Professional Documents
Culture Documents
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
University of California Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Pathways of Power
This content downloaded from 139.184.223.178 on Sun, 29 Apr 2018 19:17:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
18
The original full title of this paper was “Is the ‘Peasantry’ a Class Cat-
egory Separate from ‘Bourgeois’ and ‘Proletarian’?” The question was
not my own; it was asked of me to provoke a discussion in the Seminar
on Group Formation and Group Conflict at the Fernand Braudel Cen-
ter, State University of New York, Binghamton, directed by Immanuel
Wallerstein. I presented my reply to the question on March 2, 1977, in
a working paper that argued against generalized views of peasantry as
a uniform national class and stressed the local and regional variability
of peasant life.
252
This content downloaded from 139.184.223.178 on Sun, 29 Apr 2018 19:17:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Is the “Peasantry” a Class? 253
the ideal. The aim was the re-creation in thought or action of a moral
unity, and a Gemeinschaft, the concept of the small primary group, was
the main tool in the analysis of social processes. The peasant, for many
of these writers, came to be the quintessential carrier of this moral vision,
supposedly wedded to an organic view of society and morally rooted in
a Gemeinschaft, in primary groups.
Within American anthropology until the early 1960s this sociological
approach was dominant. The emphasis on treating the peasant as a
member of the folk and the emphasis on community and on folk society
were a continuation of the French and German sociological concern with
organic unity and order. These emphases are perhaps best associated
with the name of Robert Redfield.
Conversely, for those who wanted to undo the organic order of the
Middle Ages, who supported new social alignments, departure from ob-
scurantism and illusion, the peasant was a quintessential stumbling
block to change. “The lower middle class—small manufacturers, small
traders, handicraftsmen, peasant proprietors—” wrote Marx and Engels
in the Communist Manifesto, “one and all fight the bourgeoisie in the
hope of safeguarding their existence as sections of the middle class. They
are, therefore, not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more: they are
reactionary, for they are trying to make the wheels of history turn back-
ward.” Peasants were sunk in “rural idiocy,” “the class that represents
barbarism within civilization.” The antagonism is clear. It may be that
Marx used “idiocy” in the Aristotelian sense of the apolitical person and
that the phrase about barbarism was used stylistically to draw a portrait
of Louis Napoleon as the knavish symbol of that class. Nevertheless, in
the Marxist vision the peasant was destined to disappear.
What is more problematic is that both conservatives and revolution-
aries wrote in terms of one society, or of the world conceived as one
society. Marx was quite clear about this: he abstracted from the gamut
of relationships definable for England the key relation between capital-
ists and wage laborers, in order to exhibit the pure workings of the
capitalist system. Judging from how he analyzed the France of Louis
Napoleon, he would have put many classes back into the picture in
“advancing” from the abstract to the concrete. And he understood, also,
that the final subjection of different spheres of production to capitalism
would “encounter much greater obstacles should numerous and weighty
[massenhafte] spheres of production not based capitalistically (e.g., ag-
riculture carried on by small peasants) insert themselves between the
capitalist enterprises and connect themselves to them” (Marx 1967
This content downloaded from 139.184.223.178 on Sun, 29 Apr 2018 19:17:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
254 Peasants
[1894]: 206). He did have a lively sense of the historical relation of his
type case to the rest of the world, as evidenced by his prehistory of
capitalist accumulation and by his remarks about English industry being
based on the blood and sweat of the English slave colonies. He did have
a lively sense of the difference between regions involved in English in-
dustrialization, as shown by his remarks about the differential situations
of Irish and English wage laborers. But he still worked with a homo-
geneous model of the hypothetical society.
This was also true of Lenin: “Classes are large groups of people which
differ from each other by the place they occupy in a historically deter-
mined system of social production, by their relation (in most cases fixed
and formulated in law) to the means of production, by their role in the
social organization of labor, and, consequently, by their dimension and
mode of acquiring the share of social wealth of which they dispose.
Classes are groups of people one of which can appropriate the labor of
another owing to the different places they occupy in a definite system
of social economy” (quoted in Stavenhagen 1975: 28). The point of
reference is clearly the total society, though it is a historically changing
society, characterized by a social economy that governs the distribution
of means of production, the allocation of social labor to that production,
and hence the flow of social wealth so generated. The framework is still
the hypothetical totality.
But Lenin carried the idea farther, of course, by locating the hypo-
thetical totality in the relation of imperialism to the imperial colonies.
Rosa Luxemburg, too, may have been wrong in her underconsumption-
ist theories, but she did see quite clearly how capitalism fed on noncap-
italist formations. Leon Trotsky, to name still another stellar figure,
spoke of uneven and combined development. And now we have Im-
manuel Wallerstein’s repartition of the world system into core, semi-
periphery, and periphery (1974). This strikes me as a most useful idea,
though what I like about it are precisely its conception of the world
system as a system of heterogeneous parts and Wallerstein’s treatment
of how the flows of capital, labor, and commodities move through het-
erogeneous channels. Core, semi-periphery, and periphery are perhaps
the major levels or gradients in this system; but there are semi-
peripheries and peripheries also in the core (Ireland, Wales, Brittany,
Normandy, and so forth), as well as sinks and polls in the peripheries.
The reason this seems to me important is that peasantries are always
localized. They inhabit peripheries and semi-peripheries by definition,
This content downloaded from 139.184.223.178 on Sun, 29 Apr 2018 19:17:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Is the “Peasantry” a Class? 255
This content downloaded from 139.184.223.178 on Sun, 29 Apr 2018 19:17:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
256 Peasants
This content downloaded from 139.184.223.178 on Sun, 29 Apr 2018 19:17:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Is the “Peasantry” a Class? 257
able to survive where more lived and survived in the past. Some ecosys-
temic variables, such as the incidence and spread of disease, may, more-
over, be uncontrollable. Households will also vary in their ability to
manage their particular microsystemic mix, and some will rise while
others sink as a result of such differentials.
Second, peasant households may be looked upon as economic firms,
but they are firms of a peculiar sort. Because they are, for the most part,
kinship units of some kind, what the kinship unit produces and what it
consumes will be closely intertwined, and the division of tasks by sex
and age will be intertwined as well. On one hand, this introduces par-
ticular rigidities, in that one cannot dissolve and extinguish families the
way one can dissolve and extinguish firms, and this makes peasant
households cautious about changes and their unpredictable conse-
quences. On the other hand, family labor can be greatly intensified when
required, and the family is particularly efficient in combining many dif-
ferent kinds of tasks at short notice. Another way of saying this is that
the family is especially good at exploiting itself. Again, all of this will
vary from household to household, and some households will be un-
usually competent at self-exploitation while others will be spendthrift
and slovenly. Again, some will survive, while others will go under.
Third, the fusion of production and consumption feeds back into the
character of the peasant ecosystem. Peasant households not only raise
crops and livestock, they also gather fuel, stockpile manure, provide
shelter, process and make clothing. They will carry some goods to mar-
ket, to sell or barter for other goods, to acquire yokes for oxen, or
candles for the household altar, or incense for the graves of the dead,
or nails, or machetes from Connecticut. If there have been peasants who
did not produce some goods for exchange and for money, they must
have been rather few in number. Peasant households tend to be oriented
toward use values, but they live with money as a means for acquiring
more use values than they themselves produce.
Their need to produce both use values and exchange values in order
to acquire other commodities puts them into a situation in which they
must balance the gains and costs of production for subsistence and pro-
duction for the market. From the point of view of ensuring their survival,
they may wish to produce the many different things they need themselves
and to reduce their dependence on the market. From the point of view
of obtaining money, they will try a mix of strategies that will yield
money. The women may make pots during the agricultural slack season;
the whole family may make fruit boxes in the wintertime; a son who is
This content downloaded from 139.184.223.178 on Sun, 29 Apr 2018 19:17:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
258 Peasants
especially good at making yokes will be given time off to do so; other
children will be sent to the homes of the rich to become temporary
servants or will spend time away as wage laborers.
I do not think we know enough about what prompts peasants into
money-making ventures; the assumption that all people have an innate
impulse to “truck and barter” does not seem sufficient, because they
sometimes do and sometimes do not. Often it is the need to cover cer-
emonial expenditures that seems significant; at other times it is the im-
position of a tax that has to be met. Finally, there is the wish to get rich,
to have money to buy what money can buy, the realization that if one
grows a cash crop or raises cattle that can be sold, one will have more
to live better. Again, this is not an obvious point.
Every village contains its Grossbauern, its kulaks, its yeomen, its pres-
tamista-caciques; and these positions are most often not just economic
but also political and ceremonial. That is to say, in addition to the dif-
ferentiation of a peasantry according to its variable abilities to manage
its ecosystems and its balance of subsistence and purchasing, there is
also an internal differentiation into strata: the village bourgeoisie, those
who have just enough, and the poor. But these are rarely distinct classes.
Most often they are relatives, domestic groups in various stages of the
domestic cycle, rich who have become poor and poor rising to greater
wealth. Villages are most often characterized by cyclical mobility, or at
least by the upward-spiraling mobility of some and the downward-
spiraling mobility of others. One factor in this is the manner in which
each generation hands on its permanent resources to the next. Inheri-
tance will inevitably divide the peasantry into those who stay and those
who leave, those who have inherited enough and those who have in-
herited too little. Put another way, a peasantry is always giving off mem-
bers to the population of agricultural wage laborers; but it also always
has members who have money, wealth—and who connect it economi-
cally and politically to sources of capital, in town.
The neotechnic syndrome involves a growing and ultimately complete
commitment to crop specialization and, hence, to the movement of crops
and the exchange of commodities in a market. Now, this has been easier
in some places than in others. In worldwide perspective, it seems to me
to have been easier in “frontier” areas than in areas already organized
in terms of a paleotechnic peasantry linked to some kind of tributary
mode of production. I am not speaking here of Canada, the United
States, Australia, New Zealand, or South Africa, which, after all, were
part of the expanding core and the recipients of the major capital flows
This content downloaded from 139.184.223.178 on Sun, 29 Apr 2018 19:17:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Is the “Peasantry” a Class? 259
during the nineteenth century. What I have in mind are such areas as
the rice bowl of Southeast Asia—Lower Burma, Thailand, Cochin China
(Nam Bo); the expansion of rubber growing and tobacco raising among
small producers in the Indonesian islands outside Java and in Malay;
the migration of people in the southeastern part of the Gold Coast who
began to move in the 1890s from the Akwapim ridge to virgin land in
nearby Akim Abuakwa, so well documented by Polly Hill (1963); the
march to the internal margins by cultivators in South America.
In both the paleotechnic and the neotechnic syndromes, therefore, we
can see structurally based sources of variability among peasants. To
analyze that variability within a grasp of recurrent peasant problems
and historical realities seems to me a more productive undertaking than
to assume or seek uniformities that would mark a putative “class cate-
gory.”
This content downloaded from 139.184.223.178 on Sun, 29 Apr 2018 19:17:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms