Developing Third World Farming

Developing Third World Farming: Conflict between Modern Imperatives and Traditional Ways
Author(s): Wayne C. Rohrer

Source: Economic Development and Cultural Change, Vol. 34, No. 2 (Jan., 1986), pp. 299-314
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1153852 .
Accessed: 02/02/2015 04:47
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Economic Development and Cultural Change.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 103.231.241.108 on Mon, 2 Feb 2015 04:47:24 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Developing Third World Farming:

Conflict between Modern Imperatives
and TraditionalWays*
Wayne C. Rohrer
Kansas State University
In recent years several social scientists have raised questions related
to development methods and ideas: Arndt, Bhatt, Goldschmidt, Greenfield and Strickon, Monu, Poffenberger and Zurbuchen, and Sederberg.' Sederberg's general questioning of modernization results in his
emphasizing a steady-state (no growth) economy, appropriate technology, and smaller programs and plans (focusing on community instead
of society) as leading to a more suitable future. Monu proposes that the
Western style of agricultural development is somewhat inapplicable,
inappropriate, and counterproductive to African small farmers. Arndt
questions the idea that economic growth is synonymous with economic
development. Goldschmidt outlines an "anthropological approach to
economic development." Poffenberger and Zurbuchen ask, Why persist in advocating economic notions of the industrial world when traditional economic and technological arrangements benefit villagers as
much or more? Bhatt concludes that rather than being viewed as competing adversaries, traditional and modern agricultural technologies
should be adapted to one another. All these critiques manifest social
scientists' discontent with developmental methods, with ideas rationalizing policies of development, or with both methods and ideas.
The most comprehensive among the critiques mentioned is
Greenfield and Strickon's consideration of how individuals and society
relate to social change or development. (Their article is applicable
beyond agricultural development.) They describe the thrust to modernize the Third World following World War II as having involved the
nineteenth-century European idea of social evolution-' "underdeveloped" countries were to change by following the course already
traversed by "developed" industrial countries. According to Greenfield and Strickon, however, social evolutionary theory lacks the ana? 1986 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.
0013-0079/86/3402-0210$01.00

300
Economic Development and Cultural Change
lytical means to connect entrepreneurial behavior and social change.

Neither does evolutionary theory accurately describe what has happened since 1945: Japan's development has not followed the classical
patterns, nor will Japan reach the European terminal so dear to the last
century's social evolutionists.
Briefly, Greenfield and Strickon's return to using aspects of Darwin's biological thesis, though different from those used by social evolutionists, emphasizes that the process of development occurs in a
community/population that includes individual decision makers, some
of whose variant ideas eventually are learned and adopted by others.
By focusing on social processes in a community whereby some individuals' innovative decisions later are adopted by others, Greenfield and
Strickon connect individual change with social change. I believe they
succeed.
According to them, shared conduct occurs when human beings use
language to cooperate in groups and communities. (Of course, language also lies at the heart of conflicts.) Because Greenfield and Strickon's critique focuses on human behaviors that involve language, organization, and policies, their article is particularly cogent to the
argument that I present. A compelling reason for emphasizing their
critique is the prominence that they assign to language. The choice of
words and concepts to describe, analyze, criticize, proclaim, proscribe, prescribe, or restrict changes of human behavior constitutes an
environing context for this article.
Closer to immediate purposes are the contents of two other articles: Cernea's account of the training and visit (T & V) system of
agricultural education in the Third World2 and Hobbs's critique of rural
development.3 Both consider the gap between what modern-oriented
educators, scientists, and policymakers seek to accomplish in agricultural development and what tradition-oriented farm families seek to
obtain from the land on which they live and earn part or all of their
livelihood. As in Cernea's and Hobbs's pieces, this paper's concern is
social development. The introductory comments focus on the language
related to development programs to establish a context for the three
prescriptions that follow.
The words "modern" and "traditional" limit discussions within
which agricultural development programs are visualized, expressed,
and fielded in Third World farming communities. On the one hand,
Cernea advances the idea that applying modern technology, which has
evolved in the industrial world, is the best hope for increasing the
productivity of Third World farmers. On the other hand, Hobbs questions the effectiveness and efficiency of rural sociologists who advocate modern methods as the means of development. The issue of the
contradiction between their views focuses this paper.
Cernea considers extension workers who are in contact with tradi-

Wayne C. Rohrer
301
tional Third World farmers and concludes that they experience "various degrees of resistance to extension advice."4 He envisions Third
World extension organizations overcoming agricultural problems by
using the new systematic approach (T & V) to both educate traditional
farmers and achieve sound management practices. My thesis is that the
principal restraints on Third World farming lie off the farm but that
changing educational agencies in other than managerial ways will do
more to enhance farm production.
The "resistance" that educators face when teaching traditional
farmers is viewed from an extension perspective. Resistance possibly
indicates that development projects are of little interest or are irrelevant to farmers. Furthermore, using a term like "resistance to extension" implies a paramount position in development for the educational
agency. However, farmers, educators, agricultural scientists, and
policymakers share responsibility for agricultural development. If any
category is paramount, it is farmers.
The resistance of farmers to education can originate in the social
gulf between them and the educators. Two reasons for the gulf are
discussed in the prescriptions sections. A third reason is that most
extension workers are socially and geographically mobile (as individuals they have jobs different from those of their parents and have
moved from their native places), yet most farmers in developing countries are born into the farming occupation (at which their parents
worked) and live where they were born. Indeed, some farm families
feel betrayed or deserted by those who move away. Because farmers
live and work among kith and kin, some degree of estrangement-a
social gulf-exists between them and socially mobile migrants such as
extension workers.
When Cernea mentions Third World farmers as embedded in "the
wider village farming system," he refers in part to their involvement in
the kith-and-kin network." One can extrapolate from his remarks that
an outsider, in this instance the extensionist, in almost every case does
not-indeed, cannot-belong to that network. Thus, separation occurs
because the daily lives of villagers include other lifelong acquaintances. Extension workers' daily lives, on the other hand, include a
changing cast of characters of whom many, particularly the farmers in
this instance, are strangers to them. Most individuals who work in
large-scale, urban-based organizations must be able to relate to unknown others because they are in contact with strangers every day;
most farmers who live and work in villages do not need that same
ability because they encounter few strangers.
In addition, extensionists work in an organization, whereas farm
families in developing countries live and work in a community; these
different social locations express another kind of social separation. It
might be said that development occurs when specialist-members of an

302
educational agency influence the behavior of resident-members of a

community. Technology transfer follows such a joining of community
with organization. Perhaps individuals involved in agricultural development too often assume that traditional farmers will accept outsiders'
sound advice because "everyone knows" it will improve the villagers'
quality of life. However, villagers only know it will affect their social
relationships; they do not know that the advice will improve their lives.
Such differences make for different worldviews or mentalities, which
account, in part, for the social separation.
Another perspective on social separation is gleaned from Horton's
discussion of traditional African social theory in contrast to Western
scientific theory.6 When Horton says African theory is closedmeaning that traditional ways are so comprehensive that they permit
no alternative solutions, only the traditional-but that Western science
is open-meaning that science generates alternative solutions to be
used to solve particular problems-he is describing a contact situation
for agricultural development in which idea systems clash. The clash of
theories or ideas parallels the social separation described above.
Hence, farmers and educators envision different barriers or opportunities when viewing the same farm field, verdant but steep hillside, or
body of water. Yet, when educators and traditional farmers share some
viewpoints, the farmers will likely accept, not resist, some new
methods. My proposed sociological prescriptions would bring traditional farmers and extension workers closer to common viewpoints.
Such common views are basic to increasing the food production
capacities of Third World farm families.
This article's title includes the words "imperatives" and "ways."
These words, commonly used by social scientists, refer to the different
social structures already mentioned: "imperatives" originate in a body
of knowledge and are implemented or applied by persons belonging to
an organization that includes highly educated specialist-technicians
and scientists-an
organization is the social base of imperatives;
"ways" concern customs or methods traditionally used by friends,
neighbors, and relatives in a residential community-a community is
the social base of ways. Thus, an extension organization or a credit
agency has standards of farming achievement or performance-for
example, to use irrigation, fertilizers, hybrid seeds, or pesticides to
increase yields-that are the organization's "imperatives" to be applied in Third World farm communities. When extensionists regard
such practices as "imperatives" for development, their expectations of
farmers can differ substantially from the farmers' expectations concerning ways of farming.
Whereas "imperatives" refer to certain interrelated ideas, procedures, and theories, "ways" relate people to well-known others.
Goldschmidt aptly describes the difference in discussing how an-

Wayne C. Rohrer
303
thropologists can influence economic development. Specifically, he

proposes "grafting new technologies on existing ones" and using "established (social) relationships wherever possible."7 The social structure involved in "ways" is one of local human relationships; "imperatives" result from a social structure that involves an organization in
which the objective is to create, use, or communicate new ideas. Because traditional and modern technology often conflict, that conflict is
considered in one prescription.
Traditional farm families do not summarily resist new ideas. They
have adopted radios, consumer goods, wage work, and health practices because clear benefits existed or because the new methods were
necessary, inexpensive, subsidized, or convenient. But in farming they
strongly prefer using low-risk, low-cost methods validated by generations of local use. In a traditional rural community a local "way" will
win almost any short-run contest with a modern "imperative." Furthermore, that victory occurs because traditional methods have social
validity for villagers' use. When it is traditional to choose particular
seeds, plant varieties, cultivation practices, and cropping systems, the
choice means that a local social apparatus exists to support individual
decisions. It is an apparatus against which few residents will consciously or conscieritiously act. Additionally, the same apparatus has a
distributional aspect that comes into play when disaster selectively
strikes: a farm family whose crop fails totally can obtain food for its
survival and seed for the next planting season from kith or kin. For
example, James C. Scott describes the safety-first principle and the
social structures of subsistence.8
Thus, resisting the advice of outsiders is simply how traditionalfarmers accommodate to intimate aspects of human relationships that characterize their everyday lives. Indeed, in view of these social facts, Western observers should be surprised at how much agricultural development has occurred. Some teachers must have done sound educational
work on sensible, low-risk projects, otherwise acceptance rates would
have been lower.
Michael Cernea cogently expresses the conventional wisdom that
applying science to agricultural development accounts for the postWorld War II production gains. In that view, transferring modern technology to the Third World will economically and effectively repeat
results registered earlier by agriculture in the industrial world. One can
argue, however, that agricultural development in the United States did
not occur as effectively or painlessly as many observers express.
Rohrer and Douglas discuss some uncounted costs of development in
the United States.9
Because Hobbs questions some elements of Cernea's thesis, it is
appropriate to briefly consider Hobbs's critique. He identifies five
structural outcomes of rural development not as unalloyed accomplish-

304
ments but as having had some counterproductive results. He discusses

rural sociologists as having generally valued growth and efficiency, as
having worked in ways to strengthen inequality or dependency, and as
having communicated in such fragmented or obscure (technical-
scientific) languagethat it mystifiedeven literate people. Hobbs does

not accept the idea that applying modern technology has had globally
beneficial social results. His discussion of rural development offers
development specialists an opportunity to break out of the 1950s-1970s
mold.
Finally, three characteristics envelop the prescriptions. One, U.S.
commercial agriculture is an unsuitable model for developing Third
World farmers (a still-applicable condition that Rohrer and Douglas
presented several years ago).10 Second, agricultural development occurs in comprehensive local settings, which Warren Vincent calls farming systems.1 Finally, the prescriptions concern applied social science
in culture-contact situations.
My intention here is to indicate some reasons why development
projects have accomplished less than observers from the industrial
world expected and to outline how agricultural development may accelerate. My recent observations and renewed interest in Third World
agricultural development result from working six months in 1981 with
the Bureau of Agricultural Extension, Ministry of Agriculture of the
Philippines. Hobbs's model of the structural impact of rural development is referred to again for goodness of fit after discussing the
sociological prescriptions. The prescriptions are not completely new.
The literature already cited testifies that critical notions have been
cogent for some time. I think, however, that combining my prescriptions and relating their combined effect to agricultural development
constitutes a new stance with considerable merit for increasing Third
World food production.
Reduce the Gap between Traditional and Modern Technology
What must now concern those of us interested in developing agriculture in the Third World is that most Third World farmers and their
families labor their entire lives with hand tools, scratching a living from
the natural environment. It is not easy for technicians educated in
modern methods to work patiently in such an environment, but one
way to ease the difficulty is for educators to attempt initially to move
traditional farmers only a short distance from their traditional ways.
Extension workers interested in blending traditional and modern
methods might gain credibility as discussed by Opare by emphasizing
how a new method is like an old method and how it will improve the
quality of life for farm families.12 Reducing the gap between traditional
and modern methods and always emphasizing how the old and the new
are close together is a useable tactic for agricultural educators.

Wayne C. Rohrer
305
But educating Third World farmers involves more than merely

transmittingnew methods of farming. First, farmers acquire a viewpoint on a new farmingpractice as they use it or watch others use it.
The viewpoint can involve a preference for a modern method, a renewed attachmentto traditionalways, or a desire to blend the modern
and traditional.Evaluatingmodern practices, hence, can have a contraryor a mixed result. Second, adoptinga modernmethodessentially
involves replacing a traditionalmethod. Thus, it is less descriptively
accurate to talk of transferringtechnology-a contemporarypopular
term-than it is to regarda modernagriculturalmethodas replacingor
modifyinga traditionalmethod. Those phases of technologicalchange
are sequential:evaluation precedes adoption except in rare instances
when new methods are adopted because a person blindly trusts and
follows the advice of the advocate of the new method.
Because extension workers aroundthe world bringnew methods
to farmersand because they cannot expect to work with manyfarmers
who will blindly adopt new ideas, teacher-techniciansmust think of
ways to relate modern ideas to traditionalpreferences to make new
methods palatableto ThirdWorldfarmers.To reduce the gap between
modern and traditionaltechnology, extension workers need to know
and to respect both kinds of techniques well enough to explain the
commonboundariesto cultivators.The successful adulteducatormust
not only understandwhat and how new researchappliesto farmingbut
also know practical farming practices of the localities where the research is to be applied on small farms. Educators aware of both the
costs and benefits of moderntechnology will not recommendmodern
methods as the only way to grow more food. Instead, they will try to
reduce the gap between the technologiesbecause they know that a new
way may not be the best or only way.
Beyond these initial concerns is a social-psychologicalcircumstance: that many (perhapsmost) traditionalfarmershave much more
confidencein traditionaltechnology than in modernmethods. Discussing ways to reduce this confidence gap is the main objective of my
prescription.For example, Filipinofarmersexplain a good or bad harvest by bahala na-essentially, "come what may," or "it is God's
will"-'which means they believe in and have confidence in a traditional explanation. Their confidence is time honored and time tested.
Whetherbahala na has objective validityis irrelevant;traditionalfarmers have confidence in the traditionsthey live by.
Hence, agriculturaleducators working with traditionalfarmers
must have or develop the ability to counsel clients in a way that gives
them confidence in using modern methods. In fact, such counseling
may be so critical to agriculturaldevelopmentthat it could be considered essential when planningto increase ThirdWorldfood production
undertoday's and tomorrow'slimits of availableproductiveland, wa-

306
ter, and high-cost modern technology. The need for such counseling
still is not apparent in the literature on agricultural development.
An example illustrates why this kind of counseling is important:
Filipino extension workers often commented that transferring a technician from a barrio resulted in farmers there reverting to old ways. That
comment on farmer behavior was heard in almost every discussion
with teaching adults. It indicated that teaching techniques to farmers is
only one part of the educational task; counseling farmers to give them
confidence in modern methods is also important.'3 Though counseling
is identified as an important task, its role does not appear to be recognized by extension administrators or development specialists in the
Third World.
Farmers' reversion to old ways indicates that they had no
confidence in the new methods. Perhaps they had followed new procedures only to please a popular agent or for possible rewards (free
fertilizer). These farmers had more confidence in the success of old
ways. Until millions of Third World farmers believe in modern
methods to the same extent as they do in traditional methods, increasing food production on a global scale will be tortuously slow.
Ferdinand Tonnies's discussion of the social contours of traditional and modern life is useful here because he contrasts the two ways
of life.14 Land, work, tool use, and work-force organization have different social dimensions and meanings in the country than in the city.
Contrasting differences are evident in rural and urban attitudes toward
land: to traditional farmers who cultivate land that their ancestors cultivated, land is not a means to an end but an end itself; to urbanites or to
modern farmers, land is a commodity or capital resource to be used,
bought, or sold for income or profit. As Tonnies indicated, technology
includes more than mere techniques: it involves social dimensions because much work requires more than one pair of hands. In the world's
rural areas, other hands belong most often to relatives; in urban places,
other hands are employees who do not necessarily have kin in a work
force.
The example of a farmer reverting to old ways when a technician is
transferred must be carefully considered. The traditional farmer regards techniques used as sensible and beneficial. An applicable model
situation can be conceived in medical treatment where modern and
traditional ways are frequently blended by patients who use modern
medicines, traditional cures, and religious faith to ensure a return to
good health. Whether a particular element is objectively effective is
less important than whether a cure is achieved. Modern and traditional
ideas should rest as easily together in Third World agriculture as in
Third World medicine. Making old and new technologies compatible
will be largely the responsibility of extension workers who can relate
sensitively to developing the needs and interests of the traditional
adults with whom they work.

Wayne C. Rohrer
307
Encouragethe Well Educatedto Respectthe Less Educated

A viewpoint needed by some extension agents aroundthe world is that
any people, includingthose withoutformaleducation,have both native
intelligenceand acquiredwisdom.'5 Some agents in the United States
and the Philippineshave contraryelitist views concerningeducation.
The elitist attitudeheld by some Filipinoextension workersis demonstratedin such phrasesas "farmersare illiterate," "farmersknow only
how to apply for loans," and "farmers are stupid." Such attitudes
manifest invidious distinctions that many well-educatedpeople apply
to those with less schooling.
An extension worker holding such views will readily believe it is
fruitless to try to educate many or most traditionalfarmers. Correspondingly,such a technicianwill findit comfortableto work only with
well-educated farmers and with those who defer to a well-educated
person. The agriculturaleducational agency staffed by such technicians will forgo opportunitiesto work with many small farmers who
most need and deserve to learn how to produce more nutritiousfood
for their own and society's benefit.
The Philippinesextension service is to be commendedfor its central administration'sabiding commitment to work with small-farm
families. That commitmentcan be used to encouragelocal technicians
to work with less educated farm families. An extension agency in the
ThirdWorldwith serious intentionsto increasefood productionand to
improve the nutritionalintake of ruralresidents cannot afford to dismiss working with the huge number of less educated farm families.
Extension agencies in some industrialcountries (the United States is a
prominentexample) would do well to adopt such a democraticviewpoint from the Philippines'service.
Designatinga clientele as illiterateor stupidcontaminatesan educator's workingrelationshipwith those adults and reveals more about
an extension agent's inabilityto relate to farmersthan to the farmers'
abilities to function in their environments.Many illiteratepeople are
extremely wise; therefore, "illiterate" should never be used to mean
someone lacking intelligence or wisdom. Those qualities are only imperfectly tested by readingand writingabilities. Unfortunately,some
well-educatedpeople improperlyuse illiterateas a synonym for unintelligent or unwise.
Two of Max Weber's control or authoritystructures-traditional
and rational/legal-can help interpret such an adult education situation.16 Extension workers are educated by and for, and work in, rational structures.They undoubtedlywork best with farmerswho have
similarbackgrounds.But agents developingthe productiveabilities of
traditionalfarmers must learn to switch gears, to teach traditionally
educated farmerswho work in traditionalcontexts. Castillo notes, for
example, that "agriculturaleducation is a big enterprisein the Philippines, but farmingis mostly in the hands of people with low educa-

308
tional attainment.""1 Hence, switching gears involves knowing the latest research and being able to translate that knowledge into everyday
language for farmers.
Much extension teaching relies more on spoken than on written
words: most traditional people live in oral environments, whereas most
modern people live with the written word. Additionally, much teaching
is done in small face-to-face groups, or even in one-on-one situations.
There is no escape; extension workers must speak in ways understandable to poorly educated farm families.
Successful agricultural educators, whether in the Third World or
the industrial world, have to know how to communicate with both
modern and traditional people. The burden is on extension agents to
accommodate themselves to social situations unlike those of their own
rational educational backgrounds. Wise technicians now know that
what they teach can flow through social groups like ripples on a pool of
water; hence, their clientele includes more than those who are in direct
contact with an educator.
Realizing that traditional persons often are as wise and intelligent
as well-educated persons is the first step toward recognizing that small
farmers can produce more than their own family's subsistence. Filipino
extension workers will remember that illiterates conceived, built, and
added to the Banaue rice terraces. Similar ancient constructions elsewhere in the world eloquently testify to the intelligence, technological
capabilities, and wise use of resources by people who did not read or
write. Nonreaders and nonwriters think, compute, and conceptualize.
Adult educators, to effectively encourage and teach Third World farmers to produce more food, must first acknowledge that nonreading,
nonwriting persons often are extremely wise.
Extension workers also must acquire the conviction that wisdom
and intelligence reside in all normal human beings, including those at
the bottom of the social heap, and then learn to work effectively with
such farm families. Eliminating arrogant, elitist attitudes from adult
educators (from all educators) is the first imperative. Those who cannot eliminate such attitudes should leave the field of education.
Reduce the Emphasis on Commercial Farming and Increase the
Emphasis on Subsistence Farming
Reducing the emphasis on commercial farming and increasing that on
subsistence farming concerns public policy, which constitutes a part of
the context for educating small-farm families. It concerns decisions
and policies made by national governmental officials that affect the
methods and organization of extension agencies. Apparently Philippine
government officials consider commercial farm production the necessary mode for agricultural development. Perhaps the idea originated in
the West where commercial farming policies were more appropriate.

Wayne C. Rohrer
309
Filipino officials seek commercial production of commodities for export, to earn foreign currency to repay loans to international agencies,
and to provide some revenues to cover governmental operating expenses. Of course, they also want commercial production to ensure
domestic food supplies for nonfarmers. Because official comments on
food production frequently verge on desperation, it appears that a real
conflict exists between public officials and food producers. It is
officials who are most in need of commercial agricultural production,
not farmers.
The social context of the Filipino small-farm family illustrates why
they are primarily interested in subsistence farming. For example, Castillo describes the following: farmers having a "reluctant" attitude
toward farming; farmers having "little or no alternative" to farming;
three of four rice farmers having to buy rice to eat; and most rice, corn,
and sugar planters having "other occupations" besides farming. To
seek subsistence from farming makes sense in light of these circumstances.
Small farmers, farm laborers, fishermen, and loggers occupy the
bottom rung of the Filipino social ladder, and they know it. (Though
those four occupations are listed separately, the same individual often
does each during its respective season.) Even rural-born squatters who
earn extremely low wages in a city feel better off than when they lived
and worked in rural areas.
Occupying the bottom of the social ladder means that farmers
"look up" to all nonfarmers, that no one envies farmers' work, that no
resident occupational group would readily trade jobs with them, and,
indeed, that some nonfarmers have and express contempt for Third
World farmers. Because farming is at the bottom of the heap, there is
little outside stimulation-except from such agencies as agricultural
extension-to cause a farmer to perform well or work hard. However,
public officials who speak relentlessly of the need to increase agricultural production emphasize the importance of small-farm production.
It is ironic that powerful public officials and policymakers must place
such importance on obtaining effective responses from a socially powerless population.
Their social location is perhaps the main reason small farmers seek
merely to subsist from the natural environment. Yet, sometimes they
can by luck, hard work, or enterprise gain surpluses to trade for cash to
use for children's higher education or for consumer goods. When the
money is designated for education, the next generation of the family
benefits from the parents' hard work and management-an action that
discounts the family's present lowly social location while emphasizing
the future generation's welfare. If the money is spent for goods, consumption overrules production interests. In addition, such purchases
elevate the family's view of its social location.

310
Many Filipino public officials regard small farmers as an inert

mass that fails to respond to the government incentives offered to
encourage commercial production. (How much responsibility for agricultural production can be assigned to tenure systems-agrarian reform had not proceeded far by 1982-to powerful local political
officials and landlords, to marketing systems, or to conditions of the
infrastructure lies beyond the scope of this paper.) Visits with 30-40
small-farm families in eight different provinces of the Philippines, however, showed me that small farmers are not a homogeneous mass;
rather they are active individuals who follow styles of life that clearly
indicate a variety of ways of overcoming enormous natural and humanmade difficulties. They are enterprising, efficient workers who gain
livelihoods from land and water in which those of us schooled in modern ways might starve in less than a year. It is a mistake to underestimate the abilities and capacities of Filipino small-farm families. Yet,
some officials who see farmers as intransigent, lazy, and stupid have
wearied of proposing new policies. The few officials (the central administration of agricultural extension in the Philippines comes to mind)
who are oriented toward democratically changing the lives of smallfarm families must be encouraged to persist in that orientation. If, for
example, small-farm families can learn to improve their diets by gardening and raising livestock on their own hectarages, the persistence of
officials who successfully advocated such change is justified, and both
the officials and farm families can feel rewarded.
Proposing that the conflict focuses on commercial farming versus
subsistence farming is intended to reopen a discussion initially brought
up by Agaton R. Pal in 1960, which may produce fruitful results to
replace an ironical, conflictive, and immobilizing impasse.'8 Too often
farmers have adopted new methods only to find the family's income
unchanged in spite of production increases. So long as farmers see
more costs than benefits from commercial production, no one should
expect them to adopt modern techniques. This simple explanation
should be sufficient to account for their not adopting modern methods.
It also is clear that official rhetoric alone is not enough to move
small farmers to produce more food. It is difficult, if not impossible, to
persuade people at the bottom of society to consider changing their
way of life for the sake of public interest. Their interest in surviving
or subsisting consumes their thinking and working time. Only during
times of national emergency, such as when clear threats to one's existence occur, can patriotic appeals motivate many producers to produce
more. The United States used patriotism and authentic incentives in
two world wars to achieve dramatic farm production increases. No
comparable threatening prospects now exist to inspire Filipino small
farmers to grow more food.
Producing for the market usually involves borrowing money to

Wayne C. Rohrer
311
buy such modern inputs as fertilizer and pesticides, whereas subsisting

costs little out-of-pocket money. The wisdom of many small farmers
leads them unerringly to conclude that there is no real net income
advantage to using expensive modern inputs to produce more. Thus, a
first step to take in increasing production by small-farm families is to
make improved family living based on subsistence farming a prime
objective. After that, if public programs provide authentic incentives to
farm commercially and reduce expensive inputs by cost sharing, small
farmers will produce more."9 Such emphases can increase Third World
farm production and stabilize production at higher levels.
A caution is mentioned here. To be effective, an incentive must be
genuine. For example, there was a 1981 support price for rice in the
Philippines that did not work well. The scheme provided that farmers
would receive the support price for their rice from a governmental
agency, but the cash was not available when the rice was delivered;
consequently, many farmers with debts (incurred to grow rice) due at
harvest time sold rice below the support price to middlemen for less,
but immediately available, cash. Ironically, the support price enriched
middlemen who could wait for the cash. An ill-conceived plan, hardly
an authentic incentive, did not succeed. It needed to provide farmers
with cash as they sold their harvested crop.
Scott notes that Third World farmers who want subsistence are
not so irrational as it appears to public officials or others. Subsistence
farmers handle less cash than do commercial farmers. Cash is scarce in
the rural Philippines-no money changes hands for much of the labor
done on small farms. Paying laborers for planting or harvesting with a
share of the harvested crop characterizes subsistence farming. Yet,
Filipino farmers want and need cash and would be ready and willing to
work for better cash incomes. (Another rural population requiring attention is that of landless laborers. Because their welfare is a responsibility outside the domain of agricultural extension in the Philippines,
the landless are not considered here.) To achieve its goal of increased
commercial farm production, the government should give small farmers authentic incentives.
Discussion
My prescriptions for agricultural development essentially complement
Hobbs's critique of rural development. Many foreign aid programs
have emphasized growth and efficiency-advocating commercial agWestern ways appropriate for the Third
ricultural production-as
World. The unequal and dependent relationships that have existed
between industrial and agricultural nations have not yet been disturbed
by the successful completion of development projects. Hobbs discusses fragmentary scientific language as mysterious to lay people. Comparably, the language of extension workers tends to mystify many

312
small farmers. The language of development and the prescriptions proposed are considered alternatives for developing agriculture in the
Third World. A few observations warrant further discussion.
If well-educated extensionists assume an elitist perspective that
places them above doing common work at the grass roots, then their
ability to educate small-farm families is inhibited. An even more pertinent result of that elitist viewpoint is that some extension educators are
unable to relate to the farming and living problems that small-farm
families face. Extension workers who counsel small farmers to change
slightly from traditional ways by using a few methods farther along the
modern path will increase the success of extension work and of farmers. More important, however, the extension workers will educate
(sensitize) themselves to their clientele's way of life. Sensitive educators are credible to farmers and capable as teachers. If agricultural
educators acknowledge that traditional techniques have reasonable
and sensible qualities, their actions will allow dependent peasants to
know that they have the potential to become independent persons.
Such independent small-farm families will be better able to achieve
equality with their nonfarm neighbors. Finally, extension workers sensitized to farm life at the grass roots will more readily translate
scientific language into language that can be understood at the local
level. Such technicians will teach adults instead of mystifying them.
Although this article generally fits Hobbs's model, Greenfield and
Strickon's argument relates heuristically to this paper. I use their proposal that assumes that developing Third World farming involves farm
families and extension workers in processes where cultivators are informed of and counseled about ways to increase food production.
Counseling is needed because of the gap that exists between scientific
ways of thinking and traditional ways of thinking. Both kinds of thinkers can be wise, but the gap between their thoughts is wide, and it is the
extension workers whose ideas must mesh with the ideas of traditional
farmers. Extension workers who know and positively value traditional
technology will be better able to communicate modern methods by
using language that farmers understand. Also, such teachers will be
more likely to counsel instead of lecture farmers.
Furthermore, taking a counseling approach to agricultural education fits the training-and-visit system. National and provincial extension organizations that train new and senior village extension workers
to respect the wisdom and intelligence of working people, even when
these people have had zero or few years of schooling, will correspondingly encourage respect for lay languages. The training content
should acknowledge scientific language as just another means of specialized expression-another
language-but not as a form of communication that gives its users a position of esteem or eminence above
nonusers. In essence, any language that humans use is equal to every

Wayne C. Rohrer
313
other language. That message is important to transmit to extension

workers everywhere and for them to heed as they relate to farm audiences.
Formal training can do only so much. Hence, training programs
are necessary but not sufficient; informal activities and procedures in
large organizations that attempt to increase Third World food production must encourage respect for common people while acknowledging
that dignity and self-respect are not attached to diplomas or academic
experience. Exactly how effective informal methods are will be learned
by studying educational organizations in the next few years. Because
informal methods vary with particular organizations, such topics
should be sociologically examined so that effective procedures can be
systematically related to agricultural development. The 1980s offer
time to do such studies of extension organizations so that food production will begin to rise in Third World nations.
Extension organizations vary among Third World nations as
public policies vary from nation to nation; however, the impression
prevails that most ministers of agriculture across the Third World have
a common interest in commercial farming. Possibly that common quality indicates a bond between national policymakers and representatives of international agencies who attempt to increase the planet's
food supply.
It seems likely that if national agricultural officials recognize indigenous traditional achievements as being worthwhile, then policymakers will attribute dignity to and give respect to local practices and
groups. Officials who regard peasants as dignified will not so readily try
to dragoon them into commercial agriculture. Also, national and provincial officials who assume such stances toward small-farm families
will be more likely to authorize incentives and cost sharing to encourage agricultural development. After public officials have authorized
subsidies for smallholders' production, those farm families will more
likely feel that being involved in development projects will balance the
difficulties or social costs presented by changing farm practices.
Notes
* Contributionno. 82-624-Jof the Kansas AgriculturalExperimentStation. Reviewers of this manuscript,whose assistance is gratefullyacknowledged, are L. Brandner,R. L. Rohrer, C. P. Wilson, D. Adamchak,M. Ottenheimer,and two anonymousreferees for this journal.
1. H. W. Arndt, "Economic Development: A Semantic History," Economic Development and Cultural Change 29 (April 1981): 457-66; V. V. Bhatt,
"DevelopmentProblem,Strategy,and TechnologyChoice," EconomicDevelopment and Cultural Change 31 (October 1982): 85-99; Walter Goldschmidt,
"Towardan AnthropologicalApproachto Economic Development," Human

Organization 41 (Spring 1982): 80-82; Sidney M. Greenfield and Arnold
Strickon, "A New Paradigmfor the Study of Entrepreneurshipand Social
Change," Economic Development and Cultural Change 29 (April 1981): 467-

314
99; Erasmus D. Monu, "Improving Agricultural Practices among African

Small Holders," African Studies Review 25 (December 1982): 117-26; Mark
Poffenberger and Mary S. Zurbuchen, "The Economics of Village Bali: Three
Perspectives," Economic Development and Cultural Change 29 (October
1980): 91-133; and Peter C. Sederberg, "The Betrayed Ascent," Journal of
Developing Areas 13 (January 1979): 127-42.
2. Michael Cernea, Sociological Dimensions of Extension Organization,
Reprint Series no. 196 (Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 1981).
3. Daryl J. Hobbs, "Rural Development: Intentions and Consequences,"
Rural Sociology 45 (Spring 1980): 7-25.
4. Cernea, p. 234.
5. Ibid.
6. Robert Horton, "African Traditional Thought and Western Science,"
in Rationality, ed. Bryan R. Wilson (New York: Harper & Row, 1970), pp.
131-71.
7. Goldschmidt, p. 82.
8. James C. Scott, The Moral Economy of the Peasant: Rebellion and
Subsistence in Southeast Asia (New Haven and London: Yale University
Press, 1976), pp. 13-34.
9. Wayne C. Rohrer and Louis H. Douglas, The Agrarian Transition in
America (Indianapolis and New York: Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1969), pp. 73, 143.
10. Ibid., p. 189.
11. Warren Vincent, "Small Farm Characteristics, Problems, and Programs in the Third World," in Proceedings: Farming Systems Symposium
(Manhattan: Kansas State University, 1982), pp. 29-39.
12. K. Dua Opare, "The Role of Agricultural Extension in the Adoption
of Innovation by Cocoa Growers in Ghana," Rural Sociology 42 (Spring 1977):
72-82.
13. See Gelia Castillo, Beyond Manila (Ottawa: IDRC, 1979).
14. Charles P. Loomis, Fundamental Concepts of Sociology (translation
of Ferdinand T6nnies's Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft) (New York: American
Book Co., 1940).
15. This view is expressed in Juan M. Flavier, My Friends in the Barrio
(Quezon City, Philippines: New Day Publishers, 1974).
16. H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills, From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1946).
17. Castillo, p. 41.
18. Agaton R. Pal, "The Extension Process," in Social Foundations of
Community Development, ed. S. C. Espiritu and C. L. Hunt (Manila: R. M.
Garcia Publisher, 1964), p. 515.
19. Donald E. Vermeer, "Food, Farming, and the Future," Social Science Quarterly 5 (September 1976): 383-96, esp. 394.


Developing Third World Farming

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Developing Third World Farming

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Developing Third World Farming

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Developing Third World Farming: Conflict between Modern Imperatives and Traditional Ways

Author(s): Wayne C. Rohrer

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.108 on Mon, 2 Feb 2015 04:47:24 AM