Reading Archives and Writing Colonial Histories: Methodological Approaches to US Colonial Education in the Philippines

• In Event: Toward an Anti-Imperial Thought in Education: Pedagogy, Methodology, and Struggle for a World Anew

Abstract

This paper examines three distinct methodological approaches to reading imperial archives and constructing historical narratives about colonial education. The primary objective is to demonstrate how different onto-epistemological positions fundamentally shape the interpretation of archival materials and the writing of colonial histories. Through comparative analysis of two pivotal educational reports from 1920s Philippines, this study aims to reveal the politics of knowledge production in colonial contexts and highlight the importance of methodological reflexivity in historical research. The presentation seeks to contribute to ongoing conversations about decolonizing educational historiography and the critical examination of archival practices in colonial studies.

This study draws upon postcolonial theory and Foucauldian analytics of governmentality to examine how colonial knowledge systems operated through educational institutions. The theoretical framework is anchored in Stoler’s concept of “imperial durabilities” (2016) and her approach to reading archives “along the grain” and “against the grain.” The analysis incorporates Seth’s (2007) critical examination of Western education as a colonial technology of subject formation. Additionally, the study employs Foucault’s understanding of biopolitical governmentality, as articulated by Burchell, Gordon, and Miller (1991), examining how colonial educational surveys functioned as technologies of population management and social control. This multi-layered theoretical approach enables a nuanced understanding of how archival materials both reflect and constitute colonial power relations.

The study employs three complementary methodological approaches to archival analysis. First, traditional historical methodology mines the archives for empirical data to construct a chronological narrative of US colonial schooling development. Second, comparative discourse analysis examines the reports as competing assessments, revealing how US and Filipino perspectives diverged in their understanding of educational progress and colonial governance. Third, genealogical analysis contextualizes these documents within the historical emergence of modern techniques of accounting, taxonomy, and evaluation as governmental technologies.

The primary archival materials consist of two comprehensive educational reports: the US-led Survey of the Educational System of the Philippines Islands (1925) and the Filipino-led report from the Joint Educational Committee of the Philippine Legislature (1926). These documents provide rich datasets including statistical surveys, policy recommendations, administrative correspondence, and evaluative frameworks. Secondary sources include contemporary colonial administrative records, educational policy documents, and correspondence between colonial officials and Filipino educators. The analysis draws upon materials housed in both US National Archives and Philippine National Archives, supplemented by digitized collections and published government documents from the American colonial period.

The analysis reveals that methodological approaches fundamentally determine how colonial subjects emerge in historical narratives. Traditional historical methodology produces a developmental narrative emphasizing American benevolence and Filipino progress toward modernity. Comparative discourse analysis unveils tensions between colonial and colonized perspectives, revealing Filipino resistance to US educational hegemony. Genealogical analysis exposes how educational surveys functioned as biopolitical technologies, constituting Filipino populations as objects of governmental intervention. These findings demonstrate that archives are not neutral repositories but active sites of power relations. The study concludes that methodological reflexivity is essential for ethical engagement with colonial archives and that multiple interpretive approaches can disrupt singular historical narratives, opening space for more complex understandings of colonial educational experiences.

Author

• Roland Sintos Coloma, Wayne State University