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