Nick,
I believe that within pre-transition Socialist sociology there is a theme based around 'peasant society' -- which is not just historical, but rather addresses peasant society as a system of production complete with cultural implications. It certainly does not treat 'peasant' as a de-valued category. If i remember right, Imre Kovacs has written on this in a volume in English which deals with Transition -- so that would be in the mid-1990s. No doubt there has been further debate on this too, although i haven't seen it. Sorry i can't remember the name of the book.
cheers
rhys
>>> Nick James <[log in to unmask]> 04/20/07 8:12 AM >>>
Yes, but ...
What "development discourse" is that? Do you mean the 'conventional wisdom'
type: science based, colonial in origin, Western oriented and neo-liberal
(economic/rational man) focused?
Is there any counter to such a discourse? e.g. like the Watts and Paul
Richards debate? Or the recent re-thinking that's gone in to 'participatory'
approaches ala Chambers?
My reading of James Ferguson ('Global Shadows') is different to what you
suggest.
Is there a singularity in theoretically understanding peasants? Are they
'captured' (hyden) while the uncaptured ones annoy state, NGOs, markets and just
about anything interested in achieving 'intentional' development. Is it
(development) therefore not good enough, flawed or problematic in other ways for
the 'peasants'?
Could your last sentence also be applied sociologically/anthropologically to
places (cultural spaces) not normally associated with 'peasants', e.g. many
estates/areas up and down cities and towns in the UK?
Thinking about Julian Baggini's Welcome to Every Town.
Nick
In a message dated 20/04/2007 07:45:11 GMT Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
Considered from the "development discourse" angle - or some variation of
that angle - (Arturo Escobar, James Ferguson, Rahnema, etc.), peasants are
surely lazy. In fact, there is a remarkable singularity within the
development archive concerning the character of the world's peasants. They
are lazy, invariably alcoholic, overly concerned with matter sexual,
irrational (of course) and, of considerable interest, their ethnic and kin
affiliations root them in prisons of cultural space.
Paul Hanson, Ph.D.
|