The most common factor, historically, which has stimulated and motivated the flow of human populations from a developing state to a developed state is the response to economic fluctuations and expansions. It is part and parcel of our contemporary world of global integration. For the purposes of this research paper I will assume that the primary consideration for Mexican populations and individuals migrating to the United States is economic. To be sure, political, cultural and psychological factors are at play when considering the entire picture of population migration, however, I aim to focus on the economic precursors of Mexico (push) and the United States (pull) that make migration feasible and even desirable for people in marginalized and impoverished situations.
I take the stance that Mexican works do not want to leave their home for opportunities, rather they need to migrate, both internally and internationally, to find work to attain the necessities of life. In this section, I will look at the economic precursors that “push” citizens of Mexico to migrate to the U.S. I will touch briefly on population growth, adjustment in land distribution, increased urbanization and the realities of changing trade policy.
Mexico has exhibited a pattern of a society in transitional modernization with a lack of continuity between rapid population growth and the expansion of rural and urban economic opportunities (Jenkins 1997:186). The sharp increase in population is not due to increased fertility rather to the decrease in mortality due to changes in diet and medical technology. Beneficial innovations in medicine have resulted in an increase in able workers in both rural and urban environments. Economic opportunities, while growing, simply have not tracked with the growth in population. Population increases plus stagnating or slowly improving opportunities equals unemployment. In Mexico’s case, rates of unemployment are substantial. This lack of continuity translates to increased migration pressures.
A rise in population has compounded the existing complexity of large-scale land reform policy. Arable land distribution and the structure of rural Mexico have moved from public to private hands. Over the last 50 years, governmental policies have favored private landholdings and thus concentrated arable lands. The decline of the ejidos system, and the growth of consolidated, privately owned arable land has dramatically increased the number of landless rural workers (Jenkins 1997:187). Furthermore, the privatization of land has attracted capital investment and reduced the amount of labor input required. Polarization of the agricultural sector is the result: large firms own and operate most of the land while dwindling populations of subsistence farmers barely survive. Privation policy, farm mechanization, land degradation and population growth has enlarged the rural, landless proletariat and thus fueled the flow of people migrating north to expanding economic opportunities (Jenkins 1997:187).
Landless agriculture populations are increasingly relocating to urban centers looking for employment. The city centers of Mexico do not have existing infrastructure to support the newcomers, nor the job opportunities to incorporate them into the urban economy. A newly expanded domestic labor pool is generated, overall wages are pushed down and unemployment across the urbanized zones of Mexico rises (Alba 1978:505). Those without work, and without the specific skill-sets have migrated north to borderland opportunities within Mexico and increasingly farther north into the U.S.
Trade policies over the last 50 years have been consistently shifting. Growing population, increased urbanization and reduction in arable land has forced the Mexican government to push forward with free trade agreements that represent minimal gains. Most often, free trade agreements serve core industrial economies at the expense of the laborers in periphery economies. NAFTA is an excellent example. Below are just a few examples of the provisions that reinforce positions of core and periphery:
- Elimination of import tariffs on manufactured goods and agricultural products,
- Elimination of tariffs on Mexican crops such as corn and beans (crops where Mexico can actually compete),
- Elimination of tariffs on textiles and apparel,
- The opening up of the automobile market,
- Mexico’s state-owned oil company must allow foreign companies to bid on drilling and exploration,
- U.S. & Canadian companies within Mexico will have the same rights as Mexican companies (and vice versa) and
- U.S. & Canadian banks and investment companies will begin to operate in Mexico (and vice versa) (Acevedo 1992:730).
While most of these provisions are reciprocal, the advantage will always go to the developed countries versus the developing country. Over the last twenty years, fruit, vegetable and nursery agriculture has expanded in the United States increasing the number of opportunities for inexpensive migratory laborers. This continues today. NAFTA aimed to address this, however, much like the tomato market of the 1980’s, both imports and domestic output can rise simultaneously. The gains of the expanded Mexican agribusiness under NAFTA has not exceeded or even adequately offset the losses to liberalization policies for corn and bean crops (Acevedo 1992:734). At best case, the policies of NAFTA have contributed to the development of the Mexican economy, however, it is obvious that the U.S. capitalists are the clear winner in the arrangement. Undoubtedly, in the short to medium term, NAFTA has contributed to the increase in south-north migration.
Mexico continues to move closer to export-oriented industrial development and privatization through a process of liberalization of trade. Production and employment in the export sector has increased significantly faster than in non-exports. At face value, this is good news, however, studies have shown that direct employment effects are extremely small when compared to the opportunities in the United States (Acevedo 1992:734).
As Mexico increases its level of exportation, and reduces its portfolio of export commodities, it becomes increasingly vulnerable to recession. Furthermore, fluctuations in the commodity prices of Mexican agriculture have an inverse relationship with the migration rate – when prices fall, migration goes up (Jenkins 1997: 180). Migration also increases as the Mexican export economy constricts. This cycle is illustrated by the growth of migrant flows following the Mexican recessions of the 1930’s, 1970’s, 1980’s and is prevalent today (Morrison 1982:14). Commodity induced recessions significantly influence unemployment and further the pressures of migration (Morrison 1982:21).
The development process taken by Mexico is based on the development and modernization patterns of industrialize countries. This has resulted in the marginalization of a large proportion of the Mexican population while fostering foreign economic dependence (Alba 1978:507).
The United States has used a strong hand in crafting free trade agreements aimed at lowering the barriers of trade, improving the flexibility of labor and optimizing transportation and communication among its partner economies. By encouraging partners to open their economies to a greater North American competitive market, the U.S. is reinforcing itself, under the auspices of free trade, as the core economy of the region. These tactics represent the “pull” of the push/pull relationship between core and periphery.
The North American capitalist system has and continues to pursue a consolidation of its labor market. Through the creation of a flexible reserve transnational labor force comprised of Mexican (among other countries) migrant labor, the US has developed a competitive regional advantage while allowing its system to generate an even stronger accumulation process (Sandoval 2007:2). A transnational labor force is critical to the flexible accumulation process because they are cheap and can be hired and fired quickly, with low cost and low risk to the employers. They receive Third World wages and subsidize the managerial and professional sectors of multinational (core) corporations. Without opportunities, good wages or workers rights at home, increasing numbers of Mexican migrants have effectively become a reserve labor force in the U.S. that ultimately requires little, remains flexible and drives down overall wages. Increased capital accumulation exploits migrant labor under the premise of improved efficiencies. Methods of exploitation include increasing the intensity of work, extending work hours and paying below value wages (Sandoval 2007:7). The Mexican labor force has become increasingly more flexible to insert itself into the US labor system. They are the consequence of unequal exchange between the US and Mexico, the U.S.’s immigration policy and the transnationalization of capital. As a result, this migrant labor force has become a stateless, fluid entity that supplies the US with a considerable proportion of its workforce in agricultural and industrial sectors (Sandoval 2007:8). Ultimately, this arrangement allows the U.S. to increase their competitiveness at the world market.
U.S. policy has aimed to reduce world trade barriers while simultaneously enacting protection provisions that retain labor-intensive commodities where developing countries, such as Mexico, have a comparable advantage. The protections structures discriminate against imports that are labor intensive. Examples are quantitative restrictions on imports of fresh meat, textiles and fruits and vegetables (Morrison 1982:19). The U.S. also places restrictions on foreign assistance for exports. For example, “section 608 of the Foreign Assistance Act prohibits US foreign assistance for export activities in developing countries that would cause ‘substantial injury’ to US producers” (Morrison 1982:20). Section 608, therefore inhibits investment in development projects aimed at funding textiles, machinery and agricultural goods.
The gap in economic development between core and periphery is so great that initiatives aimed at foreign assistance and employment expansion within Mexico have had little (and sometimes adverse) effect. Income distribution and the ability to make a living wage has historically been a major factor in pulling migrants north. To alleviate this, US foreign assistance has funded projects focused on the poorest segmentations of the Mexican population. Projects aimed to support small farmers have failed as these populations have poor natural endowment and inadequate infrastructure and operate in a system that structurally discriminates against the poorest populations. To date, these self-sustaining projects have been severely constrained (Morrison 1982:14). The Mexican Border Industrialization program was created to improve trade and generate jobs along the Mexican boarder. While trade employment opportunities increased, two unintended consequences emerged. First, a large proportion of the jobs went to women. This new labor force saw reduced wages and rights, increasing downward pressure on wages overall. Second, Mexican men that relocated to northern Mexico overwhelmed the employment market and the surplus, those who could not secure jobs, often continued north into the US, illegally (Morrison 1982:20).
Breaking the barriers of trade and improving the integration of the U.S. and Mexican economies was intended to lift all boats. It is clear that not all boats have risen. The liberalization of trade (and stipulated protections) has primarily served the United States by creating a flexible reserve labor force, lowering overall wages both in the U.S. and Mexico, and increasing economic interdependencies. The policies and agreements between core and periphery have created a significant “pull” factor for south-north migrants.
The idea that free trade will reduce migration has been a false link so far. To date, free trade has benefited the U.S. as it has effectively controlled and regulated low cost migratory flow into the economy. For at least the next few decades, the US economy will require a growing low-cost labor force for steady growth. A force that can ride out the expansions and contractions of our economy will be a reserve labor force comprised primarily of racial and ethnic minorities (Sandoval 2007:23). According to the US Labor Department, “from 2000-2010, more than 24 million new low-skilled jobs will be created, and mostly for Latinos, particularly Mexicans” (Sandoval 2007:23).
Development assistance, employment-generating projects, population programs and income distribution improvements can influence migration in the long run. Arresting migration from Mexico completely through development assistance is not realistic. The social, commercial and political ties that have accompanied assistance in the past (Korea & Taiwan as examples) have often resulted in increased migrations to the US offsetting the migration reducing initiatives (Morrison 1982:15).
A capitalist flexible accumulation process has created a low wage reserve labor force that has grown as global and regional economies integrate. An unforeseen consequence of this process is the struggle of migrant works to defend their rights. Labor forces are organizing nationally and transnationally to defend their human rights. Organizations in the US, Canada and throughout Latin America have fought for a renegotiation of NAFTA and other trade agreements to include a migrant worker’s rights charter (Sandoval 2007:36). Millions of migrant workers mobilized on May 1, 2006 in more than 60 cities to voice their concerns. For the first time, migrant workers had a voice in the debate. Demonstrations and protests are the reactions of migrant workers to the discrimination and exploitation they face and to the dispossession of their human rights. The struggle is ongoing as migrant workers are:
“fundamentally struggling for their right to work and to human mobility, but, above all, to be recognized as citizen of the country to which they continue to develop as the most powerful and richest country in the world, by creating wealth and huge profits in agriculture, construction, manufacturing, service and other sectors” (Sandoval 2007:37).
Efforts to mitigate migration by trade-induced job transfers from the United States to Mexico have not and will not work. Wage inequalities remain so large than even if Mexican wages increase considerably, they will not be enough to change international migration to internal migration (Acevedo 1992:734). Ultimately, policy makers in North America see liberal trade policies as the route towards improved economies across the board. The incentives for migration will cease only when the Mexican economy moves closer to parody relative to that of the U.S. economy. This includes better wages, increased employment opportunities and greater capital investment in the Mexican economy. Until each is creatively addressed, the push/pull relationship will be strong and the flow of migration from Mexico to the U.S. will continue.
Bibliography:
Acevedo, Dolores
1992 Implications of a North American Free Trade Agreement for Mexican Migration into the United States in Population and Development Review 18(4):729- 744
Alba, Francisco
1978 Mexico's International Migration as a Manifestation of Its Development Pattern in International Migration Review 12(4): 502-513
Binford, Leigh
2005 A Generation of Migrants in NACLA Report of the Americas 39(1):31-37
Jenkins, J. Craig
1997 Push/Pull in Recent Mexican Migration to the U.S. in International Migration Review 11(2):178-189.
Marfleet, Philip
2006 Refugees in a Global Era. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Morrison, Thomas K.
1982 The Relationship of U.S. Aid, Trade and Investment to Migration Pressures in Major Sending Country in International Migration Review 16(1):4-26
Salas, Carlos
2005 The Decline of the Decent Job in NACLA Report of the Americas 39(1):23- 25
Sandoval, Juan Manuel
2007 Mexican Labor Migration and the North American Free Trade Agreement, Electronic Document (pdf), http://www.globalexchange.org/getinvolved.speakers/SANDOVALNAFTA.pdf, accessed March 7, 2008.
Staff Writer (?)
2005 Mexican Workers Since NAFTA in NACLA Report of the Americas 39(1):15
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Sweetness and Power - Sidney Mintz
Sidney W. Mintz’s ambitious attempt to analyze the history and global spread of sugar cane is Sweetness and Power, The Place of Sugar in Modern History. His approach is thorough; history and the spread of cane, technology and change of processing, the biology of taste, the anthropology of eating, slave driven agriculture, mercantilist regulation of colonial economies, upper-class display and lower-class nutrition (Goldfrank 1987:641) are all covered in just two hundred pages. The end goal is “to decipher the codes of meaning that account for the transformation of an upper-class, luxury good into a commonplace, working-class necessity” (Marino 1987:549). By evaluating the pre-19th century production, the 17-20th century consumption and addressing the meaning and usage, Mintz confronts the social, economic and political impacts of sugar.
Mintz dedicates the first chapter to establishing sugar as a learned phenomenon versus a biological imperative (Ross 1987:103). There is no gray area for Mintz; some predisposition to sweetness is indeed built in to the human equipment, but it cannot explain differing food systems and degrees of preference “anymore than the anatomy of the so-called organs of speech can ‘explain’ any particular language” (Mintz 1985:18). Mintz does not argue that humans do not have a predisposition for liking sweetness, rather he aims to look into the circumstances under which that predisposition is intensified by cultural practice. The cultural practice of living with sweetness is relevant to how strong the “sweet-tooth” is (Mintz 1985:16). According to Mintz, the fact that “everyone everywhere likes sweet things says nothing about where such tastes fit into the spectrum of taste possibilities, how important sweetness is, where it occurs in a taste-preference hierarchy, or how it is thought of in relation to other tastes” (Mintz 1985:18).
The meat of Mintz’s work aims to analyze production and consumption by investigating the history of cane, its cultivation and the efforts and effects of its production and consumption. Sugar cane was first domesticated in New Guinea. Botanists Artschwager and Brandes believe that three diffusions from New Guinea occurred, the first around 8000 BC. Two thousand years later, cane was present in the Philippines, Indonesia and India (Mintz 1985:19). Processed sugar first made its appearance in the historical record in India Sanskrit around 400-350 BC. Sugar was used in food mixes and fermented beverages, but there is no evidence to suggest that crystallized sugar was achieved at this time (Mintz 1985:20). Sugar is a newcomer in the historical record (when compared to honey, for example) and spread slowly during the first millennia of its existence, only gaining steam in its diaspora in the last 500 years (Mintz 1985:16). The two main sources of processed sucrose are sugar cane and sugar beet. Sugar cane has been the prime source of sucrose for over a millennium while the sugar beet was not economically important until the nineteenth century.
Europe’s introduction to sugar cane came with Arab expansion into Italy and the south coast of Spain. Along with other traditions, the new occupiers brought their culture of sugar. Their method of cultivation, the art of sugar making and the preference of sugar over other sweeteners were absorbed by the Spanish in particular. Sugar cultivation and production around the Mediterranean gradually gained steam and spread north. However, due to environmental factors (namely climate), production inefficiencies and Arab retraction from Europe, the epicenter of sugar production began to shift across the Atlantic to the New World (Mintz 1985:31). Climate problems and resulting low yield were simply not an issue in the colonies of the west Atlantic. In addition to better growing conditions, the introduction of African slave labor in the New World placed the Spanish as the pioneers of sugar cane in the Americas. The Spanish sugar endeavor quickly stagnated and was surpassed by Portugal’s production in Brazil. Within a century however, and with Spain and Portugal focusing on the extraction of precious metals, France and Britain seized the opportunity (Mintz 1985:35).
All European powers that attempted to cultivate sugar cane in the New World endured a process of trial and error. In many cases, such as that of the Spanish, small gains were subsequently thwarted by lack of motherland resources, bad management, and drought. However, the turning point in the British sugar endeavor came with the settlement of Barbados in 1627 and the later acquisition of Jamaica as part of Britain’s Western Design (Mintz 1985:37). Over 6000 tons of clayed sugars from these “properties” cemented sugar production as a luxury goods and profit center.
From around 1650 on, the production and consumption of sugar by the British Empire increased aggressively. The British colonies succeeded by exporting the unfinished product to the metropolis and imperial laws to control the flow of sugar and to stipulate the goods for which they were exchanged were enacted. Out of goods and trade policy was born the triangles of trade. The British employed two transatlantic triangles. The first encompassed finished goods traded between Britain and Africa, African slaves traded to American colonies and American tropical commodities (sugar) traded back to mother country. For the second, from New England went rum to Africa, from Africa went slaves to the West Indies, and from the West Indies went molasses back to New England (Mintz 1985:43). The triangles hold historical importance for the use of a “false commodity” – human beings. To obtain slaves, products were shipped to Africa. The slave labor generated the wealth in the Americas that ended up in Britain. The slaves of Africa were at the end of this vicious cycle; they were exploited in the creation of wealth for the British (Mintz 1985:43). As call and response is to musician and audience, so was the supply and demand of sugar. The more the plantations of the colonies supplied, the more Britons consumed. By 1750, only a century after the establishment of British colonies, sugar was transformed from luxury of the elite to staple of the proletariat (Mintz 1985:45).
As the overall production and consumption of sugar increased, so did plantation efficiencies. Mintz argues, contrary to most Western historians, that the plantations were the first instance of true industry that later emerged in Europe. Mintz is careful to trace the course of plantation development, however, to the Mediterranean. The term industry here refers to the combination of agriculture and processing under one authority. Mintz sees the system of these plantations as precursors of industry to come in Europe. This is an essential concept in Mintz’s assertion that the common wisdom that Europe modeled the colonial world after the European heartland is actual the reverse (Mintz 1985:52).
The increase in sugar consumption and the development of the plantation systems in the 17th century, according to Mintz, is at the hands of a European economic realignment. This time period marks the last phase of the transition from feudal to capitalist systems. The growth of an expandable consumers’ market in Europe with ties to changes in production elsewhere, the seizure of colonies abroad that promoted European development and the creation of colonial enterprises to produce those consumer goods swung the balance of economic power from the Mediterranean and Baltic regions up to England. At once, production and consumption of tropical commodities were a cause and consequence of Britain’s growing influence in world trade (Mintz 1985:66). During the early 19th century, mercantilism and its protections gave way to free trade. With free trade, the production landscape changed; while the West Indies plantations fell out of favor, sugar supplies increased and prices plummeted. The result was cheap sugar in healthy supply, thus affordable by the working class. This change coincided with the appearance of tea, coffee and chocolate across Britain. The supply of sugar increased and the price dropped, which resulted in the increased use of sugar in tea, coffee, and preserves. Together, these trends conspired to serve the nutritional and symbolic needs of the masses (Wright 1986:111).
The rules of the game suddenly changed and the points of leverage shifted. The power elite, who once leveraged the plantations, now could leverage the masses, and to much better ends on larger scales. This was not an accident. The growth of demand for sugar was a machination of those in power (Mintz 1985:64).
It is argued that by the mid 19th century, the increased production and seemingly ubiquitous consumption of sugar, among other factors, can be traced to the meanings of sugar to both the elite and lower classes. Mintz defines these meanings of sugar as a relationship between “inside” and “outside” meaning. Outside meaning of power refers to the overt actions of the power elite and the brokers of sugar production. Planters, bankers, slaves, shippers, refiners, and others constitute the outside and are both directly and indirectly responsible for the policies and laws designed to protect and increase the trade and availability of sugar (as well as other tropical goods such as molasses, rum and tobacco). The inside meaning takes a page from Clifford Geertz’s “webs of significance” and refers to the internalization of codes of behavior and food habits (Stein 1986:363). While perhaps simplistic, it is argued that to the elite, while no longer important as an ingestible, sugar was critical to economic growth and political gain, and to the proletariat, sugar became an symbolic, but illusory elixir to the hardworking, powerless realities of a life of labor.
“Sugar, declining in price, increasing in its convenience, and finding itself used in more and more ways appreciated by the population, became a major source of calories for the British” (Ross 1987:104). Furthermore, sugar increased the caloric content of the proletariat diet without increasing quantities of meat, fish, and poultry (Mintz 1985:193). In this way, sugar as a dietary staple of the proletariat, was a propeller of labor force output and productivity. Mintz argues that the cultural, economic and political realities based around sugar, helped determine the means by which capitalism developed during the 19th century (Wright 1986:111). Therefore sugar had a hand in the success of Britain’s industrial revolution and economic acceleration, and “is closely connected to England’s fundamental transformation from a hierarchical, status based, medieval society to a social-democratic, capitalist and industrial society” (Mintz 1985:185).
Mintz’s claim that sugar’s production and consumption played a key role in the creation of a capitalist and industrial society in Britain is bold. While the perspective is illuminating, it is perhaps grandiose to imagine that a single commodity alone could have triggered the wealth acceleration and economic and political transition that resulted in Britain’s ascension as the focal point of economic control in Europe, and at the time, the world. While sugar alone may not be the single determinant, Mintz’s analysis of sugar does serve as an important lens through which to understand the strategic machinations of trade, manipulative consumption, and power.
Works Cited:
Goldfrank, Walter L.
1987 Review of Sweetness and Power. In Theory and Society 16(4):640-641.
Marino, John A.
1987 Review of Sweetness and Power. In The Journal of Modern History 59(3):549-551.
Mintz, Sidney W.
1985 Sweetness and Power. United States: Viking Penguin Inc.
Roxborough, Ian
1986 Review of Sweetness and Power. In Man 21(3):575.
Ross, Clark G.
1987 Review of Sweetness and Power. In Ethnohistory 34(1):103-105.
Stein, Stanley J.
1986 Review of Sweetness and Power. In The American Historical Review 91(2):362-363.
Wright, Winthrop R.
1986 A Nexus of Transformations. In Science 232(4746):111.
Mintz dedicates the first chapter to establishing sugar as a learned phenomenon versus a biological imperative (Ross 1987:103). There is no gray area for Mintz; some predisposition to sweetness is indeed built in to the human equipment, but it cannot explain differing food systems and degrees of preference “anymore than the anatomy of the so-called organs of speech can ‘explain’ any particular language” (Mintz 1985:18). Mintz does not argue that humans do not have a predisposition for liking sweetness, rather he aims to look into the circumstances under which that predisposition is intensified by cultural practice. The cultural practice of living with sweetness is relevant to how strong the “sweet-tooth” is (Mintz 1985:16). According to Mintz, the fact that “everyone everywhere likes sweet things says nothing about where such tastes fit into the spectrum of taste possibilities, how important sweetness is, where it occurs in a taste-preference hierarchy, or how it is thought of in relation to other tastes” (Mintz 1985:18).
The meat of Mintz’s work aims to analyze production and consumption by investigating the history of cane, its cultivation and the efforts and effects of its production and consumption. Sugar cane was first domesticated in New Guinea. Botanists Artschwager and Brandes believe that three diffusions from New Guinea occurred, the first around 8000 BC. Two thousand years later, cane was present in the Philippines, Indonesia and India (Mintz 1985:19). Processed sugar first made its appearance in the historical record in India Sanskrit around 400-350 BC. Sugar was used in food mixes and fermented beverages, but there is no evidence to suggest that crystallized sugar was achieved at this time (Mintz 1985:20). Sugar is a newcomer in the historical record (when compared to honey, for example) and spread slowly during the first millennia of its existence, only gaining steam in its diaspora in the last 500 years (Mintz 1985:16). The two main sources of processed sucrose are sugar cane and sugar beet. Sugar cane has been the prime source of sucrose for over a millennium while the sugar beet was not economically important until the nineteenth century.
Europe’s introduction to sugar cane came with Arab expansion into Italy and the south coast of Spain. Along with other traditions, the new occupiers brought their culture of sugar. Their method of cultivation, the art of sugar making and the preference of sugar over other sweeteners were absorbed by the Spanish in particular. Sugar cultivation and production around the Mediterranean gradually gained steam and spread north. However, due to environmental factors (namely climate), production inefficiencies and Arab retraction from Europe, the epicenter of sugar production began to shift across the Atlantic to the New World (Mintz 1985:31). Climate problems and resulting low yield were simply not an issue in the colonies of the west Atlantic. In addition to better growing conditions, the introduction of African slave labor in the New World placed the Spanish as the pioneers of sugar cane in the Americas. The Spanish sugar endeavor quickly stagnated and was surpassed by Portugal’s production in Brazil. Within a century however, and with Spain and Portugal focusing on the extraction of precious metals, France and Britain seized the opportunity (Mintz 1985:35).
All European powers that attempted to cultivate sugar cane in the New World endured a process of trial and error. In many cases, such as that of the Spanish, small gains were subsequently thwarted by lack of motherland resources, bad management, and drought. However, the turning point in the British sugar endeavor came with the settlement of Barbados in 1627 and the later acquisition of Jamaica as part of Britain’s Western Design (Mintz 1985:37). Over 6000 tons of clayed sugars from these “properties” cemented sugar production as a luxury goods and profit center.
From around 1650 on, the production and consumption of sugar by the British Empire increased aggressively. The British colonies succeeded by exporting the unfinished product to the metropolis and imperial laws to control the flow of sugar and to stipulate the goods for which they were exchanged were enacted. Out of goods and trade policy was born the triangles of trade. The British employed two transatlantic triangles. The first encompassed finished goods traded between Britain and Africa, African slaves traded to American colonies and American tropical commodities (sugar) traded back to mother country. For the second, from New England went rum to Africa, from Africa went slaves to the West Indies, and from the West Indies went molasses back to New England (Mintz 1985:43). The triangles hold historical importance for the use of a “false commodity” – human beings. To obtain slaves, products were shipped to Africa. The slave labor generated the wealth in the Americas that ended up in Britain. The slaves of Africa were at the end of this vicious cycle; they were exploited in the creation of wealth for the British (Mintz 1985:43). As call and response is to musician and audience, so was the supply and demand of sugar. The more the plantations of the colonies supplied, the more Britons consumed. By 1750, only a century after the establishment of British colonies, sugar was transformed from luxury of the elite to staple of the proletariat (Mintz 1985:45).
As the overall production and consumption of sugar increased, so did plantation efficiencies. Mintz argues, contrary to most Western historians, that the plantations were the first instance of true industry that later emerged in Europe. Mintz is careful to trace the course of plantation development, however, to the Mediterranean. The term industry here refers to the combination of agriculture and processing under one authority. Mintz sees the system of these plantations as precursors of industry to come in Europe. This is an essential concept in Mintz’s assertion that the common wisdom that Europe modeled the colonial world after the European heartland is actual the reverse (Mintz 1985:52).
The increase in sugar consumption and the development of the plantation systems in the 17th century, according to Mintz, is at the hands of a European economic realignment. This time period marks the last phase of the transition from feudal to capitalist systems. The growth of an expandable consumers’ market in Europe with ties to changes in production elsewhere, the seizure of colonies abroad that promoted European development and the creation of colonial enterprises to produce those consumer goods swung the balance of economic power from the Mediterranean and Baltic regions up to England. At once, production and consumption of tropical commodities were a cause and consequence of Britain’s growing influence in world trade (Mintz 1985:66). During the early 19th century, mercantilism and its protections gave way to free trade. With free trade, the production landscape changed; while the West Indies plantations fell out of favor, sugar supplies increased and prices plummeted. The result was cheap sugar in healthy supply, thus affordable by the working class. This change coincided with the appearance of tea, coffee and chocolate across Britain. The supply of sugar increased and the price dropped, which resulted in the increased use of sugar in tea, coffee, and preserves. Together, these trends conspired to serve the nutritional and symbolic needs of the masses (Wright 1986:111).
The rules of the game suddenly changed and the points of leverage shifted. The power elite, who once leveraged the plantations, now could leverage the masses, and to much better ends on larger scales. This was not an accident. The growth of demand for sugar was a machination of those in power (Mintz 1985:64).
It is argued that by the mid 19th century, the increased production and seemingly ubiquitous consumption of sugar, among other factors, can be traced to the meanings of sugar to both the elite and lower classes. Mintz defines these meanings of sugar as a relationship between “inside” and “outside” meaning. Outside meaning of power refers to the overt actions of the power elite and the brokers of sugar production. Planters, bankers, slaves, shippers, refiners, and others constitute the outside and are both directly and indirectly responsible for the policies and laws designed to protect and increase the trade and availability of sugar (as well as other tropical goods such as molasses, rum and tobacco). The inside meaning takes a page from Clifford Geertz’s “webs of significance” and refers to the internalization of codes of behavior and food habits (Stein 1986:363). While perhaps simplistic, it is argued that to the elite, while no longer important as an ingestible, sugar was critical to economic growth and political gain, and to the proletariat, sugar became an symbolic, but illusory elixir to the hardworking, powerless realities of a life of labor.
“Sugar, declining in price, increasing in its convenience, and finding itself used in more and more ways appreciated by the population, became a major source of calories for the British” (Ross 1987:104). Furthermore, sugar increased the caloric content of the proletariat diet without increasing quantities of meat, fish, and poultry (Mintz 1985:193). In this way, sugar as a dietary staple of the proletariat, was a propeller of labor force output and productivity. Mintz argues that the cultural, economic and political realities based around sugar, helped determine the means by which capitalism developed during the 19th century (Wright 1986:111). Therefore sugar had a hand in the success of Britain’s industrial revolution and economic acceleration, and “is closely connected to England’s fundamental transformation from a hierarchical, status based, medieval society to a social-democratic, capitalist and industrial society” (Mintz 1985:185).
Mintz’s claim that sugar’s production and consumption played a key role in the creation of a capitalist and industrial society in Britain is bold. While the perspective is illuminating, it is perhaps grandiose to imagine that a single commodity alone could have triggered the wealth acceleration and economic and political transition that resulted in Britain’s ascension as the focal point of economic control in Europe, and at the time, the world. While sugar alone may not be the single determinant, Mintz’s analysis of sugar does serve as an important lens through which to understand the strategic machinations of trade, manipulative consumption, and power.
Works Cited:
Goldfrank, Walter L.
1987 Review of Sweetness and Power. In Theory and Society 16(4):640-641.
Marino, John A.
1987 Review of Sweetness and Power. In The Journal of Modern History 59(3):549-551.
Mintz, Sidney W.
1985 Sweetness and Power. United States: Viking Penguin Inc.
Roxborough, Ian
1986 Review of Sweetness and Power. In Man 21(3):575.
Ross, Clark G.
1987 Review of Sweetness and Power. In Ethnohistory 34(1):103-105.
Stein, Stanley J.
1986 Review of Sweetness and Power. In The American Historical Review 91(2):362-363.
Wright, Winthrop R.
1986 A Nexus of Transformations. In Science 232(4746):111.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Race and Class in the Southwest - Mario Barrera
Mario Barrera’s Race and Class in the Southwest, analyzes Chicano inequality in the North American Southwest from economic, social, political and historical perspectives (Lillydahl 1980:439). The majority of this work is a historical outline of the Chicano experience followed by a critique of existing racial inequality theories and concluded with Barrera’s own theory that synthesizes internal colonialism and class segmentation theories. Written in 1979, this book remains a major contribution to the understanding of the Chicano experience and represents a turning point in the development of Chicano studies (Almaguer 1981:30).
The Mexican-American War concluded in 1848 awarding the United States a terrestrial expanse we now call the Southwest which includes present day Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and southern California. At the time of US annexation, scores of Mexican nationals, Native Americans and “Mestizos” occupied the area living mainly as pastoralists, subsistence farmers and nomads. Once the land title transitioned from Mexican to American hands, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed and among other things, ensured that the occupants of the territory would have a claim to their land. These populations, living in their traditional lands suddenly under different ownership, are what Barrera refers to as “Chicanos”(Barrera 1979:4).
Soon after the termination of the war, the treaty’s land ownership stipulation was short lived and a process of land transition from Mexican to Anglo hands began in earnest. Due to greater familiarity with language and laws (among other factors), Anglo capitalist and land speculators migrating to the area were in perfect position to dispossess Chicanos from the lands they had previously controlled (Barrera 1979:33). Class status, changing population densities and geographic isolation all played a role in the rate of dispossession across the territory. While the pace was varied the general trend was consistent (Barrera 1979:18).
The result of this land transfer is multi-fold; dispossession of traditional lands upset the cultural conditions of the region, disrupted the economic system that connected villages and towns, impaired local governances and placed the existing population into a subordinate position within a new structure.
Land transfer and a subordinate position in a new society led directly to the creation of a labor system that further perpetuated the downward mobility of this increasingly exploited population. Much of Race and Class in the Southwest is dedicated to the causation and description of what Barrera refers to as a colonial labor system. “A colonial labor system exists where the labor force is segmented along ethnic and/or racial lines, and one or more of the segments is systematically maintained in a subordinate position” (Barrera 1979:39).
The new labor system of the Southwest was in direct reaction to the transfer of land and an upswing in the economy due to exploitation of land via intensive agriculture, mining and railroad construction. First, the new opportunity of the Southwest further hastened the displacement of Chicanos as greater numbers of Anglos moved to grab hold of the economic momentum. Next, displaced Chicanos then entered the labor market out of necessity and in disadvantaged positions (Barrera 1979:35). For agriculture, a system of subsistence quickly gave way to commercial enterprise and Chicanos found themselves leaving their family farms (that families engaged in for generations) for a labor force, working for wages. In mining, Chicanos founds themselves working familiar jobs for unfamiliar ownership among a large labor force designed to restrict their mobility and hold them in powerless positions. The transcontinental railroads brought in new minority populations that competed directly with Chicanos for rail labor jobs. Black, Chinese and Japanese laborers all migrated to the area to support rail and formed part of the racially stratified labor system.
Barrera offers five aspects of the labor system that independently, and in aggregate, served to hold minority populations in a system that benefited employers at the detriment of the labor force. They are labor repression, the dual wage system, occupational stratification, Chicanos as reserve labor force and the buffer role (Barrera 1979:40).
Labor repression as a concept is summed up best by Barrera’s example of mining companies in Arizona. Scores of Chicanos moved to relatively remote locations to take mining jobs. Due to the location, goods and services were only supplied by a company store. Workers, Chicanos among them, had little choice but to buy everything (food, gas, etc.) from this store. The company paid extremely low wages and held prices high enough to recoup the wages they paid out. Low wages and high cost of living pushed labor populations into perpetual debt. This system of labor repression was also used in one form or another on ranches, farms and businesses (Barrera 1979:41).
The dual wage system is the practice of paying one wage to minority workers and another to non-minority workers who perform the same task. Often termed “cheap labor,” the dual wage system is still pervasive today. An example in the Arizona mines illustrates this concept in action. The Arizona mine of Santa Rita, around 1870, paid Mexican miners from $12 a month to $1 a day, depending on the job, plus a weekly ration of flour. American workers, for the same positions, received $30-$70 a month plus board (Barrera 1979:42). It is important to note that citizenship played no role. The “Mexican Rate” applied to Mexican-Americans, resident Mexican aliens and Mexican nationals. Segregating the Mexican and Anglo workers, whose communities were then further segregated by downstream socioeconomic status, made it easier for companies to practice their discriminatory policies while fostering social divisions (Barrera 1979:40).
Occupational stratification is the practice of classifying certain jobs as suited for minorities and others as suited for non-minorities (Barrera 1979:43). The result is that minority works become concentrated into a certain classification of work that are most often the least desirable jobs. Racially stratified labor was prevalent in every important economic sector of the Southwest. Occupational stratification increased with mechanization; many of the labor positions were replaced, and new positions created by the innovations went to Anglos. A discriminatory wage system teamed with occupational stratification to marginalize Chicano laborers to restrictive menial and dangerous jobs.
Chicanos as a reserve labor force provided two functions; it gave elasticity to the labor force and provided employers leverage in bargaining or controlling existing workers. Elasticity is advantageous because as the demand for labor increases the work force can be expanded without having to compete for labor and drive up wages. As for leverage, since the work is often menial, workers are expendable and employers can reduce their power (Barrera 1979:47). This is most commonly seen when employers use migrant labor to break worker strikes.
Minorities as buffers provided employers with shock absorbers to the ebbs and flows of the economy. Minority workers were always the last hired and the first fired. Again advantageous for employers, minority workers were powerless, unable to defend themselves and therefore were expendable. This helped reduce discontent among non-minority workers who had power, choices and organizations to defend them (Barrera 1979:48).
Overall, business owners created a colonial labor force to keep costs to a minimum - a racially segmented labor force allowed greater control of the labor supply, a reserve labor force accounted for the elasticity in business and furthermore, the reserves allowed the employers to apply downward pressure on wages across the board while simultaneously thwarting worker strikes. Finally the use of buffer workers served to pacify non-minority workers in periods of excess labor (Barrera 1979:50). Most importantly, segmenting the labor force created divisions among the workers and helped prevent the emergence of class consciousness among them. They were truly divided and conquered.
Mario Barrera, after an exhaustive history lesson, introduced competing theories of racial inequality that fall into three major categories: deficiency theories, bias theories and structural discrimination theories.
Deficiency theory is “the contention that racial minorities occupy an inferior economic, social and political status because of some deficiency within the minority groups themselves” (Barrera 1979:174). There are three subsections of deficiency theory, each based on a particular type; biological, structural and cultural. Biological deficiency has been discredited completely. More commonly cited are structural and cultural deficiencies, however, each have fatal flaws according to Barrera. Structural deficiency, as a means of explaining racial inequality, has been unsuccessful as it does little more than identify certain intervening variables. In essence, structural deficiency is a symptom rather than an absolute cause (Barrera 1979:176). Cultural deficiency theory is a very difficult process. Barrera believed that the only approach to proving this is by taking an exhaustive cultural inventory of both the disadvantaged group and the majority non-disadvantaged for comparison. Any degree of plausibility would come only after the positive and negative traits of both groups were established and a clear balance in favor of one group emerged (Barrera 1979:180). According to Barrera, this has simply not been done.
Bias theories put the onus on the majority versus the minority population. Prejudice and discrimination are the main players as unequal status is a function of racial discrimination that is a product of white prejudice (Barrera 1979:182). Barrera saw these theories as incomplete rather than wrong. Generally, these theories only address racial prejudice and do not pursue its origin and lacks any historical perspective.
Theories that fall under the structural discrimination category attempt to locate the source of minority disadvantage in the social structure of society. Structure in this case refers to the regular patterns of human interaction. These theories see discrimination built into the structure. They do not locate the ultimate source of racial discriminations, rather, they look for how the structure perpetuates it (Barrera 1979:184).
Barrera combined competing racial inequality theories with the historical record to formulate his own theory. The synthesis of internal colonialism and class segmentation approaches creates the core of his theory (for which there is no title). These approaches, according to Barrera, are the most comprehensive and accurately reflect historical patterns of persistent racial inequality. His model is consistent with a view of capitalist society as class segmented, in which the dominant class exercises disproportionate influence on all aspects of the system (Barrera 1979:212). In keeping with colonialism, the hegemonic system had been established to serve the interests of merchants, industrialists and would be landowners. Safeguards in the structure protect the interests of the dominant classes.
The system ultimately harms the entire working class, minorities and non-minorities included. In a racially segmented working class, each group operates on false consciousness; the system pits racially divided workers against one another and specifically, Anglo workers identify the manipulated minority workers as the enemy. Anglo workers perceive a benefit from this internal colonialism and collude to perpetuate the system. However, historical examination reveals that while Anglo workers avoid undesirable jobs, they suffer from the downward pressure exerted on wages by the segmented labor market, increased job competition and strike-breaks provided by the minority reserve labor force (Barrera 1979:213).
In this system, employers gain across the board; dual wage structures lower labor costs, buffers concentrate the impact of recessions on the most vulnerable and politically disenfranchised segment of workers, reserve labor forces allow for expansion and reduction of labor as needed while providing leverage against the demands of employed workers. Ultimately, the greatest gain for employers “has to do with the divisions that are created among the workers as a whole, since this allows capitalists to promote what is after all their ultimate interest, the perpetuation of class society itself” (Barrera 1979:213).
The Mexican-American War is often cited as the beginning of Chicano history and the Chicano experience. According to Barrera, the imperial expansion of the United States into the Southwest, and subsequent colonial experience of those that lived there, links Chicano history to other Third World populations of colonized areas such as Africa and South America. As the American dominant class asserted their interests, Chicano control of land was expropriated. Linked to both expropriation and the exploitation of Chicano labor, a system of class segmentation was created that bound Chicanos and other minorities to structurally subordinate position in the society. The segmentation line has painted the Chicano experience from its inception to the present day. According to Barrera, “The [future] politics of the Chicano community can be expected to revolve around both class and colonial divisions in a complex manner whose outlines we can only dimly perceive in the current period of confusion and redefinition” (Barrera 1979:219).
Works Cited:
Almaguer, Tomas
1981 Review of Race and Class in the Southwest. In Contemporary Sociology 10(1):27-30.
Barrera, Mario
1979 Race and Class in the Southwest. London: University of Notre Dame Press.
Dela Garza, Rodolfo O.
1981 Review of Race and Class in the Southwest. In The Journal of Politics 43(2):574-575.
Lillydahl, Jane H.
1980 Review of Race and Class in the Southwest. In International Migration Review 14(3):439.
Sheehan, Michael F.
1982 Review of Race and Class in the Southwest. In The Journal of Economic History 42(2):480-481.
The Mexican-American War concluded in 1848 awarding the United States a terrestrial expanse we now call the Southwest which includes present day Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and southern California. At the time of US annexation, scores of Mexican nationals, Native Americans and “Mestizos” occupied the area living mainly as pastoralists, subsistence farmers and nomads. Once the land title transitioned from Mexican to American hands, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed and among other things, ensured that the occupants of the territory would have a claim to their land. These populations, living in their traditional lands suddenly under different ownership, are what Barrera refers to as “Chicanos”(Barrera 1979:4).
Soon after the termination of the war, the treaty’s land ownership stipulation was short lived and a process of land transition from Mexican to Anglo hands began in earnest. Due to greater familiarity with language and laws (among other factors), Anglo capitalist and land speculators migrating to the area were in perfect position to dispossess Chicanos from the lands they had previously controlled (Barrera 1979:33). Class status, changing population densities and geographic isolation all played a role in the rate of dispossession across the territory. While the pace was varied the general trend was consistent (Barrera 1979:18).
The result of this land transfer is multi-fold; dispossession of traditional lands upset the cultural conditions of the region, disrupted the economic system that connected villages and towns, impaired local governances and placed the existing population into a subordinate position within a new structure.
Land transfer and a subordinate position in a new society led directly to the creation of a labor system that further perpetuated the downward mobility of this increasingly exploited population. Much of Race and Class in the Southwest is dedicated to the causation and description of what Barrera refers to as a colonial labor system. “A colonial labor system exists where the labor force is segmented along ethnic and/or racial lines, and one or more of the segments is systematically maintained in a subordinate position” (Barrera 1979:39).
The new labor system of the Southwest was in direct reaction to the transfer of land and an upswing in the economy due to exploitation of land via intensive agriculture, mining and railroad construction. First, the new opportunity of the Southwest further hastened the displacement of Chicanos as greater numbers of Anglos moved to grab hold of the economic momentum. Next, displaced Chicanos then entered the labor market out of necessity and in disadvantaged positions (Barrera 1979:35). For agriculture, a system of subsistence quickly gave way to commercial enterprise and Chicanos found themselves leaving their family farms (that families engaged in for generations) for a labor force, working for wages. In mining, Chicanos founds themselves working familiar jobs for unfamiliar ownership among a large labor force designed to restrict their mobility and hold them in powerless positions. The transcontinental railroads brought in new minority populations that competed directly with Chicanos for rail labor jobs. Black, Chinese and Japanese laborers all migrated to the area to support rail and formed part of the racially stratified labor system.
Barrera offers five aspects of the labor system that independently, and in aggregate, served to hold minority populations in a system that benefited employers at the detriment of the labor force. They are labor repression, the dual wage system, occupational stratification, Chicanos as reserve labor force and the buffer role (Barrera 1979:40).
Labor repression as a concept is summed up best by Barrera’s example of mining companies in Arizona. Scores of Chicanos moved to relatively remote locations to take mining jobs. Due to the location, goods and services were only supplied by a company store. Workers, Chicanos among them, had little choice but to buy everything (food, gas, etc.) from this store. The company paid extremely low wages and held prices high enough to recoup the wages they paid out. Low wages and high cost of living pushed labor populations into perpetual debt. This system of labor repression was also used in one form or another on ranches, farms and businesses (Barrera 1979:41).
The dual wage system is the practice of paying one wage to minority workers and another to non-minority workers who perform the same task. Often termed “cheap labor,” the dual wage system is still pervasive today. An example in the Arizona mines illustrates this concept in action. The Arizona mine of Santa Rita, around 1870, paid Mexican miners from $12 a month to $1 a day, depending on the job, plus a weekly ration of flour. American workers, for the same positions, received $30-$70 a month plus board (Barrera 1979:42). It is important to note that citizenship played no role. The “Mexican Rate” applied to Mexican-Americans, resident Mexican aliens and Mexican nationals. Segregating the Mexican and Anglo workers, whose communities were then further segregated by downstream socioeconomic status, made it easier for companies to practice their discriminatory policies while fostering social divisions (Barrera 1979:40).
Occupational stratification is the practice of classifying certain jobs as suited for minorities and others as suited for non-minorities (Barrera 1979:43). The result is that minority works become concentrated into a certain classification of work that are most often the least desirable jobs. Racially stratified labor was prevalent in every important economic sector of the Southwest. Occupational stratification increased with mechanization; many of the labor positions were replaced, and new positions created by the innovations went to Anglos. A discriminatory wage system teamed with occupational stratification to marginalize Chicano laborers to restrictive menial and dangerous jobs.
Chicanos as a reserve labor force provided two functions; it gave elasticity to the labor force and provided employers leverage in bargaining or controlling existing workers. Elasticity is advantageous because as the demand for labor increases the work force can be expanded without having to compete for labor and drive up wages. As for leverage, since the work is often menial, workers are expendable and employers can reduce their power (Barrera 1979:47). This is most commonly seen when employers use migrant labor to break worker strikes.
Minorities as buffers provided employers with shock absorbers to the ebbs and flows of the economy. Minority workers were always the last hired and the first fired. Again advantageous for employers, minority workers were powerless, unable to defend themselves and therefore were expendable. This helped reduce discontent among non-minority workers who had power, choices and organizations to defend them (Barrera 1979:48).
Overall, business owners created a colonial labor force to keep costs to a minimum - a racially segmented labor force allowed greater control of the labor supply, a reserve labor force accounted for the elasticity in business and furthermore, the reserves allowed the employers to apply downward pressure on wages across the board while simultaneously thwarting worker strikes. Finally the use of buffer workers served to pacify non-minority workers in periods of excess labor (Barrera 1979:50). Most importantly, segmenting the labor force created divisions among the workers and helped prevent the emergence of class consciousness among them. They were truly divided and conquered.
Mario Barrera, after an exhaustive history lesson, introduced competing theories of racial inequality that fall into three major categories: deficiency theories, bias theories and structural discrimination theories.
Deficiency theory is “the contention that racial minorities occupy an inferior economic, social and political status because of some deficiency within the minority groups themselves” (Barrera 1979:174). There are three subsections of deficiency theory, each based on a particular type; biological, structural and cultural. Biological deficiency has been discredited completely. More commonly cited are structural and cultural deficiencies, however, each have fatal flaws according to Barrera. Structural deficiency, as a means of explaining racial inequality, has been unsuccessful as it does little more than identify certain intervening variables. In essence, structural deficiency is a symptom rather than an absolute cause (Barrera 1979:176). Cultural deficiency theory is a very difficult process. Barrera believed that the only approach to proving this is by taking an exhaustive cultural inventory of both the disadvantaged group and the majority non-disadvantaged for comparison. Any degree of plausibility would come only after the positive and negative traits of both groups were established and a clear balance in favor of one group emerged (Barrera 1979:180). According to Barrera, this has simply not been done.
Bias theories put the onus on the majority versus the minority population. Prejudice and discrimination are the main players as unequal status is a function of racial discrimination that is a product of white prejudice (Barrera 1979:182). Barrera saw these theories as incomplete rather than wrong. Generally, these theories only address racial prejudice and do not pursue its origin and lacks any historical perspective.
Theories that fall under the structural discrimination category attempt to locate the source of minority disadvantage in the social structure of society. Structure in this case refers to the regular patterns of human interaction. These theories see discrimination built into the structure. They do not locate the ultimate source of racial discriminations, rather, they look for how the structure perpetuates it (Barrera 1979:184).
Barrera combined competing racial inequality theories with the historical record to formulate his own theory. The synthesis of internal colonialism and class segmentation approaches creates the core of his theory (for which there is no title). These approaches, according to Barrera, are the most comprehensive and accurately reflect historical patterns of persistent racial inequality. His model is consistent with a view of capitalist society as class segmented, in which the dominant class exercises disproportionate influence on all aspects of the system (Barrera 1979:212). In keeping with colonialism, the hegemonic system had been established to serve the interests of merchants, industrialists and would be landowners. Safeguards in the structure protect the interests of the dominant classes.
The system ultimately harms the entire working class, minorities and non-minorities included. In a racially segmented working class, each group operates on false consciousness; the system pits racially divided workers against one another and specifically, Anglo workers identify the manipulated minority workers as the enemy. Anglo workers perceive a benefit from this internal colonialism and collude to perpetuate the system. However, historical examination reveals that while Anglo workers avoid undesirable jobs, they suffer from the downward pressure exerted on wages by the segmented labor market, increased job competition and strike-breaks provided by the minority reserve labor force (Barrera 1979:213).
In this system, employers gain across the board; dual wage structures lower labor costs, buffers concentrate the impact of recessions on the most vulnerable and politically disenfranchised segment of workers, reserve labor forces allow for expansion and reduction of labor as needed while providing leverage against the demands of employed workers. Ultimately, the greatest gain for employers “has to do with the divisions that are created among the workers as a whole, since this allows capitalists to promote what is after all their ultimate interest, the perpetuation of class society itself” (Barrera 1979:213).
The Mexican-American War is often cited as the beginning of Chicano history and the Chicano experience. According to Barrera, the imperial expansion of the United States into the Southwest, and subsequent colonial experience of those that lived there, links Chicano history to other Third World populations of colonized areas such as Africa and South America. As the American dominant class asserted their interests, Chicano control of land was expropriated. Linked to both expropriation and the exploitation of Chicano labor, a system of class segmentation was created that bound Chicanos and other minorities to structurally subordinate position in the society. The segmentation line has painted the Chicano experience from its inception to the present day. According to Barrera, “The [future] politics of the Chicano community can be expected to revolve around both class and colonial divisions in a complex manner whose outlines we can only dimly perceive in the current period of confusion and redefinition” (Barrera 1979:219).
Works Cited:
Almaguer, Tomas
1981 Review of Race and Class in the Southwest. In Contemporary Sociology 10(1):27-30.
Barrera, Mario
1979 Race and Class in the Southwest. London: University of Notre Dame Press.
Dela Garza, Rodolfo O.
1981 Review of Race and Class in the Southwest. In The Journal of Politics 43(2):574-575.
Lillydahl, Jane H.
1980 Review of Race and Class in the Southwest. In International Migration Review 14(3):439.
Sheehan, Michael F.
1982 Review of Race and Class in the Southwest. In The Journal of Economic History 42(2):480-481.
Culture and Practical Reason - Marshall Sahlins
Marshall Sahlins’ provocative Culture and Practical Reason is a general critique that addresses the concepts and traditional distinctions between primitive and modern societies. The central purpose of this work is to dissolve the notion that practical reason alone can explain human action. Moreover, even in the realm of production and economics, modern society cannot be understood “without reference to the symbols and meanings that constitute its culture” (Swartz 1977:553). To achieve his end, Sahlins opens his work by establishing the limitations of social theory via a three-pronged debate beginning with Marxism, then British and finally French structuralism. Next, two anthropological paradigms are contrasted by outlining Morgan’s and Boas’s approach to practical reason and cultural reason respectively. Sahlins furthers his critique by establishing the problems within Marx’s historical materialism and its conflict with cultural analysis. Finally, he attempts to resolve the Western perception that primitive is to symbology as modern is to economy, by arguing that production itself is a cultural intention (Drummond 1977:83).
The first chapter in Cultural and Practical Reason entitled “Marxism and Two Structuralisms” focuses on a central issue of whether or not these approaches to understanding human existence can accurately and meaningfully describe “The West and the rest,” modern and primitive societies. He uses historical materialism and structuralism to begin his critique and introduce the problem of whether each of the societies are fundamentally distinct. And if they are, do they then require distinct social theories to explain them? Sahlins questions if historical materialism can offer an understanding of non-capitalist societies and if structuralism is capable of describing modern societies (Gudeman 1977:789). He sees modern and primitive anthropology theories tied specifically to Marx’s economics of modern society and Levi-Strauss’s structural analysis of primitive society. Sahlins concludes that the gap between societies does not lie at the feet of the societies, rather, the problem lies at the feet of the theories we use to explain them.
Sahlins furthers the discussion of practical and cultural reason in the second chapter by contrasting the anthropologies of Morgan and Boas. Practical reason conceives the cultural order as the codification of the purposeful and pragmatic actions of man (Sahlins 1976:55). Morgan sits comfortably in this camp and is credited with a utilitarian kind of functionalism (Leach 1977:560). He traces the lineage of practical reason with Morgan as the progenitor.
"Mind appears in Morgan’s theory as the instrument of cultural development rather than its author. Passive rather than active, simply rational rather than symbolic, the intelligence responds reflexively to situations it does not itself produce or organize, so that in the end a practical logic – biologic in the earlier stages, technologic in the later – is what is realized in cultural forms" (Sahlins 1976:58).
Malinowski is brought into the fold to illustrate the apex of this kind of reason because, according to Sahlins, he saw culture only as man’s apparatus to cope with the specific and concrete challenges that face them (Leach 1977:560).
Franz Boas is introduced as the contrarian to practical reason. His version of culture is not a reaction to the natural world but “a conceptual framework interposed between men and nature and proceeds to explore that framework along the lines of cultural reason” (Drummond 1977:81). Sahlins values Levi-Strauss for his attempts to make structuralism more dynamic and for his advocacy of meaning. Levi-Strauss’s meaning is generated from symbol positions within a symbol set and is the cultural approach to understanding human society and activity (Swatrz 1980:553).
This lengthy chapter also addresses the anthropological varieties of practical and cultural reason by contrasting several theorists from each side of the debate. Morgan, Malinowski, Murdock and Steward represent praxis while Boas, Levi-Strauss, and White represent meaning.
Sahlins dedicates an entire chapter to Marx to ultimately reinforce the concepts and opinions of the first two chapters, with slight derivation. “Anthropology and Two Marxisms,” drills deeper into the factions of cultural and practical reason within a Marxist scope. Parallels exist between the history of Marxism and the history of anthropological theory. For Sahlins, one “Marxism” is compatible to the concepts of culture of Baos and structuralism of Levi-Strauss. It is a refusal to reduce the social to the technological by means of economic determinism (Drummon 1977:82). However, the other Marxism steers in another direction. According to Sahlins, this direction is comparable and compatible with Malinowski. It perceives that categories into which the world has been divided is not by conscious social agreement, rather, “by a spontaneous endeavor to conquer the opposition of things” (Leach 1977:560).
Over the course of the book, Sahlins’ structuralist /symbolist/semiotic orientation builds and crescendos with “La Pensee Bourgeoise.” Through the examination of American food and clothing preferences, he identifies production as a system of cultural intentions where broad parameters exist and are shaped by the cultural process. Western societies cannot be understood without addressing the culture as a symbolic process (Drummond 1977:83). He argues that Western societies are only different from traditional societies because of the perception that the West is rational, utilitarian and needs conceived. Thus, Sahlins asserts, the true difference between modern and primitive societies is the symbolism of economy versus the symbolism of kinship as structural determinates.
Culture and Practical Reason attempts, centrally, to confront the relationships between “individual and collective, between praxis and consciousness, between social relations and symbolic structures” (Keesing 1980:130) – the essence of the practical versus cultural reason dialectic. Sahlins broadly phrases this debate with;
"Whether the cultural order is to be conceived as the codification of man’s actual purposeful and pragmatic action; or whether, conversely, human action in the world is to be understood as mediated by the cultural design, which gives order at once to practical experience, customary practice, and the relationship between the two" (Sahlins 1976:55).
Marshall Sahlins wrote Culture and Practical Reason in 1976. The majority of his research up to the writing of this book was dedicated to demonstrating the power of culture as a motivating force among people. He believes culture can shape and motivate actions and perceptions. His orientation to the symbolic nature of culture, and opposition to biological and economic determination has won him plenty of critics in the American anthropology landscape dominated by positivist thinkers advocating practical reason (Drummond 1977:81). Dr. Sahlins area of focus is the entire Pacific, however, most often in Fiji and Hawaii. Field work done in Fiji among the Moalans was used to illustrate structuralism in a primitive society in the first chapter. Sahlins utilized further field work, this time in America, in chapter four to elucidate his theory that production itself is a system of cultural intention.
Works Cited:
Drummond, Lee
1979 Review of Culture and Practical Reason. In Ethnohistory 26(1):81-83.
Gudeman, Stephan
1977 Review of Culture and Practical Reason. In American Ethnologist 4(4):788- 792.
Keesing, Roger M.
1980 Review of Culture and Practical Reason. In American Anthropologist 82(1):130-131.
Leach, Edmund
1977 Review of Culture and Practical Reason. In Man 12(3/4):559-561.
Sahlins, Marshall
1976 Culture and Practical Reason. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Swartz, Marc J.
1977 Review of Culture and Practical Reason. In Science 197(4303):553-554.
The first chapter in Cultural and Practical Reason entitled “Marxism and Two Structuralisms” focuses on a central issue of whether or not these approaches to understanding human existence can accurately and meaningfully describe “The West and the rest,” modern and primitive societies. He uses historical materialism and structuralism to begin his critique and introduce the problem of whether each of the societies are fundamentally distinct. And if they are, do they then require distinct social theories to explain them? Sahlins questions if historical materialism can offer an understanding of non-capitalist societies and if structuralism is capable of describing modern societies (Gudeman 1977:789). He sees modern and primitive anthropology theories tied specifically to Marx’s economics of modern society and Levi-Strauss’s structural analysis of primitive society. Sahlins concludes that the gap between societies does not lie at the feet of the societies, rather, the problem lies at the feet of the theories we use to explain them.
Sahlins furthers the discussion of practical and cultural reason in the second chapter by contrasting the anthropologies of Morgan and Boas. Practical reason conceives the cultural order as the codification of the purposeful and pragmatic actions of man (Sahlins 1976:55). Morgan sits comfortably in this camp and is credited with a utilitarian kind of functionalism (Leach 1977:560). He traces the lineage of practical reason with Morgan as the progenitor.
"Mind appears in Morgan’s theory as the instrument of cultural development rather than its author. Passive rather than active, simply rational rather than symbolic, the intelligence responds reflexively to situations it does not itself produce or organize, so that in the end a practical logic – biologic in the earlier stages, technologic in the later – is what is realized in cultural forms" (Sahlins 1976:58).
Malinowski is brought into the fold to illustrate the apex of this kind of reason because, according to Sahlins, he saw culture only as man’s apparatus to cope with the specific and concrete challenges that face them (Leach 1977:560).
Franz Boas is introduced as the contrarian to practical reason. His version of culture is not a reaction to the natural world but “a conceptual framework interposed between men and nature and proceeds to explore that framework along the lines of cultural reason” (Drummond 1977:81). Sahlins values Levi-Strauss for his attempts to make structuralism more dynamic and for his advocacy of meaning. Levi-Strauss’s meaning is generated from symbol positions within a symbol set and is the cultural approach to understanding human society and activity (Swatrz 1980:553).
This lengthy chapter also addresses the anthropological varieties of practical and cultural reason by contrasting several theorists from each side of the debate. Morgan, Malinowski, Murdock and Steward represent praxis while Boas, Levi-Strauss, and White represent meaning.
Sahlins dedicates an entire chapter to Marx to ultimately reinforce the concepts and opinions of the first two chapters, with slight derivation. “Anthropology and Two Marxisms,” drills deeper into the factions of cultural and practical reason within a Marxist scope. Parallels exist between the history of Marxism and the history of anthropological theory. For Sahlins, one “Marxism” is compatible to the concepts of culture of Baos and structuralism of Levi-Strauss. It is a refusal to reduce the social to the technological by means of economic determinism (Drummon 1977:82). However, the other Marxism steers in another direction. According to Sahlins, this direction is comparable and compatible with Malinowski. It perceives that categories into which the world has been divided is not by conscious social agreement, rather, “by a spontaneous endeavor to conquer the opposition of things” (Leach 1977:560).
Over the course of the book, Sahlins’ structuralist /symbolist/semiotic orientation builds and crescendos with “La Pensee Bourgeoise.” Through the examination of American food and clothing preferences, he identifies production as a system of cultural intentions where broad parameters exist and are shaped by the cultural process. Western societies cannot be understood without addressing the culture as a symbolic process (Drummond 1977:83). He argues that Western societies are only different from traditional societies because of the perception that the West is rational, utilitarian and needs conceived. Thus, Sahlins asserts, the true difference between modern and primitive societies is the symbolism of economy versus the symbolism of kinship as structural determinates.
Culture and Practical Reason attempts, centrally, to confront the relationships between “individual and collective, between praxis and consciousness, between social relations and symbolic structures” (Keesing 1980:130) – the essence of the practical versus cultural reason dialectic. Sahlins broadly phrases this debate with;
"Whether the cultural order is to be conceived as the codification of man’s actual purposeful and pragmatic action; or whether, conversely, human action in the world is to be understood as mediated by the cultural design, which gives order at once to practical experience, customary practice, and the relationship between the two" (Sahlins 1976:55).
Marshall Sahlins wrote Culture and Practical Reason in 1976. The majority of his research up to the writing of this book was dedicated to demonstrating the power of culture as a motivating force among people. He believes culture can shape and motivate actions and perceptions. His orientation to the symbolic nature of culture, and opposition to biological and economic determination has won him plenty of critics in the American anthropology landscape dominated by positivist thinkers advocating practical reason (Drummond 1977:81). Dr. Sahlins area of focus is the entire Pacific, however, most often in Fiji and Hawaii. Field work done in Fiji among the Moalans was used to illustrate structuralism in a primitive society in the first chapter. Sahlins utilized further field work, this time in America, in chapter four to elucidate his theory that production itself is a system of cultural intention.
Works Cited:
Drummond, Lee
1979 Review of Culture and Practical Reason. In Ethnohistory 26(1):81-83.
Gudeman, Stephan
1977 Review of Culture and Practical Reason. In American Ethnologist 4(4):788- 792.
Keesing, Roger M.
1980 Review of Culture and Practical Reason. In American Anthropologist 82(1):130-131.
Leach, Edmund
1977 Review of Culture and Practical Reason. In Man 12(3/4):559-561.
Sahlins, Marshall
1976 Culture and Practical Reason. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Swartz, Marc J.
1977 Review of Culture and Practical Reason. In Science 197(4303):553-554.
Clifford Geertz: American Anthropologist
Clifford Geertz was an American anthropologist known for his contributions to social and cultural theory, his extensive and exhaustive ethnographic research and his rejection of functionalism. His approach and commitment to symbolic anthropology was provocative and brought to the fore the frames of meaning within which people live out their lives (IAS 2006). Geertz researched religion, specifically Islam, bazaar trade, village and family life and traditional political structures. His field research was capacious; in about ten years in the field, he conducted ethnography in various parts of Indonesia and Morocco and produced voluminous notes he referred to as “thick descriptions” (Hammerstedt 1999).
Clifford Geertz was born in San Francisco in 1926. Early in his life his parents divorced and he was raised by a foster-mother. He rarely saw his own parents but once a year and did not form strong bonds with either during his formative years (Inglis 2000:3). Growing up on a farm in Northern California, Geertz was aware that his intellect was the ticket out of his rural surroundings and into the greater world. The first ticket, however, was World War II and at 17, Geertz volunteered for the Navy. He was allowed to work as an electrical technician’s mate repairing radar gear on the USS St Paul (Inglis 2000:4). He narrowly averted a potentially bloody invasion of Japan, the first atomic bomb being dropped just before the scheduled invasion. Geertz emerged from the Navy in 1946 first to San Francisco and then to Antioch College in Ohio via the GI Bill. He received his BA in Philosophy and eventually moved on the Harvard where he received his Ph.D. in Anthropology (Geertz 1999). Geertz always envisioned himself as a writer and had planned to work in journalism while moonlighting as a novelist. He found neither feasible nor satisfying and stumbled into Anthropology only after encouragement from a number of former teachers. The way Geertz found Anthropology would be played out many times over the course of his career. When choosing field work, areas for research and even universities to work for, he was either in the right place, knew the right people or had the curiosity to put himself into the right position at the right time (Geertz 1999).
In 1952, Geertz was invited (in the right place) to work with a group of fellow Harvard graduate students in Modjukoto, a small town in Java Indonesia (Inglis 2000:55). Over the course of over two years in the field, Geertz gathered data, in his case thick interpretive descriptions, that ultimately led to the composition of his dissertation - a comprehensive analysis of Javanese religion in its social context. The Religion of Java, the result of this dissertation was published in 1960. After returning from his first stint in Indonesia, he taught or held various positions in academia and in 1960 took a position at the University of Chicago where he spent 10 years, ultimately as a professor. In 1970, he became professor of social science at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton until 2000, then as emeritus professor until his death in 2006 (IAS 2006).
Geertz’ background was multi-disciplined; bits of philosophy, psychology and literature influenced both his approach and his final products. He was highly influenced by Max Weber and his flavor of anthropology was wholly interpretivist. Early in his early career, his fieldwork was spent in Indonesia and Bali. His interpretive works aimed to analyze the meaning of ritual, belief systems and art through the lens of symbology. He saw culture as a system of meanings embodied in symbols. And it was this system that provided the framework by which individuals assigned meaning and made sense of the world unique to their context. Although his early works were more traditional ethnographies that concerned the economics and political development after decolonization, he did distance himself from a functionalist approach that attempted to define culture by the functions they served (Yarrow 2006). Where functionalists saw cultural phenomenon as the bricks of structure, Geertz saw culture as the mortar, bricks and the designer of its own structure. Geertz also rejected the notion that social science could develop inclusive, sweeping theories about culture. He saw culture as the symbol sets out of which meaning was created. Societies faced different circumstances, in different times with different pressures and each culture needed to be treated independently (Yarrow 2006).
During his decade at Chicago, he further advocated symbolic anthropology. This approach saw culture as an established set of signs and symbols that shaped the experiences and life patterns of those within the culture. The anthropologist’s tool kit pulled from psychology, history and literature to analyze how people give meaning to their reality (McGee 2004). Geertz defined culture as:
"A historically transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of which men communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and their attitudes toward life" (Geertz 1973:89).
Geertz’ approach to symbolic anthropology was interpretivist and his field notes came in the form of thick description. Because culture was based on symbols that guide activity, they obtained meaning according to the role they played in the pattern of social behavior (Geertz 1973:9). Culture and behavior were linked and could not be analyzed separately. Accordng to Geertz, thick description was requisite.
"The study of other peoples' cultures (and of one's own as well, but that brings up other issues) involves discovering who they think they are, what they think they are doing, and to what end they think they are doing it, something a good deal less straightforward than the ordinary canons of Notes and Queries ethnography" (Geertz 1999).
After much of Geertz’ fieldwork had concluded, he took a critical eye to the methodology of ethnography and the role of the anthropologist. Using history as a guide, he questioned how the discipline, born out of the post colonial West, could actually conduct objective research of foreign cultures. Furthermore, how could anthropologists, each armed with unique worldviews, accurately represent the meaning sets of other peoples (Yarrow 2006)? He concluded that the anthropologist had to be an interpreter of symbol sets by observing them in use. Cultural analysis was a process of assessing the meanings of cultural symbols, refining those assessments by including actors of the culture under analysis and then drawing larger conclusions from the agreed assessments. Fieldwork started as a conversation with the culture under analysis and the ethnographic data as an interpretation of that conversation (Yarrow 2006).
Clifford Geertz was an interpretive symbolic anthropologist influenced by Max Weber, literature, history, his experience in World War II and his involvement in the field of anthropology after the war. The war set his career in motion by way of the GI Bill. “The great boom in American higher education was just getting underway, and I have ridden the wave all the way through, crest after crest, until today, when it seems at last, like me, to be finally subsiding” (Geertz 1999). His generation of students, anthropologists and social scientists believed in their ability to influence academia and to change the world for the better; and Geertz was right in step. His dedication to fieldwork and exhaustive descriptions framed by symbolism influence anthropology as well as other social sciences (Yarrow 2006). For this Geertz is remembered, as well as for his persuasive and provocative writing regarding the nature of culture and ethnography. Although towards the end of his career he was discouraged with the relevance of social science, he advocated his field and academia to the end stating that an academic career in anthropology is “an excellent way, interesting, dismaying, useful and amusing, to expend a life” (Yarrow 2006).
Works cited:
Geertz, Clifford
1973 The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Geertz, Clifford
1999 A Life of Learning. Electronic document, http://www.acls.org/op45geer.htm, accessed November 3, 2007.
Hammerstedt, Scott
1999 SYMBOLIC AND INTERPRETIVE ANTHROPOLOGIES, Electronic document, http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/Faculty/murphy/436/symbolic.htm, accessed November 2, 2007.
Inglis, Fred
2000 Clifford Geertz: Culture Custom and Ethics. Cambridge UK: Policy Press.
Institute for Advanced Study
2006 Clifford Geertz (1926-2006), Electronic document, http://www.ias.edu/newsroom/announcements/view/geertz-1926-2006.html, accessed November 2, 2007.
McGee, R. Jon and Richard L. Warms
2004 Anthropological Theory: An Introductory History. New York: McGraw Hill.
Yarrow, Andrew
2006 Clifford Geertz, Cultural Anthropologist, Is Dead at 80, Electronic document, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/01/obituaries/01geertz.html?_r=2&oref=slogin &oref=login, accessed November 4, 2007.
Clifford Geertz was born in San Francisco in 1926. Early in his life his parents divorced and he was raised by a foster-mother. He rarely saw his own parents but once a year and did not form strong bonds with either during his formative years (Inglis 2000:3). Growing up on a farm in Northern California, Geertz was aware that his intellect was the ticket out of his rural surroundings and into the greater world. The first ticket, however, was World War II and at 17, Geertz volunteered for the Navy. He was allowed to work as an electrical technician’s mate repairing radar gear on the USS St Paul (Inglis 2000:4). He narrowly averted a potentially bloody invasion of Japan, the first atomic bomb being dropped just before the scheduled invasion. Geertz emerged from the Navy in 1946 first to San Francisco and then to Antioch College in Ohio via the GI Bill. He received his BA in Philosophy and eventually moved on the Harvard where he received his Ph.D. in Anthropology (Geertz 1999). Geertz always envisioned himself as a writer and had planned to work in journalism while moonlighting as a novelist. He found neither feasible nor satisfying and stumbled into Anthropology only after encouragement from a number of former teachers. The way Geertz found Anthropology would be played out many times over the course of his career. When choosing field work, areas for research and even universities to work for, he was either in the right place, knew the right people or had the curiosity to put himself into the right position at the right time (Geertz 1999).
In 1952, Geertz was invited (in the right place) to work with a group of fellow Harvard graduate students in Modjukoto, a small town in Java Indonesia (Inglis 2000:55). Over the course of over two years in the field, Geertz gathered data, in his case thick interpretive descriptions, that ultimately led to the composition of his dissertation - a comprehensive analysis of Javanese religion in its social context. The Religion of Java, the result of this dissertation was published in 1960. After returning from his first stint in Indonesia, he taught or held various positions in academia and in 1960 took a position at the University of Chicago where he spent 10 years, ultimately as a professor. In 1970, he became professor of social science at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton until 2000, then as emeritus professor until his death in 2006 (IAS 2006).
Geertz’ background was multi-disciplined; bits of philosophy, psychology and literature influenced both his approach and his final products. He was highly influenced by Max Weber and his flavor of anthropology was wholly interpretivist. Early in his early career, his fieldwork was spent in Indonesia and Bali. His interpretive works aimed to analyze the meaning of ritual, belief systems and art through the lens of symbology. He saw culture as a system of meanings embodied in symbols. And it was this system that provided the framework by which individuals assigned meaning and made sense of the world unique to their context. Although his early works were more traditional ethnographies that concerned the economics and political development after decolonization, he did distance himself from a functionalist approach that attempted to define culture by the functions they served (Yarrow 2006). Where functionalists saw cultural phenomenon as the bricks of structure, Geertz saw culture as the mortar, bricks and the designer of its own structure. Geertz also rejected the notion that social science could develop inclusive, sweeping theories about culture. He saw culture as the symbol sets out of which meaning was created. Societies faced different circumstances, in different times with different pressures and each culture needed to be treated independently (Yarrow 2006).
During his decade at Chicago, he further advocated symbolic anthropology. This approach saw culture as an established set of signs and symbols that shaped the experiences and life patterns of those within the culture. The anthropologist’s tool kit pulled from psychology, history and literature to analyze how people give meaning to their reality (McGee 2004). Geertz defined culture as:
"A historically transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of which men communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and their attitudes toward life" (Geertz 1973:89).
Geertz’ approach to symbolic anthropology was interpretivist and his field notes came in the form of thick description. Because culture was based on symbols that guide activity, they obtained meaning according to the role they played in the pattern of social behavior (Geertz 1973:9). Culture and behavior were linked and could not be analyzed separately. Accordng to Geertz, thick description was requisite.
"The study of other peoples' cultures (and of one's own as well, but that brings up other issues) involves discovering who they think they are, what they think they are doing, and to what end they think they are doing it, something a good deal less straightforward than the ordinary canons of Notes and Queries ethnography" (Geertz 1999).
After much of Geertz’ fieldwork had concluded, he took a critical eye to the methodology of ethnography and the role of the anthropologist. Using history as a guide, he questioned how the discipline, born out of the post colonial West, could actually conduct objective research of foreign cultures. Furthermore, how could anthropologists, each armed with unique worldviews, accurately represent the meaning sets of other peoples (Yarrow 2006)? He concluded that the anthropologist had to be an interpreter of symbol sets by observing them in use. Cultural analysis was a process of assessing the meanings of cultural symbols, refining those assessments by including actors of the culture under analysis and then drawing larger conclusions from the agreed assessments. Fieldwork started as a conversation with the culture under analysis and the ethnographic data as an interpretation of that conversation (Yarrow 2006).
Clifford Geertz was an interpretive symbolic anthropologist influenced by Max Weber, literature, history, his experience in World War II and his involvement in the field of anthropology after the war. The war set his career in motion by way of the GI Bill. “The great boom in American higher education was just getting underway, and I have ridden the wave all the way through, crest after crest, until today, when it seems at last, like me, to be finally subsiding” (Geertz 1999). His generation of students, anthropologists and social scientists believed in their ability to influence academia and to change the world for the better; and Geertz was right in step. His dedication to fieldwork and exhaustive descriptions framed by symbolism influence anthropology as well as other social sciences (Yarrow 2006). For this Geertz is remembered, as well as for his persuasive and provocative writing regarding the nature of culture and ethnography. Although towards the end of his career he was discouraged with the relevance of social science, he advocated his field and academia to the end stating that an academic career in anthropology is “an excellent way, interesting, dismaying, useful and amusing, to expend a life” (Yarrow 2006).
Works cited:
Geertz, Clifford
1973 The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Geertz, Clifford
1999 A Life of Learning. Electronic document, http://www.acls.org/op45geer.htm, accessed November 3, 2007.
Hammerstedt, Scott
1999 SYMBOLIC AND INTERPRETIVE ANTHROPOLOGIES, Electronic document, http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/Faculty/murphy/436/symbolic.htm, accessed November 2, 2007.
Inglis, Fred
2000 Clifford Geertz: Culture Custom and Ethics. Cambridge UK: Policy Press.
Institute for Advanced Study
2006 Clifford Geertz (1926-2006), Electronic document, http://www.ias.edu/newsroom/announcements/view/geertz-1926-2006.html, accessed November 2, 2007.
McGee, R. Jon and Richard L. Warms
2004 Anthropological Theory: An Introductory History. New York: McGraw Hill.
Yarrow, Andrew
2006 Clifford Geertz, Cultural Anthropologist, Is Dead at 80, Electronic document, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/01/obituaries/01geertz.html?_r=2&oref=slogin &oref=login, accessed November 4, 2007.
Friday, November 2, 2007
Andre Gunder Frank
Andre Gunder Frank was an influential and prolific social thinker, economist, historian, sociologist, activist and political economist. The majority of his research provided detailed analysis of the relationship between economy and society from the post-colonial era up to the turn of the century. Frank’s contributions to the development of Dependency Theory, The World Systems Theory, and the analysis of Underdevelopment are profound. He is known for his prodigious output, his rejection of mainstream economics and for giving meaning to the study of political economy. He is one of the great intellectuals of the 20th century and has been admired throughout his career for his dedication to the condition of the working class (Chossudovsky 2005).
Andre Gunder Frank was born in Germany in 1929. His family fled the country when Hitler was elected Chancellor, first to Switzerland and eventually to the United States where he received his undergraduate schooling at Swarthmore. After a circuitous tour of the United States doing odd jobs, he enrolled at the University Chicago where he earned a Ph.D. in Economics in 1957. His dissertation focused on Soviet agriculture. He considered “general productivity” by looking at output of agriculture over time compared to agricultural changes in measurable and immeasurable changes in input (Rojas 2005). This dissertation foreshadowed some of the concepts Frank would focus on throughout his productive career as an intellectual, educator and social activist. After completing his degrees he held lecturer and assistant professorships at Michigan, Iowa and Wayne State. He left the US for a long stint (by his standards) in Latin America in 1962, first working as an Associate Professor in anthropology at the University of Brasilia, then as an Extraordinary Professor in Economics at the University of Mexico. In 1968 he became a professor of Economics at the University of Chile in Santiago where he worked on reforms for the Salvador Allende administration until he was exiled from Chile when General Pinochet successfully toppled the socialist government and instituted a military dictatorship on September 11, 1973. From 1973 until his mandatory retirement from professorship at the University of Amsterdam in 1994, he held various positions at universities in Germany, the US, the Netherlands, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Belgium, and France. From 1994 until his death in 2005, he held other positions at five different universities in the US (Rojas 2005).
In all, Andre Gunder Frank has taught or done research in departments of anthropology, economics, geography, history, international relations, political science, and sociology, among others, in nine universities in North America, three in Latin America, and five in countries in Europe. He has also given many lectures and seminars at dozens of universities and other institutions around the world in English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, German and Dutch (Rojas 2005).
Frank has written extensively on economics, social and political history, contemporary development of the world system, industrially developed countries and the Third World and Latin America. His level of production is best illustrated by the following stats: he has produced over 1000 publications, including 43 books, 169 chapters in 145 books and 400 articles in over 600 issues of academic journals and newspapers (Rojas 2005). Frank’s output was for the most part, unparalleled.
Andre Gunder Frank’s influences as an economist and social activist can be traced to his studies at Chicago where he ultimately honed his approach to economics. His training in neoclassical economics under Milton Friedman resulted in the rejection of the neoliberal and late 19th Century mathematical approach to economy and society. Frank pursued a self-directed path to his degree that focused on the role political elements play in the development of economic theory, contrary to the Chicago school of neoclassical economics (Sommers 2005). Frank rejected the mainstream "stages of economic growth" and argued that poor countries were not on a path of sequential growth stages but were actually circling the drain of dependence. His analysis of serial poverty in his groundbreaking essay, “The Development of Underdevelopment,” was the first step of contributions to come in the area of dependency theory and underdevelopment (Guang 2002).
Frank has been credited as the architect of Dependency Theory. The theory, developed in the 1950s and popularized in the 1960s, seeks to explain the relationship between developed and developing countries as a dynamic interplay where exchange of goods, services and resources between countries ultimately benefits developed countries at the detriment of developing countries. Raul Prebisch, one of the fathers of the theory, put it simply:
"Poor countries exported primary commodities to the rich countries who then manufactured products out of those commodities and sold them back to the poorer countries. The "Value Added" by manufacturing a usable product always cost more than the primary products used to create those products. Therefore, poorer countries would never be earning enough from their export earnings to pay for their imports." (Ferraro 1996).
The difference between undeveloped and underdeveloped states, to which Frank has analyzed extensively, is critical to understanding the historical context and severity of the cycle of dependence. Frank defined undeveloped states as those in which resources are not being used. Underdeveloped states actively harvest their resources, however, are in a situation where the dominant state benefits from the their resources. In effect, the dependent states are dependent because they were integrated into the economic system only as “producers of raw materials or to serve as repositories of cheap labor, and were denied the opportunity to market their resources in any way that competed with dominant states.” (Ferraro 1996).
However, there are different schools of dependency theory that approach or see the concept from a different angle. Prebisch, a liberal reformer, Frank a Marxist, and Wallerstein a World Systemists, would agree to disagree on a centralized definition. There are three common features to which most theorists agree. First, the developed or dominant states (center) is advanced and industrialized, and the dependent states (periphery) are those with low per capita GNPs and rely heavily on a single export. Second, external forces are the drivers of economic activity within the dependent states, and include corporations, markets or foreign assistance from the dominant state. Finally, these relations are dynamic and over time are reinforced and intensified. In essence, a cycle is created where the dominant state continues to prosper while the dependent state become just that, dependent (Ferraro 1996).
Frank has been called a Marxist, however, it is important to look at where Frank and Dependency Theory deviated from Marx’s theory of imperialism. First, The theory of imperialism describes the expansion of a state while dependency identifies underdevelopment. More concisely, “ Marxist theories explain the reasons why imperialism occurs, while dependency theories explain the consequences of imperialism.” (Ferraro 1996). Finally, the theory of imperialism is self-liquidating while dependency relationships are self-perpetuating (Ferraro 1996).
Dependency Theory attempts to explain the underdevelopment of states by examining the relationships between different states where the inequalities of benefit are intrinsic to those relationships (Ferraro 1996). According to Frank, dependency is a result of the development of underdevelopment and is a zero sum game. Ultimately both states lose, only the dominant state loses less than the dependent state (Frank 1975:13-14).
Early in his career, Frank focused heavily on explaining underdevelopment and dependency economic systems and worked to dispel the beliefs of free market economists who argued that underdeveloped states were progressing and were on a path of full integration. Later in his career Frank worked and contributed to the formulation of the theory of the world system. He advocated for a reinterpretation of world history and believed the implications of our current economic perspective were devastating. He argued that mainstream economics was the result of five thousand years of history and not 500. He theorized that modern economics originated in Asia around the Silk Road and only later appeared in Europe after the rise of Western sea-power and the industrial revolution (dos Santos 2005). The end of his career was dedicated to understanding globalization and was framed by a 10-year battle with cancer. Up to his final breath, Frank reviewed and rejected parts of his old theories and worked to create new ones (dos Santos 2005).
Frank left an indelible mark on development economics, history and political economy. His theories were powerful and required adoption or a forceful rejoinder (Sommers 2005). Frank was a social activist, a polemic and a gentleman. During my research, I found much information about why he was admired and why his theories were criticized, however, I was unable to find critics of his personality, his effort and his dedication to the human conditions. For this reason, it seems appropriate to conclude with these two sentiments, written shortly after his death.
"What I loved above all about Frank was his unlimited sincerity and devotion. Frank was motivated only by a single desire: the desire to be of service to the working classes and subordinated peoples, to the victims of exploitation and oppression. Spontaneously, unconditionally, he was always on their side. A quality which is not necessarily always found even among the best intellectuals. "(Amin 2005).
"His death on April 23 leaves a hard-to-fill gap in contemporary social thought. But André was much more than a major social thinker. He was an intellectual who lived his ideas, a fighter for the truth and for the transformation of the world. Even though he was often wrong (like any human being), he was fertile and inspiring even in his errors. This is a quality that only geniuses possess. "(dos Santos 2005).
Works Cited:
Chossudovsky, Michael
2005 Lifelong Battle against Neoliberalism: André Gunder Frank, 1929-2005. Electronic Document,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=
20050718&articleId=703, accessed October 29th, 2007
Dos Santos, Theotonio
2005 Andre Gunder Frank (1929-2005). Electronic document,
http://www.monthlyreview.org/0505dossantos.htm, accessed October 22nd, 2007
Frank, Andre Gunder
1975 “On Capitalist Underdevelopment.” Bombay: Oxford University Press.
Frank, Andre Gunder
1984 “Critique and Anti-Critique.” New York: Praeger Publishers.
Ferraro, Vincent
1996 Dependency Theory: An Introduction. Electronic document,
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/depend.htm, accessed October 22nd, 2007
Guang, Lei
2002 Re-Orient: Andre Gunder Frank and a Globalist Perspective on the World Economy. Electronic Document,
http://www.oycf.org/Perspectives/16_033102/re_orient.htm, accessed October 29th, 2007
Rojas, Robinson, and Andre Gunder Frank
2005 Andre Gunder Frank Official Website, Electronic documents,
http://www.rrojasdatabank.org/agfrank/, accessed October 22nd, 2007
Amin, Samir
2005 A Note on the Death of André Gunder Frank (1929-2005), Electronic Document,
http://www.monthlyreview.org/0405amin.htm, Accessed October 22nd, 2007
Sanchez, Omar
2003 The Rise and Fall of the Dependency Movement: Does It Inform Underdevelopment Today? Electronic Document,
http://www.tau.ac.il/eial/XIV_2/scarzane.html, accessed October 22nd, 2007
Sommers, Jeffrey
2005 The Contradictions of a Contrarian: Andre Gunder Frank. Electronic document,
http://worldhistoryconnected.press.uiuc.edu/2.2/sommers.html, accessed October 22nd, 2007
Andre Gunder Frank was born in Germany in 1929. His family fled the country when Hitler was elected Chancellor, first to Switzerland and eventually to the United States where he received his undergraduate schooling at Swarthmore. After a circuitous tour of the United States doing odd jobs, he enrolled at the University Chicago where he earned a Ph.D. in Economics in 1957. His dissertation focused on Soviet agriculture. He considered “general productivity” by looking at output of agriculture over time compared to agricultural changes in measurable and immeasurable changes in input (Rojas 2005). This dissertation foreshadowed some of the concepts Frank would focus on throughout his productive career as an intellectual, educator and social activist. After completing his degrees he held lecturer and assistant professorships at Michigan, Iowa and Wayne State. He left the US for a long stint (by his standards) in Latin America in 1962, first working as an Associate Professor in anthropology at the University of Brasilia, then as an Extraordinary Professor in Economics at the University of Mexico. In 1968 he became a professor of Economics at the University of Chile in Santiago where he worked on reforms for the Salvador Allende administration until he was exiled from Chile when General Pinochet successfully toppled the socialist government and instituted a military dictatorship on September 11, 1973. From 1973 until his mandatory retirement from professorship at the University of Amsterdam in 1994, he held various positions at universities in Germany, the US, the Netherlands, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Belgium, and France. From 1994 until his death in 2005, he held other positions at five different universities in the US (Rojas 2005).
In all, Andre Gunder Frank has taught or done research in departments of anthropology, economics, geography, history, international relations, political science, and sociology, among others, in nine universities in North America, three in Latin America, and five in countries in Europe. He has also given many lectures and seminars at dozens of universities and other institutions around the world in English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, German and Dutch (Rojas 2005).
Frank has written extensively on economics, social and political history, contemporary development of the world system, industrially developed countries and the Third World and Latin America. His level of production is best illustrated by the following stats: he has produced over 1000 publications, including 43 books, 169 chapters in 145 books and 400 articles in over 600 issues of academic journals and newspapers (Rojas 2005). Frank’s output was for the most part, unparalleled.
Andre Gunder Frank’s influences as an economist and social activist can be traced to his studies at Chicago where he ultimately honed his approach to economics. His training in neoclassical economics under Milton Friedman resulted in the rejection of the neoliberal and late 19th Century mathematical approach to economy and society. Frank pursued a self-directed path to his degree that focused on the role political elements play in the development of economic theory, contrary to the Chicago school of neoclassical economics (Sommers 2005). Frank rejected the mainstream "stages of economic growth" and argued that poor countries were not on a path of sequential growth stages but were actually circling the drain of dependence. His analysis of serial poverty in his groundbreaking essay, “The Development of Underdevelopment,” was the first step of contributions to come in the area of dependency theory and underdevelopment (Guang 2002).
Frank has been credited as the architect of Dependency Theory. The theory, developed in the 1950s and popularized in the 1960s, seeks to explain the relationship between developed and developing countries as a dynamic interplay where exchange of goods, services and resources between countries ultimately benefits developed countries at the detriment of developing countries. Raul Prebisch, one of the fathers of the theory, put it simply:
"Poor countries exported primary commodities to the rich countries who then manufactured products out of those commodities and sold them back to the poorer countries. The "Value Added" by manufacturing a usable product always cost more than the primary products used to create those products. Therefore, poorer countries would never be earning enough from their export earnings to pay for their imports." (Ferraro 1996).
The difference between undeveloped and underdeveloped states, to which Frank has analyzed extensively, is critical to understanding the historical context and severity of the cycle of dependence. Frank defined undeveloped states as those in which resources are not being used. Underdeveloped states actively harvest their resources, however, are in a situation where the dominant state benefits from the their resources. In effect, the dependent states are dependent because they were integrated into the economic system only as “producers of raw materials or to serve as repositories of cheap labor, and were denied the opportunity to market their resources in any way that competed with dominant states.” (Ferraro 1996).
However, there are different schools of dependency theory that approach or see the concept from a different angle. Prebisch, a liberal reformer, Frank a Marxist, and Wallerstein a World Systemists, would agree to disagree on a centralized definition. There are three common features to which most theorists agree. First, the developed or dominant states (center) is advanced and industrialized, and the dependent states (periphery) are those with low per capita GNPs and rely heavily on a single export. Second, external forces are the drivers of economic activity within the dependent states, and include corporations, markets or foreign assistance from the dominant state. Finally, these relations are dynamic and over time are reinforced and intensified. In essence, a cycle is created where the dominant state continues to prosper while the dependent state become just that, dependent (Ferraro 1996).
Frank has been called a Marxist, however, it is important to look at where Frank and Dependency Theory deviated from Marx’s theory of imperialism. First, The theory of imperialism describes the expansion of a state while dependency identifies underdevelopment. More concisely, “ Marxist theories explain the reasons why imperialism occurs, while dependency theories explain the consequences of imperialism.” (Ferraro 1996). Finally, the theory of imperialism is self-liquidating while dependency relationships are self-perpetuating (Ferraro 1996).
Dependency Theory attempts to explain the underdevelopment of states by examining the relationships between different states where the inequalities of benefit are intrinsic to those relationships (Ferraro 1996). According to Frank, dependency is a result of the development of underdevelopment and is a zero sum game. Ultimately both states lose, only the dominant state loses less than the dependent state (Frank 1975:13-14).
Early in his career, Frank focused heavily on explaining underdevelopment and dependency economic systems and worked to dispel the beliefs of free market economists who argued that underdeveloped states were progressing and were on a path of full integration. Later in his career Frank worked and contributed to the formulation of the theory of the world system. He advocated for a reinterpretation of world history and believed the implications of our current economic perspective were devastating. He argued that mainstream economics was the result of five thousand years of history and not 500. He theorized that modern economics originated in Asia around the Silk Road and only later appeared in Europe after the rise of Western sea-power and the industrial revolution (dos Santos 2005). The end of his career was dedicated to understanding globalization and was framed by a 10-year battle with cancer. Up to his final breath, Frank reviewed and rejected parts of his old theories and worked to create new ones (dos Santos 2005).
Frank left an indelible mark on development economics, history and political economy. His theories were powerful and required adoption or a forceful rejoinder (Sommers 2005). Frank was a social activist, a polemic and a gentleman. During my research, I found much information about why he was admired and why his theories were criticized, however, I was unable to find critics of his personality, his effort and his dedication to the human conditions. For this reason, it seems appropriate to conclude with these two sentiments, written shortly after his death.
"What I loved above all about Frank was his unlimited sincerity and devotion. Frank was motivated only by a single desire: the desire to be of service to the working classes and subordinated peoples, to the victims of exploitation and oppression. Spontaneously, unconditionally, he was always on their side. A quality which is not necessarily always found even among the best intellectuals. "(Amin 2005).
"His death on April 23 leaves a hard-to-fill gap in contemporary social thought. But André was much more than a major social thinker. He was an intellectual who lived his ideas, a fighter for the truth and for the transformation of the world. Even though he was often wrong (like any human being), he was fertile and inspiring even in his errors. This is a quality that only geniuses possess. "(dos Santos 2005).
Works Cited:
Chossudovsky, Michael
2005 Lifelong Battle against Neoliberalism: André Gunder Frank, 1929-2005. Electronic Document,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=
20050718&articleId=703, accessed October 29th, 2007
Dos Santos, Theotonio
2005 Andre Gunder Frank (1929-2005). Electronic document,
http://www.monthlyreview.org/0505dossantos.htm, accessed October 22nd, 2007
Frank, Andre Gunder
1975 “On Capitalist Underdevelopment.” Bombay: Oxford University Press.
Frank, Andre Gunder
1984 “Critique and Anti-Critique.” New York: Praeger Publishers.
Ferraro, Vincent
1996 Dependency Theory: An Introduction. Electronic document,
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/depend.htm, accessed October 22nd, 2007
Guang, Lei
2002 Re-Orient: Andre Gunder Frank and a Globalist Perspective on the World Economy. Electronic Document,
http://www.oycf.org/Perspectives/16_033102/re_orient.htm, accessed October 29th, 2007
Rojas, Robinson, and Andre Gunder Frank
2005 Andre Gunder Frank Official Website, Electronic documents,
http://www.rrojasdatabank.org/agfrank/, accessed October 22nd, 2007
Amin, Samir
2005 A Note on the Death of André Gunder Frank (1929-2005), Electronic Document,
http://www.monthlyreview.org/0405amin.htm, Accessed October 22nd, 2007
Sanchez, Omar
2003 The Rise and Fall of the Dependency Movement: Does It Inform Underdevelopment Today? Electronic Document,
http://www.tau.ac.il/eial/XIV_2/scarzane.html, accessed October 22nd, 2007
Sommers, Jeffrey
2005 The Contradictions of a Contrarian: Andre Gunder Frank. Electronic document,
http://worldhistoryconnected.press.uiuc.edu/2.2/sommers.html, accessed October 22nd, 2007
Friday, October 19, 2007
Paper #1 - The Nuer by EE Evans-Pritchard
Work
Evans-Pritchard, Edward Evan
1940 The Nuer: A Description of the Modes of Livelihood and Political Institutions of a Nilotic People. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Edward Evan Evans-Pritchard was a highly influential British Anthropologist whose contributions directly impacted the development of social anthropology in England. Evans-Pritchard’s early works focused primary on tribes of the Sudan. His seminal works about the Nuer Tribe of southern Sudan are the result of exhaustive field research that culminated in his trilogy: The Nuer, Nuer Religion, and Kinship and Marriage Among the Nuer.
The Nuer, the first of this trilogy, is a self-confessed topical account that focused principally on the social structure of the greater Nuer tribe. This was achieved by outlining the interaction of the people and the physical environment, the political system, the lineage system and the age set system. The latter two works of this trilogy dive more deeply into religion and ceremony, and the lineage system.
The Nuer are a group of tribes that inhabit the swamps and open savannah that stretch across the Nile at the southern confluence of the Sobat and Bahr el Ghazal tributaries. They are one of the largest ethnic groups in East Africa. They are predominantly pastoralists who engage in limited horticulture. Cattle are the cultural core of the Nuer and are the center of economic, religious and symbolic systems. At the time of writing, it was noted that they had found perfect balance within their ecosystem even though the extremes of the rainy and dry seasons weighed heavily on everyday life. The Nuer are noted for their ferocity and are one of the few tribes in East Africa to resist British Colonization. The political structure is heterarchical; there is no single leader or leadership body, there is no governance and no established law.
Evans-Pritchard’s ethnographic data was represented in a structural functionalist framework. He was careful to incorporate the tenants of this approach; he viewed the Nuer society from a holistic perspective, he addressed the relationships between lineage, political and age-set systems and incorporated how these various institutions contribute to the stability and perpetuation of the entire structure. Among the Nuer, each institution is inextricably linked. For example, the political system is dependent on residential relationships that are dependent on social relationships. According to Evens-Pritchard,
"The political system of the Nuer can only be understood in relation to the whole structure of which other people form part and, likewise, the character of all Nuer communities must be defined by their relations with other communities of the same order within the whole political system (p.190)."
The intersection of Nuer institutions is also evident in the ritual of “blood feud.” The Nuer, a feisty lot according to the researcher, frequently engage in feuds over the mistreatment of cattle, adultery, water rights, pasturage rights among others. If a given feud results in homicide, the family of the slain is to receive as reparation, a certain number or cattle from the slayer. This sanction and the chance of settlement are dependent on the structural interrelations of slain and slayer – blood feud within a village (the smallest Nuer group) is recompensed immediately, and conversely blood feud within the tribe (the largest Nuer group) is rarely recompensed. In effect, feuds are settled swiftly when the structural distance between participants is narrow, but they are often left unsettled as that distance expands.
Evans-Pritchard’s The Nuer is an effective descriptive work. True to form, he did not offer an explicit hypothesis at the outset of the work. While he did outline the structure of the account and related, briefly, the chief themes of his observations, these were simple sketches of what followed. His theories, based principally on observations and interactions, were infused throughout the text and were most often conveyed through examples. This approach made his theories and conclusions digestible - a description, a theory and an immediate concrete example were provided in small bites.
Evans-Pritchard’s descriptive approach was disciplined; he did not attempt to define the general characteristics of Nilotic culture and social structure by comparing the Nuer with the Dinka, Shilluk and other Nilotic cultures that have been studied by contemporaries or predecessors. Rather, the book was specific to the intricacies of the Nuer and intentionally bypassed Nilotic cultural themes and hackneyed assumptions about acephalous tribes of the region.
The Nuer is the result of pioneering fieldwork and is heralded as one of the most elegant and classical analyses of social structure. The work is almost entirely based on direct observation and is therefore, in the author’s eyes, both more challenging and more accurate. According to Evans-Pritchard working with an intractable and intentionally guileful group, and without informants or a translator, forced him to improve his techniques in ethnography. His previous work with the Azande tribe shaped his view of the role of ethnographer. With the Azande, he was an outsider forced to live on the margins of the community. He was also regarded with esteem and treated as a superior. Working with the Nuer improved his perspective. The Nuer required Evan-Pritchard to live among them, to participate in community affairs and to live as an equal. This subtle shift had a profound impact in the quality of his research.
Due to the historical context of this work, Evans-Pritchard’s intentions have been called into question. It has been argued that Evans-Pritchard was recruited by the British colonial authorities to provide vital information about a theretofore unconquered tribe. Indeed his employer was the government of Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, and indirectly the British government. He was charged with documenting Nuer institutions and handing that information over to controlling powers that established policy and evoked war. It is impossible to know Evans-Pritchard’s true intentions and whether he was acting in the interests of the Nuer or the government that sought to suppress them.
The Nuer is one of the most famous ethnographies of the 20th century. Evans-Pritchard was able to glean intricately detailed information in the field. Despite this and his breakthrough in the quality of his ethnography, he was not totally satisfied with the result. Evans-Pritchard argued that an ethnographer had two formidable hurdles to clear. The first hurtle is entering the mental space of an unfamiliar world with an unfamiliar culture. Second, the researcher is then charged with describing that culture to others in a framework that is relevant to an external worldview. Evans-Pritchard’s pursuit of solutions to these challenges created a holistic and integrated view of the Nuer social system. This ethnography, among others by Malinowski, Cushing and Mead, established participant observation as the primary research method in anthropology.
Evans-Pritchard, Edward Evan
1940 The Nuer: A Description of the Modes of Livelihood and Political Institutions of a Nilotic People. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Edward Evan Evans-Pritchard was a highly influential British Anthropologist whose contributions directly impacted the development of social anthropology in England. Evans-Pritchard’s early works focused primary on tribes of the Sudan. His seminal works about the Nuer Tribe of southern Sudan are the result of exhaustive field research that culminated in his trilogy: The Nuer, Nuer Religion, and Kinship and Marriage Among the Nuer.
The Nuer, the first of this trilogy, is a self-confessed topical account that focused principally on the social structure of the greater Nuer tribe. This was achieved by outlining the interaction of the people and the physical environment, the political system, the lineage system and the age set system. The latter two works of this trilogy dive more deeply into religion and ceremony, and the lineage system.
The Nuer are a group of tribes that inhabit the swamps and open savannah that stretch across the Nile at the southern confluence of the Sobat and Bahr el Ghazal tributaries. They are one of the largest ethnic groups in East Africa. They are predominantly pastoralists who engage in limited horticulture. Cattle are the cultural core of the Nuer and are the center of economic, religious and symbolic systems. At the time of writing, it was noted that they had found perfect balance within their ecosystem even though the extremes of the rainy and dry seasons weighed heavily on everyday life. The Nuer are noted for their ferocity and are one of the few tribes in East Africa to resist British Colonization. The political structure is heterarchical; there is no single leader or leadership body, there is no governance and no established law.
Evans-Pritchard’s ethnographic data was represented in a structural functionalist framework. He was careful to incorporate the tenants of this approach; he viewed the Nuer society from a holistic perspective, he addressed the relationships between lineage, political and age-set systems and incorporated how these various institutions contribute to the stability and perpetuation of the entire structure. Among the Nuer, each institution is inextricably linked. For example, the political system is dependent on residential relationships that are dependent on social relationships. According to Evens-Pritchard,
"The political system of the Nuer can only be understood in relation to the whole structure of which other people form part and, likewise, the character of all Nuer communities must be defined by their relations with other communities of the same order within the whole political system (p.190)."
The intersection of Nuer institutions is also evident in the ritual of “blood feud.” The Nuer, a feisty lot according to the researcher, frequently engage in feuds over the mistreatment of cattle, adultery, water rights, pasturage rights among others. If a given feud results in homicide, the family of the slain is to receive as reparation, a certain number or cattle from the slayer. This sanction and the chance of settlement are dependent on the structural interrelations of slain and slayer – blood feud within a village (the smallest Nuer group) is recompensed immediately, and conversely blood feud within the tribe (the largest Nuer group) is rarely recompensed. In effect, feuds are settled swiftly when the structural distance between participants is narrow, but they are often left unsettled as that distance expands.
Evans-Pritchard’s The Nuer is an effective descriptive work. True to form, he did not offer an explicit hypothesis at the outset of the work. While he did outline the structure of the account and related, briefly, the chief themes of his observations, these were simple sketches of what followed. His theories, based principally on observations and interactions, were infused throughout the text and were most often conveyed through examples. This approach made his theories and conclusions digestible - a description, a theory and an immediate concrete example were provided in small bites.
Evans-Pritchard’s descriptive approach was disciplined; he did not attempt to define the general characteristics of Nilotic culture and social structure by comparing the Nuer with the Dinka, Shilluk and other Nilotic cultures that have been studied by contemporaries or predecessors. Rather, the book was specific to the intricacies of the Nuer and intentionally bypassed Nilotic cultural themes and hackneyed assumptions about acephalous tribes of the region.
The Nuer is the result of pioneering fieldwork and is heralded as one of the most elegant and classical analyses of social structure. The work is almost entirely based on direct observation and is therefore, in the author’s eyes, both more challenging and more accurate. According to Evans-Pritchard working with an intractable and intentionally guileful group, and without informants or a translator, forced him to improve his techniques in ethnography. His previous work with the Azande tribe shaped his view of the role of ethnographer. With the Azande, he was an outsider forced to live on the margins of the community. He was also regarded with esteem and treated as a superior. Working with the Nuer improved his perspective. The Nuer required Evan-Pritchard to live among them, to participate in community affairs and to live as an equal. This subtle shift had a profound impact in the quality of his research.
Due to the historical context of this work, Evans-Pritchard’s intentions have been called into question. It has been argued that Evans-Pritchard was recruited by the British colonial authorities to provide vital information about a theretofore unconquered tribe. Indeed his employer was the government of Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, and indirectly the British government. He was charged with documenting Nuer institutions and handing that information over to controlling powers that established policy and evoked war. It is impossible to know Evans-Pritchard’s true intentions and whether he was acting in the interests of the Nuer or the government that sought to suppress them.
The Nuer is one of the most famous ethnographies of the 20th century. Evans-Pritchard was able to glean intricately detailed information in the field. Despite this and his breakthrough in the quality of his ethnography, he was not totally satisfied with the result. Evans-Pritchard argued that an ethnographer had two formidable hurdles to clear. The first hurtle is entering the mental space of an unfamiliar world with an unfamiliar culture. Second, the researcher is then charged with describing that culture to others in a framework that is relevant to an external worldview. Evans-Pritchard’s pursuit of solutions to these challenges created a holistic and integrated view of the Nuer social system. This ethnography, among others by Malinowski, Cushing and Mead, established participant observation as the primary research method in anthropology.