I. Gender and Intra-Household Inequality

A. Feminist anthropologists rediscover Engels
B. Mitzi Goheen, Nso agricultural communities in Cameroon

1. women farm, surplus goes to men for trade
2. men hunt, wage war, trade, use material goods to get status
3. different interpretations

a. men control the material wealth women produce, supports Engels
b. men depend on women
c. women have community organizations, can hold political protests, not confined to household

4. Gender relations depend on context: capitalism has improved men's status, weakened women's (i.e. privatization of land in Cameroon has jeopardized women's access to their fields)

C. Peasant and domestic modes of production assume character of gender relations

1. Engels: antagonistic, women inferior
2. Chayanov: households are loving, nurturing

D. Goheen: empirical investigation shows that households can be both, simultaneous harmony and discord
E. To understand intra-household relations, look to inter-household community relationships

 

II. James Scott on Moral Economy and Peasant Resistance

A. Engels, Chayanov: ignore productive relations outside of household
B. James Scott, Weapons of the Weak (1985): household depends on two things

1. political and economic context of production
2. relations with social community

C. Political scientist
D. Key question: why don't peasants revolt?
E. Moral Economy of Sedaka (pseudonym): Muda Plain, Western Malaysia
F. Capitalism disrupts moral economy
G. Everyday resistance, weapons of the weak
H. Measure resistance by intentions, not outcome
I. Moral Economy of the Peasant (1976)
J. Peasant societies: villages, reciprocity, mutual dependence
K. Rich and poor, but community's interests are linked ==> cooperation

1. landlord needs labor
2. feasts
3. gifts
4. general assistance

L. Non-economic ties soften class antagonism

1. kinship
2. neighborhood
3. religion

M. Capitalism and industrial model of agricultural production disrupt moral economy --> people idealize the past
N. Moral economy = idealized model to interpret world, shapes behavior, challenges development
O. Capitalism intrudes on old order
P. Ideology lags behind economics (gap between infrastructure and superstructure) ==> possibility for everyday resistance, concrete and symbolic

1. actions: obstruct combines, threaten to boycott transplanting for farmers who mechanize, minimize their effort by beating rice sheaves only a few times, and engage in petty theft of paddy and property, killing livestock
2. delay tactics, keep wealthy embedded in moral world of peasants
3. not openly acknowledged, no armed resistance
4. words: accuse rich of being stingy, unconcerned for peasant welfare, immoral, untrue to Islamic ideals

Q. Everyday resistance is class struggle, done covertly on level of morality

 

III. Samuel Popkin's Answer to Scott: The Rational Peasant (1979)

A. Rational peasant: formalist model, peasants = self-interested actors
B. Like Scott, looks at Vietnam
C. Popkin's view of traditional village

1. Landlords were "monopolistic patrons" (1979:4)
2. French colonialism and capitalism created village society, inequality between rich and poor
3. Moral economy didn't really exist

D. Capitalism with democracy can be good for peasants
E. Peasants as self-interested actors

1. "I argue that peasants are continuously striving not merely to protect but to raise their subsistence level through long- and short-term investments, both public and private. Their investment logic applies not only to market exchanges but to nonmarket exchanges as well."
2. Strive to improve positions, get surplus

F. Assessing Popkin

1. Convincing history: inequality of village society, kinship and moral ideology used to naturalize inequality
2. Too far to other extreme? Neglects communal spirit of village, fact that capitalism today creates much greater inequality than ever before