THE NATURE OF A PEASANT SOCIETY


For   purposes of this particular study one can divided scholarly work on the   nature of peasant society into two major  traditions:
1.          The peasant  “essentialists” 
2.         The “non-essentialists”  .  the  debates  between  these two  camps took on  an accelerated  pace during the period  of the  1960s   and  1970s   a  period when,    after a  hiatus of  thirty years   peasant studies experienced a resurgence .  the release of the fist  English  translation of Alexander  Vail  Evich Chayanovs  the  Theory of peasant economy  (1966) was a
significant  contribution   to the  discussion
Chayanov developed a “theory of peasant behavior at the level of  the individual family   farm “ which gave  rise to an economy “ with its own  growth dynamic  and economic system” and  driven by subsistence needs rather than by profit (KERBLAY  1987:177 AND  Bryceson  2000:11).  Bernstein and byres (2001)   pointed to the originality and distinctiveness of Chayanov’S work in making a claim for the ”peasant  economy as a general  (and generic) “type,  akin to a mode of  production and  of the  peasant household   as both a unitary farming enterprise and site of (BIOLOGICAL ) reproduction .”  the  peasant essentialist “ school takes off from Chayanov S analysis and together with “ sociological and   cultrualist conceptions “ is  constructed around various qualities of  pleasantness as represented by the following“
a.             “Household farming organized for simple reproduction “”subsistence’) 
b.            The solidarities, reciprocities and egalitarianism of (Village )_  community’;  and
c.            commitment to the values of a was of life based on household ad  community, Kin, and Locale (and harmony  with nature …)
         Peasants are “contrasted…. With proletarians on one  hand (and) market oriented and entrepreneurial  ‘farmers’ on the other’  the  core elements of  peasant  society household, kin, community, locale produce ( or express ) a  distinctive a  distinctive internal logic or dynamic, whether cultural, sociological, economic, or in some combination” relation of peasants with external groups such as landlord, large capitalist  farms, merchant, the stat and  urban forces are marked by “subordination and  exploitation .  But these relations lie outside the sphere of the essence of peasant society. For Chayanov, peasants form an “an  independent class “with  the logic of  their ‘pleasantness “ unchanging  while the forms of their  ‘external relations are variable and contingent
         Chayanovs  view contradict classical Marxist concepts of the peasantry. By centering the peasant economy in the family household where both production and reproduction take place .  “ peasant essential-ism takes issue with orthodox Marxist  views that the  peasant economy is  a form of incipient capitalism, represented by  petty commodity  production “  (Keerblay   1987: 186) pointed out “ peasants were found in a variety of pre –capitalist modes of production and … they also operate  within the capitalist mode of production which has spread  globally and dissolved pre-capitalist modes of  production  virtually everywhere  in the world”
         Bernstein and byres (2001:8)  sees the work of the “non essentialist “ as  consisting in using “alternative approaches to analysis of agrarian structure  and  persistence throughout human  history  all point  a distinct and relatively stable socio–economic  system
Share on Google Plus

Declaimer - Unknown

The publications and/or documents on this website are provided for general information purposes only. Your use of any of these sample documents is subjected to your own decision NB: Join our Social Media Network on Google Plus | Facebook | Twitter | Linkedin

READ RECENT UPDATES HERE