The Western optic of ‘nuclear family’, which is devoid of the individual’s embeddedness in the larger kin group, fails to explain the commitment of overseas Filipino migrants to the ‘extended family’. Yet, it underpins much of the qualitative field methods today. To explain interdependencies as well as tensions within kin groups, this article proposes a shift in theoretical ground from a ‘sociology of the family’ to ‘cultures of relatedness’. To understand migrants’ culture in the destination also necessitates that culture in the origin be given primacy, in a methodological shift referred to as ‘centripetal ethnography’. This dual and conjoined shift in perspective and method is applied in studying Paraiso, a rural-upland village in the Philippines, where overseas migration commenced in the 1970s. The interplay of autonomy and solidarity in siblingship is illumined by focusing on the house as practised in the village and, moving outward, in the overseas context.
AguilarF (1998) Clash of Spirits: The History of Power and Sugar Planter Hegemony on a Visayan Island. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press/Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.
2.
AguilarF (2009a) Maalwang Buhay: Family, Overseas Migration, and Cultures of Relatedness in Barangay Paraiso, [with Peñalosa JE, Liwanag TB, Cruz RS I, and Melendrez J]. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.
3.
AguilarF (2009b) Labour migration and ties of relatedness: Diasporic houses and investments in memory in an upland Tagalog village. Thesis Eleven. 98: 88–114.
4.
Asis MM (ed.) (2004) Hearts Apart: Migration in the Eyes of Filipino Children. Quezon City: Scalabrini Migration Center/Manila: Overseas Workers Welfare Administration.
5.
AsisMM (2006) Living with migration: Experiences of left-behind children in the Philippines. Asian Population Studies. 2(1): 45–67.
6.
AsisMMHuangSYeohBSA (2004) When the light of the home is abroad: Unskilled female migration and the Filipino family. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography. 25(2): 198–215.
7.
BourdieuP (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice, trans. Nice R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8.
CannellF (1999) Power and Intimacy in the Christian Philippines. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press/Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.
9.
CarstenJ (1991) Children in between: Fostering and the process of kinship on Pulau Langkawi, Malaysia. Man (n.s.). 26(3425–443.
10.
CarstenJ(2000a) Introduction: Cultures of relatedness. In: CarstenJ (eds) Cultures of Relatedness: New Approaches to the Study of Kinship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–36.
11.
CarstenJ (2000b) Cultures of Relatedness: New Approaches to the Study of Kinship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12.
CarstenJ (2004) After Kinship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13.
CarstenJHugh‐JonesS(1995a) Introduction: About the house – Lévi-Strauss and beyond. In: CarstenJHugh-JonesS (eds) About the House: Lévi-Strauss and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–46.
14.
CarstenJHugh-JonesS (eds.) (1995b) About the House: Lévi-Strauss and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15.
CicirelliVG (1994) Sibling relationships in cross-cultural perspective. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 56(1): 7–20.
16.
DumontJP (1992) Visayan Vignettes: Ethnographic Traces of a Philippine Island. Chicago: Chicago University Press/Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University.
17.
ErringtonS (1987) Incestuous twins and the house societies of insular Southeast Asia. Cultural Anthropology. 2(4): 403–444.
18.
FoxJJ(2006) Comparative perspectives on Austronesian houses: An introductory essay. In: FoxJJ (eds) Inside Austronesian Houses: Perspectives on Domestic Designs for Living. Canberra: ANU E‐Press, pp. 1–29.
19.
Glick SchillerN (2009) A global perspective on migration and development. Social Analysis. 53(3): 14–37.
20.
GossJLindquistB (1995) Conceptualizing international labor migration: A structuration perspective. International Migration Review. 29(2): 317–351.
21.
GuptaAFergusonJ(1997) Discipline and practice: ‘The field’ as site, method, and location in anthropology. In: GuptaAFergusonJ (eds) Anthropological Locations: Boundaries and Grounds of a Field Science. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 1–46.
22.
HageG (2005) A not so multi-sited ethnography of a not so imagined community. Anthropological Theory. 5(4): 463–475.
23.
HannerzU (2003) Being there … and there … and there! Reflections on multi-site ethnography. Ethnography. 4(2): 201–216.
24.
JanowskiMKerlogueF (2007) Kinship and Food in South East Asia. Copenhagen: Nordic Institute of Asian Studies.
25.
KautC (1961) Utang na loob: A system of contractual obligation among Tagalogs. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology. 17(3): 256–272.
26.
LevittPGlick SchillerN (2004) Conceptualizing simultaneity: A transnational social field perspective on society (Special issue, ‘Conceptual and Methodological Developments in the Study of International Migration’). International Migration Review. 38(3): 1002–1039.
27.
LinWYeohBSA (2010) Questioning the ‘field in motion’: Emerging concepts, research practices and the geographical imagination in Asian migration studies. Cultural Geographies in Practice. 18(1): 125–1231.
28.
McKayD (2007) ‘Sending dollars shows feelings’: Emotions and economies in Filipino migration. Mobilities. 2(2): 175–194.
29.
McKinleyR(1981) Cain and Abel on the Malay Peninsula. In: MarshallM (eds) Siblingship in Oceania: Studies in the Meaning of Kin Relations (ASAO Monograph 8). Lanham, MD: University Press of America, pp. 335–387.
30.
MillerD (2007) What is a relationship? Is kinship negotiated experience?Ethnos. 72(4): 535–554.
31.
NagasakaI (1998) Kinship networks and child fostering in labor migration from Ilocos, Philippines to Italy. Asian and Pacific Migration Journal. 7(1): 67–92.
32.
ParreñasRS (2001) Servants of Globalization: Women, Migration, and Domestic Work. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
33.
ParreñasRS (2005) Children of Global Migration: Transnational Families and Gendered Woes. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
34.
PetersonJT (1990) Sibling exchanges and complementarity in the Philippine highlands. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 52(2): 441–451.
35.
PorioE (2007) Global householding, gender, and Filipino migration: A preliminary review (Special issue, ‘Global Householding’). Philippine Studies. 55(2): 211–242.
36.
StoodleyBH (1957) Some aspects of Tagalog family structure. American Anthropologist. 59(2): 236–249.
WatersonR(2006) Houses and the built environment in island South-East Asia: Tracing some shared themes in the use of space. In: FoxJJ (eds) Inside Austronesian Houses: Perspectives on Domestic Designs for Living. Canberra: ANU E-Press, pp. 227–242.
39.
WildingR (2007) Transnational ethnographies and anthropological imaginings of migrancy. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. 33(2): 331–348.
40.
WimmerAGlick SchillerN (2002) Methodological nationalism and beyond: Nation-state building, migration and the social sciences. Global Networks. 2(4): 301–334.
