Inverting Power Dynamics

The way Filipino Women Maneuvered in their Relationships with U.S. Soldiers 

What can we learn about the relationships between U.S. soldiers and Filipino women during the post-World War II period? What positions did Filipino women occupy in these relationships? How is our understanding of their role influenced by the larger, overarching relationship between the U.S. and Philippine nations during the postwar period? What would happen if we challenged our orthodox understanding of this power dynamic and considered alternate constructions of power between U.S. soldiers and Filipino women? In this post, we aim to explore these questions while taking into account the limitations of working with letters that exist within the U of M’s Philippine archive. While personal letters can provide insight into the relationship between two individuals, when taken out of context, the writer’s original meaning and intent can become unclear to the reader. These gaps in understanding can be misconstrued and oversimplified due to the structural oppression that shapes the lens through which we view archival material. Therefore, we must deeply engage with the source material in order to expose what might not be evident at first glance. From this critical analysis, we hope to better understand the role that Filipino women occupied in their relationships with U.S. soldiers. 

Excluded from the Narrative 

Scholarship has often illustrated the postwar relationship between the U.S. and the Philippines as one of unequal power. Following the end of WWII in 1946, the Philippines faced economic, political, and social devastation, which forced them to agree with the U.S. government’s inequitable terms in granting postwar relief. [1] Legislation such as the Bell Trade Act of 1946, which tied the Philippine economy to that of the U.S., exemplifies the issue at hand.[2] During this period, the U.S. government controlled the Philippine economy while simultaneously maintaining that their relationship was “friendly” and mutually beneficial. However, to scholars, the postwar presence of the U.S. in the Philippines was far from “friendly” as it allowed the U.S. to maintain (neo) imperial power and control over the Philippine nation.[3]

U.S. colonial dominance was able to operate on a much smaller scale in the casual relationships between Filipinos and U.S. soldiers. Scholars, such as Ann L. Stoler, believe that these intimacies reveal yet another way the U.S. maintained colonial control and surveillance over the Philippine population.[4] Yet, the U.S. narrative of overt domination erases the possible agency of Filipinos within their relationships with U.S. soldiers.[5]

In this post, we critically challenge the assumption of American dominance over passive Filipino women. By acknowledging the critical consciousness of Filipino women, our understanding of their subordinate and passive role is altered. Critical consciousness consists of two components: critical reflection and critical action.[6] This concept refers to a specific type of self-awareness in which individuals become cognizant of their position or status and actively try to change their reality.[7] From this new perspective, we can begin to understand the way Filipino women were able to maneuver within these power dynamics as a way to expand their own power. 

Development of Agency

Between 1945 and 1955, Carl Eichenlaub, a corporal who served with the 716th Tank Battalion’s service company in the Philippine Islands, received at least 27 letters from Filipinos that he had met during his service in the Philippines. The Filipino correspondents consist of men, women, and children– many of whom knew each other due to their regional proximity or family connections. However, a majority of the letters were written by the siblings Susan, Alvaro and Dolores Penoria, with an additional letter coming from one of Susan’s co-teachers, Enriqueta de Papillore.[8] 

 

Series of Letters from Susan Penoria

Susan Penoria first began writing Carl Eichenlaub in 1947 to thank him for the kindness he showed to her brother, Alvaro Penoria. Susan writes, “I am very much thankful to his kind master who treated him brotherly.” From this remark, Susan indicates that Alvaro served as Carl’s domestic helper when he was stationed in the Philippines. Susan’s acknowledgment of Alvaro’s inferior social status reveals her understanding of the unequal power dynamic between her family and that of Carl’s. Despite this difference in power, Susan Penoria speaks of a possible friendship between herself and Carl. To initiate this relationship, she includes a return address and closes the letter with “your humble Filipina friend.” Although Susan’s amicable remarks contrast with the reality of her relationship with Carl, they help reaffirm her intentions as friendly and sincere.[9]

On August 1st, 1949, Susan wrote a second letter as a response to one she had received from Carl. In this correspondence, Susan shares how she has struggled, both professionally and personally, within the Philippines’ turbulent economic climate. As a 5th-grade Home Economics teacher, Susan has developed a keen awareness of the relationship between the Philippine economy and society, specifically in regard to the overarching cause of poverty in the Philippines. When explaining why she cannot purchase specific food, clothing, or medicine, Susan makes note of the economic factors impacting her capacity to support herself. She writes, “Though prices of food are not as high as they were before, yet people are not happy and contented because in the Philippines, you know, the income of the people depends upon copras and abaca, and by this time the price of copra and abaca is very much lowered so that some of us, Filipinos, cannot meet the demands of life.”Susan’s ability to connect external economic issues to her lived experiences reveals her recognition of the socioeconomic inequities that exist in the Philippines. Further, Susan’s awareness of her own socioeconomic constraints is an important indicator of her capacity to manuever within a system that, at this point in time, is incredibly imbalanced.[10]

In regards to her professional struggles, Susan writes that the “Gov’t lacks funds to meet [the] expenses” of educational resources and supplies. As a teacher, Susan states that the “lack of teaching aids such as reference books” makes it difficult for her to teach her Home Economics class. Although this is only the second letter that Susan has written Carl, she asks if he could purchase textbooks for her Home Economics class. Susan does not make any specific book requests or demands, instead she states “if you [Carl] can secure books for H. Economics please inform me” in the closing of the letter. The manner in which she takes “critical action” and subtly asks for educational materials makes it seem as if the request was a secondary thought. However, Susan is still navigating her new and unfamiliar relationship with Carl; therefore, her cautious demeaner emphasizes her possible awareness of the large economic gap between herself and Carl–and the ability to benefit from it.[11]

In her letter on December 3rd, 1949–a mere four months after her previous letter–Susan asked for eighteen books for her Home Economics course. Susan provided the specific title, author, and publishing company of the educational books she wanted. In addition to requesting the books in the letter itself, she provided a separate sheet of paper that reiterated her desired list of materials. In this correspondence, Susan's request for materials directly contrasts with how she previously approached asking Carl for support. Her ability to clearly and comfortably articulate her requests reveals a shift in the way she understood her position within the relationship. Through her request of 18 books, Susan mobilizes her power in her relationship with Carl by acknowledging and subsequently challenging the reality of her socio-economic condition.[12] However, the narrative of Susan's agency should not be interpreted as greedy, manipulative, or opportunistic. Instead, Susan recognizes that she has a need, Carl has privilege, and she can benefit from the inequity within their relationship. Susan's agency affords her the bare necessities for supporting herself during the postwar period.[13] 

Letter from Enriqueta de Papillore

On March 17th, 1950, Enriqueta de Papillore, one of Susan’s co-teachers, sent a letter to Carl Eichenlaub and his family. According to the letter, Enriqueta became familiar with and expressed a desire to write to Carl after discovering his pen-pal relationship with Susan. She wrote, “I was very glad to read from its contents that you are really helpful. Yes, you are really of that type.” Due to Susan being the only connection between Enriqueta and Carl, her letter provides insight into how Susan conveyed her relationship with Carl to others. By describing Carl as “helpful,” Enriqueta implies that she understood Susan’s relationship with Carl to be primarily motivated by the prospect of financial gain. Further, Enriqueta’s perception of Susan and Carl’s relationship helps explain the intention and motivation behind her writing. In the letter, Enriqueta begins and closes by addressing Carl as her “new pal.” Her friendly remarks closely resemble the amicable language used by Susan in her initial letter to Carl. [14] The similarity between the two letters suggests an underlying reason for their kind demeanor, indicating they had more than just friendship on their agenda. Given this letter and the previous letters written by Susan, we can develop a new perspective on the nuanced ways Filipino women asserted power in their relationships with U.S. soldiers.

The narrative of overt U.S. dominance during the postwar period depends on the exclusion of Filipino voices. Specifically, the absence of Philippine voices in The U of M archive ignores the possible agency of Filipino women in their relationships with U.S. soldiers. When working with an archive that actively diminishes the power and agency of Filipino women, it is important to challenge our gaps in understanding. This critical analysis can help us consider how Susan, and other Filipino women, conceptualized alternative configurations of power in their relationship with U.S. soldiers. By recognizing the intelligence and awareness of Filipino women, we provide space for their voices in the archival narrative. Yet, even while understanding Susan's ability to maneuver within and benefit from her relationship with Carl, I also acknowledge the possibility for these same relations to have an array of meanings, including curiosity and friendship. [15] As readers, we will never have a complete understanding of the relationship between Carl and Susan; therefore, we have to sit with the tension that there could have been different and overlapping narratives of emotional attachment, agency, and control in the experiences of both Carl and Susan. 

Citations

[1] Stephanie Fajardo, “Illicit Intimacies: Gender, US Military, and Nationalism in the Postwar Philippines,” (PhD diss., University of Michigan, 2020), 10-12.

[2] Stephen R. Shalom, “Philippine Acceptance of the Bell Trade Act of 1946: A Study of Manipulatory Democracy,” Pacific History Review 49, no. 3 (1980): 500, https://doi.org/10.2307/3638567. 

[3] Ann L. Soler, Carnal Knowledge and Imperial Power: Race and the Intimate in Colonial Rule (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2010), xxi-xxii, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv15d80x0. 

[4]  Ibid.

[5] Richard White, The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650-1815 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 1-5, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511976957

[6] Mathew Diemer and Li Cheng-Hsien, “Critical Consciousness Development and Poltiical Participation Among Marginalized Youth,” Child Development 82, no.6 (November/December 2011): 1815-33, https://www.jstor.org/stable/41289885.  

[7] Ibid.

[8] Summary Information, Carl F. Eichenlaub Papers (1944-1955), William L. Clements Library, The University of Michigan.

[9] Susan Penoria to Carl Eichenlaub, January 31, 1947, Box 1, Folder 4, Carl F. Eichenlaub Papers (1944-1955) , William L. Clements Library, The University of Michigan. 

[10] Susan Penoria to Carl Eichenlaub, August 1, 1949, Box 1, Folder 5, Carl F. Eichenlaub Papers (1944-1955), William L. Clements Library, The University of Michigan. 

[11] Ibid.

[12]  Mathew Diemer and Li Cheng-Hsien, “Critical Consciousness Development and Poltiical Participation Among Marginalized Youth,” Child Development 82, no.6 (November/December 2011): 1815-33, https://www.jstor.org/stable/41289885.  

[13]Susan Penoria to Carl Eichenlaub, December 3rd, 1949, Unmarked Folder, Carl F. Eichenlaub Papers (1944-1955), William L. Clements Library, The University of Michigan. 

[14] Enriqueta de Papillore to Carl Eichenlaub, March 17th, 1950, Box 1, Folder 5, Carl F. Eichenlaub Papers (1944-1955), William L. Clements Library, The University of Michigan.

[15] Stephanie Fajardo, “Illicit Intimacies: Gender, US Military, and Nationalism in the Postwar Philippines,” (PhD diss., University of Michigan, 2020), 19-25.