PEASANT IDEOLOGY AND RESPONSES TO CHANGE AND MODERNIZATION.

When we speak of peasant ideology we are talking about the significance of their world view, their norms, values, cultural "traditions" and how that impacts the strategies peasants use to adapt to a constantly changing socio-economic environment. Ritual and ceremonial in all societies function to help people cope w/ uncertainty and simultaneously provide a vehicle for validating the identity of the group, supporting the social ties that hold them together as a group. As Wolf notes (1966: 99) "peasant ceremonial focuses on action, not on belief. It emphasizes the regulative character of norms, a set of do's and don'ts. Embodied in rules, such moral imperatives render action predictable, and provide a common framework for its evaluation." The significance of ideology for determining the decision-making strategies of peasants has been used as a vehicle for analyzing their potential for change. A common assumption of many of the theories of economic development, particularly in the 1960's and '70's, was that because peasantry was defined as a "traditional society", one in which the "moral order" (the "right" kind of relations and beliefs, conformity to the norm) was dominant, it was by definition, slow to change (i.e., slow to adopt Western technology and participate in capitalistic markets); resistence to accepting a "Western" form of modernization was couched in terms of ideology. Peasant beliefs prevented them from acting on their own behalf. Foster's notion of the "Image of Limited Good" and its consequences, as a rationale for why peasants don't accept change, is a good example of this approach. Wolf argues, moreover, that when peasants revolt, they do so with an idealistic notion of returning to a more ideal, egalitarian social order. Because they often are reacting against a social order they see as being unduly exploitative (also dealt with by Scott in his discussion of the "moral economy", notions re: more or less acceptable levels of exploitation), and because they lack organizational skills, such revolts usually end in a return to the "status quo" -- a jacquerie, or bloody uprising with no real change. It is only when the peasant revolt is coupled with a breakdown in the larger social order does real change manifest (e.g., the Russian revolution). More recent approaches to understanding change and the prospects for modernization among peasantry, however, have focused greater attention on the variable social and economic constraints that peasants are faced with -- looking at prospects for change from the peasants' standpoint. Modernization is not an unmitigated good that always benefits peasants in their search for a better life. Much more often than not, it is more detrimental than beneficial. However, whatever the impact is, we need to look at the specific conditions in specific locales; discussing "peasantry in general", does not provide many sound theoretical insights. We also have to be aware of the possible ethnocentric bias of the various theoretical perspectives offered.

A. FACTORS TO CONSIDER IN EVALUATING PROSPECTS FOR MODERNIZATION. In line with our emphasis on the significance of the three forces that impact upon peasant strategies we can delineate a number of factors to consider:

1. Ecological Variables: whether one is dealing with a restrictive vs expansive ecosystem depends on: (a) the time factor (conditions existing at a given time, e.g., before vs after programs of agrarian reform have been initiated); (b) the quantity and quality of resources (are they new introductions - cash crops - or traditional crops exploited in new ways?); (c) population density and characteristics of the work force, availability of people, alternative economic strategies available, opportunities available for different categories of people (e.g., M vs F); (d) nature of demands from Larger Society -- intensity and arenas affected.

2. Social Organization and Structure: (a) degree of flexibility present in organizational units and in the type of bonds formed (both in terms of structure of the bonds and the quality of the relationship); (b) degree to which one can modify functions while maintaining the same traditional structure (e.g., use of kin ties in new ways), a rigid social structure that does not allow for modification in roles is more likely to break down than one that allows for such modification; (c) the degree to which bonds are interwoven with one another (multiplexity of roles -- if high, harder to change); (d) role of mediators/cultural brokers -- presence and characteristics of leaders within the community, may be sources for facilitating change or resisting change.

3. Ideology: interactive w/ above factors especially regarding the flexibility/rigidity of the social structure and how changes may interact with preferred forms of organizational units; relevance of Hirschman's concept of the "Principle of Conservation and the Mutation of Social Energy" and its relationship to grassroots development is also important in this regard.

B. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE THIRD OR "OTHER" WORLD. Weatherby et. al. (1987) argues that the term "Third World" implies a set of socio-political assumptions that do not necessarily fit the realities of the underdeveloped world. More than 2/3rds of the world's states (120 of 159 members of the UN - before the breakup of the Soviet Union) are economically less developed, less industrialized than Western or then Soviet Block nations (West = 1st World, Soviet bloc = 2nd World, rest 3rd or 4th World). It makes more sense to refer to the underdeveloped or developing world simply as the Other World. The Other World has a number of defining characteristics:

1. Dependence (on former rulers due to entrenched capitalism,private ownership of most of resource base w/ limited govt. intervention.

2. Inequities in the distribution of wealth (severe poverty of the majority of the pop., along w/ fragmentation along tribal, class, ethnic, linguistic etc. lines).

3. Population explosion (overpop. threatens food resources and environment w/ deforestation, overgrazing of land, etc.

4. Maldistribution of resources (countries either lack the natural resources or lack the ability to efficiently extract them, industrialized world gets over half of export income from over 15 products or more; rich nations exploit the O.W. for cheap labor).

5. Low management and technological capacity (high illiteracy, shortage of experienced skilled managers + brain drain of those that are educated because they are unable to get paid according to the training level).

6. Each of these factors interacts w/ each other, compounding the problem. The dilemna faced by the Other World is that they have been undergoing socio-economic transformation as an extremely accelerated pace -- undergoing centuries of change often in only 20 years or less. As a result, they are pulled in diverse directions by contending political, social, and economic forces over which they have little control. Often past religious beliefs and values that provided a source of stability are giving way to alien philosophies. Modernization , defined as progress toward development a la Western style, is not viewed by members of the Other World in the same way. From the perspective of people in the O.W., revolution may not be directed toward Westernization or "modernity" but rather independence (strengthening of what is felt to be right w/in their own socio-religious context).

C. FOCUS OF SELECTED APPROACHES TO MODERNIZATION

Scott: Emphasis is on the normative force. Sees resistance to change as part of the necessity of dealing w/ adverse exploitative conditions; follow a "subsistence ethic" (survival first, risk adverse strategies) because they can't afford to put all of their eggs in one basket, particularly re: more unknown, risky "modern" ventures. In his analysis of peasant rebellion and resistence he argues that peasant revolutions are few and far between because they are so savagely repressed (the jacquerie noted by Wolf). Much more attention needs to be given to the ungoing daily strategies of resistance by peasants -- "footdragging", pilfering, pretended ignorance etc. Scott sees these actions as constituting a form of collective, class based action. Peasants thus DO have an impact upon the modern larger society. Also emphasizes the importance of community solidarity, networking, that often exists among peasants. More optimistic attitude about peasant possibilities, stresses the importance of looking at individual peasant groups/communities within the context of their variable socio-economic environment.

Stiles: Emphasis is upon the need to get away from previously emphasized, large scale modernization projects put into place by the govt. in a "top-down" fashion; grassroots projects that are small scale, directed by local peasant needs and concerns ("bottom-up" strategies) are much more effective. More positive attitude toward peasant possibilities.

ANALYSIS OF MODERNIZATION POTENTIAL IN SELECTED CASE STUDIES

Modernization has been defined in various ways by different individuals. One common approach is to equate modernization with Westernization -- implying the wholesale acceptance of Western technology (and often the presumed acceptance of associated forms of social organization) by members of the "Other"/Third World. It is also often presumed that the end result of the modernization process (as initiated by the larger society -- including the efforts and activities of multinationals) will "trickle down" and benefit all concerned. However, as we have seen, this is not usually the case. What we really need to ask is whether the people (peasants in our case) benefit from the process -- i.e., modernization for whom and by whom? Another definition of modernization (one that does not presume "Westernization") is simply "the capacity to incorporate continuous change". How different "Other"/Third World nations (and the peasant communities within them) react to and deal with the significant forces for change that they face is perhaps the best indication of the degree of modernization taking place. It also should be noted that it is not always the case that the elites welcome such change -- particularly if it means a loss of traditional bases of power.

There are four major theoretical approaches to modernization that clarify the above (summarized by Lavenda and Schultz, 1990, pp. 347-350):

1. Classical theories of modernization (e.g., as proposed by Rostow and others) imply that modernization is inevitable and use Western defined strategies for achieving development in the Other/Third World -- e.g., industrialization and mechanization in agriculture with an emphasis on cash crops for export. This is the first approach noted above that has been dominant since the 1960's.

2. Dependency theory argues that the prosperity of Western nations rests upon their continued exploitation of the Other/Third World for cheap resources -- goods and labor. Though Other/Third World nations may not be colonies anymore, their socio-economic and political dependency remains the same. The poverty of people of the Other World is the direct result of the international capitalist economic order which actually requires the continued dependency of the Other World in order to survive. This is the "development of underdevelopment" thesis.

3. World System theory is an approach closely related to dependency theory, first formulated by Immanuel Wallerstein and collegues. Beginning in the late 15th, early 16th century, European capitalism expanded its influence to go beyond national borders ultimately leading to the emergence of a world economy based on capitalist modes of production. The core of the world economy centers on Western banking, finance, and industrial production (e.g., the World Bank); the Other World constitutes the periphery, supplying cheap resources. Both of these approaches are pessimistic in that they see little hope for improvement in the situation of peoples in the Other/Third World; they also draw heavily on the works of Marx.

4. Neo-Marxian theory, particularly as formulated by Althusser and Balibar, focuses on the potential for change in the Other World by the people themselves. The key aspect of their approach is in not assuming that the capitalist mode of production is the only one operating. They argue that in many areas one has a combination of capitalist (i.e., the market economy) and noncapitalist (e.g., subsistence modes emphasizing reciprocity and redistribution) modes of production co-existing with one another -- these are described as "articulating modes of production". Some neo-Marxians (not all are so optimistic) thus argue that because some peasants have been able to hold capitalist forces at bay, there remains the possibility that they may be able to create a less exploitative future for themselves than that suggested by the other theories. I would argue that this is also the thesis underlying the concept of grassroots development.