Throughout the domestic domain as expressed in households, hamlets and non-discrete communities, the basis of social activity and interaction is characterized by systems of exchange and reciprocity based on a strong conviction of egalitarianism. The idea of sharing food, commodities and activity is closely linked with a strong sense of equality which individuals recognize as the key to all human interactions. Hierarchy as expressed through precedence, rank and status which pervades the political structure as well as religious symbolism rests above the structure of equality which dominates the social and economic sphere of society. In most cases, structural conflicts and contradictions do not occur, for both spheres of culture address themselves to different tasks. Furthermore, with the decline of the bagani in the 1930s, political process and warfare are no longer a matter which the domestic structure must relate to in terms of food giving or services.

Reciprocity is the basis of most labour involved in the maintenance of upland rice cultivation. Nearly all aspects of the production cycle require the exchange of labour. In some phases such as the felling and clearing of forest growth the demand on labour exchange is greater, in other phases, such as planting, the basic extended family usually takes care of its own needs. However, exchange is not only labour, but also the sharing of food and other commodities between families living in the same hamlet as well as those who reside within nondiscrete communities. Reciprocity and a sense of giving is seldom based on the idea of a created debt which will be compensated at a later time. One gives to another in many ways. In some cases, there is a perceived need, in other cases, the giver has an abundance of goods and/or time which he/she might share with another individual. However, the foundation of the egalitarian ethos goes beyond the realm of giving and exchange. The marked conviction is that all individuals (except children and infants) are equal, thus the system of exchange is fundamentally an expression of the equality of individuals from which all social relationships flow. In many ways, this sense of equality is similar to what Gibson (1985, 1986) has described for the Buid of Mindoro. However, the comparison of the Mandaya with the Buid also reflects one major difference. From my reading of Gibson (1985, 1986) it appears that egalitarianism among the Buid is a means of maintaining community integrity which is essential to evading domination by economically and politically powerful lowland neighbours who are engaged in some form of commercial agriculture on the Mindoro coast. One can also note the same kinds of economic changes and demands with the Mandaya, but I am convinced that the dominant egalitarian ethos is not solely a response to external pressure. The ethos of equality also exists among upland Mandaya communities which have had minimum contact and impact with coastal economic domination. The ethos might be fortified, but it is difficult to accept a position that the ethos was initially created as a response for maintaining community solidarity.

If the egalitarian ethos is socially framed in the context of reciprocity and giving among individuals who are equals, the institution of gambling as a cultural focus best exemplifies the importance of how equalness operates through a system of redistribution. Since gambling is always connected to rice production, the importance of rice must be discussed. All Mandaya are upland rice cultivators and all suffer from a shortage of rice. The range of variation in rice consumption indicates that those families with higher rice yields consume tubers about ten per cent of their yearly food intake, while those at the lower end of the scale consume root crops within a range of 40 to 50 per cent of the total food intake. Although this differential exists and the Mandaya are aware of such a contrast, the egalitarian nature of the social structure is not disrupted or verbally denied. The preservation of this structure is made possible by the Mandaya attitude toward land use and their conception of the rice and its presence in the community. Because land is a free good and open lands for cultivation still exist, each person has access to land as a resource. Similarly, rice is seen, not as a commodity but as food. Everyone grows rice and the entire annual community yield is always consumed, yet all families revert to the consumption of root crops when rice is no longer available. Each family continuously plants tubers for pig food; yet, they all realize that a certain time after the harvest, they will be forced to consume root crops until the next rice harvest is available. The Mandaya have no concept of the market value of surplus rice because a surplus never exists. Thus, a class structure based on differential land availability or differential rice stores does not occur.

Although cockfighting is the most interesting form of gambling among the Mandaya, most gambling activities in which rice harvests are redistributed involve playing cards which the Mandaya obtain through trade from the coastal settlements. Various card games exist but the one which is commonly played at the post-harvest gatherings is one which resembles a form of poker with certain similarities to what is called Greek rummy in the United States. Where they learned this is difficult to determine and I personally could not follow all the rules of the game. Each game might have three to four individuals and possibly up to a dozen. Also, only one game is played at any one time and the game is repeated depending on who still survives.

Gambling occurs on a small scale throughout the year, but the major gambling feasts occur during the immediate post-harvest period. Virtually all households are involved in the gambling of rice. Furthermore, the post-harvest rituals and gambling are probably the only time when all families within a particular domain come together for rituals, cockfighting and gambling. Gambling and the eventual redistribution of rice involves individuals and families who are related to one another, but in some cases, this will be the only time they see one another. Occasionally, an individual from a neighbouring domain can partake in rice gambling but he/she has no guarantee that losses in rice during gambling will be compensated later. Theoretically, the ideal culmination of these gambling feasts, which might last three or four days and nights amid heavy bouts of eating roasted pork, rice and drinking, is to gamble what rice one possesses until virtually the total community-produced rice is controlled by six to eight individuals. In some cases, the centralization of rice might be controlled by two or three individuals, especially if gambling feasts are extended to six or seven days. When the feasts end and virtually all locally-produced rice is controlled by a few individuals, either male or female, a long process of redistribution ensues in which individuals who have lost their yearly crop are replenished with rice. The key to understanding the redistribution process is to establish what one has gambled and what one obtains in return. Those families who were at the lower ranges of production are normally supplied with more returned rice than they produced and, in turn, those families who had a good harvest may lose in the process of redistribution. No family has any say about what they and other families obtain on the return, since only individuals who now control rice through gambling will establish how the return is to be made and in what quantities. The authority invested in those who control the rice redistribution is never extended beyond the domain and derives from the conception of gambling as a respected skill. What gambling does is to equalize marked differences in production, thus allowing poorer families to consume rice over a number of months before reverting to root crops and vegetables. Gambling is a structured mechanism that minimizes possible class divisions; consequently, self-esteem is never lost. Since gambling is conducted without a profit motive, what does it mean? Basically, gambling with the ability to win or at least come up near the top of the finalists is a representation of the skills one possesses. A smart and shrewd gambler is respected for being able to make a bold and creative move and for being capable of long-range planning.

The effect of gambling rice is to enhance social differentiation temporarily by centralizing virtually all rice yields in the hands of a few individuals. In this sense, inequality is heightened and differences are asserted in the act of gambling, but through redistribution actual crop yield differences between households are partially reduced. Yet, production and crop yields are never equalized through gambling. As one old and wizened woman said, “getting ahead in the rice gambling means eating less tubers.” It goes without saying that the fear of eating tubers throughout most of the year would be enough incentive to enhance one’s ability to consume rice if the opportunity occurs.

Cockfighting also involves a certain amount of betting, especially money which is acquired through trade and selling of certain commodities to traders who come up from the coast. Betting on cockfights is minimal and the nature of bets seldom involves rice, though food items like parcels of pork are exchanged. All Mandaya cocks are locally grown, thus breeds which are better competitors seldom enter the arena of the fight. However, individuals know that cocks from the coast are stronger and more fierce, thus in some cases individuals will acquire them through trade. It is also the case that imported cocks win more often, but again the gains through gambling does not offset the cost.

The egalitarian ethos is premised on the fact that adult companions are equal and the creation of social relationships is built on and through a set of equals who share activity and commodities in common. Local level social structure which embeds families, households and hamlets into overlapping units of interaction and exchange is based on an ethos in which individuals are one and a social organization and cultural institution which minimizes differences.