Structures of Resisitance
The nature of interaction between traditional agrarian society and the 'modern world' has remained a controversial debate amongst anthropologists, sociologists and political theorists. It remains contentious as to whether the dominance of modern values over traditional is desirable; whether the arrival of the market and modern commerce betters or worsens the conditions of rural society and its relationship with the metropol; whether such change is received with apprehension or optimism by the members of rural society. Joel Migdal, for example, puts forth certain arguments proposing the concept of 'culture contact'-'that exposure and contact are the causes of change.' Migdal identifies three reasons suggesting why such change would be likely to occur: (1) The benefits of the modern far outweigh the benefits of the traditional. (2) The individual is free from severe institutional restraints which would prevent him from making an unimpeded decision. (3) Those individuals who select the new are rational and are optimisers, and those individuals who do not accept the modern fail to do so because of "wrong" or nonrational values.' Most theorists, however, tend to agree that modern society, for good or bad, is clearly encroaching o
mafia provided the large estate with its mainstay. . . . [P]hysical violence dominated the social relationships through which the large estates were exploited. In this way mafiosi kept restive peasants in submission, while opening up avenues for upwardly mobile peasants who qualified in the use of violence. According to Blok, the latifondo was typically leased out to a gabelloto, who in turn hired a number of permanent employees to manage the enterprise. These administrators generally comprised an overseer (soprastante) and a number of field guards (campieri). The overseer was the gabelloto's 'man of confidence' - 'he dealt with the peasants set to work on the estates and took care of the general protection of the enterprise.' The campieri assisted the overseer in his work, and 'constituted a kind of private police force which, in the absence of an efficient formal control apparatus, claimed to maintain law and order in the countryside.' This hierarchical structure is replicated in Latin American latifundios, as described by Ernest Feder in 'Latifundios and Agricultural Labour.' Feder further describes the Latin American latifundismo as being characterised by 'absentee landlordism'. He asserts that 'for the rural worker almost every estate owner is an absenteeist, as the bulk of the large estates is managed by administrators'; the latter appearing to be Latin American counterparts of the soprastanti. This administrative structure has several important repercussions for the socioeconomic structural evolution ('involution') of the latifondo. With oppressor and oppressed buying into the structure, it is hardly surprising that the economic 'involution' of the latifondo was closely accompanied by a social 'involution', which exhibited similar trends towards complexity and inflexibility. Feder argues: Besides being complex, the social structure of the estate tends to be rigid from the point of view of economic development. . . . An autocratic organisation is well adapted to having orders from above carried out efficiently . . . However, this efficiency is the highest when matters go their usual way, in a routine manner. . . . [W]hile the landed elite has no interest in the peasants' aspirations and keeps aloof from their world, it is still keenly aware of its obligations to keep the peasants in check and subservient. It can achieve this simply through inaction-as the social structure automatically ensures obedience up to a point-or actively, through coercion, sanctions and total hostility to any peasant organisation. The implications of such socioeconomic 'involution' are manifold. At an economic level, it appears that one reason why rural areas appear hesitant to adopt new technology is because of the 'involutionary' administrative structure and organisation-new technology means change and change is unpopular with the adminstration; consequently, the enterprise is so structured as to prevent change. Social codes evolve to complement this process of 'involution', becoming codified in the culture of the society and forming a rigid institution which embeds itself firmly in the social structure and becomes more and more elaborate with time. The socioeconomic institutions resulting from this 'involution' thereby display increasing complexity and inflexibility, and become extremely resistant to outside pressures.
Some common words found in the essay are:
James Scott, Peasant Scott, Scott Anderson's, Joel Migdal, War II, Latin American, Latin America, According Blok, , Eugen Weber, rural society, latin american, economic level, social structure, administrative structure, sicilian latifondo, traditional agrarian, labour intensive, administrative structure latifondo, blok describes, long-term investment, latin american latifundismo, traditional labour intensive, labour intensive techniques, traditional agrarian society,
Approximate Word count = 2746
Approximate Pages = 11 (250 words per page double spaced)
|