreen, Desiree, and Delight, for keeping me connected to home; and my nephews, Andre and Jack, and my nieces, Faith and Kim, who give me infinite joy. I owe my parents, Jun and Celia, everything. I thank them most for believing in me. And although he did not see me finish, my father would have been proudest of this moment. iv For my parents, Jun and Celia v 1 CHAPTER ONE POLICY WORLDS AND REPRODUCTIVE POLITICS INTRODUCTION Years ago, I took a political science course that introduced students to the policy process and outlined the steps involved in passing legislation: the drafting of the bill to its subsequent first and second readings, the period of interpellation, the introduction of amendments, voting on the bill, the third and last reading, and finally, the possible exercise of the Presidential veto. This, is how a bill becomes a law. Implied in this step-by-step presentation was an objective analysis of a social problem, a rational sifting of arguments, and a deliberate crafting of the solution to the problem. Understanding this process is key to influencing policy outcomes, students were told. Far from being an external force that unfolds objectively and which political actors must then take pains to follow, in reality, policymaking and policy itself have complex “social lives” as they may be understood as being embedded within contexts and meanings. As people engage in policymaking, they construct and deploy their own interpretations and meanings of policies, creating new social, political and bureaucratic dynamics. As such, policymaking is a highly contested and unstable process, revealing “political processes in which actors, agents, concepts and technologies interact in different sites, creating or consolidating new rationalities of governance and regimes of knowledge and power” (Shore et al. 2011: 2). Shore, Wright and Peró (2011) use the term “policy worlds” to refer to this whole complex interactions. In this study, I investigate the policy worlds of the Reproductive Health Bill, first proposed in the Philippine legislature in 2001. After years of raging public debates, the bill continues to be a source of political eruptions and moral questioning, intensely contested for more than a decade due mainly to opposition from the influential Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is not alone: also engaged are 2 affiliated groups, policymakers and their legislative staffs, the state and its different agencies, women’s NGOs and other reproductive health advocacy groups, business and other sectors, as well as diverse media.