Negotiating Silence of Indigenous Healing in Public Health Discourses in Northern Luzon, Philippines

Abstract

Indigenous peoples (IPs) remain vulnerable to systematically-driven, hegemonic agendas. The impact of colonialism continues to have profound effect on how IPs practice and sustain their time-tested Indigenous, Knowledge, Skills and Practices (IKSPs). Specific to the study would be the muting of indigenous healing (IH) where Biomedicine is espoused as the only valid healing system. In this situation, IH suffers at multitudes. On this backdrop that the study was conducted to answer the following questions: (a) what are the communicative encounters that silence indigenous healing? How is it silenced? Who or what silences it?; (b) how does communication facilitate the recognition of IH as a valid healing system?; (c) how is indigenous healing privileged in the cultural assertions of IPs? Guided by the critical tradition lens, the study was conducted in selected provinces of two regions in Northern Luzon. Indigenous Peoples (IPs) and Biomedicine health workers participated in the study. To make the data analysis specific, it employed the Critical Discourse Analysis. Adapting this method enabled a closer look at the dominant, muted and accommodated beliefs and practices that surfaced as experienced by indigenous peoples and health workers. Results of the study tell us that the instances that silence indigenous healing would be from the State itself. Specifically, silencing is coming from the Biomedicine health workers, in the information drives of agencies such as the DOH, in learning paradigms, and in lack of supportive policies. Despite these marginalizations, IH is thriving among IPs where much of it is facilitated by communication. The purpose of healing is collectively created through community communication. As people talk about IH, its components are innovated on, and new meanings are surfacing. The study then proceeded to looking at how IH is privileged in the cultural assertions of IPs. First, IH is privileged as they assert their values and cultural integrity. Here, self-determination is apparent as they see IH as the primary option for healing. IH is privileged in the covenant between IPs and their environment – enough reasons why biodiversity are observed in their communal forests; and herbal plants are propagated for the use of anyone in need. Second, IH is also privileged in the cultural sharing because of strong intergenerational ties. Here, the emphasis on IH as part of their cultural identity is reiterated. Indigenous pedagogy and epistemologies are cultivated in IH. Here, sharing of knowledge from one generation to the next remains significant to the IPs. The invalidation of IH is rooted on structural agenda that are primarily hinged on colonial constructs – where knowledge is systematic and objective; and Biomedicine as the only emblem for modernization and development in general. In the spirit of multiculturalism, it is also essential to assert that humans and their cultures do not exist in isolation, and that we do not live in disconnected networks. Diversity should be embraced, differences should be accepted and understood. In such manner, discursive spaces espousing pluriversal epistemologies and pedagogies, especially that of IPs, will be sustained. Therefore, entry points for engaging and institutionalizing IH calls for strengthening. The Memorandum Circular for Indigenous Peoples may be expanded to holistically include the aspects of IH from the lens of IPs themselves. There is a need for a stronger support for IH to thrive. How IH is privileged in the cultural assertions of IPs should be recognized and supported by the State. The sustained relevance of indigenous healing calls for equal access to opportunities, such as support for growth and innovation. Results may be considered as bases for socio cultural indications by concerned organizations such as the DOH as they craft policies that would help uphold the sustainability and recognition of indigenous healing. The role of Knowledge Management for Development (KM4D) becomes imperative in facilitating the recognition of ICCs as communities with intellectual assets, therefore should be accorded opportunities to become part of the development process. In a broader context, the participation of IPs may therefore be more emphasized in achieving the SDGs, specifically the SDG 3: Good health and well-being for all. Questioning the validity of IH may be considered by the State. It is urgent that hegemonic agendas to promote medical imperialism may be terminated. Disruptions rescinding the potentials of IH to be continually practiced and innovated upon may likewise be halted. All in all, attempts to discredit, invalidate and nullify IH as IPs’ form of self-determination may be ended.